Sitting of 3 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Death of a Member
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Eric Samuel Heifer, esquire, the Member for Liverpool, Walton, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Railway Construction, Scotland
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to avoid damage to Scottish industry and people resulting from delay in the construction of direct railway lines between Scotland and the continent for its goods and passengers.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The electrification of the east coast main line and the upgrading of routes between London and the channel tunnel will give Scotland excellent rail communications with the continent when the tunnel opens. British Rail's planned upgrading of the west coast main line would, in due course, further strengthen those links.
    Mr. Wray: I cannot believe that the Minister gave that reply. Trains from London to Lille travel at 100 mph, yet those from London to Paris and from Glasgow to Paris travel at 65 mph. We want a TGV line from Glasgow to Paris. London is the only British city with a direct fink to the continent. We should follow the example of the French, who are willing to spend £20 billion to increase the speed of the TGV train from 186 mph to 250 mph.
    Mr. Rifkind: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, apart from France, the United Kingdom has more high-speed trains than any country in the world. The electrification of the east coast main line from London to Edinburgh will be the largest single electrification or other railway project that British Rail has undertaken, and it will make a big contribution to improving the quality of travelling for the travelling public.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers direct links between Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom and continental Europe will he take into account the benefits of using a route through Stratford in east London, which would avoid the bottleneck of central London and would provide fast traffic straight through for freight and passengers?
    Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend may know, the recommendations that British Rail put to me recently for a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to London involved consideration of several routes, including the option that he suggested.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Secretary of State is aware that only 23 per cent. of rail lines in Scotland are electrified, will he accept the strength of argument for electrification north of the central belt, especially as so many of our industries in the north-east and north of Scotland are export led?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Lady probably knows, was pleased to be present last Thursday at the opening of the electrified InterCity line between Edinburgh and Glasgow. She will be aware that British Rail is holding discussions

    3
    with local authorities to see whether non-commercial benefits would flow from the electrification of northern routes.

    London Underground
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of London Underground's rolling stock in percentage terms has been brought into use in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): In the past year the public have not yet seen the benefits of the re-equipment programme. The first of the 85 new Central line trains will enter passenger service next spring and the first of the refurbished trains for the Bakerloo, Victoria, Circle and Hammersmith and City lines will enter service this July. Contracts have been let for more than two fifths of London Underground's trains to be replaced or completely modernised.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for his support in getting the escalator at Greenford station back in action after it had been out of action for no fewer than seven months and for his admirable visit to Greenford.
    Mr. Snape: That is another point in the polls.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
    May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the anticipated report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on London Underground? Press reports say that it shows that much more money will be needed for infrastructure, such as new signalling, drains, gullies and track. He will receive strong support from Conservative Members in his battles with the Treasury to get that money, which London needs.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's comments on my visit to Greenford. I am sure that he will be the first on the telephone if the escalator is not working at the station. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must decide when to publish the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Investment in the underground, excluding the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail, is around £400 million per annum. There is certainly justification for increasing that amount. During the coming public expenditure round, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will seriously consider what needs to be done.
    Miss Hoey: The Minister may have helped the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) with his escalator problem, so would he like to visit Stockwell and Oval stations on the Northern line, where half the escalators have been out of action for a long time? Is it right that it should take a minimum of 16 weeks to fix an escalator? Would the hon. Gentleman like to give my area the prompt attention that he gave Ealing?
    Mr. Freeman: I should be delighted to do that and to visit both stations. As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is a rail enthusiast and, in addition to travelling regularly on British Rail trains, he recently visited stations on the Northern line. I shall get in touch with the hon. Lady and we shall fix a date on which I shall visit those two stations.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept the description given by the chairman of London Transport that the underground is an appalling shambles and at least £10 billion is needed to produce acceptable standards? Does the hon. Gentleman accept the rumour that the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission makes it clear that there are inadequate finances for the London underground? If so, will the hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House before the summer so that we can offer some hope to those suffering misery on the London underground?
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will doubtless shortly publish the MMC's report on London Underground, and the hon. Gentleman should wait and read that document. The chairman of London Transport referred to a period going back many decades, during which there were both Labour and Conservative Governments.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the chairman's statement true?
    Mr. Freeman: There is no question but that the existing underground—setting on one side the mega-projects—is receiving substantial investment, but it needs more.

    Canning Town (Railway)
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received for development of a new railway station at Canning Town.
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a proposal from London Underground Ltd. for a station at Canning Town, which is included in the Bill for the Jubilee line extension which is currently before the House.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware of the sense of grievance in the east end of London because, compared with central and western London, we are often palmed off with what is second best and second rate, and that is threatening to happen again with the new station at Canning Town? I was told today that stations to the west on the Jubilee line are being designed by a firm of architects of international repute whereas stations to the east have been subcontracted out to a firm that no one has ever heard of. Is that true? Will the hon. Gentleman write to me about it? Finally—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the design of Canning Town station is inferior? The hon. Gentleman was told that the cost of a decent, high-quality station would be an extra £40 million, whereas the Select Committee on Transport discovered that it would cost only an extra £8 million. Will the hon. Gentleman review the position with a view to giving us a decent station for the new railway line in the east end of London?
    Mr. Freeman: Proceedings on the Jubilee line continue. My information is that the type of station that the hon. Gentleman and Newham want would cost an extra £7 million, which at the moment cannot be justified by the extra revenue that it would be likely to generate. It would involve putting the Northern line interchange at the same location as the docklands light railway and Jubilee line interchanges. The hon. Gentleman said that his area gets

    5
    second best. Not only is the docklands light railway being upgraded, but the Jubilee line extension to Stratford is a massive investment in, commitment to and support for the east end of London.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall his visit to Canning Town station and to my constituents when he and I walked the tracks together? Is he aware of the importance of the interchange between the docklands light railway on the docklands north bank and the Jubilee line on the south bank? The lines cross at Canning Town, as does the north London link, which he mentioned. Why should we have a second-class station there, where interchanging will be difficult? Does not a second-class station imply that the Government think that the inhabitants of Canning Town and the Beckton docklands area are second-class citizens?
    Mr. Freeman: I remember my visit to Canning Town station with the hon. Gentleman. It seemed that the interchange between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line at Canning Town was satisfactory and was in no sense a second-class station. I shall write to him and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), about the architect who is designing the station. It is true that passengers will have to pass through a tunnel to get to the north London line interchange, but to have all three lines intersecting with interconnecting platforms would cost an extra £7 million. At this stage, at least, the hon. Gentleman advances no justification for spending that extra money.

    Dartford (Bridge)
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the name of the bridge currently under construction over the Thames at Dartford; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): No decision has yet been taken on a name for the new bridge.
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will appreciate my disappointment with his answer. Will he confirm that the bridge will be named after neither Dartford nor Thurrock? Will he also pay tribute to all the men and women who have worked so hard to make the bridge a reality in north-west Kent?
    Mr. Chope: I am happy to pay tribute to all the people who have worked on the construction of the bridge and to those who have been lobbying for it to be given one name or another. My hon. Friend is speculating and I could not possibly confirm or deny what he is saying.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the one person to be neutral was the Chairman of the parliamentary Committee which sat for many weeks to discuss the matter and that, in tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who has now gone into the silence of the Whips Office, perhaps the bridge should be called Sydney's bridge?
    Mr. Chope: That is a novel suggestion which will be taken into account in the coming weeks.

    British Rail (Customer Service)
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to bring forward proposals which would compensate British Rail passengers for poor standards of customer service.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are actively pursuing, in co-operation with British Rail, a number of ways in which a higher quality of service can be encouraged and rewarded. As part of this process, we are examining how the interests of passengers can be promoted and protected.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and heartily welcome his enthusiasm for rail transport. Will he share the misery of commuters from my constituency who suffer from the lack of announcements by British Rail, delays, a complete lack of punctuality and of facilities at stations and from problems of overcrowding caused because trains are not of the right length? They face all those problems, yet, as season ticket holders, they receive no compensation except through the minor and almost secret system of ex gratia payments which British Rail has introduced under the counter. Will he put the matter in the public domain and force British Rail to provide compensation to passengers if they suffer from the inadequacies of the current level of service and if British Rail simply fails to perform?
    Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend rightly says, there is an ex gratia payments scheme currently operated by British Rail, which last year paid out about £2·5 million to passengers who suffered from various inconveniences. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the need to consider extending facilities for passengers who have been gravely inconvenienced, not simply on the railways but in other areas. They are matters that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said would be the subject of the citizens' charter proposals which are being considered.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that if compensation were allocated, British Rail, on its present standing, would lose about £270 million? If so, would not it also be true that the people of Kent and East Anglia would no longer have to pay rail fares?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should not assume that press speculation is necessarily valid. Clearly, the level of compensation paid would depend on the criteria for entitlement to it, which are still to be considered. France is often given as an example of a country where compensation is paid to passengers. However, if one examines that idea in detail, one finds that TGV passengers receive compensation only if the train is more than three hours late. Therefore, the sums involved tend to be rather small.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Kent commuters in particular are entitled to a better standard of service and that the greatest improvement could be secured if he would approve soon the investment in the new Networker Express programme for the Kent coast? Do his new-found expressions of enthusiasm for rail investment include an early announcement of the 741 Networker Express programme for the Kent coast?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can tell my hon. Friend that there are various ways in which Kent railway services have been

    7
    improved in the recent past and, no doubt, will be improved in the weeks and months to come. I cannot make a specific announcement today on the project to which my hon. Friend referred. However, I appreciate the importance attached by Kent commuters to improvement of that service.
    Mr. Prescott: May I refer the Secretary of State, in his considerations of ideas for the citizens' charter, to his copy of "Moving Britain into the 1990s", which details the things that need to be done? That would continue the plagiarism of Labour's policies. Will he seriously consider repealing the conditions of carriage for British Rail, bringing in a detailed pricing policy for British Rail, assessing whether the Government have given sufficient financial resources to British Rail to enable it to meet the standards that he wishes to impose on it, and setting up an independent regulatory body to ensure that such standards are confirmed and carried out?
    Mr. Rifkind: Those tempted by Labour's proposals for railways for the next Parliament will wish to reflect on what the previous Labour Government did. They will recall that investment in the railways fell each year between 1975 and 1979. They will be reminded that there was a net closure of railway lines—more railway lines closed than were opened during the period of the last Labour Government—whereas in the past 12 years, there has been a net increase in the rail network. They will also applaud the fact that under this Conservative Government no fewer than 163 railway stations have either been opened or reopened since 1979.

    Ports Industry
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of efficiency of the ports industry.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): There has been a marked increase in productivity at many ports since the abolition of the dock labour scheme, with increased scope for investment. I expect further advances as a result of the privatisation of leading trust ports under the Ports Bill which is now before Parliament.
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme there have been dramatic improvements in efficiency and productivity in the docks? That must have substantially benefited our export trade. Bearing in mind that some people regarded the national dock labour scheme as the jewel in the crown of the special relationship between the Labour party and the trade union movement, has my hon. Friend had many demands for the reintroduction of the national dock labour scheme?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We have had no demands from the industry or from the people who work in the docks, although I understand that the Opposition are considering whether they should reimpose such a scheme, which would only damage the port industry.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Why do the Government support the European Community's proposals to downgrade the port of Stranraer, not to proceed with making the railway line in western Scotland more efficient, and to divert cross-Irish sea transport to Fishguard?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made a speech about the importance that the Government attach to freight and to attempting to move freight by rail. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives a full reply about Northern Ireland ports.
    Ms. Walley: Why does there continue to be so little reference to the role of ports and shipping in an integrated transport infrastructure? Why do the Government measure everything in terms of efficiency rather than dovetailing our ports into the transport policy that we should have? Does the Minister accept that the trust ports already compete with the private sector? Why has he forced through reserve powers to sell off trust ports? Is not the Government's treatment of trust ports proof that neither the nation's health nor its transport is safe in their hands?
    Mr. McLoughlin: What we have just heard from the Opposition is that they will pay no attention to efficiency but will be concerned only with bureaucratic planning of transport. We do not feel that that is the most appropriate way in which to develop transport policy. We shall concentrate on efficiency because we believe that that will bring greater opportunities to our ports industry. It has been pointed out that the powers for privatisation are reserve powers and will be used only after consultation with the ports. We believe that the trust ports will be far better served in the private sector. Indeed, a number of ports eagerly await the passage of the Bill so that they can move into the private sector.

    Channel Tunnel
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the preferred route for the new channel tunnel rail link between London and the North Downs.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's proposals for a high-speed rail link through south-east London and Kent.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are considering British Rail's report and recommendations for the rail link carefully. It is too early to say when decisions may be announced.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is it not remarkable that in his recent speech of enlightenment, supposedly signalling his conversion to rail, the Secretary of State devoted but a single sentence to the passenger rail link from the channel tunnel? Is that because he is deeply embarrassed about this long-running fiasco? Will he accept from me that he cannot delay further, that he should clearly announce that he has abandoned any consideration of a route through south London and that he will do the decent thing and look for an alternative that links Stratford and King's Cross?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the recommendations from British Rail landed on my desk only a couple of weeks ago, it would have been remarkable if I had given them more than one sentence of consideration in a speech made last week. It is precisely because we wish to consider all the implications,

    9
    including the points raised by the hon. Lady, that it will take a little time to come to a judgment and a conclusion. That is what we are doing at present.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that my constituents in north-west Kent have had to put up with three years of blight, as four of the routes under consideration cross my constituency. Is he also aware that even more than a rapid decision, we want a right decision which properly takes into account the environmental considerations, because in north-west Kent we have nothing to gain in transport terms and a large amount to lose in terms of our environment?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to emphasise the importance of the environmental implications for Kent of whatever decision is reached. British Rail itself has said that if it is given approval to go ahead, its next step will be to consider a full environmental assessment of whatever turns out to be the preferred route.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State is trying to work out a route that somehow avoids every marginal Conservative constituency in south-east London? Does he intend to make an announcement before the summer recess or is he hanging on for an election? If he is, we could be waiting an awfully long time for that decision.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, he will appreciate that when a report that is 12 inches thick has been presented, he would be the first to criticise if we leapt to conclusions on it. 'We shall reach a decision and announce it when we have considered British Rail's recommendations and given them the proper attention that they require.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that when he considers the route through south London, he will do nothing to exacerbate the practice at Lymington of British Rail trains leaving just before the ferry docks from the Isle of Wight rather than just after, as that is a continual irritation to my constituents?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that towards the North Downs?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain whether that is towards the North Downs, Mr. Speaker, but. we shall certainly draw to the attention of British Rail what appear; to be a lack of co-ordination in the service available.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Before making his decision would not the Secretary of State be well advised to put out for consultation whatever recommendation he has received from British Rail? He will well remember that when his predecessor received the last report and an announcement was made to the public, there was a huge outcry, including from his own colleagues? Are not the route, and the need to pay for the environmental consequences of whichever route is chosen, matters on which consultation is needed and on which wise and careful decisions must be made —not least, if I may say so respectfully, for the sake of the Secretary of State's colleagues, who risk a great deal if he makes the wrong decision?
    Mr. Rifkind: The principle of what the hon. Gentleman says cannot be questioned, and nor would I seek to do so. The important point, which I made a few moments ago, is that British Rail is not asking for a final decision at this
    10
    stage. It seeks approval to go ahead with a full environmental assessment of its preferred route. That will, indeed, involve a substantial degree of public consultation to take into account the points raised by not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friends.

    Passenger Safety
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been carried out by or on behalf of his Department on the advisability of segregating drivers and passengers from vehicles (a) transported by ship or hovercraft and (b) transported by rail.
    Mr. Freeman: For the channel tunnel car-carrying shuttles the plan is that drivers and passengers should stay in or very close to their cars. Eurotunnel believes that this procedure will be safe and the speediest way of unloading cars. The independent Anglo-French safety authority has said that it is satisfied with this system in principle, but that it wants further research to continue.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why occupants are separated from their vehicles on passenger ferries is the danger of the occasional spontaneous combustion of a vehicle? Does he therefore understand the concern about what would happen should that occur when passengers are inside their vehicles in enclosed carriages on a train in the channel tunnel? Can he assure us that research has been undertaken that will set people's minds at rest? Will he ensure that such research is published so that the public can be satisfied?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I assure him that research will continue and I will ensure that the House is informed of its conclusions before the channel tunnel service opens. The difference between cars being parked on the lower deck of a ferry and on the car-carrying shuttles going through the channel tunnel is that the cars on the shuttle will be in containers in which no more than five cars can be parked on any one deck. To that extent, the risk of fire is contained.
    I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I will ensure that the results of the research are published.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise the growing concern, especially among families with young children, that there will be dangers in travelling through the channel tunnel in trains and in being confined to compartments, particularly if delays occur in the tunnel? Is it not time for serious consideration to be given to that and for alternative proposals to be forthcoming?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that Eurotunnel will consider whatever sensible and practical alternatives are available. Recently, I had the pleasure and privilege of travelling through the channel tunnel—I think that I was the first Minister, either French or British, to do so. The journey took four and a half hours on one of the construction trains, but it will take around 30 minutes for the shuttles to travel between Folkestone and Calais underneath the channel. Passengers will be able to get out of their cars and travel from one vehicle to the next, but they will not be able to travel the entire length of the train. It remains to be seen whether passengers are prepared to accept this, but the Government firmly believe that the channel tunnel service will be a success.
    Mr. Wolfson: When my hon. Friend publishes the results of the research will he include comparisons with the European experience of long-tunnel train travel where people remain, with safety, in their vehicles?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, I am sure that we shall do so. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have been pressing my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the rail link. I am sure that the House will realise that as and when a rail link is built the amount of travel in tunnels—under the channel, through the north and south Downs and under the metropolis—will be considerable, whatever route is chosen. The experience of rail passengers travelling through long tunnels, especially in Japan, will be relevant.

    "A Bus Strategy for London"
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to his consultation paper entitled, "A Bus Strategy for London".
    Mr. Freeman: We are continuing to receive official responses to our consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London" and to date more than 200 have been received. I am not sure whether we have received one from the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that a deregulated rather than centrally planned bus service in London will encourage more and varied services, so offering the best chance of increasing bus patronage.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister admit that he is riding along with deregulation in the bus strategy? When it has been adopted outside London, has not that meant 16 per cent. fewer buses? That would be a disaster for traffic in London. It might mean more buses in the rush hour but fewer, or perhaps none, off peak. Would not the quality of the bus fleet go down? Would not concessionary fares for pensioners and the travel card be placed at risk or be referred to the Office of Fair Trading? Does not that show that the Government are unsafe to steer London buses?
    Mr. Freeman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has his figures muddled. Since deregulation, figures for bus services outside London show an increase of about one fifth in the number of bus miles offered to passengers. There are more services by minibuses, double deckers, and coaches. The Government want to ensure that London has the same benefits—more bus miles offered to passengers —so that we can encourage more passengers onto the buses and thereby help to relieve congestion.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree, none the less, that the experience of transport planning, here and in other countries, suggests that something less than full deregulation may be appropriate to the capital city? Will he bear in mind that need to compromise?
    Mr. Freeman: We are still receiving consultation responses, including the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). The Government have not reached a final decision on the format of deregulation. However, the central principle is clear. It divides the Opposition from the Government because we believe in a substantially deregulated market. More buses would come into London to offer their services, which would, hopefully, mean more passengers on the buses—
    Mr. Prescott: What do the passengers think?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall not be drawn into making a riposte. The Government believe strongly that, the more buses that are provided and offered to customers in London, the more people will travel on them and the less congested our roads will become.

    Railway Industry, York
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to make an official visit to York to inspect the railway industry.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I visited York on 14 January to launch the new diesel express class of 158 units on the transpennine route. A total of 128 of these units are being introduced on regional railways. They will make a significant improvement to regional railway services. I hope to visit York on 27 June to attend a meeting of the North Eastern transport users' consultative committee.
    Mr. Gregory: I am delighted by the regularity with which my hon. Friend visits York. I hope that he will encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to visit, not only to see the new headquarters of British Rail Freight but to take the opportunity to explain to British Rail employees the advantages of denationalisation. Will he make clear to them that they would benefit from share ownership in much the same way as their brothers and sisters in British Rail Engineering Ltd.?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State would welcome the opportunity to visit York to explain the advantages of privatising British Rail.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: When the Minister visits York, will he talk to the workers of BREL, who will explain to him how those of them who have been there for 25 or 26 years are losing their redundancy terms each year that they retain their membership of the new company, while new directors are being given enormous benefits? Will the Minister try to understand that, far from being an advantage to workers, privatisation will mean enormous job losses, worse conditions and much lower redundancy payments when employees lose their jobs?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I need not go to York to meet workers of BREL because I often meet them in my constituency. We believe that they are in a far better position in a privatised company than they would have been, had the company continued to be a subsidiary of British Rail, and most of the workers believe that, too.

    Light Rapid Transit Systems
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is Government policy on assistance for further light rapid transit systems.
    Mr. Freeman: We are prepared to grant-aid worthwhile light rail schemes subject to the availability of resources. In the past two years we have approved Manchester metro link at £120 million and South Yorkshire supertram at £230 million.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable benefits that will accrue to my constituents and the many other people who live in the greater Nottingham area from a Nottingham LRT? Will he also

    13
    bear in mind that the project being developed there represents genuine participation between the private and the public sectors, which deserves full Government support, not only after a Bill is put before the House but, before that, during the project's development?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We welcome the participation of the private sector in transport schemes—for example, the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line. The light rail schemes, in Nottingham and Bristol, are to be welcomed. They ensure that projects funded by the public purse are much more likely to proceed.
    Mr. Snape: Given the Secretary of State's recent and much-publicised conversion to the principle of support for public transport, particularly rail, would it not be a good idea for him to implement what are at present only ideas and give the go ahead to the midland metro? That would contribute enormously to the reduction of congestion in the Birmingham-West Bromwich-Wolverhampton corridor.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for that scheme. His views sit uncomfortably with those expressed by his colleague, the shadow spokesman for transport, on light rail schemes in general. The Government believe that once exercises are concluded on sensible propositions—including, on the face of it, the one for the west midlands—and if resources are available, they will be funded.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Official Visit
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy to discuss with tenants the income of the Duchy.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I very much look forward to my next visit to the Duchy. However I do not expect to discuss Duchy income levels with tenants.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, at a time of steadily reducing interest rates, tenants in the Duchy who are small business owners are faced with increases in the amount they have to pay for bank loans? Has my right hon. Friend received any representations on that matter from tenants in the Duchy? Does he have any ideas to put before the House, now or in future, that might alleviate the problems of small businesses?
    Mr. Patten: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was able to offer a few views on that important subject on a well-known television programme yesterday morning. I am sure that ray right hon. Friend, were he at the Dispatch Box, would say that in the implausible event of a Labour Government, interest rates would be a great deal higher due to the risk premium of socialist policies.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit the Duchy on official business.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have no plans to visit the Duchy estates in the immediate future.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. When he draws up his programme for future visits to the Duchy, will he specifically include a visit to Ribble Valley and, once there, judge the extent—although I accept that it will be extremely difficult for him—to which voters are more aware of Liberal Democrat policies?
    Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend knows from his successful experience in Chelmsford, very few people seem to know what Liberal Democrat policies amount to, as that party customarily stands for a sort of a sanctimonious popularism, which means that its members are in favour of whatever they think is immediately popular on the side of town where they are standing for office. I hope that more people in the Ribble Valley, as elsewhere in the country, will now know that two things for which the Liberals certainly stand are higher income tax and a 50 per cent. cut in our defence programme.
    Dr. Cunningham: When the Chancellor of the Duchy goes to the north-west, will he accept that people there are far more at risk from the failed policies of the Conservative Government than from anything that the Liberal Democrats may have to offer? Will he tell those in the north-west—the 8,000 people who lost their jobs in April alone, the 745 companies which went into liquidation in the first three months of this year and the 606 companies that went bankrupt this year—whether he shares the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is a price well worth paying?
    Mr. Patten: I would certainly point out to anyone in the north-west to whom I was fortunate enough to speak that there had been a 16 per cent. increase in the number of businesses in the north-west since 1979. I should also point out that unemployment would be higher if there were such a thing as a Labour Government, because of the national minimum wage—a well known fact. I would also point out that interest rates would be higher because of the risk premium of a Labour Government, and that taxes on everyone would be a great deal higher too.
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit the Duchy to meet tenants and employees to discuss the taxation and income of the Duchy.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I shall be meeting Duchy tenants next month, although, as I said earlier, I do not envisage discussing taxation or Duchy income levels.
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When next he has a chance to move as a popular Chancellor among his grateful tenantry does he anticipate receiving from them expressions of concern of the sort that I receive in my constituency about the fact that it is now official Labour party policy to cut defence expenditure by about £9 billion—and that that is likely to cost thousands of jobs, including thousands of jobs in Lancashire?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is of course entirely correct to point out that Labour party conferences have consistently voted for cuts of one third in our defence budget. I understand that they would amount to about £9 billion. We know very well that Labour's cuts in our

    15
    conventional defences, as well as its unilateralism, would lead to job cuts in the north-west and elsewhere in the country and to the undermining of our security.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Certification Audits
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many certification audits were carried out by the National Audit Office in each of the past two years.
    Sir Peter Hordern (on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office certified 466 accounts in 1989–90, and 463 in 1990–1.
    Mr. Banks: The National Audit Office is obviously working hard and extremely efficiently, and on behalf of the whole House we should like to thank it. Am I correct in saying that it also examined the social security accounts, paying particular attention to computer technology and the assessment of income support? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great deal of suffering that underestimating or overestimating income support calculations inflicts on the clients of the DSS? Will he have a gentle word in the ear of the Comptroller and Auditor General and suggest that he looks again at the use of computers in the Department and perhaps that he comes to my constituency, to the DSS office at Jubilee house, to see how inefficiently the computer system there is operated?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General does examine the accounts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, these matters are more properly within the province of the Public Accounts Committee than within that of the Public Accounts Commission; but I am quite certain that the Comptroller and Auditor General will take note of what has been said.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which I strongly oppose, to widen the remit of the National Audit Office so that it has to report to Select Committees will prejudice the work done by the NAO on certification and the relationship that it has with Government Departments, which is very much based on trust? That trust might be endangered if the work of the NAO is drawn into the political haranguing that may sometimes occur in Select Committees.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission has not yet considered that matter, although we may do so. I should greatly regret anything that diminished the authority or role of the Comptroller and Auditor General or the close association that he has with the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend pass on to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office the gratitude of the whole House for the excellent work that the organisation undertakes? Does he agree that by the structure and content of its reports the NAO has greatly increased, through the clarity of its presentation, the information available to ordinary Members of this House?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General will be. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Given the precedent set by the investigations of the National Audit Office into the financial consequences of the sale of the Rover car company, will the NAO be able to examine the results of the horse trading that is taking place to try to capture the Channel 3 franchises of television companies?
    Sir Peter Hordern: That will not be a matter for the Public Accounts Commission. I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General will examine anything which the hon. Gentleman may care to put to him. I have no authority in the matter.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Duchy Income
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit the Duchy to discuss the income levels of the Duchy.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).
    Mr. Arnold: If my right hon. Friend were to discuss the income levels of the people of the Duchy, would he consider with them the advantages of a Government who have cut personal taxation and who will do so again when that is prudent? Would he compare that Government with a Government formed by the Labour party, the Opposition? Previous Labour Administrations have increased taxation, and a Labour Government would do so again.
    Mr. Patten: The other day the Leader of the Opposition said that no one could look to a Labour Government, were there to be one, for tax cuts. I think that that was the understatement of the decade. Under a Labour Government, tax would increase for everyone in work, for all savers, for the thrifty and for the enterprising.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Public Facilities
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to extend public facilities in the Palace of Westminster.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The relevant Services sub-committees are currently considering measures to improve further access for disabled visitors and the feasibility of providing refreshments for all visitors in advance of whatever may be included in the design brief for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Lord President share my understanding that having a cream tea with a Member on the Terrace is one of the high spots of the London season? It is certainly one of the lesser injuries that we can inflict upon our constituents. Given the appalling weather at present and the tight-fistedness of many hon. Members, it

    17
    is clear that a cream tea is not one of the pleasures that many constituents can enjoy. Could not we have a boat moored off the Thames on which refreshments are provided? It would—[Interruption.] This is a serious point. Such a boat would enable members of the public to enjoy the views that we have. Refreshments could be offered not in phase 2 but in the Palace of Westminster itself, perhaps by using Westminster Hall. We are very ready to take hospitality in this place but reluctant to offer it.
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not often have cream teas and I rather welcome the rain because we are badly in need of it.
    It is generally agreed that it is not possible to provide refreshments for visitors in the Palace itself. I doubt whether Westminster Hall would be an appropriate place for the provision of refreshments. The Catering sub-committee has agreed to commission a feasibility study to determine whether reasonable facilities that are conveniently close to the House can be provided for groups of Members' guests. I know of one location that is being included in the study, and I shall ask the sub-committee to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Recycled Paper
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether there are any proposals to produce the Official Report on recycled paper.
    Mr. MacGregor: This matter was considered by the Accommodation and Administration sub-committee during the previous Session.
    The Committee agreed with advice given by Her Majesty's Stationery Office that recycled paper was currently unsuitable for use in producing parliamentary publications, including the Official Report, largely due to the poor archival qualities of this type of paper.
    Mr. Butler: I understand the need to retain some Hansards for archival purposes, but most daily reports and most Order Papers are put into the rubbish bin at the end of the day. Is there not a case for reconsidering the use of recycled paper for those parliamentary papers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I understand that some libraries use copies of the daily Official Report and other volumes for archival purposes. I take my hon. Friend's point about Vote Papers and Vote bundles. I would guess that they are not used often for archival purposes. I am happy to ask the relevant Committee to take up the matter again and to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am strongly in favour of using recycled paper whenever that is possible.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful reply, but two further developments would be welcome. First, will he try to ensure that the amount of paper produced in the House—much of which is wasted internally, let alone externally—is reduced? There is considerable scope, especially in view of the amount of paper left at the end of every day and bundled up in the Vote Office.
    Secondly, we are to some extent using recycled paper for correspondence. It is only woodcuts—offcuts—not properly recycled paper. Can we go the whole hog and have fully recycled paper?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's point is considered. As for his first, I share his view that wherever possible we should cut down on the amount of paper that we use. I have often thought that we use far too much in the Vote bundle. The Procedure Committee has examined the matter and made some helpful recommendations. I am keen that it should do more, as I suggested when I met the Committee recently.
    Most of the paper that goes into the wastepaper baskets in the House is sent for recycling. Nevertheless, I agree that it is our responsibility to cut down on paper whenever possible.

    Official Envelopes
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to extend the eligibility of House post-paid envelopes for use by an hon. Member writing to overseas constituents; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the Services Committee has recently approved the use of post-paid envelopes to certain official destinations in Europe and this facility will be available to hon. Members in June.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I remind him that there are now 400,000 overseas constituents with whom hon. Members need to communicate. I am in constant communication with several of mine. Many of them live beyond the territories of Europe. Is my right hon. Friend aware that they like to receive House of Commons envelopes with the proper embossed heading? Will he find some way of enabling hon. Members to use those envelopes for communications with their overseas constituents?
    Mr. MacGregor: It took some time to establish the arrangement that I have just described for certain European destinations, involving an embossed stamp. My hon. Friend has anticipated me. I was going to remind him that for overseas correspondence concerning parliamentary or constituency business hon. Members may use the normal postage stamps and reclaim the cost from the Fees Office against the office cost allowance. That is one possibility open to my hon. Friend, and he can also use House of Commons envelopes for that purpose even if they are not stamped.

    Petitions
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to introduce a procedure whereby an official response would be presented in respect of all parliamentary public petitions.
    Mr. MacGregor: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Lord President realise that more than 900 official petitions submitted last year received the response from the Government, "There is no Government response"? They were not ordinary street-corner petitions; people had to go through a detailed rigmarole to present them to the House. The Government are undermining the British people's traditional right to present a petition to

    19
    the House. I would have put this complaint in a petition, but I feared that I would receive the reply, "There is no response".
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is getting a response from me now. Part of the answer is that there are other ways in which constituents' requests—petitions, ideas and views—can receive Government answers, including the usual means of parliamentary questions. The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The Government gave their observations on 170 of the 960 petitions in the previous Session. Not all petitions are addressed to the Government; they are effectively addressed to the House. I think that it is right to follow the normal practices.

    New Parliamentary Buildings
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress on phases 1 and 2 of the new parliamentary buildings.
    Mr. MacGregor: Phase 1 is now being fitted out and furnished. The part of the building occupied by the House of Commons Library, known as 1 Derby Gate, will open to Members on Monday 17 June. The catering facilities and Members' offices in phase 1 will be ready when the House returns from its summer adjournment. The Services Committee has agreed its initial brief for phase 2 and will report on this shortly to the House. It is hoped that construction work can begin in spring 1992 and the building be ready for occupation in 1996.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer. In view of the increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members who will use the accommodation in those two phases, as well as Norman Shaw North and South, will he tell us what is the latest thinking on the provision of a secure access from those buildings into the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. MacGregor: There will be new security arrangements for those buildings and that will apply immediately
    20
    in phase 1. Direct secure access to the House from both will have to await completion of phase 2 in respect of completely secure access. The intention is to have secure access when phase 2 is completed.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is not progress on providing new and better facilities painfully slow? Does the Leader of the House recognise that an interim solution might be to rent or lease space in existing buildings in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster? In that regard, would he bring into use the building on the other side of Westminster bridge which was the former headquarters of the Greater London council? That building could be put to effective use for hon. Members, their staff and visitors. Would he also bring that building into a proper state of maintenance so that a a new London authority can reoccupy when we have a Labour Government?
    Mr. MacGregor: First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am as keen as anyone to see progress on the provision of better facilities for hon. Members. There will be 65 Members offices in phase 1 which is coming in shortly. There will be another 25 Members offices as the Serjeant at Arms, the deputy Serjeant at Arms and Mr. Speaker's secretary vacate their present residences. That is a step forward.
    To some extent phase 2 is involved with the Jubilee line and the changes to Westminster tube station for which a Bill is currently before the House. That complicates the issue. However, that is moving ahead and we are looking at alternative arrangements for moving people out as the changes take place from existing buildings across the road in Bridge street and also more generally. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is aware, I am currently considering additional facilities in the nearby vicinity. I do not believe that county hall is appropriate and I would certainly not be happy to see money spent to facilitate the return of the GLC which is the last thing we want for London.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the subjects for debate on Wednesday and Friday of this week.
WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE—Opposition day (12th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The government of London", followed by a debate entitled "Training cuts and the unemployed". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 7 JUNE—There will be a debate entitled "Nationalisation, denationalisation and renationalisation", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In addition, at the end of tomorrow, there will be Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. It is helpful to the House to know the subjects for debate on Wednesday, as they could not be announced before the recess. When the Minister replies to the debate on London, will we hear whether the Government have any policies or ideas for the better government of our capital city? Is it too much to hope that, in the second half of our Supply day on Wednesday, we shall have an explanation from the Ministers about the disastrous and inexorable increases in unemployment, and discover whether they share the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the disastrous level of unemployment is "a price worth paying"?
Mr. MacGregor: With regard to the first debate, I am sure that my hon. Friend who will deal with the debate will make clear the Government's constructive policies for London—which will not, unlike the Opposition's policies, include the return of l he unlamented Greater London council.
The second debate is fundamentally about training. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend who will speak in that debate will make clear the much greater expenditure on training and emphasise the increase in the number of training places for young people under this Government and at the present time compared with the position under the Labour Government. No doubt he will also stress, as the Financial Times reported this morning, that Labour's minimum wage policy would
"reduce the incentive both for workers to train and for employers to train them."
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a narrow statement about this week's business. It should not range wider than the two debates in question.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Friday it will be appropriate to debate the recent Aims of Industry document which calculated that Labour's renationalisation programme would cost the taxpayer about £7 billion per annum? Does my right hon. Friend agree that countries throughout the world, even those in eastern Europe, have now rejected the dogma of nationalisation to which the Labour party is still wedded?
22
Mr. MacGregor: It will be entirely appropriate to discuss those matters on Friday. Labour has put forward at least three major renationalisation proposals and the debate will be another example of how Labour's tax and expenditure pledges simply do not add up. My hon. Friend is right to say that a very big cost is attached to those commitments.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales either to intervene in Wednesday's debate or to make a statement about the increasing jobs crisis facing the valley communities, especially my communities in Merthyr and Rhymney, where during the recess there was an announcement about the closure of the Thorn lighting plant, which has been with us since 1947? On top of that, there have been 300 redundancies at Hoover and the deep navigation colliery in Treharris has closed. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the Secretary of State explains to the House how his valleys initiative will be bolstered to deal with our growing jobs crisis?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Wednesday's debate will last only three hours, and so that those who wish to take part can do so, there will be a limit on the number of Government spokesmen. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's general points to the attention of whomever will speak for the Government.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Perhaps my right hon. Friend could take himself back to the interesting suggestion by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that we should decant a few Opposition Members into county hall. If that were done and Opposition Members got their feet under the table there, there would be no risk whatever of the return of the Greater London council.
Mr. MacGregor: That would depend on which Opposition Members were there, but I recall that some Opposition Members who were in county hall engaged in massive empire building and in a great deal of unnecessary expenditure for the people of London.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell his colleague who will speak in Wednesday's debate on London matters that one of the issues about which Londoners most want to hear in the context of the Government's policy for the remainder of this Parliament is what they will do properly to house people in the capital city? What will they do to remove more and more people from the streets, to stop rents escalating out of control, the regular repossessions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Such matters would be much more appropriate for Wednesday's debate. We have three more statements to come. I ask hon. Members to ask questions and not to make statements.
Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister make sure that his colleague deals with these issues on Wednesday and gives some positive answers and statements?
Mr. MacGregor: I am tempted to answer that myself, but I shall bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker, and simply say that the Minister will deal with those matters in the debate.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the debate will provide an opportunity to

23
test the Opposition's priorities, given that the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether a Labour Government would spend more money on health? They want renationalisation and they will either confiscate or say that there is a great priority and will take shares away from pension funds and individuals rather than bolster the public services. May we also check that the nationalization— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be interesting for Friday's debate, but I think that the hon. Member has asked his question.
Mr. Bottomley: On the priorities of nationalisation, if we are told by the official spokesman for the Opposition— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to ask more than one question. The hon. Gentleman is overdoing it.
Mr. Bottomley: Such a programme would cost the country too much.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that the Labour pledges involve massive expenditure, which would have to be financed at the expense of the taxpayer and of the priorities that we believe to be right.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Leader of the House said that, in the debate on London, his ministerial colleague would outline the Government's constructive proposals. In that case, he will not have anything to say.
Mr. MacGregor: Nor have I, because that is a very empty suggestion.
Mr. Richard Holt: Has my right hon. Friend received any request from the Opposition—who have been loud in saying that they want to discuss the proposed possible merger or takeover of ICI, but, when given an opportunity to debate it on an Opposition day, have run away from doing so?
Mr. MacGregor: The Opposition have chosen the two subjects that they have for Wednesday, and both choices are theirs.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Leader of the House confirm that a Scottish Office Minister will wind up the second of Wednesday's two debates? Would that not provide him with an opportunity to explain to Scottish Members of Parliament the circumstances surrounding the current threat of the closure of Ravenscraig, Scotland's deepening unemployment crisis, and the failure of the Scottish office to provide training, especially for those who are physically and mentally handicapped? That is now a scandal in Scotland, and we should have a statement about it.
Mr. MacGregor: Wednesday's debate will inevitably be short, and I cannot at this stage say which Minister will wind up the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by the ways and means resolutions to which he referred?
Mr. MacGregor: That is a fair point. The ways and means resolutions relate to amendments and new clauses passed during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. They cover a number of matters, and I would be happy to advise the hon. Gentleman what they are. In any event, they were matters dealt with in Committee.

Agriculture Council
3.40 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the 1991 settlement of farm prices reached at the meeting of the Agriculture Council, which finished on 24 May. I was supported at that meeting by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I am happy to state that this year's agreement met a number of important United Kingdom objectives. In particular, despite pressure from 10 member states in that council and in the Finance Council, no increase was made in the agricultural guideline for 1991 or 1992. The Commissioner formally confirmed that the package agreed contained sufficient economies for expenditure to be contained within the guidelines already set. That success is an important one, in that the integrity of the 1988 budget decisions has been successfully defended from a sustained attack by those who wish to weaken them. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that in debates in the House, it was widely felt that that was not an obtainable objective, although the whole House hoped that we could reach it.
That outcome has been achieved by economies in a number of areas. There will be reductions in effective support prices for milk, beef, sheepmeat, oil seeds, proteins, and tobacco. In addition, there will be an increase in the cereals co-responsibility levy to 5 per cent. —although for those participating in set-aside schemes, that will be refunded in whole or in part. Also, there will be a decrease in milk quotas by 2 per cent. There are different options for achieving that. Producers will be compensated in some measure, either financially or by the allocation of quota obtained from a buy-up scheme.
In general, those changes are necessary and welcome, although I have continued to press for the cereals co-responsibility levy to be replaced by price cuts, as such cuts enable other farmers to buy their products at a reduced price, and therefore increase the market for the produce. There will be a new, one year set-aside scheme financed by the Community. The details are such that there ought to be a real incentive for take-up in all member states. One of my criticisms of the existing scheme is that take-up has been uneven in the different member states. I am not prepared to see large areas of Britian set aside so that other countries can increase their production.
I secured the addition of an environmental component to that new scheme. If the relevant environmental requirements are not met, payments will be reduced. That is a major change of policy, and one about which I am particularly pleased. That major step provides us with a basis for the discussions that will take place on the wider reform of the common agricultural policy.
It was agreed that African, Caribbean, and Pacific sugar supplliers will be compensated for the price reduction agreed in 1989. That will be welcome to the countries concerned, although I continue to believe that there are better ways of serving their interests.
The European Court has decided that quota must be found for certain producers who previously gave up milk production for a period. This is known as the Slom problem. Whatever its reservations, the United Kingdom naturally accepts the court's ruling. I do not believe that
26
they are the most deserving producers, but we are a law-abiding country and must accept what the court has said.
We have insisted, however, that the extra quota must be found, to the fullest extent practicable, from the Community reserve. As a result, all the remaining Community reserve will be put out in proportion to previous allocations for Slom purposes, which will ensure that the United Kingdom receives the largest share.
For our farmers, the most important decision was to align the green pound with the market rate applicable from 27 May. This brings the green rate very close to our central rate in the ERM and means that, for the first time for many years, our farmers will be able to compete on equal terms with those elsewhere in the Community. I am sure that the House will welcome that achievement, and I am pleased to be the Minister able to announce it.
The position of producers in less favoured areas is further protected by an increase in the supplement to the ewe premium, which will compensate them for the reduction in the sheepmeat basic prices.
The impact of this outcome on United Kingdom producers depends in part on decisions yet to be taken, but it seems probable that the change in the green pound will largely outweigh the effect of the various economies in the different sectors. Producers in most other member states will not be able to benefit from green currency changes. The settlement will add about one tenth of 1 per cent. to food prices. I commend this outcome to the House.
Dr. David Clark: May I say how pleased Labour Members are that the Minister was able to come back with his decision on the agrimonetary measures? We think that the abolition of the differential with the green pound is a step in the right direction, and at least it allows British farmers to compete on equal terms with their overseas competitors.
Apart from that, this price report is, in essence, a holding report. It is a non-event, bearing in mind the fact that the Commission has a record beef surplus, a surplus of milk and too many cereals. We found little in the price support that will help those long-term problems.
The Minister rightly said that he was pleased that the settlement had been made within the price guidelines, and so are we, but I do not think that the budget guidelines are as clear as they first appear. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the result of the statement is that, this year alone, total budgetary expenditure on the CAP has increased by more than 13 per cent.? Will he also concede that there has been much manipulation of the budgetary guideline and a transfer of farm spending across the financial years 1991 and 1992? Does he agree that, by recalculating the dollar effect, the EC has managed to find an extra 300 mecu this year, and an estimated 1 becu to 2 becu next year? What contingency plans are there if the American dollar weakens, because if that happens the budget guidelines have been breached?
The Minister made great play of his new one-year set-aside scheme. Will it be a 12-month only set-aside scheme or the first of a series of schemes whereby farmers enter into a 12-month agreement to set aside their land? If that is so, does not it rather unfairly treat farmers who have already agreed to a five-year set-aside scheme? Has he any plans to deal with that?
Will the Minister confirm that the environmental component of the new scheme, which he lauds, is simply a

27
vegetation growth on the land? Will he further confirm that, if this relevant environmental requirement, as he called it, is not met, farmers will lose a mere 10 per cent. of the grant? It seems to us that this is merely tautology, and not a genuine environmental scheme.
Why does the Minister think that the new scheme will work when it is plain that the old five-year set-aside scheme has not worked? There was a marginal decrease in cereal production, but farmers set aside their more marginal land and, with increased productivity, maintained their cereal output.
Are there provisions in the agreement for individual national Governments to top up any of these schemes? Has the Minister any proposals to top up his set-aside scheme, or does he intend to leave it at £50 an acre plus a rebate and co-responsibility levy?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the agrimonetary activity. I am surprised that he did not point out that we were offered a third of what we got. We got the whole of it, which is more than most people thought possible.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman called this a non-event and went on to talk about beef, where we have recast the system in a remarkable way, and about milk, where we have cut quotas by 2 per cent. I wonder what kind of price cuts or quota cuts the hon. Gentleman would have proposed. I hope that, the next time he is invited to meet a farming audience—I had hoped to hear answers to some of his questions—he can explain what cuts in the milk price and in the quota he would propose for a country that is only 88 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat, as Britain is at present.
It is true that the budget has increased, just as it decreased in previous years. That is understandable in the circumstances.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about the 13 per cent.?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman talks from a seated position about 13 per cent. I hope that he will explain to his farmers whether he would have liked the budget to be cut by 13 per cent. His farmers will be interested in that, because they are among the farmers whom I have spent a lot of time protecting, the cost of which is included in that 13 per cent. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will speak for himself later.
Of course, the European Community has taken into account the changes in the parity value of the dollar. I should have been in considerable difficulty at the Dispatch Box if the dollar had moved in the opposite direction and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) had said that we had not taken that into account and that we did so only when it seemed to suit our case. We take into account the latest possible movement, what has happened and what is likely to happen.
If the dollar were to move in the opposite direction, the Commission would have to take management action to keep the settlement within the guidelines, because the guidelines have that effect. For that reason, we were determined to keep the guidelines as they were. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that two countries won and 10 countries had to back down on that issue. That shows
28
that, if one is determined to fight within the Community as an enthusiastic member of it, one can achieve what one wants to achieve.
The set-aside scheme is a 12-month scheme. I should like it to be clearly stated, rather than opaquely mentioned, that this was a precursor not to an annual scheme but to an extension of set-aside in the direction for which the United Kingdom has fought for many years. After all, the set-aside scheme was an invention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who has made this case for a long time. I am pleased that what we have found to be successful in Britain will now be seen to be successful in the Community as a whole.
The hon. Member for South Shields talked about the lack of success. What did he want me to do? Did he want me to provide for more set-aside in this country than in other countries—so that, for example, the French could expand their production while we lost our markets? If that is the Opposition's official policy, it is all of a piece with advocating eating New Zealand apples and opposing eating British sausages. We now know exactly what the Opposition's view is—it is to cut prices to the British and to give more opportunities to our competitors.
As far as the environmental compensation is right, it is true that at the moment there is a need merely to have vegetative cover, to look after the land, to grow the crop and to plough the crop afterwards. That sets a standard that is the lowest level, but it is very different from not having an environmental requirement at all. Previously, set-aside could easily be characterised—I fear that the hon. Gentleman has sometimes been guilty of appearing to characterise it as such—as paying the farmer to do nothing, which is wholly unacceptable. We need to pay the farmer to look after the land—that is part of his traditional role, and something on which I intend to insist as part of Common Market agricultural reform.
The five-year scheme is important, and those who are involved in it will be able to be excused the 2 per cent. extra co-responsibility levy which has been added this time. This was a United Kingdom precondition. Part of the reason why the debates have continued for so long was that I was not prepared to agree to a set-aside scheme which set at a disadvantage those who had already accepted the restrictions.
The fact that many people have set aside their least good land does not seem to be a disadvantage. Set-aside has meant that the expansion of production has been less than it would otherwise have been. The Opposition must come to terms with the fact that, if one wants to reduce over-production, the only sensible way to do so rapidly without so distorting the market as to have long-term disadvantages is to have a major set-aside scheme that covers the whole of the European Community and which is not merely a means of attracting people into it in this country and in Germany.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of this statement to hon. Members with agricultural constituencies, but I remind them that there are two other statements. Therefore, I ask them to put brief questions to the Minister on this statement.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite the very difficult

29
budgetary constraints, he has preserved the position of British farmers to a large extent and has ensured that their disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages over the green pound? Will he give some guideline on how the 2 per cent. reduction in the quota will be phased? Will he take it from me that he has met his commitment by reducing the size of the quota by an amount that the British farmer can withstand?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. The quota will be subject to a compensatory payment, and we shall have to buy out that 2 per cent. on a compulsory basis, but there will be compensation. The Slom quota is more difficult, because we still have to calculate how many will require the money. There are problems with the European Court judgment which we shall have to sort out, but I am pleased to say that we shall not only have the money from the European Community reserve; we shall also be able to retain the money that we had for the first Slom pay-out in order to apply that to this one. That means that the buy-out programme will be less extensive than it would otherwise have been.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister realise that the settlement will be judged in rural communities by its impact on farm incomes, on the rural economy and also on the countryside? Does he accept that farmers who are under great pressure will not take complete satisfaction from the continuing downward pressure on prices which the settlement will bring and which may be—this would be welcome—at least partially offset by this alignment of the currency with the central rate?
The Minister deserves congratulations on that. However, does he acknowledge that the emphasis on set-aside may lead to as many as 250,000 hectares being taken out of farm production, if the Minister's figures on take-up are true? Does that constitute long-term assistance to the maintenance of the countryside, which the people of this country like?
Mr. Gummer: Those of us who care about the countryside should not only ask questions but give some idea of the answers to the problem. The hon. Gentleman has counted out price pressure and set-aside. It is difficult to see what the hon. Gentleman proposes, except perhaps that we should continue to increase our spending while finding that the farmer does not get a sufficient proportion of that spending.
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in my battles to get the common agricultural policy reformed, so that more of the expenditure gets to the farmer, so that the farmer can be compensated for his work to look after the countryside, so that we can get more money into the most difficult areas, so that we can help the farmer to market his products more effectively and so that the farmer can get a higher proportion of the added value. That is a policy to deal with the problems. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the usual thing from the Liberal Democrats, which is never to give a proper answer to anything, but merely to complain about everything that everybody else does.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations, especially on the elimination of the unfair disadvantage that our farmers have faced over the green pound? Now that this difficult round of price fixing
30
is over, does my right hon. Friend think that the time is right to give agriculture a sense of direction? Would he consider publishing a White Paper or some other document in which to set out how the Government see the future of our agriculture?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is kind in his congratulations. I made clear the directions in which I should like the common agricultural policy to be reformed. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that when more than 80 per cent. of spending on agriculture comes from decisions made in Brussels by the Community as a whole, the future of agriculture depends centrally on the decisions that we shall make over the next six months, as well as on agreement under the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I will consider my hon. Friend's proposal. There may be ways in which we can make even clearer the Government's commitment not only to farming, but to the five points of major change for which we look. The fact is that the decisions are yet to be made. I understand that farmers in those circumstances, are looking anxiously to see what decisions will be made under the Dutch presidency.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not true that the whole of the common agricultural policy is a complete and utter monstrosity? Despite all the chatter about reforming it, which we have been hearing for as long as anyone can remember, it is getting worse.
The Minister will have heard of the principle of subsidiarity—that things should not be done at Community level which could be done better at national level. Will he please press for the whole of British agriculture to be dealt with under the principle of subsidiarity, so that we can repatriate agricultural poky back to the House? Surely we can make a better fist of it than the shambles in Brussels?
Mr. Gummer: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has ever asked me a question complaining about his constituents' shortage of food. He has never asked me such a question because of the success of the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself, because he is speaking with a full stomach and complaining about the system that has made that stomach full. He must accept that we are trying to change a system that was extremely successful at a time of shortage to one that can deal with a time of surplus, part of which it has created in seeking to solve the problems of post-war Europe.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated, particularly on his achievement on the green pound. He will know from visiting my constituency on several occasions that I represent the largest piece of grade 1 farmland in the north-west of England. His set-aside policy will be welcomed by my farmer constituents, but will my hon. Friend give me an undertaking that he will consider setting aside the poorer land first, before he sets aside the grade 1 farmland where the most productive farms are placed?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend asks a proper question. I want set-aside to be voluntary, so that farmers make their own decisions about which land to set aside. The level will be fixed to draw out of the system sufficient land to deal with surpluses. However, although I want set-aside to be voluntary for farms, I believe that there should be some

31
compulsion for nations. Again, I wish to see a system with a target for each member of the European Community, so that we all share the burden, instead of some being prepared to pick it up more readily than others.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister accept that farmers are anxious to know how the details of the proposals will affect them? When and how will he announce the details, particularly as they affect the milk and cereals sectors? Will he, for example, state what the basic set-aside payment will be? What effect does he expect the proposals to have on farm incomes in Scotland?
Mr. Gummer: Several of the details are being worked out at this moment in the management committees. As soon as I have them, I shall make them as widely available as possible. If the hon. Gentleman has any worries about their availability, I hope that he will tell me. I shall seek to make up for any problems that arise. I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman as much information as I possibly can.
On set-aside, the level at which the Community gives its support per acre, plus the advantage of not paying the co-responsibility levy on the rest of the farm's production, seems adequately to meet the needs of set-aside for this country. Indeed, I was worried about and refused to support one proposal that was on the table during part of the negotiations, which would have made set-aside less attractive in some countries than others. Once again, the United Kingdom would have found itself bearing the burden. I was not prepared to accept that.
Part of the reason why we fought on for many more hours was to obtain equal treatment. Therefore, I am not prepared of my own volition to change the equality of that treatment. We want to have a balance throughout the Community. Anyone who proposes the repatriation of agricultural policy does not understand how international the trade is, how impossible such a repatriation would be and the fact that it would lead to one country bidding against another. Therefore, the suggestion should be dismissed out of hand.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on creating a level food production field for the British farmer, but can he explain why, although British sheep may safely graze, the British sheep farmer must wait until 1993 for parity with the European sheep farmer?
Mr. Gummer: Of course it is difficult for the sheep farmer, but these matters are dealt with by marketing years. The United Kingdom Government have supported that, and in the past the system has often been to the advantage of the United Kingdom producer. I fear that, having enjoyed the advantages of stability within the system and the way in which the system had become a manipulable arrangement, it would be hard for us to demand—although we asked—that the marketing year should be changed.
My hon. Friend referred to sheep safely grazing. I hope that the changes that we have announced, which include speeding up alterations in the way in which the premiums work, will mean that we shall obtain even more of the European market for the best sheepmeat in the world.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is there anything in the package to help sheep farmers in the mountain areas who are stuck with keeping mountain breeds of sheep? In the past two years, the price that they have obtained for the wool clip has been extremely low. Many such farmers are in doubt this year about whether it will be economic to shear their sheep. Can the Minister give any encouragement to farmers to carry out that practice? It would be cruel to the sheep not to shear them, and it would leave the countryside in a horrible state. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the price that farmers are likely to obtain for the wool will be low this year.
Mr. Gummer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The problem for the livestock industry has been especially severe. Not only sheep prices but beef prices have been low. Therefore, farms which usually relied on the success of one product when the price of the other fell have found that the prices of both products have fallen at the same time. That is why I was pleased to see a 4 ecu supplement per ewe for farmers in the less favoured areas, which will give them added support. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's policy on those matters over which we have control, such as HLCA payments and suckler cow payments, has been to try to aim extra help at the most difficult areas. I shall continue to do that.
Mr. Andy Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that getting rid of the iniquitous green pound will cause rejoicing in the countryside and that there is great interest in the one-year set-aside. Will he confirm beyond doubt that the refund on the cereal levy will cover the remaining crops and not be equivalent to the 15 per cent. set-aside? Will he confirm that the environmental cover crop on the set-aside does not cover the one-year rotational fallow, which is environmentally friendly in as much as the following crop requires a reduced input of fertilisers and pesticides?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Government included the environmental set-aside not because we felt we needed it ourselves—we would have continued our own policy on that front—but because we wanted a common attitude throughout the Community so that farmers who set aside in the rest of the Community face the same costs as farmers in this country.
I shall consider the problems of continuing fallow where it is suitable, and I shall give my hon. Friend an answer as soon as I have one. I think that he will find that it is to his satisfaction. On the 15 per cent. set-aside, the cut in the co-responsibility levy is for all the rest of the cereal crop.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister has acknowledged that the European Court decision will cause real difficulties to producers who took up quota when other producers went out of production. Will he guarantee that those producers will not suffer further cuts because of subsequent arrangements? If one takes account of the inclusion of yoghurt and milk products in the existing quota, it is clear that working farmers are already at risk from extra cuts across the board.
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased that the hon. Lady agrees that there are complications with Slom which none of us wanted or wished to face. However, we must face up to them and the major problems are now clear. We have dealt

33
with the primary part of those problems, even though we still have to deal with the secondary part. Little else can emerge, although one hardly likes to say that of such a contentious issue. We will be able to pay an important proportion of the increase to producers from the extra quota we receive from the Community, which either way increases the British quota, if not by as much as I should like, at least significantly and importantly.
In addition, we will need a buy-out scheme for that part of the quota which it is necessary to redistribute. Nobody will have a special disadvantage, but the fact that the scheme will be in operation will mean movement of quota from some people to others. I hope to make that as voluntary as humanly possible.
Mr. David Nicholson: As a result of the Government's commitment to the European Community and my right hon. Friend's typically robust defence of British farmers' interests, he has returned from Brussels with a fine settlement on the green pound. He will be aware that many farmers are concerned about the uncompetitive pressures on their livelihoods from European farmers. Will my right hon. Friend therefore continue his efforts to eradicate any points of unfair competition that damage our national interest? Will he persevere in defending our countryside, especially the less favoured areas such as Exmoor and the Brendon hills, in my constituency?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend never leaves me the opportunity to forget the Brendon hills or Exmoor; other hon. Members remind me of other places. I hope that those who represent urban constituencies recognise the degree to which a healthy farming industry is essential if the countryside is to be protected and cared for. I am sad that some colleagues seem to think that we can do without farmers because, somehow or other, the countryside will look after itself.
I am pleased to say that the advantages that we have gained from that price settlement set the scene for the arguments, which will be very tough and difficult, about the reform of the common agricultural policy. The environment must increasingly be one of the triggers of a common agricultural policy rather than an add-on extra, largely financed by Governments, as is presently the case.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing back from Brussels a better than expected deal for British farmers. However, may I counsel him against gilding the lily of the common agricultural policy, as he seemed to be doing a moment ago? Will he confirm that the CAP still costs the average British family approximately £18 a week and that that figure is rising because agriculture expenditure is increasing by some 13 per cent. a year, even after all the creative accountancy conjuring tricks so beloved by the commissioners in Brussels? What is being done about the longer-term solutions—in particular the admirable MacSharry proposals, which may have put an end to those proposals?
Mr. Gummer: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but, having asked such a question, he cannot expect unanimity. When speaking of creative accountancy, from whatever source, we must not pretend that world prices are real. They are simply the dumped prices of countries that support their agriculture, many of which do so to a greater degree than that achieved by the common
34
agricultural policy. Therefore, any figures based on comparisons of what we pay for our food and what could be paid by a small number of people buying dumped food at the lowest possible price, have no meaning whatsoever.
Although I, as much as anyone else in the House, want a thorough reform of the common agricultural policy, that reform will not be achieved by suggesting to the British people that we can guarantee our future supply of food, ensure that the majority of our farmland can continue to be farmed, and care for the countryside, especially the most vulnerable areas, without paying some money for it. Even after common agricultural reform, major costs will be incurred in ensuring that we have the environment that we deserve.
I would not describe MacSharry's original proposals as "admirable". They are so unadmirable that they received the unfettered praise only of Greece, and the opposition of almost every other country. I believe that he has gone back to produce a second version.
Mr. Bowen Wells: In what way can Commonwealth sugar producers be better served than by the settlement—on which I congratulate my right hon. Friend—of 30 million ecu in respect of the 1989 sugar prices?
Mr. Gummer: The developing countries, especially the ACP ones, would be better served if we could reorganise our trading practices to enable us to buy their products and increase trade, rather than take direct action and grant aid.
Ms. Diane Abbott rose—
Mr. Speaker: In consideration of the hon. Lady's happy marriage during the recess, I shall call her.
Ms. Abbott: How can the Minister justify the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Robin Leigh-Pemberton, making £60,000 last year out of set-aside? Does that not show how the system is open to abuse?
Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her change of status, but commiserate with her on asking a question about the Governor of the Bank of England on this, of all days. She should add to her comments the cost to the Governor of the Bank of England, or anyone else who sets aside, of looking after that land—[Interruption.] Those hon. Members who laugh have not been near a farm for a long time.
Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it concern the reply given to the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Maclennan: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: I think that a point of order is justified.
Mr. Maclennan: In view of the fact that the Minister invited me to state the policy of the Liberal Democrats—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for my protection, I must give it. I asked hon. Members to ask questions and not to make statements. The hon. Gentleman asked a question, which was why he was unable to state the Liberal policy.

Whales
4.20 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): With permission, I wish to make a statement about whales and the International Whaling Commission.
Recognising the great concern of this House about whales, which I share, I wanted to have the opportunity to report on the first possible occasion on the outcome of the 43rd annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission which took place in Reykjavik last week—27 to 31 May 1991. It was a very successful meeting for the United Kingdom delegation. We set three principal targets, and we have achieved those and more.
First, the moratorium on commercial whaling remains in force. While some stocks have been assessed fully, we co-sponsored a resolution on the proposed revised management procedure. Its further development is now clearly on the basis of low risk and high target levels designed to give maximum safety to whales. We are at this stage only considering the further development of a management system designed to give protection to whales.
Moreover, requests even for modest quotas from Japan for minke whales and from Iceland for fin and minke whales were rejected. There is therefore to be no resumption of commercial whaling this year. Also, Norway's request for the removal of the north-east Atlantic minke's status as a protection stock was also firmly rejected, following presentation of a clear and scientifically based case by the United Kingdom delegation. Minke will therefore still be a species not to be taken.
Further, the United Kingdom delegation co-sponsored resolutions calling on Japan and the USSR to reconsider their proposed research whaling programmes. Those resolutions were successfully passed.
Our second main target was the issue of humaneness of killing methods—methods which are still being used legally by aboriginal whalers. The United Kingdom delegation proposed and secured the establishment of a special workshop, which will thoroughly review all aspects of the methods of killing whales. The last major review was 10 years ago. The issue of efficiency and effectiveness, which is fundamental to humaneness, must be reviewed, and I welcome the support of all members of the IWC in recognising that such a review is necessary. Following a request last year from the United Kingdom, Brazil has withdrawn its objection to banning the use of the cold grenade harpoon. I welcome that.
Thirdly, we also carried forward the work on small cetaceans—dolphins, porpoises and the like. The IWC is divided on whether it has the competence to deal with small cetaceans as well as the great whales. The United Kingdom is quite clear that the IWC does have this competence. In discussions, we pressed this further, and we hope that the issue has been better opened up for more constructive debate next year.
Further, we co-sponsored a successful resolution which will ensure that a comprehensive report on the known status of the many species of whales, dolphins and porpoises prepared by the IWC's sub-committee on small cetaceans to the scientific committee will be passed to the
36
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. That gives us another way to try to protect the whale and the small cetaceans.
Those parts of the IWC's scientific report recommending action for the conservation or preservation of vulnerable species will, by this resolution, be brought specifically to the attention of the Governments involved. The House will remember how concerned I was that the Governments of some countries who are outside the IWC chase whales and various small cetaceans. Another resolution which set out these concerns in greater detail has been kept on the table and will provide another platform for further discussion next year.
Tight quota arrangements were also set for aboriginal subsistence whaling by the Alaska Eskimos and the Greenland Inuits, and the quota of grey whales has been reduced by 10.
The many decisions taken at this year's IWC will further such success. The United Kingdom delegation played a leading role in securing these achievements, and I want to pay tribute to the outstanding work of my officials and scientists in this difficult international forum. The conservation of whales has been pursued successfully for this year, and the United Kingdom has much of which to be proud. We must not, however, let up in our efforts, for the preservation of our whales deserves our whole-hearted support.
Dr. David Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for coming at this earliest opportunity to report to the House on the outcome of the IWC conference. Whaling concerns many in this country, and we share the abhorrence of almost everyone at the practice of hunting and killing whales. I must say, though, that the Minister's report today was at some variance with almost every other report by journalists and observers at the conference. The Labour party was certainly disappointed by its outcome.
We were pleased that the plans and proposals of Iceland, Norway and Japan were defeated, but the hunting of minke whales is going to begin next year, and I very much regret that the British Government did not adopt a stronger anti-whaling stance in Reykjavik.
Now that the International Whaling Commission has failed to live up to expectations, is the Minister planning to take any international initiatives? Is he planning to raise the matter at the United Nations, where it is on the table, or in the EC, so as to try to arrest the practice of whale slaughter?
The Minister makes great play of one of his four objectives—that concerning the small cetaceans. He reminds the House that a paper before the sub-committee of the commission pointed out that dolphins, porpoises and other small whales were threatened with extinction in many parts of the world if no action was taken. I know that the Minister understands this point, because he has made many fine speeches on the matter, but I cannot help thinking that his actions in Reykjavik betrayed a slightly and characteristically disingenuous approach to it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that, after initially signing the resolution to protect small cetaceans, he had second thoughts? Does he deny that he instructed the United Kingdom commissioner not to speak up for the resolution? Does he deny that, in the coffee breaks at Reykjavik, the United Kingdom put pressure on other delegations, especially that of the United States, to withdraw the resolution to protect the small cetaceans?

37
Could it be that he had cold feet because he had given the go-ahead to Cornish fishermen to begin the obnoxious practice of large-scale drift netting, which, as he and the House may know, will involve nets up to five miles long, which will create deserts in many parts of the sea and result in the killing of many porpoises, dolphins and small whales?
I heard the Minister defending this practice on the television. Does he further deny that the United Kingdom delegation approached the United States, which had announced its intention to table a resolution to the IWC to ban the use of drift-net fishing? Do the Government deny that they put pressure on the United States not to go ahead with that resolution?
Will the Minister listen, even at this eleventh hour, not only to Opposition Members but to many Conservative Members who say no to the practice of drift-net fishing? Unless we say no to it, we are entering the trade of killing small cetaceans just as much as countries such as Japan, Iceland, Norway and others.
Mr. Gummer: I have rarely heard anyone undermine so offensively our battle against whaling and against the problems concerning small cetaceans. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) should be reminded of one or two facts, and he might remember his own reputation as a man of decency.
The Government's policy was outlined when I was Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a document which I produced jointly with Sir Peter Scott, at the meeting of the IWC at Bournemouth some years ago. Our policy was made clear in that document, and we have adhered to it. To my knowledge, the hon. Member for South Shields has never written to me to complain about drift netting off the north-east coast of England. I have never heard him mention that. Why not? I shall tell the House why not.
The reason is that the drift nets used off the north-east coast of England are not 60 miles long. The drift nets of which the United Nations is speaking, which are being used in the south Atlantic, are up to 100 miles long. We are talking of the drift nets that are being used off our coast, which have never, in any scientifically measurable way, caught a dolphin. If they did, or if they caused any damage of that sort, the first Government in the world to take action would be this Government, and the first Minister to take action would be this Minister.
This is an occasion when some indignation at the attack of the hon. Member for South Shields is in order. Of course my delegation did none of the things that the hon. Gentleman suggested. We were the co-sponsors of the motion to which he referred. We did not press it to a vote only because we believed that we would lose the vote, and therefore lose the opportunity next year to press the motion to a successful conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for casting aspersions on my officials and on all those in this place who have worked against the slaughter of whales while endeavouring to conserve small cetaceans. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his response to my statement.
Far from defending the Cornish nets, I made it clear that, in the negotiations within the European Community that will take place in July, we shall be considering motions that, if agreed, would make the nets illegal. The United Kingdom will be supporting those changes and will be seeking to ensure that the carrying of such nets will be
38
illegal, so as to ensure that we protect waters that the European Community does not control. [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman says from a seated position, "Will we be supporting that?", having told us that he heard my television statements, it is clear that he failed to listen to those parts that he did not like. I made it clear in my television statements that we would be supporting it. The fact that he was not clear enough in his understanding is one that he must attribute to Independent Television News, which avoided broadcasting answers to the questions which he raised. It included merely half a sentence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, like some others, was misled about the Government's position.
Mr. Roger Gale: Before the departure of my right hon. Friend's delegation to Iceland, he expressed considerable concern to those of us who went to see him about the method that was being used to kill large whales. He made it clear to us that he intended that the delegation should raise that specific issue and should seek to ensure, before any major whaling operations commenced, that considerable improvements would be made in the manner in which these large mammals are killed. Was any progress made in that direction?
Mr. Gummer: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that we now have a working party to discuss the matter. It means that the issue of the humaneness of killing methods occupies a central position in the discussions. That is something that my hon. Friend and I were concerned about. I think that we have achieved what we wanted. We must build on what has been secured and ensure that the work that is done will produce the results that we know it should produce, to show exactly the extent to which some of the methods used are appallingly inhumane.
Mr. Tony Banks: I accept the Minister's sincerity on this issue. We have had meetings about it, so I am aware of his position. Is it not a fact, however, that, under the terms of the IWC's decisions, limited commercial whaling will resume in a couple of years? The fact that Iceland has threatened to leave the IWC is a matter of great concern. Is it possible to renegotiate the terms of reference of the IWC and move it away from whale slaughter, which in the end is what it is all about, into a position of ethical consideration? The majority of people in this country, in the United States and probably throughout the world are entirely opposed to the slaughter of whales. We must try to impress that upon the nations that continue the slaughter.
Is it not possible to make any application for EC membership from Norway and Iceland conditional on their abandoning any form of whaling—scientific, commercial or any other?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I appreciate his strong feelings, which. I share to a large extent. The IWC is the only body that has been able to bring about a moratorium. The Government's first aim must be to ensure—as would any Government who believed in protecting whales—that that moratorium continues. There is no agreement that commercial whaling should start either next year or the year after. The hon. Member for South Shields is entirely wrong. I believe that he is disingenuous and mischievous to suggest that.

39
We believe that we must accept the constitution of the IWC, which requires us to discuss the control of the management of whaling and the enforcement of that management. We are continuing to do that. We have taken some early steps, but there is much more to be done. We stick clearly by the statement that we do not believe that we ought even to discuss the taking of whales unless fundamental conditions are met. In our view, they are not being met. I do not believe that they will be met next year, because a whole raft of information is vitally necessary before anybody, even enthusiasts, can effectively and properly propose the resumption of whaling in the IWC.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows—better, it seems, than his party's Front-Bench spokesman—that it is better to use the existing system, which has achieved a moratorium, than to kick the whole thing over and end up with no protection for the whale. The comments of the hon. Member for South Shields are contradictory. He said that the conference was a failure, but the only country that has threatened to leave the IWC is the country that complains that it has not been allowed to start whaling again.
Some journalists have made different comments, but I want the facts to be given. Which country has threatened to leave the commission? Not the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia or America—which are strongly opposed to the slaughter of whales in the conditions that have prevailed until now—but the country that has been pressing most strongly for the resumption of commercial whaling.
I would be sad if those countries left the commission. We must make the system continue to work, because it is the best we have. I will have a meeting with Wildlife Link—which I always have after such discussions—to see how progress can be made not only in the IWC and the United Nations, but on the specific problems caused by the taking of whales by Turkey and Canada.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his substantial achievements at the conference. Does he accept that whales have human levels of sensitivity, intelligence and understanding? It is especially murderous to kill them by the methods used in the past. Under no circumstances should we return to the slaughter of whales on such a scale, whatever Iceland, Norway or Japan says.
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that the whale is a very advanced animal and must be protected. I feel strongly that we must do so in the one forum that enables us to stop other people taking whales. If whales were in danger only from this country, which has not whaled since the early 1960s, they would be safe. That international forum is to protect them from the dangers posed by other people.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister for his statement. The result was successful and should be commended. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no ground for complacency, because in effect all we have done is to agree a further year's moratorium. He will know the strength of feeling in this country that the moratorium should be indefinite.
40
I understand that, since the Minister began his statement on the Agriculture Council, the Icelanders have announced that they are leaving the IWC. If that is the case, would not a Europewide ban be the only clear way of making the position in respect of European Community negotiations absolutely clear for Iceland and Norway—should Norway be minded to follow the same policy?
Mr. Gummer: There is already a ban on the import of whale products into the Community. I do not believe that the kind of ban to which the hon. Member refers will affect the position—and I have heard only what the hon. Gentleman has heard. However, it would be sad if Iceland decided to leave the IWC. That is a kind of backhanded tribute to the work that we have tried to perform.
It is very serious for a country to state that, contrary to international scientific evidence, contrary to the nonexistence of a management agreement, contrary to our ability to enforce such an agreement and contrary to an understanding of the humaneness of the killing methods, it should decide unilaterally to take up the cause once more. In the end, the Icelandic Government, who are after all democratic and civilised, will reconsider. I will do everything that I can to assist that. The comments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about this matter—which, after all, does not divide the parties—were in stark contradiction to those of the spokesman for the official Opposition.
Mr. Barry Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work in relation to small cetaceans. It is more than 30 years since I first set sail from the Solent. In those days, basking sharks and dolphins were regular and enjoyable companions as one sailed westward down the channel. I have not seen a dolphin east of the Bishop's rock for at least 20 years. This is a very urgent and necessary move.
Should we not consider banning the sale of monofilament netting to amateur fishermen? Great clods of such netting come ashore on the beaches of the Isle of Wight whenever we have a south-westerly gale. Those nets must do irreparable harm to the marine wildlife in the western approaches.
Mr. Gummer: I will have to consider the second point separately. It is a different issue from the earlier point raised by my hon. Friend. However, I am also conscious of the fact that our children have the same right to see dolphins as we had when we were young. That is an aspect of conservation about which I am most concerned.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Although it may seem out of character, may I pay tribute to the Minister for the very hard line that he took with regard to the Norwegians and in particular the Icelanders? My wife is Icelandic, members of my family in Iceland have been part of the whaling industry, and I sometimes visit that country. Should not the Icelanders realise that they are not enhancing their international reputation by pressing their case in favour of whaling as they do? Should they not realise that they are upsetting the civilised world, which objects to the practice and which pleads with the Icelandic Government and nation to end that industry?
The Icelanders are no longer dependent on it. They do not need it as an industry in future. May a call go from this

41
House today to the Icelanders requesting them to review their position, not to leave the commission but to play a full and responsible part in the international community?
Mr. Gummer: It is entirely characteristic of the hon. Gentleman to make that kind of comment, and he would not expect me to say otherwise. We can have hard arguments, but there are some things about which we agree, and this is one.
I hope that the Icelanders take the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) very seriously. Iceland is a northern outpost of European civilisation. European civilisation is primarily about the rule of law. We cannot have a rule of law in the sea unless there are management arrangements, enforcement and rules about humaneness and conservation. Those are all necessary precursors for any civilised discussion about a topic such as whaling. To refuse to wait for those precursors illustrates an attitude towards whales which is unacceptable, and I hope that the Icelanders will review it at once.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I thank the Minister for his genuine efforts, which reflect the general view of hon. Members and their constituents about whaling. I want to press him about cetaceans. He will be aware of their importance in my area, as the Moray Firth is one of the two remaining centres for bottle-nosed dolphins. How will the population of bottle-nosed dolphins be assessed" What contacts will be made with the various interested organisations such as the fisheries industry and the local authorities that have a responsibility for pollution aspects in our waterways? I should be grateful if the Minister can give us some information about that and some idea of the time scale involved.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady's remarks were kind. In the past few days, we have initiated a British plan to consider the impact of netting of all kinds on dolphins and other cetaceans. That is part of our contribution. We shall insist that that working party receives papers from a wide range of groups, not only of fishery interests, but groups such as Wildlife Link, which are fundamentally concerned about the conservation of whales. We shall ensure that there is the widest possible consultation and the best possible scientific evidence. In the end, action must be taken on the scientific evidence, and that is what we are trying to ensure. That is one reason why I am particularly sad that the Icelanders feel that they should leave the IWC —if that is true. They are saying that they are not prepared to wait for and act upon scientific evidence.
Mr. Paul Flynn: How does the Minister respond to the accusation of Mr. Sean White of
42
the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, that the buck passing by the British delegation at the meeting will result in several species of dolphin, whale and porpoise becoming extinct? Are not the Government exposed to criticism in spite of the good things that came from the meeting and to the accusation that their policies on small cetaceans—dolphins and porpoises—are little more than pretence and deceit?
Mr. Gummer: In so far as we are all exposed to wholly untruthful claims, yes, I suppose that we are exposed. However, our aim is the protection of small cetaceans and whales. To continue that aim, we and our co-sponsors withdrew the second of the two small cetacean elements, because we wanted to make the best that we could of the one that we managed to get through.
I can tell the hon. Member directly that he does the cause of small cetaceans and whales no good by trying to shoot his own Government, who are universally supported in these issues by all parties, instead of supporting us to deal with those people who are fighting the battle from the other side. I do not know of the particular statement made by a particular individual. However, any environmental agency that seeks to undermine the single-minded view of the British Government does the cause of whales no good. Of course I could get much public support by stating this, standing for that, or banging the table about the other, but that does not save a single small cetacean or whale. It is my business to make it possible to continue the moratorium, to fight the cause of conservation and to do that in the only arena that counts, the only one we have, which is the IWC.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister use the same vigour to appeal to the Icelandic Government to reconsider their decision to leave the IWC? Will he make it clear to them that many people in this country will demand that the British Government and the EC look harshly on any application by Iceland to join and that they will be considering ways to introduce a consumer boycott on Icelandic products to bring pressure on Iceland to reconsider? It would be better for Iceland to reconsider now than to be forced to do so as a result of consumer or other action in future.
Mr. Gummer: I promise to do my best to ensure that Iceland does not leave the IWC. We have only just heard what has happened. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to leave it to me to decide, in consultation with many other people, how best to fight that battle. I prefer to win the battle rather than to make public points about the way in which I fight it. In the end, it is not the method of fighting that matters but the success of the battle. I want to keep Iceland within the fold of civilised nations.

Children's Homes (Staffordshire)
4.50 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the report on residential care for children published during the recess by Staffordshire county council. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
The House will know that, after a thorough inquiry, Allan Levy QC and Mrs. Barbara Kahan have reported on the so-called pindown approach to the residential care of children that had been practised in some Staffordshire residential homes. They say that this was
"in all its manifestations intrinsically unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable".
They also conclude that the children who were in pindown
"suffered in varying degrees the despair and the potentially damaging effects of isolation, the humiliation of having to wear nightclothes during the day … and of having all their personal possessions removed; and the intense frustration and boredom from the lack of communication, companionship with others and recreation".
Their report also says:
"It has been suggested that pindown by any other name probably exists the length and breadth of the country, and is probably more prevalent than anyone would officially care to admit. We received no such admissions in evidence. The practice of pindown has ceased in Staffordshire. If it exists under any other name elsewhere it should be summarily terminated".
The report covers a number of other related issues. It examines in detail allegations that known adult sexual offenders were on occasion permitted contact with children in a home, and that county council officers arranged for a young person for whom they had responsibility to obtain accommodation in a house owned by a convicted sexual offender. Their findings on those points are drafted with scrupulous care. They found inadequate vetting and notification in the cases that they examined, and made recommendations of general importance. The Government will respond with the greatest seriousness to these.
The report also criticises Staffordshire's supervision of arrangements known as "fundwell". Under those, from the mid-1970s until 1987 a council officer set up and developed a network of voluntary organisations and private companies which in some instances contracted their services directly back to the social services department. The district auditor is undertaking a further investigation into financial aspects of those arrangements.
When right hon. and hon. Members read this comprehensive report in full, they will recognise the lucidity, balance, compassion and firmness of purpose of its authors. Looking after the often extremely difficult and disturbed children and adolescents in residential care has become increasingly challenging for those responsible, but Parliament has laid a statutory duty on local authorities to
"give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child … and so far as practicable, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child".
The House, like the Government, must deplore the position revealed in Staffordshire up to 1989.
The report was commissioned by Staffordshire county council in June last year after consultation with the Department of Health. It examines the Staffordshire issues in the wider context of national policies and it makes valuable recommendations for social services departments about the objectives, management and control of
44
children's homes and the recruitment and training of their staff. Many of these reflect existing good practice around the country.
As the House knows, the Children Act 1989 is to be implemented in full on 14 October this year. By common consent, it is the most important reforming measure in the children's field that we have had in this century. The Government, after consultation, have already issued four substantial volumes of regulations and statutory guidance on its implementation. The volume that covers residential care and secure accommodation was issued for consultation in September last year. It will be published in amended form this month. Many of the recommendations in the Levy report are already addressed in that document. These binding regulations and statutory guidance will require scrutiny of residential care for children throughout the country and its reform where necessary.
The Government are not content to rest on the significant work already in progress. We are today issuing a statutory guidance circular charging all social services authorities to check immediately that their residential care practices are wholly free of the abuses found in Staffordshire, and that they conform to the statutory provisions and regulations governing these matters made by successive Secretaries of State. We are also urgently requiring them to ensure that a statutory complaints procedure is in place and readily understood by all children in residential care.
The House will already be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has instructed Sir William Utting, the chief social services inspector, to undertake a special review of residential child care, concentrating particularly on questions of monitoring, control and implementation in the light of this important report. Sir William will consult independent experts outside Government. We will publish his report and promptly address its conclusions.
Ms. Harriet Harman: In dealing with children's homes, we must avoid descending into a spiral of crisis followed by inquiry, followed by crisis and another inquiry. Inquiries are important, but in order to prevent children from again being subjected to the inhuman and cruel regime of pindown or something like it, we must establish a rigorous and continuing system of inspection. At the moment, no such system exists.
The problem is not that inspection fails because people are covering up but that the people with the power and responsibility simply do not know what is going on. Many homes do not see a senior manager, let alone an inspector, from one year to the next. Those who are responsible must know what is going on, and they cannot know unless they go to see for themselves.
Does the Minister agree that there should be service sampling by senior managers, directors of social services and even the Government's own social services inspectorate who would stay from time to time in the homes for which they are responsible? Daytime visits do not give the proper feel and flavour of an institution. It is ironic that the challenging and difficult task of caring for the most disturbed young people falls on the shoulders of the youngest, least trained, least qualified and lowest paid people in social work.
As the Minister said, the Utting inquiry will have to look at staffing, but we know that we will not attract into children's homes workers with maturity and judgment

45
while the pay and status of residential care work are so pitifully low. In the home where pindown originated, only one member of staff had any social work qualifications. When the Utting report inevitably raises the problem of training, will the Government make extra resources available for training?
Another essential way to protect children is to ensure that they have rights. I welcome the Minister's mention of a complaints system. However, we need not just a complaints procedure but access to independent advice for children so that they can make their rights enforceable. It is unacceptable to treat children badly because they have problems. The test that must be applied is whether the care in a home is good enough for the child of a manager in the relevant social services department. We cannot have double standards by providing care that is good enough for children in homes but unacceptable for anybody else's children.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady makes some important points about the need for a coherent approach to the needs of those in residential care. In recent years, their numbers have plummeted from 33,000 to about 11,000. Too many local authorities have singularly failed to recognise the need for good service and proper training. Too many social workers treat their time in residential care as work experience prior to taking up appointments in the community. About 90 per cent. of local authority field social workers are qualified, but the level in residential homes is much lower. That is why we introduced the training support programme, and this year particularly focused it on the needs of residential home workers. This year, some 140,000 local authority staff will be trained under that programme, including approaching half those working in residential care.
Local authorities are the employers of social workers, and they will need to address the status of those in residential homes. I endorse the hon. Lady's point about the importance of social workers in residential homes feeling valued and respected by social services management. The events in Staffordshire, and those in Southwark, in the hon. Lady's own area, demonstrated a complete lack of responsibility among those in social services management to fulfil their obligations to act as good parents to the children entrusted to their care. Above all, it is a question of supervision, control and management—and that is fairly and squarely and unequivocally the responsibility of the social services department.
The point about the complaints procedures is significant. It is appalling that the children's cries went unheard for too long. All children going into care need access to an independent complaints procedure—a telephone number—so that their voice can be heard. The system of statutory visits and of independent visitors failed in Staffordshire. They are meant as safeguards to ensure that children in care are never subjected again to the abuse, neglect and suffering that occurred in Staffordshire and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman).
Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is a question not simply of a one-off operation but of a deliberate policy pursued by the Labour county council? Furthermore, it is crystal clear from the report itself that resources was one of the key issues, and that the Labour county council allocated such a low
46
priority to looking after the children in care that, on examination, it was discovered that the social services department—that includes the Labour politicians who were running the services—had the lowest funds of any in any county in England or Wales. Does not my hon. Friend agree that that is an absolute disgrace, and that it is not just the social services department's top management but the elected politicians and Labour county councillors, who constantly prattle on about resources, who were responsible for a deliberate policy of keeping resources so low that the children were put at such abominable risk?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend puts his case powerfully. I refer him to that part of the report in which the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) makes it clear that
"historically, we have been negligent both in expenditure and in policy, not just in social services."
The children concerned were subjected to appalling neglect, and I confirm the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The responsibility of the elected members of the council is a matter for the council and for the voters of Staffordshire. However, I endorse the remarks of the new director of social services, and congratulate her on making them. Staffordshire has wisely appointed a director of national eminence, Christine Walby. She has responded instantly to the report, and has put in hand the steps that need to be taken.
Of the report's 39 recommendations, almost all of them are directed at improvements that Staffordshire needs to undertake to protect children more effectively. I hope that all social services departments in the country will act speedily and effectively, to ensure that their own houses are in order.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Does not the Minister agree that the issue is far too important to provide an excuse for making cheap party political points? I deplore the attempt to do so by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
A fresh start is necessary in Staffordshire, and that requires, first, the resignation of the chairman of its social services committee, Mike Poulter; the architect of pindown, Tony Latham, should be dismissed; and Staffordshire county council should immediately offer compensation to the children who were the victims of that policy, without having to be dragged through the courts. Finally, the Minister should stop pretending to be lily white in this whole business, accept a heavy responsibility, and provide adequate funds for the proper protection of children in care.
Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman made several fair and valid points on matters that should be addressed by Staffordshire county council. However, I cannot accept his remarks about resources. This year, spending on social services departments has risen by 23·5 per cent.—the highest figure in 15 years. This year, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the amount available through the training support programme, and a 40 per cent. increase in the amount available for social work training generally.
The key point about residential care is that, at a time when numbers have plummeted, local authorities have not properly taken stock of the new needs of the children in question. What will unite the House—it has come as a stark revelation to many in the country—is that children in

47
residential care are in a particularly vulnerable and needy group. Of course local authorities are doing excellent work in increasing fostering, and in avoiding taking children into care. The figure for children in care used to be 90,000; it is now down to 60,000.
However, children requiring residential care are a difficult, disturbing, and troubled bunch of people. It is entirely unrealistic to expect youngsters in their very first jobs—perhaps with very big hearts but without the necessary skills—to take on such adolescents. Those working in local authority homes need to feel that they have the respect, support, recognition, and supervision of social services management. Too often, they have been left to their own devices, and there has been a singular failure by social services departments to live up to their responsibilities.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: While nothing can ever condone or excuse the kind of cruelty that the report reveals, and although resignations are certainly called for—the social services committee chairman ought properly to resign—we must recognise that some of the children involved were incredibly difficult. Social workers face a difficult task and a terrible challenge. Also, we are talking about a very small number of homes. Staffordshire has taken firm action—albeit belatedly. Its county council commissioned the report from Mr. Levy and published it immediately, and appointed—albeit also belatedly—a new and highly distinguished director of social services. We should put the matter in perspective and move forward on that basis.
Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. Having got over the shock of the case in question, which arose from the sustained nature of the situation that faced those young children, there is no doubt that Staffordshire is learning the lessons. It has made the important appointment of a new director and has announced a number of measures to put its own house in order. I endorse my hon. Friend's point about the need for maturity and skill on the part of those undertaking such enormously difficult work. Also, it should be remembered that the report dealt with only four homes out of the 19 in Staffordshire; many social services staff in that county discharge their responsibilities effectively, and are equally appalled by the events that have come to light.
The Children Act 1989 provides a volume of binding regulations and guidance which will ensure that all residential children's homes abide by the proper procedures for recording, proper disciplinary measures, management, supervision, review, and the provision of an effective complaints procedure. With the implementation of that Act we will tackle the underlying problems. The report provides, in a sense, an opportunity for every local authority to review and consider its own practices.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Allan Levy and Barbara Kahan on their brilliant and exhaustive report into this horrific episode, in which children were subject to a wholly unacceptable regime? Does she agree that the decisions that led to the establishment of pindown owed everything to appalling ethical misjudgments by individuals and the lack of monitoring and supervision that she identified, but nothing to a lack of training?
48
Does the hon. Lady accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) made, that only one member of staff at 245 Hartshill road, where this started, had any training and no residential qualifications? Apart from initiating the pindown regime, those members of staff, often perhaps with good intentions, were subjecting children to regressive psychological techniques, taking them back to their moments of initial trauma when perhaps they were first abused, which are enormously dangerous even in the hands of trained psychiatrists and dynamite in the hands of unqualified people. I accept that, nationally, in the past year she has increased the money available for training, but much more is needed, because surely we cannot accept that any staff should be untrained if they are liable to make gross errors of judgment. Will she bear that in mind when Sir William Utting's report concludes, as it must, that more money is needed for training?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman, who has taken a detailed interest and has been deeply concerned in this throughout and who made a major contribution to the inquiry, is right about the origins of pindown. The report says that it
"is likely to have stemmed initially from an ill-digested understanding of behavioural psychology … The regime had no theoretical framework and no safeguards."
It also mentions
"the absence of any professional advice in dealing with many children"
and that the regime was
"in all its manifestations intrinsically unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable."
It was a deplorable episode.
Training is of great importance, particularly as so many social services staff seem to believe that they should gain experience in a children's home and work in the field. I shall not be content until our most skilled workers in the field say that the real job, skills and difficulty are experienced in children's homes. When we reverse that status and balance of priorities, we will have accomplished an important task.
With the establishment of the diploma of social work, which takes over from the CSS and CQSW, we are moving from two-tier social services training to training that is more unified. The establishment of national vocational qualifications and the great development of in-service training are important tools. The new Open University training material on young people, for which we provided funds of £750,000, is effective and useful. Training is of much importance, but so is the regard with which the work is treated and, above all, supervision and management from the department.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no criticism has been made of staff at the admirable Riverside community home at Rocester, in my constituency? Will she also confirm that, although we hear strong speeches about how much Labour cares, Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council steadfastly refused to increase spending to give the priority necessary for child care in Staffordshire, with the result that it had the lowest level of child care in the country? Will she further confirm that that is evidence that social services would be better administered if control were taken from county councils and given to district councils, which, in organisational terms, are much closer to the communities that they serve?
Mrs. Bottomley: I shall not embark on a review of local government structure and functions, but I can confirm that there is no suggestion that the Riverside home is in anything other than the condition that my hon. and learned Friend described.
The report is an indictment of the social services department, not only for the way in which children's home were managed but for the blinkered way in which children's services were regarded. For example, Staffordshire failed to increase remuneration for foster parents. Increasingly, good practice involves trying to establish children, even the more difficult and troublesome children, with foster parents. Foster parents often need not only support but better remuneration. Staffordshire singularly failed to think through that aspect.
In many ways, social service departments are making excellent progress in tackling child abuse and putting more rigorous procedures in place, but they have not considered the new role of residential care. It is almost as though they thought that it would wither on the vine as fostering became more prevalent. That is not true; it has a significant, important and difficult role.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal: No one who has read the report of Sir Allan Levy can be other than concerned about what took place in the four children's homes in Staffordshire, but I am trying to look for something positive from the report. I welcome the initiative of the county council in setting up the inquiry and the recommendations made in the report. I hope to see them well and truly implemented, not only in Staffordshire but nationally.
It is all too easy to use social workers as scapegoats. They constantly deal with the problems that society generally does not wish to know about and certainly does not wish to get involved with. As with cases of child care, they are the Cinderellas of services and are way down the list of additional provision. The Minister implied that social services resources were increased this year, but what about the years before that?
I welcome the report's recommendations and hope to see them implemented throughout the country, because undoubtedly supervision and the complaints procedures are of much importance. What is of concern is that neither middle nor senior management, nor Government inspectors, were able to highlight the difficulties and problems in those four homes. In looking for something positive, let us welcome the recommendations of the report and ensure that they are implemented not only in Staffordshire but throughout the country.
Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the hon. Lady's point about using the report as an opportunity to ensure that, throughout the country, effective practices are properly introduced. There is the opportunity of the Children Act and the binding regulations that we are introducing this month. They mainly address the recommendations of the Levy report and the establishment of the complaints procedure.
I endorse the points made by the hon. Lady on reducing all incidents of this kind to a form of social work abuse, but the fact is that bad practice must be condemned, and this was the most deplorable example of bad practice and of lack of supervision and management. Staffordshire failed to re-evaluate the ethos of the home and its purpose, to scrutinise again the disciplinary procedures that are
50
necessary and to review children. These children should have been having regular six-monthly reviews, there should have been proper recording of the disciplinary procedures and, perhaps most outrageous of all, under the secure accommodation guidelines, which we introduced in the early 1980s, this should not have been permitted without the authorisation of the Secretary of State.
Staffordshire failed to take advice, to manage and to follow the regulations. All those aspects are being addressed by Staffordshire and by the detailed regulations that we are introducing. The chief inspector's report will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether any further steps can be taken to ensure good practice in children's homes and, above all, monitoring and inspection.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The report is clearly an indictment of the way in which the Labour party has run social services in Staffordshire, and that action cannot be excused. Nevertheless, I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about the importance of putting this matter in context.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the children with whom the report deals were taken into care in the first place because they were uncontrollable? Is she aware that constituents have come to me because the family centre in Cannock has been running amok? Children have been out late at night, running around the town, and social workers have had to get them. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs for social workers. Do not we need a disciplined regime of care for such children whereby they can be properly looked after and social workers are given the power to look after them properly and in a disciplined manner so that the rest of society may be protected from them?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. He has spoken to me about his worries about the situation in Staffordshire. Increasingly, these young people are older than children in residential homes were in the past, and they are pretty uncontrolled; they are difficult to control. The children's homes need a programme of care, control and activity. The deplorable position in Staffordshire meant that the young people were oppressively controlled and scarcely cared for, unlike the young people in Southwark, who were scarcely cared for and certainly not controlled. A balance of care, control and activity must underlie the principles of residential care.
Mrs. Llin Golding: I take the report seriously and am deeply distressed that my county council, Staffordshire, should be the council so rightly blamed in that report. The Birches home is in my constituency and it causes me great sorrow.
I should like to put it on record, however, that it is not true that nothing was done by local politicians to bring the county council to book. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and I visited Staffordshire county council as soon as we found out that something was going on in the homes, and we had a meeting at the highest level in the same week in which the solicitor, Kevin Williams, announced what was happening with pindown. I have had correspondence with Staffordshire county council—which I have in my hand —on what was to happen, and the council has been open and forthcoming. We did not go public, because we felt

51
that enough damage had already been done to too many children in Staffordshire, and that going to the press would be detrimental to them.
Will the Minister consider doing something for which we asked during the passage of the Children Bill—extending the training of social workers by a year? There should be an additional year's training for all social workers who have to deal with children, who are the most vulnerable members of society.
What does the hon. Lady intend to do about separating abused children from the criminal child element in children's homes? I wrote to her asking for additional money for Staffordshire county council to enable it to do that, but the reply was no. What will happen as a result of the report?
Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the hon. Lady's point about the role played by Kevin Williams in drawing attention to this matter. It was as though there was a conspiracy of silence for many years among all involved before he took decisive and determined action to bring it to people's attention.
There has been a 40 per cent. increase over the past year in the amount of money that we have spent to extend the number of social workers brought into qualification and to promote post-qualification training and in-service training. I believe that there is a more effective approach—there should be in-service training for all social workers and post-qualification training for those with a special interest in a particular speciality. In staffing children's homes, special attention must be given to the ability, skill and experience of those undertaking the work, which is precisely what will be made clear in the guidance.
Staffordshire social services, as with other local authority social services, has had an increase of about 23 per cent. this year in the amount available to spend on social services. It is for Staffordshire to use its judgment as a local authority to give priority where it is due. Giving it to this needy group of children is certainly the priority that it would be advised to follow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I have called all the Staffordshire Members who are directly concerned with this matter. I shall allow questions on this important subject to continue for a further five minutes, but then we must move on to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that people want to know that regimes such as pindown will not recur? Will the welcome announcement about a statutory guidance circular lead to the Government publishing details wherever there are problems? Will the Government spare no effort in rooting out places where neglect occurs, whether those looking after young children or those looking after the elderly? Will my hon. Friend comment on rumours about neglect in some homes for the elderly in south London?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the last question is wide of the statement.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend asks about the steps being taken to avoid such problems ever occurring again.
52
The statutory guidance spells out local authorities' duties to inspect their homes. This is the key element of local social service provision: local authorities have a duty, and they are entrusted, to act as good parents to the child. The additional safeguard of having a complaints procedure available to every child in care is the belt and braces of the policy. None of us must be anything other than vigilant to ensure that children do not suffer and are not neglected, particularly those children who are taken into care because of the abuse or distress that they have already suffered.
Mr. David Bellotti: We all want to do our best for children in care. Will the Minister join me in expressing thanks to one Staffordshire councillor, Councillor Christina Jebb, who for several years has called for and fought hard for an inquiry into pindown? In the knowledge that Councillor Michael Poulter kept information from other Staffordshire county councillors on the social services committee for more than six months with regard to the High Court action—an admission that he has already made—and in the light of the fact that, as recently as April 1990, the leader of the council publicly regretted the forced closure of pindown, will the Minister review the inquiry which she announced and instigate a full public inquiry? The people of that area and of other areas do not wish to know that there is any possibility of a cover-up in Staffordshire. We want to get to the bottom of what has happened there so that we can learn and can improve facilities across the whole country for young people in our care. We need a full independent inquiry.
Mrs. Bottomley: I note that the tribute in the report is paid above all to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for his powerful and brave remarks to the inquiry. The report is an authoritative and clear document. Only the Liberal Democrats think that the answer to every problem is to have yet another public inquiry. We know the principles; we have the legislation; we have the regulations and the statutory controls. The purpose of the chief inspector's report is urgently to ensure that safeguards are in place so that children's homes are properly monitored and inspected.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I deplore what happened in Staffordshire. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that unruly youths in care will be kept properly secure? In Bolton, a 14-year-old, supposedly in the council's care, has been allowed to commit more than 40 offences, not to mention fathering a child himself.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend identifies the other equally vexatious matter of these difficult children tearing around the streets making their neighbours' lives a misery. It is fair to see these difficulties in that context. There are regulations covering secure accommodation, and young people should not be locked up for more than 72 hours without a court order. The real indictment is that Staffordshire failed to realise that it had effectively established secure accommodation. Once the units are established as secure accommodation, they must be inspected regularly by the social services inspectorate and special safeguards must be put in place. Nobody would disagree with my hon. Friend that such provision is definitely needed—it cannot be done by niceness alone.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: As the Minister will be aware, for many months I have been calling for a full national, independent inquiry into the circumstances of

53
children in residential care. I am concerned that, within social work circles, attitudes and behavioural patterns which are abhorrent to the rest of us have been established, are beginning to be accepted and are perhaps seen as inevitable, justifiably in some instances because of the very difficult children involved.
Will the Minister reconsider the decision to place the review in the hands of the social services inspectorate? Although the individuals involved might be very worthy —I do not doubt that for one moment—the attitudes prevalent in social work circles must be challenged and those people might not be sufficiently detached from what needs to be done on a national basis.
Mrs. Bottomley: It would be difficult to find any knowledgeable individual or source who did not have the highest regard for the professional integrity of Sir William Utting, the Secretary of State's chief professional adviser. I have no doubt that there is no one better placed to undertake the review, as he will before he retires. He steered through the Children Act 1989, he has advised successive Secretaries of State and has met with the absolute, unequivocal confidence of all Ministers with whom he has worked.
It is important to appreciate that the role of the social services inspectorate is not to inspect each and every social services provision—that is the clear, unequivocal responsibility of local authorities. If local authorities say that they are not up to the task and are unable to fulfil their social services obligations, that is another matter. That would be a most regrettable step, but they must be held to that inspection role. One aspect that the chief inspector may carefully consider is the role of the arm's-length inspection unit—to ensure that there is an arm's-length distance between the management of the homes and those involved in inspecting them. To decide whether there is anything more that the inspectorate can do nationally to strengthen that function my be one of the most productive aspects of his report.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Erskine Bridge Tolls Extension Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1206) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the late start, I appeal to Front and Back-Bench Members to make brief contributions.
  5.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I ask for the indulgence of the House to excuse me from my place during the wind-up debate for reasons that I have conveyed to the official Opposition spokesman.
  This is a short Bill, but it has two important intentions. First, it is designed to strengthen our capping powers for 1992–93 so that we can ensure that all charge payers have the protection that they rightly expect against excessive local authority budgeting in the run-up to the new council tax. Secondly, the Bill provides the powers needed for the banding of domestic properties, which is the first essential step towards our objective of introducing the council tax from 1 April 1993.
  The House will know that the Government already have powers to cap the expenditure of individual authorities where the budget of an authority exceeds £15 million. The original proposals assumed that a de minimis exemption of that sort would be appropriate.
  There are two issues involved, and I intend to confront them at once. The first concerns the desirability of capping at all. The second raises the need to extend the provisions to all authorities. We are addressing only the second of these issues this afternoon, but it is worth rehearsing the arguments for the wider restraint as well as the narrower and new proposals.
  I make no secret of my view that the most desirable arrangements would be those that relied on unfettered local accountability—I have said so many times—but such a system must be compatible with the responsibility of the Government for the overall management of the economy. Indeed, it must also be compatible with the Government's duty to protect citizens from the consequences of high spending authorities.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I am sorry to intervene so early in my right hon. Friend's speech, but I am sure that he will understand why. Since 1972, I have had the gravest reservations about a Conservative Government introducing legislation that begins with the words "local government". Is he aware that East Dorset district council in my constituency, with which I discussed the Bill on Friday afternoon, is a small, well run local authority which does not qualify for any of the criticisms which have rightly been made against other authorities? The council's problem is the standard spending assessment. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, before we get to the figures for next year, he will at least allow me the opportunity to discuss with him the SSA as it affects East Dorset?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I appreciate his strictures about local government finance

  55
  legislation. I hope that there is nothing personal in his observation, because I think that I have been personally associated with every one of the measures about which he is so concerned. I know how ardently he represents his constituents' interests, and I would always be prepared to talk to him about any matters that he wished to raise. The issue of SSAs is always a matter of controversy, because almost every authority feels that it does not get the most advantageous arrangements to suit it. However, whenever changes are made, someone wins and someone loses. It is our responsibility to consider these issues every year in the light of whatever information is available to us. My hon. Friend has my assurance that I shall talk to him about his concerns.
  As I said, the ideal arrangement would be to leave accountability in the hands of local authorities, but that would have to be under a regime where the system was compatible with the Government's responsibility for the overall management of the economy. I learned those lessons when I listened to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—my predecessor in the 1970s—to take firm action to limit the expenditure of local authorities on current account for the first time since the war. There is no dispute in practice between the Government and the Opposition except when the Labour party finds itself in opposition.
  Mr. David Blunkett: The Secretary of State will recall that the actions taken in the late 1970s related to the ceiling placed on the amount of central Government revenue at the disposal of local government, not to the raising and spending of local revenue within a local community. I should be grateful if he would tell me which macro-economic law or which economist—Friedmanite or otherwise—has ever suggested that the raising of revenue locally and the expenditure incurred locally has any macro-economic impact on central Government overall fiscal policy.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should raise such profound questions, as they did not seem to preoccupy his party when it was in office. Although, as he said, it certainly took powers to restrain the overall level of current account spending, where it had more specific powers on the capital programmes for housing and for water, it took direct decisions to reduce those capital programmes year after year.
  The conditions to which both parties are attracted when in power can be met only if authorities budget within the broad guidelines set by national Government. The facts, unfortunately, speak for themselves. The Government had the highest hopes that increased accountability would lead to sensible and prudent budgeting by all local authorities. It is a disappointment that, in the event, that has not proved to be the case. It is a disappointment that some authorities have not chosen to budget responsibly. We are prepared to face the facts, however unpalatable. It gives me no pleasure to say that on the evidence, I am satisfied that strong capping powers are an essential aspect of any local government finance system.
  What is the evidence? In England in 1990–91, authorities used the change to the new system as a smokescreen to hide vastly increased expenditure. In that year, spending rose by 13·5 per cent. and over the two-year
  56
  period to April 1991, spending rose by more than one quarter. Such massive and unjustifiable increases could not be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as long as we perpetuate the system by which central Government effectively subsidise local government to such an extent, the means by which local government will become prudent are eroded? One will have true economy and thrift in local government only when local councillors have to raise locally £1 for every 100p they spend. The further that one gets away from that concept, the more remote is the prospect of true economy and thrift in local authorities.
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. However, if one were to examine the resources of some of the more hard-pressed authorities and their undeniable needs, it would be difficult to see how to square 100 per cent. of expenditure with 100 per cent. of local revenue. The Government take the view that there is a balance to be struck. We have changed the incidence of the balance very much for the better through my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, but it is very much the Government's view that it is appropriate that local authorities should have some revenue-raising capacity of their own.
  We saw substantial increases. Expenditure rose by more than one quarter in the two-year period to April 1991. For 1991–92, we acted and used our capping powers to achieve as much as possible by deterrence and as little as possible by capping. We told the authorities the capping criteria that we intended to use before they made their budget judgments and the results speak for themselves. In contrast to the previous year, English local authorities' spending is within 0·5 per cent. above the amount that we provided in our settlement. Of 39 county councils, 37 budgeted below the intended criteria. Of the 36 metropolitan districts, 35 budgeted below the intended criteria. Of the 33 London boroughs, 31 budgeted below the intended criteria. It is for those reasons that we have made it clear that we do not intend to be caught again. We intend under the new council tax to have strong and effective capping powers appropriate to the new system.
  As the whole House knows, in the circumstances that I have described, our capping powers were not comprehensive. We could not cap authorities budgeting below £15 million however excessively such authorities might be budgeting. We were unable, for example, to protect the charge payers of Derwentside, a council whose overspending added £95 to the local community charge. We could not protect the charge payers of Harlow, where the council's excessive budgeting added £83 to the charge.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State remember the words of other Ministers about the good work of Derwentside in ensuring that it contributed to the regeneration of the area following the closure of the steelworks at Consett 10 years ago? Without the substantial contribution of the local authority, no money from Europe, from central Government or from the private sector would have been available.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady misses the point. Many authorities with SSAs broadly in line with that of Derwentside are perfectly able to come either below or

  57
  very close to the level of the SSA. All local authorities have individual cases to plead. The fact is that varying circumstances can be used to generalise in each case to show that it is perfectly possible for local authorities prudently to deliver an adequate service at the SSA levels set by the Government.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend referred to small spending authorities. Wealden district council is a small and prudent spending authority. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some concern among such authorities about the effect of the Government's capping proposals? A small spending authority, such as Wealden, can find that, for reasons completely beyond its control—one-off spending, for example, because of Government legislation which imposes considerable public spending increases and may only be for a year or two—it is included, because of the percentage increase, in the capping arrangements. That is unfair for councils that have a prudent record and which are capped because of a one-off item of expenditure.
  Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand the point that my hon. Friend makes so eloquently. However, he will know that the capping mechanism is immensely sensitive. First, authorities know in advance the standards that the Government have laid down. Secondly, they can make representations and thirdly, they have an appeal to the Secretary of State. Exceptional circumstances are very much considered in any Government action— —
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Including Wandsworth?
  Mr. Heseltine: Wandsworth does not need exceptional circumstances consideration. It is a thoroughly well-run authority.
  As I have made clear, the existence of the £15 million de minimis rule left a number of authorities able to add significantly to the community charge level in their area without the Government being able to protect charge payers. Indeed, almost 40 authorities in England with budgets below £15 million this year overspent their SSA by £26 per adult and more, which translates directly into an extra £26 or more on the charge. Yet we could do nothing under current statute. We could not step in to protect local people from the consequences of that excessive spending.
  There were clear examples of authorities deliberately setting the budget at a point marginally below £15 million to keep out of the capping regime. Thurrock and Maidstone are examples. It may have been a coincidence —although I find that difficult to believe—that put £50 on the bills of the people of Thurrock and £32 on the bills of local people in Maidstone.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) have pointed out, many small authorities are economical and prudent, and I do not have the slightest doubt that they will remain so. They have nothing to fear from the Bill. Authorities that keep to prudent levels of expenditure will enjoy the full benefit of adequate service delivery with reasonable charges. However, the House will realise that the two new and related arguments that we now have give anurgency to the actions that we propose.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although I recognise that this matter is the responsibility not of the Secretary of State, but of the Scottish Office, may I ask for an
  58
  explanation from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he winds up the debate, about why the prudent authority in Lothian, which spends markedly less than Dumfries and Galloway, the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland—we should consider every criterion of fairness and rectitude—should be punished in an uncalled for, vindictive and devastating way? May we have an explanation about Lothian?
  Mr. Heseltine?: I can produce instant satisfaction for the hon. Gentleman. He will be given the most eloquent and intellectually coherent explanation when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland winds up the debate this evening.
  The House will realise that two new and related arguments give urgency to the action that we are discussing this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided substantial help for charge payers this year. As a result, the contribution of local taxation to the funding of local government spending in Great Britain has fallen from 25 per cent. in 1990–91 to 14 per cent. for 1991–92.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has also set out our determination to maintain the new and lower proportion of locally raised contribution. It is apparent that the new arrangements lead to a particularly high gearing for overspending. Every 1 per cent. of overspending is equivalent on average to 7 per cent. on charges. Hon. Members could say that that will be its own deterrent. But my right hon. Friend's generosity undermines that argument. He has enabled local authorities to reduce their headline community charge by £140. It would be folly indeed to allow authorities to erode this benefit for so many people by overspending.
  This year our legislation ensured that the extra money went straight to the charge payers themselves because we waited until local authorities had set their budgets before we announced the new scheme. But that option is not open for us for the coming year. We must therefore anticipate the risk that the Chancellor's generosity might be frittered away. To prevent that is the purpose of the first part of this legislation. It is for those reasons that we seek to strengthen our capping powers next year by bringing authorities which budget below £15 million into the scope of capping, and by bringing the powers to cap Scottish authorities into line with the more extensive powers which are available in England and Wales.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Would the Secretary of State care to tell the House which Scottish local authorities he considers to be extravagant and to spend too much of poll tax payers' money?
  Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been eloquent on that subject on many occasions. I have not the slightest doubt that I do not need to add to the graphic descriptions that he has provided. However, if the hon. Lady persists in her questioning, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give a most coherent answer and specify a long list of such authorities when he replies to the debate.
  I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 will remove the £15 million—
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting,

  59
  but I am extremely intrigued about how the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss in detail a Bill which has seven clauses, only two of which apply specifically to England and Wales, three of which apply specifically to Scotland and two of which are shared. How can he entertain the House with a graphic description of the detail of the Bill when he persists in telling us that all questions about Scotland will be deferred until the reply to the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall answer his question specifically. The first answer is on clause 2 which deals with Scotland and will bring the Scottish capping powers into line with those in England and Wales. Experience has shown that the existing powers have proved inadequate given local authorities' lack of regard for the interests of their charge payers. Yet under the present legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken action against only one authority. That authority has been referred to already. It is Lothian regional council. My right hon. Friend took action against only one authority notwithstanding that Scottish authorities chose to increase their charges by an average of 30 per cent. That outrageous increase was despite a very fair grant settlement of 10·4 per cent. which should have enabled local authorities to keep charges at reasonable levels.
  Clause 2 will amend the Scottish capping powers, thus enabling my right hon. Friend to take capping action where he is satisfied that an authority's planned expenditure is excessive or that there is an excessive increase in such planned expenditure compared with the previous year. With these amendments for the first time my right hon. Friend will be able to take action against excessive increases in budgets. My right hon. Friend will also for the first time be able to set out the principles or criteria by reference to which he will take his capping decisions.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State says that, for the first time, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to take action against excessive increases in budgets. Will he explain why that was not possible under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966? The Secretary of State has smoothly referred to the increase in the community charge, but will he tell us the increase in local authority expenditure in the same period?
  Mr. Heseltine: I do not remember any 1966 Act. I thought that the position was clear and that the Labour party had not introduced specific capping measures. Any measures that we introduced must have come in the 1980s and I was not asked questions about them.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the foundation legislation in which powers to take action against excessive and unreasonable expenditure are taken is section 5 of the 1966 Act. Of
  60
  course, that Act has been amended many times. I ask the Secretary of State to explain the exact change in terms of the excessive expenditure of a threatened authority. Will he also answer the other question? When he says that excessive increases in expenditure are important, will he give the excessive increase last year in the expenditure of Scottish local authorities?
  Mr. Heseltine: I have given the figures for the increased expenditure of local authorities and the effect on their charges. In our view, it was excessive and unacceptable. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to bring the powers in Scotland into line with the powers in England.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the position that arises out of the 1966 legislation. However, the capping provisions were introduced under this Government some 20 years later. So it is not realistic to think that the Labour Government in 1966 ever sought to constrain Scottish local authorities under the type of legislative controls that we are discussing. If they did—[Interruption.] I do not know what the fuss is about, or why the Labour party constantly carps about what we are doing. I hope that the Labour party will vote with my hon. Friends and me in the Lobby because apparently we have reached unanimity about the need to cap Scottish local authorities.
  This Bill therefore, if approved, will strengthen our capping powers for 1992–93. It is our intention, as this year, to announce in advance the capping criteria that we intend to adopt. We are seeking rapid enactment of this measure so that our capping powers are clear before we come to make that announcement in the autumn and before authorities come to consider their budgets. All authorities will know before they take their budget decisions what are our intentions for capping. Neither my right hon. Friends nor I are seeking next year to cap large numbers of authorities. It is our hope that authorities will choose to budget sensibly. But let there be no doubt that we shall not hesitate to cap any authority which budgets excessively or budgets for an excessive increase and thus burdens its charge payers. With our new powers, if this Bill is approved, charge payers everywhere will have the protection which they have the right to expect.
  Clauses 3 to 6 of the Bill deal with valuation and are the first step towards our objective of introducing a council tax from 1 April 1993. We published our consultation paper on the new council tax to replace the community charge on 23 April. I told the House that there would be no need for precise valuations of every house or flat for the council tax.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we are short of time and I must get on with this section of my speech.
  Instead, our plans for the council tax involved allocating properties to one of seven broad bands. The Bill provides the necessary powers. I remind the House that under the scheme that we have proposed, people in the lowest band of property will pay two thirds of those in a property in the middle band in the area. People in a highest band property will pay two thirds more than those in the middle band in the area. That means that, in each case, a household in a highest band property will pay two and a half times as much as one in the lowest band.

  61
  We are committed to avoiding the very high bills which discredited the rates.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  This year, on the assumptions that we set out, a council in England which spent at the standard level— —
  Dr. Godman: With his usual courtesy, will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Heseltine: A council which spent at the standard level would have charged a household of two or more people in a top band property no more than £668 and such a household in a lowest band home no more than £267.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Clause 3 deals with the assessment by local assessors of the value of domestic properties in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State intend to say anything about a right of appeal? Will such a right be part of the extant Scottish legal system or will an independent appeals tribunal be created in Scotland?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There will be a right of appeal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, assessors in Scotland come within the local government system, which is different from the arrangements for England. The Bill contains special arrangements to deal with that contingency and, particularly, to make grants available to local authorities in Scotland to meet the additional expenditure involved.
  There are specific provisions for Scotland, and certainly there will be a right of appeal in Scotland as there will be in England and Wales.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that that will be a matter of discussion later in the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been much curiosity in Scotland about clause 5(3) which states:
  "A local assessor shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue."
  In Scotland, the assessor has always been an independent authority, and I am anxious to know what those directions might be.
  Mr. Heseltine: That is an important point; there should be parity of valuation in Scotland, England and Wales. It is our intention for the Inland Revenue to mastermind the valuation exercise, using assessors in Scotland. It is important that it should be possible for the Inland Revenue to give appropriate directives so that the Scottish valuations are in line with those in England and Wales. That is the purpose of the exercise.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will remember that when we debated the community charge legislation a lot of his hon. Friends supported it on the basis that we thought it would be introduced at a relatively low level. In the event, it came in 50 or 60 per cent. higher than we anticipated.
  My right hon. Friend has just said that, on his calculations, when the council tax is introduced—bearing in mind the fact that people spend according to needs and are effective and efficient in their use of resources—the tax
  62
  levels reached will be acceptable to his hon. Friends. Will my right hon. Friend say how confident he is that the council tax will be restricted to those levels?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will want to join me with enthusiasm in the Lobby tonight. It is precisely because we do not want to get caught again that we now have comprehensive capping arrangements to prevent the Labour party from frittering away the benefits that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available in his recent Budget.
  Taken together with the personal discount, this year households with one adult would have paid no more than £501 in the top band and no more than £200 in the lowest band. People on low incomes will receive rebates in addition to any discounts to which they are entitled and there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. It will be seen, and it has already been seen by public opinion, as a fair tax and much to be welcomed.
  Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend not think that there is a logical case for introducing the council tax at the same time as local government reform or for bringing local government reform forward to coincide with the introduction of the council tax in those areas which have already had the benefit of a Boundaries Commission recommendation? Will he confirm that the discretion on the 50 per cent. reduction rebate for second homes will remain with local authorities and not be taken by central Government? I was robust in ensuring that all my second-home owners paid a full charge and were not subsidised by the local community. Will he also confirm that 100 per cent. rebates will be available when necessary because that has been a particular problem with the community charge?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions. We have made it clear that there will be a comprehensive rebate system and that there will not be a minimum assumption as under the community charge arrangements. Our arrangements for empty properties have also been made clear. They will be subject to two personal discounts, and that will be a standard arrangement across the country and without discretion.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of phasing in the new council tax. I do not think that that would be practical or, frankly, desirable. I believe that people want to see the council tax in place at the earliest possible opportunity, which we believe to be 1993. The phasing of the structural changes to local government will start in 1994 and will follow on from that. It would not be appropriate to wait for that to coincide with financial changes and there would be a great deal of pressure on us to introduce the community charge replacement scheme in 1993 as we intend.
  Mr. Adley: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. It sounds as though there will be a perpetual motion of changes to local government finance and local government boundaries. That causes some concern.
  The Association of District Councils seems to be encouraging chief executives to tell their Members of Parliament that, whatever the Government's intentions, there will be a need to establish a register for the council tax. Will my right hon. Friend disabuse us of that proposition? Will he say a little more about how rebates

  63
  can be claimed? Will he do his best to ensure that that information is disseminated as widely as possible? How will he go about that?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that they are matters for the principal legislation, which will be introduced in the autumn. When I made my first announcement to the House, I made it clear that we did not see the need for a register to make the system workable. One of the attractions of a broad banding system is to avoid the need for a register. I believe that that was widely welcomed when I made that announcement.
  Details on the specific nature of the rebate system will be announced in good time for people to understand them and to make comments on them as we move towards legislation. They are not covered by the narrow and specific Bill that we are debating today.
  The provisions in the Bill will enable progress to be made as soon as possible towards the new system we decide upon after considering the suggestions put to us during consultation. The provisions are enabling provisions covering two crucial aspects of preparation for a new property-based council tax.
  First, they provide the power for the allocation of domestic properties to bands to be carried out—that is a power to prescribe principles for the exercise in regulations. Secondly, they ensure access to the information needed to ensure that the allocation is soundly based. There are tough safeguards on the use that can be made of that information.
  We have made no secret of our intention that private sector valuers should undertake much of the work involved in the valuation. This will be effective and economical. It will ensure speedy action and, most of all, it will make use of the great expertise available in the profession which it must be right for us to tap. I can, however, assure the House that the overall process of valuation will be supervised by the commissioners of Inland Revenue to ensure the uniformity of treatment that is essential if the valuation is to be fair and sound.
  I have already described how those provisions interrelate with those for Scotland where the assessors will be responsible for carrying out valuation. The expertise which they have accumulated in undertaking large-scale valuation exercises makes them well placed to do the job promptly and thoroughly. It is important that the valuation task is tackled consistently throughout Great Britain, and the commissioners of Inland Revenue are given a power—which hon. Members have mentioned—of direction to ensure that consistency in Scotland. The assessors already work with the Inland Revenue valuation office to achieve consistent treatment of non-domestic valuations, and this collaboration will now be extended to the domestic sector.
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I have already given way three times to the hon. Gentleman.
  As the assessors are local government employees the clause empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay local authorities' grant towards the assessors' costs. In other respects, the provisions for Scotland follow the parallel English provisions.
  64
  Clause 4, for England and Wales, and clause 6, for Scotland, enable those carrying out the valuation to obtain the information necessary to do so. Information is a sensitive subject, and I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the protection we have built into the Bill. In particular, clause 3(6) provides that disclosure of information obtained for the purpose of valuation could lead to imprisonment or a heavy fine, or both. I cannot stress too highly the importance that we attach to securing that the information which is obtained as part of this exercise is used properly and only for the purpose for which it has been provided.
  We have set out our firm intention of introducing a council tax on 1 April 1993 and have been advised that to do so requires urgent action if the preparations are to be made properly. We have listened and have brought before the House practical measures which will result in a fair and soundly based system of local government finance operative from 1 April 1993.
  The Bill prepares the way for the introduction of the council tax. By strengthening our capping powers, we can be confident that expenditure will be restrained and that charges will be at acceptable levels. We are now bringing forward serious practical measures designed to secure our firm objective of introducing a fair and practical council tax from April 1993.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: The only remarkable feature of the otherwise unremarkable speech that we have just heard is the fact that it was the Secretary of State made it. After all, he has shown a marked reluctance to come to the Dispatch Box to spell out his views on capping. Just two days before the Whitsun recess, he ducked out of the capping order debate and delegated it to his Minister of State. He originally intended that this measure, too, should be handled by his junior Ministers. At least this time we have shamed the right hon. Gentleman into coming to the Dispatch Box to explain the measure, but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland does not appear to be present.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is not usually a shrinking violet—he does not normally shun the limelight. That leaves us puzzled about why he has shown uncharacteristic reluctance and reticence, an impression that was reinforced by his speech today, in which he scarcely concealed his distaste for some of the proposals that he had to put forward. We are also puzzled about why he has been prepared to show that he has little enthusiasm for the measure.
  The most likely explanation is that the Bill represents a series of defeats. It is a compendium of the defeats that the Secretary of State has suffered at the hands of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. As a consequence, he regards the Bill as an embarrassing record of his failures and therefore feels little commitment to it. Indeed, he feels antipathy for some of the provisions.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I wish to complete this point.
  The fact that the Secretary of State does not mind who knows his position speaks volumes for his relationship with the Prime Minister. Even his speech this evening can only fuel speculation that, in common with the rest of the

  65
  country, the right hon. Gentleman has decided that the Prime Minister's days are numbered and that he does not mind whether his conclusion becomes public knowledge.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman spoke of embarrassment. As he is on record as saying that he approves of capping and also that he does not approve of it, will he share his embarrassment with us and say which of those alternatives he supports?
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck; there is little doubt about our position, which has been established on many occasions and which I am happy to repeat now. We oppose wholeheartedly and thoroughly the principle of capping and, as we advocate the independence and value of local government, we believe that the right controls over local government spending are those exercised by the electorate through the ballot box.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: I shall give way in a moment.
  It is not surprising that the Secretary of State is less than enthusiastic for the Bill.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is on record as having said that, in extremis, there must always be a reserve power. Is it in order for him now to say that he said no such thing?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Gould: It is not surprising that the Secretary of State is less than enthusiastic about the Bill. After all, its first objective is a massive and comprehensive extension of capping powers, something against which the Secretary of State has consistently—at least he has been consistent on that issue—set his face. The Bill achieves nothing short of the universal capping which the right hon. Gentleman proclaimed, in his famous article in The Times on 10 May last year, would be
  "an act of centralised power outside our experience. On those grounds alone it should be resisted."
  The mere fact that the Secretary of State has nailed his colours to that mast does not mean that he will not chop it down at the first opportunity. After all, he cannot pass a revolving door without spending a couple of enjoyable turns within it.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop this point, I shall give way in a moment.
  It is significant that, despite his U-turns and climbdowns, the Secretary of State has so far not recanted on that subject. His enthusiasm for the position that he has taken has been consistently maintained, as he has showed this evening. On this measure, he has been clear and vehement. In his article in The Times, he virtually issued a call to arms in defence of local government independence. Little wonder that he is so reluctant to have to eat those words and to introduce universal capping, which he so eloquently condemned in that article.
  Mrs. Currie: We should all like to know the hon. Gentleman's views on capping. I heard him say, on the "Today" programme on Radio 4, on 27 March 1990, that,
  66
  in extremis, there would have to be a reserve power. Does he still think so? If not, how on earth does he propose to control public spending and inflation?
  Mr. Gould: The Labour party is opposed, and always has been, to the principle of capping. We would control local government spending through the discipline exercised by the ballot box, which we would ensure was more effective because of our provision for annual elections.
  Mr. Heseltine: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's questions. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by the words "in extremis"?
  Mr. Gould: If the right hon. Gentleman really wants me to spell it out, I am glad to do so. I was answering a question that was put in such terms as to suggest that no legal controls could ever be exercised over local government spending. The point that I was making was that, in extremis, in cases of illegality or fraud, a reserve power would always be available. Anyone who understands local government would accept that point.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers George Bernard Shaw's well-known phrase, "We have established the principle; we are now haggling about the terms."
  Mr. Gould: I happen to know the full story, but it is clear from the frozen reactions of the Secretary of State's colleagues that not many of them do. I am sorry that he failed to make his point.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I wish to make progress; I shall bear the hon. Gentleman in mind.
  By eating his words even on capping—the one issue on which he steadfastly maintained his position for well over a year—the Secretary of State presents a sad spectacle. He is embarrassed not only because he is now forced to act inconsistently with his stirringly stated principle, but also because he knows that he was right on 10 May 1990 and he is wrong now.
  No Secretary of State who claims to value local government can come to the House and proclaim that henceforth every budget for every local authority must be set within limits prescribed by central Government. However, that is the sad end of a long process that began a long time ago—it certainly seems so—with fine words that many hon. Members will remember about the poll tax reinforcing local democracy and imposing renewed accountability. The process then took refuge in a limited capping power, which the Secretary of State said was designed to restrain the largest overspenders. That process has now been swept away, and all pretence has gone that the Government are interested even in paying lip service to the principle of local government autonomy.
  Let us be clear what the Bill is about. It is no longer a question of restraining the largest authorities or the most irresponsible overspenders or even—this is the point for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—those Labour-controlled authorities so beloved of Tory mythology. The Bill is a comprehensive statement of no confidence in the whole of local government. It does not matter how big the authority is, what its record on

  67
  spending might be or what its political control is or has been. All local authorities are now on notice that they are not to be trusted.
  Under the new powers, every budget will be set within the limits imposed by the Secretary of State. Let us be clear on how extensive those powers will be. If the £15 million protection had not been in force for 1991–92, 37 districts would have spent more than 25 per cent. above their standard spending assessment, 42 would have been spending 20 per cent. above their SSA, and 55 would have spent 12·5 per cent. above their SSA. On the criteria applied for this year, huge numbers of local authorities would have had to be capped, including many Tory-controlled smaller districts.
  So much for local democracy and the power of local electors to decide what services they want and what they are willing to pay for them. Henceforth, the man in Whitehall knows best. It is far from clear on what basis his judgment is to be made. Is it to be made on the basis of SSAs, which everyone now knows to be unrealiable, in which confidence is completely lacking and which, in the case of small authorities, even Ministers conceded during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, provided too blunt an instrument to fine-tune the budgets of small authorities? Is that to be the basis of the judgment imposed from Whitehall, or is it to be a criterion that measures a year-on-year increase in spending? If so, the Secretary of State may well find himself capping many districts that have restrained their spending to lower than the SSA.
  The process is the apotheosis of that centralising power that the Secretary of State described. It is not an exaggeration to say that it will be the end of local government as we have known it for more than a century, until that happy day comes when we can get rid of the Government who have imposed the dead hand of Whitehall on local democracy.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is saying that, under his policy, the ballot box will be arbiter. If that is so—I believe that he will accept that in some authorities 20 to 25 per cent. of the electorate pay nothing; indeed, there are some authorities where about 80 per cent. did not pay the full rates—where on earth is the democracy? How is it democratic for that percentage of people to vote for an ever smaller number of people to pay more and more in totally unlimited spending within a local authority?
  Mr. Gould: In the light of the local government election results last month, I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman is nervous about the judgment of voters at the ballot box. The answer to his question has been most eloquently provided by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said—I do not have his exact words, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember them—that it was a complete myth to assume that large numbers of people did not pay the rates. He said that virtually everyone made some contribution, perhaps under an informal arrangement within a household or as part of a rent payment.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not do a cartwheel on that, because I have always thought that he was right on that issue, and has stuck to being right. It was a
  68
  well-taken point in favour of rates and a property tax, and in view of the wholesale conversion among Conservatives who now condemn the poll tax, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has not caught up with the new orthodoxy.
  The fact that the Secretary of State has doubts and hesitations about capping is eminently understandable and is no doubt matches by his reservations on the Bill's second major objective—the preparations that it makes for the council tax. It enables the Secretary of State to give instructions to valuers so that a new valuation register can be prepared. The Bill's provisions must surely be an embarrassment to any Government who still pretend to be competent. We are still no nearer to knowing what the basis of that valuation will be. We have been told by the Secretary of State that it will be solely capital values.
  We were then told by the Minister of State on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, of which Conservative Members are such avid listeners, that other factors might also be taken into account. When we challenged the Secretary of State in the House on which of the conflicting views was correct, he said that they both were. The Bill does nothing to clear up that confusion. That is surely one of the questions on which the process of consultation is intended to cast light, so why not wait until the consultation has taken place?
  The answer to that question reveals another Government embarrassment. They have to give the impression of making rapid progress to deflect the widespread scepticism about the timetable that they have set for themselves. The Government still say that they are aiming for 1993, despite the experts' publicly stated doubts about whether that date is remotely achieveable. Only by going through the motions can the Government keep alive—at least until the election—the illusion that the poll tax is rapidly on its way out. That illusion matters, because the poll tax, far from being dead, lives on and will be here for years to come.
  Already, there is widespread anger on the part of nearly half of all poll tax payers as they discover that they do not qualify for the full £140 reduction that they were promised. That anger will mount as people realise that the poll tax bills will keep coming, they will still have to live with the unfairness and unworkability of the tax and, for each year during which it survives, they will have to pay, on average, £140 per household more than they need.
  That is to say nothing of the nightmare facing local government as it grapples with the problems of collecting a tax that the Prime Minister describes as already uncollectable, and which can only become more so the longer it lingers. That is why the Government have to pretend to a certainty that certainly does not exist, and why they have had to truncate the process of consultation, revealing it to be the sham that it truly is.
  While I am talking about truncating processes, I understand that we are to be subjected to a guillotine motion next week for the purpose of rushing the Bill through. I give notice that we shall oppose that motion with all the strength at our command.
  Another vexed question involves the number and range of the bands. The Bill specifies that it is intended that valuations should be made on the basis of bands, but it does not say how many. It does not state whether individual valuations will first be made and then assigned to bands, or whether the exercise will simply push whole chunks of property into certain bands. Whatever the

  69
  answer, we should be clear that, contrary to the optimistic noises from Ministers, there is the prospect of huge numbers of appeals when people feel that they have been placed in the wrong band.
  Or course, the Government have committed themselves outside the terms of the Bill to a seven-band system, on the basis of which they have produced some figures—the Secretary of State used them again this evening—which purport to tell people the size of the bills that they will have to pay. It is worth rehearsing for a moment the history of this disreputable exercise.
  At the end of February, the Government set in train an exercise that required district valuers to make an estimate—no field work was done, no valuations would be carried out—in the course of about five days which would allocate all the properties in their areas to one of 14 bands, the top band of which was £500,000 or more. Once that exercise had been done on that very shaky basis, it was presumably taken by the Secretary of State to Cabinet. When the Cabinet and the Prime Minister saw it, they did not like it: they threw it out. They insisted on substantial change, and the Secretary of State suffered yet another of his defeats.
  The Prime Minister insisted that a 14-band system would be too painful for well-heeled Tory supporters, especially in the south, and he further insisted that a seven-band system, with a new top band of only £160,000, should be substituted. None of the seven bands then defined corresponded with any of the 14 bands delineated in the earlier exercise. So we are left with a 14-band exercise based on guesstimates which were then translated into seven wholly different bands— —
  Mrs. Currie: So what?
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Lady reveals a great deal about the psychology of Conservative Members, and thereby invalidates the very figures that the Secretary of State advanced this evening to try to persuade people that the council tax would somehow produce lower bills.
  We are left, as I said, with a series of inventions based on estimates. It is on the basis of these wholly fanciful statistical inventions that the Government have produced their supposed figures for average bills. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government were panic-stricken, not to say gobsmacked, and were so intent on producing any figures, however wild the assumptions on which they were based, that they rushed out figures based on total invention.
  Mrs. Currie: I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman has even less experience of government that I have. Had he any experience of government, he would know that the intelligent, sensible way for Government to go about their business is to invite papers from their civil servants and to discuss various possibilities. That is exactly what the Government did. Does he not consider that a matter not for criticism but of great credit to the Government?
  Mr. Gould: I do not want to be too cruel to the hon. Lady, but I think that, in the light of her record in government, she would do well to be a little less patronising. I suspect that, if we compared experiences in a year or two, we might find that the balance had changed somewhat.
  The hon. Lady does not understand why a 14-band exercise which was abandoned and converted to a
  70
  seven-band exercise without proper valuation cannot be a sound basis for the figures that the Government have produced. But worse was to follow. Presumably because he knew how shaky was the statistical structure to which he had been shackled, the Secretary of State then tried to have a proper exercise carried out. District valuers were asked to carry out a nine-band exercise. But when news of that leaked within a couple of days, it was hastily aborted and the seven bands were pronounced to be the Government's last word on the subject. Consultation was at an end—again revealed as a total sham.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Gould: No, I have given way frequently.
  So the Government were panicked into inventing figures, and were then so terrified by the prospect of being charged with trying to produce verification for them—so terrified of being accused of dithering—that they panicked all over again and closed their minds altogether.
  Little wonder, then, that the Government have a reputation for panicking and for mistaking panic reaction for firm Government. Where the Home Secretary went with pit bull terriers, this Secretary of State had been before him with the council tax—
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I will conclude shortly.
  Worse was to come, because the Government were now committed to seven bands with a £160,000 ceiling, and committed to the fundamental unfairness that that makes inevitable. I know that Ministers—especially the chairman of the Tory party—sometimes have difficulty in understanding this simple arithmetical point, but the fact is that an insistence on lopping off the top range of bands so that those at the top end of the scale do not pay their fair proportionate share, means, as a matter of logic, that those lower down the scale have to pay more. That is why, the Government's panic-stricken attempt to produce favourable-looking figures notwithstanding, they ended up—despite all the stastical inventions that they had felt free to use—with figures which still showed, for reasons that they clearly did not understand, that even on the most favourable assumptions their bills would be £67 per household higher on average than they would be under our fair rates proposal.
  This is a sorry story of a Government who have abandoned all principle and all claim to competence. They have abandoned all pretence at considered policy-making. This Bill, like so many recent measures, is nothing more than a save-the-Government's-skin measure—but this is a Government whose skin is not worth saving.
  They are a Government who require the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box to defend a banding system which he knows to be indefensible, and who compel him to repudiate his own statements against universal capping. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for appearing to be unhappy about this humiliation. The poll tax has continued to exercise its malign influence and to cast its long shadow. I recommend that hon. Members share the Secretary of State's real judgment of the measure, and defeat this disreputable Bill tonight.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Paul Channon: It is clear from what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has said that the one thing that really annoys the Labour party is that its members can see that the Government have produced a proposal that is popular in the country and which will lead to lower bills for our constituents. No wonder the hon. Gentleman is disappointed about that. I am disillusioned with him. When one hears him on the "Today" programme occasionally, he seems to be the voice of the Labour party speaking ex cathedra, yet today we have been told that what he said on that programme was inaccurate. I understand him to be saying that in no circumstances short of fraud would he introduce—were he to be in power—any capping measures. So again the message goes out from this House that the Labour party, if in office, would do little or nothing to protect people in peril of overspending authorities.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman think offhand of any good reason why he, with his substantial personal wealth and large properties, should pay only two and a half times more than the poorest people? Why should the poor subsidise him?
  Mr. Channon: I have no comment to make on that except to say that I pay—rightly—a great deal more in tax than many others do.
  The House should understand that this measure represents two modest steps forward. One relates to valuation. It seems to me right to press ahead with that, because, if we do not, how shall we get the tax ready for its introduction in 1993? Surely both sides of the House want lower bills for constituents.
  The council tax seems to have been a satisfactory way out of the problem. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State deserve the highest credit for the way in which they have managed to defuse this issue in the past few months—[Laughter.] Despite the laughter of Opposition Members, I do not believe that the issue was thought to be significant in the recent local elections.
  Great credit goes to my right hon. and hon. Friends for having come up with a solution to the problems of local government taxation that seems to be satisfactory, or as satisfactory as anything can be. No local tax will ever be popular, and no local tax is likely to be perfect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely right to alter the balance between the levels of central Government and local government spending in his Budget.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: We have been asked to be brief, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is probably the last time that I shall give way this evening.
  Mr. McKay: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right to get the balance right between the levels of central Government and local government spending. He thinks that the measures that have been taken will result in the right balance being achieved. Why was it right in the first place to destroy the balance that then existed by cutting grants to local government from central Government? The cutting of grants year in and year out caused the imbalance.
  Mr. Channon: On reflection, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point. It is right that central Government should be responsible for a larger share of the expenditure, but both Conservative and Labour Governments are to blame. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman is on to a sound point.
  The council tax has been designed so that it will not place an excessive burden on those who will have to pay it in future. The authority that has responsibility in my constituency spends close to its standard spending assessment, as does the county council and I estimate that about 93 per cent. of householders in my constituency will be better off under the council tax than they were under the poll tax or the rating system.
  I cannot understand the opposition to the Bill, which will enable the new tax to come into force in 1993. If that is to be done, the process of valuation must begin as soon as possible. That being so, I wish to ask a couple of questions.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: I must press on. I shall speak for only a few more minutes.
  I wish to ask two questions about the process of valuation. First, how do my right hon. and hon. Friends propose to deal with appeals? Secondly, although I understand the view that we do not need revaluation, surely there are certain portions of our towns and cities in which values vary considerably from time to time. Certainly there have been variations during the past few years. How are anomalies to be avoided if there is no general revaluation? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has the answers to my questions. I shall be grateful——
  Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a regular revaluation every five years, for example, to avoid anomalies?
  Mr. Channon: I am against regular revaluations. The process of revaluation is extremely time-consuming and enormously unpopular among those who lose as a result. If regular revaluations can be avoided, that is good on the whole. There will be exceptional circumstances from time to time, and I am not sure how the Bill will deal with those. No doubt the solution will come later, and it is necessary to have the Bill first. As I have said, I estimate that 93 per cent. of my constituents will be better off with the new tax.
  The Bill deals only with valuation—we must press ahead with that so that the council tax can be ready in 1993—and capping. The official Opposition have explained their position with more clarity than they have done in the past. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, in an ideal world, it would be better if there were no capping. Equally, it would be better if all local authorities behaved responsibly. Of course it would be better if all local authorities did not impose excessive burdens on ratepayers or charge payers. Alas, that is not the world in which we live. It is right that capping powers have been taken in the past. It is right that such powers should be used, but not excessively. It is right that early notice was given, so that local authorities knew exactly where they stood. It is right also that, at the end of the day, only very few authorities had to be capped.
  I do not want to go into the details of all the district authorities that are at risk because of the removal of the

  73
  £15 million threshold. Every hon. Member will have specialist knowledge of his constituency. Surely it must be right, however, that there should not be an arbitrary threshold. Unfortunately, there are local authorities that are abusing the system and charging their ratepayers or charge payers more than is reasonable. It is right that the Government should take the necessary powers, which they will not be able to exercise until next year at the earliest.
  The powers are especially relevant when we consider the position of some small authorities. I have no doubt that there are many local authorities that have special cases to bring to the Government's attention. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) was arguing a short time ago that the authority that has responsibility in his constituency is a special case. That, of course, can be considered. In general, however, the proposed powers should exist. I am sure that any authority with a special case will be able to take it up with the Government, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be entirely reasonable. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will have time to say something about that when he replies.
  Those of us who think that the council tax will be a great improvement on what has preceded it, and those who believe, as I do, that the Government have defused a difficult situation by changing people's thinking about local government taxation, and therefore deserve our congratulations, should press on and ensure that the council tax will be ready by 1993. To do that, valuation must take place at the earliest possible date, and if that is to be done we must have the powers that are set out in the Bill. It would be wrong for the Opposition to seek to delay the Bill's progress, as they were saying a short time ago. It is essential that the Bill passes through the House at an early date. I hope that it will do so in the very near future, so that my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members will face lower bills in future than in the past.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: In October 1987—
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There will be hon. Members contributing to the debate who have considerable personal wealth. Any benefit that they enjoy as a result of the Government's proposals will be merely a cherry on the top of the cake. Surely they should declare an interest when they speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House knows the rules about declarations of interest. Had the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) had any interest to declare, I am sure that he would have declared it.
  Mr. Bellotti: In October 1987, the then Minister for Local Government, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is now Secretary of State for Employment, said:
  "Under the new system of the community charge, local authorities will become fully accountable to their electorates."
  I wonder what happened to that possibility. I wonder also why we have been presented with draconian capping powers. The Minister added:
  "Let me make it clear that we are only taking such powers because of the appalling record of a dozen or so authorities".
  The capping powers that are before us will extend well beyond a "dozen or so" authorities, as we all know.
  In 1988, the Minister said that the exemption limit of £15 million was being proposed because the community
  74
  charge levied by authorities that spent less than £15 million accounted for only a fraction of the total community charge when the precept of other authorities is taken into account. If the Minister believed that then, what has changed tonight? He explained that, from his point of view, it was unnecessary in the context of protecting local charge payers for local authorities that spend more than £15 million to be brought into the ambit of charge limitation.
  The capping powers before us are certainly draconian. If implemented, they will attack our public services at the grass roots. In introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State said that he wanted something that was appropriate to the system. Many hon. Members want local services appropriate to local needs and do not put the system before the needs of people. Most of our discussion should centre on the SSAs, and the House should conclude that, in the past, SSAs have been proved unfair and discredited. Local authorities of all political persuasions can be used as examples of that.
  Of the local authorities that would have been caught in 1991–92 under the powers that are now being sought for the following year, 37 that are now exempt from capping plans were planning to spend more than 25 per cent. above their SSA. A further 42 planned to spend 20 per cent. above their SSA, and 55 planned to spend more than 12·5 per cent. above SSA, which is an important figure in the Government's current thinking about limiting the spending powers of local authorities. The Government will have either to cap an enormous number of local authorities, or to change the rules and introduce different details.
  Liberal Democrats believe that those local authorities should be free to set their budgets, and should be accountable and answerable to their local electorates. There have recently been many local authority elections in which local people considered the manifestos of the political parties and made their judgment. They then elected councils of different political persuasions.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us in which local authorities a political party produced a manifesto that was fully costed?
  Mr. Bellotti: I visited Torbay—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is present, but I am not seeking to gain an advantage if he is not—where the manifesto had been costed, and I had the pleasure to launch that manifesto. I could give other examples. Political parties in local elections across the country do their best to cost the programmes that they put before the electorate. That is honourable, and credit should be given to them by members of all parties in the House.
  The local elections resulted in the Conservative party's losing more than 900 seats. We should have confidence in the local electorate, and produce the programmes that they supported. By introducing capping powers, the Secretary of State is saying to those electors—some of whom voted Conservative, but most of whom voted for other parties—that they will stop people who have been properly elected from delivering the programmes that they promised. That is not only grossly unfair; it hits at the heart of democracy. That is why the Liberal Democrats are opposed in principle to capping.
  Mr. Barry Field: Would the hon. Gentleman include in his comments the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats on

  75
  the Isle of Wight? The proprietor of the new ice rink protested to the leader of the Liberal Democratic party because it had told a deliberate lie. The leader declined to comment. The proprietor of the ice rink was rather upset, because he was a lifelong Liberal.
  Mr. Bellotti: I have never been ice skating, so I am not well qualified to comment. However, I had the pleasure of visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency a few months ago. I hope that that had some bearing on the fact that the Conservatives lost overall control of both the district councils on the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Field: That is not true.
  Mr. Bellotti: I believe it to be true.
  Mr. Field: It is untrue.
  Mr. Bellotti: That fact can easily be verified.
  In amongst the flak that the Secretary of State is now getting because of the draconian measure of capping authorities that spend less than £15 million, I notice the flak of a furious Roy Thomason, the chairman of the Association of District Councils. He has not previously been against the Government's draconian measures, but on this occasion he is. What he said is relevant:
  "We appear to have a Government that is being run by the Treasury for the sake of Treasury convenience".
  If previously ardent Government supporters such as Roy Thomason issue such public press statements, the Secretary of State must take on board the feeling across the country these draconian measures.
  My constituency includes part of the areas covered by Wealden district council. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith) mentioned the council earlier, and I want to add something to what he said. His point was well made, and what he said was true, but he could have gone on to say that, if the Secretary of State follows the line that he has followed in previous years in capping local authorities, and if that is applied to Wealden on current spending plans, it will lead next year to a cut in its budget of £400,000.
  By no stretch of the imagination can a local authority such as Wealden district council be accused of being profligate, expensive or extravagent. It is a well managed, well run authority, which can often be encouraged to develop its programmes rather than cutting them. I do not know where Wealden will find £400,000 worth of cuts.
  The chief executive of Wealden district council said that, unless the proposals were changed, there would be a
  "breakdown in the provision of local services".
  That statement was supported by the leader of the council.
  One of the reasons for such comments is the ridiculous situation of the SSAs leading our thinking. Wealden is a member of a family of similar local authorities. I sue the term "family" in the context of the Audit Commission's recognition that Wealden is in such a family of local authorties. In that family, SSAs vary from £88 to £173 per head of relevant population.
  Surely the Government can see that the SSAs should not be the starting point for their consideration of local government spending.
  Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellotti: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time.
  Mr. Field: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time.
  Surely the hon. Gentleman is not imputing a political overtone to this matter. He must be aware, as the local government spokesman of his party, that the Edwards committee in the 1960s recommended that there was a shortfall in rating revenue for the Isle of Wight. We created the document "Island Apart" to prove the increased cost of local government on the Isle of Wight. That is a regular feature of local government in the United Kingdom. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it has suddenly arisen under the present Government.
  Mr. Bellotti: It has certainly worsened under this Government, because, since 1979, local government has lost £58 billion of central Government support. In 12 years of Conservative government, that loss of revenue has led to local authorities becoming less enchanted with the Government.
  I want to make some progress now, because other hon. Members want to speak. I want to refer to one other local authority—my own, in Eastbourne. I mentioned that Wealden council might have to make £400,000-worth of cuts next year unless the Government changed the rules and gave way to representations.
  The figure for Eastbourne borough council is almost £1 million. One could not regard Eastbourne council as extravagant or profligate. In addition to the delivery of local services, Eastbourne council needs to generate the local economy in areas such as tourism to bring wealth to the town.
  If £1 million-worth of cuts in Eastbourne and £400,000-worth of cuts in Wealden would have to be made, we must call on the Government to listen to representations from across the country, and to think again about their proposals. The leader of the council in Eastbourne, Alan Shuttleworth, said that the proposals
  "take no account of the needs of our communities and attack basic services, which local people depend upon."
  I now ask the Government to consider a separate matter concerning Eastbourne. In addition to their current proposals, the Government are asking that the cost of short-term leases on houses be transferred from the housing revenue account to the general fund of local authorities. That will add another £250,000 to Eastbourne's expenditure, purely because of the way in which the costs are transferred. That must affect other local authorities as well. The Government must consider that specific point and whether there is any possibility of excluding that from the present arrangements.
  When this Government first came to office, they began to attack local government, and local government has now lost £58 billion. We saw what happened to the Greater London council and to some of the metropolitan authorities. The Government then capped some of the larger spending authorities. Tonight, the Government want the House to approve the capping of smaller spending authorities. Where will it all end? Will it end with the parish councils and the local town councils? Will the Government attack local community groups on local councils? Will the Government stop local councils providing park seats, bus shelters and litter bins? Where will the draconian measures end?

  77
  When I consider the Government's attack on local authorities, I am reminded of the words of Pastor NiemÖller: "First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out." Local government has been attacked, from the GLC down to the parish councils. People must stand up and dig in. If they do not, every local authority will be attacked by the Government—if it has not already been attacked.
  The proposals in the Bill are ridiculous. I was asked earlier about costed manifestos. Well, the Bill refers to costing valuations; it says that the valuation of property will cost £250 million. There are 21 million properties in this country. How do the Government think that a property can be valued for £12? Many people would like to know that. The Government have not costed their proposals. They simply want to attack local authorities. Some hon. Members are prepared now to stand up and support local authorities.
  Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a tradition of this House that Front-Bench spokesmen take care not to mislead the House. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) is the local government spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. I distinctly heard him say that, as a result of the local elections, there was no overall control in the two borough councils on the Isle of Wight. That is quite incorrect in respect of Medina borough council, because it remains under Tory control despite the fact that it was one of the three borough councils, which included Salisbury council in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to be specifically targeted by the hon. Gentleman's party. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne did not intend to mislead the House, and that he will want to put that right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of dispute between two hon. Members; it is not a matter for the Chair.
  7.3 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: This small but important Bill is a large step towards well managed local authority expenditure. The Bill is crucial, and the banding is a sane and sensible way to define a good and accurate measure of local personal input. The capping is crucial for fairness. It will protect local people from large expenditure by local authorities and protect the central taxpayer who now provides the largest proportion of locally expended money.
  With the large rises in local authority expenditure, capping universally has become a necessity and a step towards the correct management that I will define. Local authority expenditure has increased by nearly 25 per cent. in only two years. We want to see whether we have received better value for money by a similar proportion. Have we received 25 per cent. better value for money from the central taxpayer and the local charge payer? I think not, and that must be why central charge capping is
  78
  necessary. Lambeth council has not offered 25 per cent. better value for money in terms of local expenditure over the past two years.
  We must also consider the quality of work carried out by local authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health earlier considered local child care institutions. She told us that expenditure on such institutions has increased by 60 per cent. over the past 11 years and the number of children in care has decreased by 40 per cent. over the same period, but, despite that enormous fresh sum of money and fewer children, the quality of work has clearly deteriorated.
  The basic premise that local authority expenditure is created from the central taxpayer and the local taxpayer rests on redistribution to achieve acceptable standards throughout the country. However, that does not apply to education. There may be a first class sixth form in one school, but in a school in a different area where education has been over-politicised, generally speaking by Labour party councillors, the standards of education may be very much lower. The redistributive formula has not—alas—led to higher standards when local authorities have been left to get on with the job. Unrigorous thinking through over-politicisation has led to an unacceptable lowering of standards. Perhaps we should dub that "Bookbinderism". That kind of thinking allows public money to be spent lavishly to score political goals in respect of ordinary commodities such as school writing paper.
  Local people now want to pay less central and local tax and they demand the best services. Clearly, when we consider the way in which Labour councils in particular have been behaving, those services are not being provided. That is why the restructuring of local government responsibilities must follow the charge-capping powers in the Bill and the methods of extracting funds both locally and centrally through banding. We must focus on cutting out waste, rewarding good management and restoring real accountability.
  We must agree that there is a huge amount of dead wood in local authorities, particularly in Labour-controlled local authorities. In Labour local authorities, there seem to be whole forests where nothing moves and where there is such a stench of decay that it is clear that the living forest has decayed almost into a combustible fuel that is due to go up in smoke.
  We all want local accountability, a fair charge and a reasonable way of ensuring that the local charge payer is not taken for a ride by the local councillors. It does not seem possible to achieve that under the local system, although I wish it was. The central charge-capping provision will protect the local charge payer and ensure that we take the next steps forward and work out the best possible mechanisms for redistributing local authority responsibilities and expenditure. By that method, I am confident that, by 1993, we will be able to present to the electorate a sane, sound and sensible system whereby that key 15 per cent. raised locally is spent wisely and well.
  7.9 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I should like to speak about the Bill's relevance to the people whom I represent and hope to represent for a few more years.
  My constituency is bedevilled by scandalously high unemployment. Increasingly, the communities that I

  79
  represent are aging because, in response to that scandalously high unemployment, many young people in my part of Scotland are resorting to the traditional Scottish solution, which is emigration. At the weekend, I said goodbye to a young electrician and his wife who are heading for Australia. He is emigrating because he is sick of being out of work on the lower Clyde.
  Many of my elderly constituents need the first-class services provided by the social work department of Strathclyde regional council. In Scotland, the Government party is in the minority and recent opinion polls show that the Conservatives have a 23 per cent. rating. It is likely that some Scottish Conservative Members will not be returned to the House at the next election.
  The odd job lot at the Scottish Office are seeking to emasculate local government. Ian Bell, the well-known Scots journalist whose distaste for the Conservative party is equalled only by his dislike of Labour Members and councils—I have some cross-party support for that observation—wrote yesterday about the Secretary of State's decision to cripple Lothian region through its budget. In yesterday's Observer Scotland, that famous Scots journalist—some hon. Members might say infamous—said:
  "What the Government is doing to Lothian Region is a national disgrace. It is victimisation of the crudest, most partisan sort, and Labour deserves the support of every Scot in its attempts to fight it. The trouble is, I'm not clear about what the party or its Lothian councillors propose to do about the Scottish Secretary's decision to cap the region's poll tax and force 18·5 million of budget cuts.
  It's no piddling amount by anyone's standards. In Lothian it could mean the closure of schools, old people's homes and children's centres, an end to free bus travel for the aged, the closure of evening classes, a jobs freeze and cuts in road repairs. Compulsory redundancies cannot be ruled out."
  Strathclyde regional council has to make a bleak, stark choice between making huge cuts in its budget or increasing its poll tax next year. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made his intentions as plain as possible. He said:
  "this is a long-term step change in the central-local taxation relationship. If local authorities find themselves under tighter control in future because of accountability to the national taxpayer being more rigorous than accountability to local residents, they can reflect on the fact that they had their chance to be more responsible in their approach."—[Official Report, 26 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 872.]
  Earlier in the debate, we heard that same distinction drawn between national taxpayers and local residents, as if the two were mutually exclusive. I remind the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that local residents pay national income tax. It is absurd to distinguish between local residents and national taxpayers. The Secretary of State's intention is plain for all to see.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am a Lothian Member, and I have never known a Scottish Secretary of State who was so vindictive towards a local authority. Does my hon. Friend think that such behaviour is honourable when, on every criterion, the Secretary of State's own authority of Dumfries and Galloway is spending more than Lothian region? The Secretary of State's behaviour towards his own authority in relation to what he has done to Lothian borders on the grossly dishonourable and even corrupt.
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend asks me to offer an observation on the conduct of the Secretary of State for
  80
  Scotland. Despite the temptation, I cannot say that his conduct is dishonourable because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would ask me to withdraw such an allegation. When one compares the two councils mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it appears disreputable. Such discrepancies are not lost on the Scottish electorate. The Secretary of State and his colleagues will pay for them at the general election—when they call it.
  The local authority seeks to provide all kinds of services for my constituents. It has a good integrated transport system. Because of the conduct of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the regional council has already had to make cuts in those budgets that are designed to help vulnerable people. I shall give one example. Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 gives local social work departments a budget that can be used to help people who are facing severe problems, such as domestic violence.
  Such a case was brought recently to my surgery. It involved a young woman who was desperately anxious to get away from her psychopathic husband. She was able to return to her home in Birmingham using the money given to her by a local social worker under section 12. The budget for such cases allocated to the district manager, Mr. Donald McQuade, of the social work department, Greenock, has been drastically cut and is nothing like what is used to be. That fine 1968 Act allows social work departments and those much maligned professionals, social workers, to assist people, but the budgets have been cut. That reflects badly on the Secretary of State.
  I shall give another example of Strathclyde regional council being unable to provide decent welfare facilities for my vulnerable constituents. In the centre of Greenock, almost alongside the famous custom house in Custom House lane, the Fitzgerald training centre for those suffering from mental handicap takes in students or trainees, not only from my constituency but from the constituency of my hon. Friend the member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). It is bursting at the seams. The building is riven with damp and has inadequate facilities. My hon. Friend and I received a promise from Strathclyde regional council's social work department that a new centre would be built in Greenock, but we have now been informed that, because of cuts inflicted on its budget by the present Secretary of State, there is no chance of that desperately needed centre being built within the next three or four years—if the present odd job lot remain in power.
  The home help service for my elderly constituents is also being cut back. There will be other cuts, because the Secretary of State has Strathclyde regional council fixed firmly in his sight—if not his own regional council.
  As to clause 3, the banding range does not seem to be large enough. There should be about 14 or 15 bands, with a top banding for properties valued at £500,000 or more. There are few houses of that value in Scotland, but those who live in them should pay their full whack.
  When the Minister replies, perhaps he will say a word or two about rights of appeal against valuations and what form the procedure will take. Will an individual have the right to take an appeal to the sheriff court or even to the Court of Session? Will there be a system of appeals tribunals? We have not yet been given answers to those important questions.
  The Bill is a disgraceful measure, from a Government who seek to destroy local government in Scotland. There

  81
  is no principle behind it. The Bill has been devised because Scottish local government is overwhelmingly anti-Conservative party.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I hope that I may reassure to some degree the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). This time last year, those of us in England and Wales were hearing bloodcurdling tales about the cuts in front-line services that local authorities would be required to impose and the mass redundancies that they would need to make. However, the National Association of Local Government Officers—which I am sure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow accepts is not a Tory front organization —found that councils such as Brent, Basildon and Lambeth made no cuts in front-line services and announced no redundancies. That is not to say that there will be none, but it is clearly the case that, when certain proposals are made, councils talk up their implications —but the reality is something much less worse.
  I have frequently expressed in this Chamber my scepticism about capping. I have listened to the arguments for and against over the years, and have eventually become convinced, sadly, of the necessity of capping as a last resort. The need for it flows directly from the behaviour of a small number of authorities, but, unless capping remains available, the number of errant authorities will grow. If there is to be capping, it is difficult to argue against the logic of extending it to the majority of local authorities —including the district councils that are currently outside the system.
  Presumably, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has gone through a similar intellectual exercise, and has worried about whether or not capping should exist. Our only problem is that he seems to have reached the conclusion that it should not exist, whereas he is on record—as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said—as confirming that Labour wanted to retain capping as a last resort. If Labour now thinks that capping should not exist, that is a very recent conversion. My guess is that, in the unlikely event of Labour finding itself in power, it would quickly need to devise ways of restraining a small number of local authorities.
  I want to comment briefly on standard spending assessments. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti)—who, perhaps understandably, has temporarily left the Chamber—missed the point, because I remember him telling the House that the Government had substantially reduced the proportion of expenditure that is borne by central Government. That is true, but the logic of that statement is that, to the extent that a lower percentage of local authority expenditure is met by central Government, so, relatively speaking, is there less impact from the operation of SSAs. One cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Eastbourne rather overlooked that point.
  I take the view that there is a continuing need for many refinements to SSAs. I say that on behalf not only of my own council of Havering but of many other authorities, including Doncaster, Barnsley, and Sheffield.
  Mr. Holt: And Langbaurgh.
  Mr. Squire: Langbaurgh, too, I am told by my hon. Friend. Certainly the other three that I mentioned are not Conservative-controlled authorities, but, like Havering, they have become convinced that the bases of the SSAs are invariably drawn against them. The reasons have been well ventilated in a number of debates, and I will not repeat them now. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister always to keep that aspect in mind. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who have investigated it in detail are convinced that we have not yet found the best answer.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that, in the latter part of every year, local authorities have an opportunity to discuss their SSAs with Ministers. That is done on a regular basis with a large number of local authorities. There is barely an SSA that is not at some point adjusted as a result of such representations—and of our discussions with local authority associations. We are very mindful of the concerns that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House express.
  Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He would expect me to say that we will be even more grateful when his comments are translated into perceived higher figures for all the local authority areas that currently feel themselves to be discriminated against.
  The main part of the Bill prepares the ground for the new council tax. I welcome unreservedly the form that it will take, but will comment briefly on the details of its operation that have so far been made available. I recognise that it did not have to follow the introduction of the council tax, but I welcome the fact that those on income support, and one or two others, will no longer be required to pay. I can see why the House was convinced that they should pay, but enough evidence has shown the difficulties that local authorities and those on income support have experienced for us to realise that it is an improvement to take them out of the local tax system.
  I welcome anything that does away with regular revaluations. Labour Members from north of the border should urge their colleagues from England and Wales to be slightly less fulsome in their support of the rating system, as they have more recent experience of rating revaluations. Like other hon. Members, I expect that the existing system of rebates will be transferred, so that the more generous system that we enjoy will continue.
  The Government have proposed seven bands, whereby the largest property will pay two and a half times as much as the smallest. That seems right, because many people, especially elderly people, live in homes that they acquired many years ago, when their incomes were higher. I should hate them to be unreasonably penalised, as they would be by a system based only on valuation. Whether the system is based on seven, eight or nine bands is an important detail, but that is the right range.
  Most important is the provision for relief for the single adult householder. Conservative Members need to reiterate that at every opportunity. Hon. Members who are allured to the old rating system and wish to return to it as soon as possible must explain to every single adult household in the country why should they suffer from the same burdens as they did under the old rating system, which were the main reason why the system was

  83
  discredited. I have no hesitation in commending the Government's recognition of the problem of the single adult householder.
  What would be the alternative? What do those who oppose the Bill—we now understand that both opposition parties do so—put forward? We know what the Liberal Democrats want, but I shall not stretch your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by going into detail on a local income tax. Suffice it to say that it would lead to many more problems in practice than its adherents believe in theory.
  The Labour party does not believe in a local income tax, but wants a return to a rates system. Many in the parliamentary Labour party come from Scotland and will be aware of up-to-date rating values, but values in England and Wales date back to 1973 unless the house was constructed after that date. Therefore, the values for the majority of properties are ridiculously out of date. That would be bearable, perhaps, if that were the only problem, but rates carry the criticisms that I am reiterating and that many Labour Members have made over the years, and no doubt would privately still be making had it not become official Labour party policy.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am falling into personal temptation in intervening, but I am genuinely curious. The hon. Gentleman is making an impressive point about the out-of-date nature of the valuation base in England and Wales. Does he believe, therefore, that the new so-called council tax will require regular revaluations? What does he make of the promise made, I think, by the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, that once a property has been placed in a band it will remain there in perpetuity?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. The first and reasonably clear consequence of a banding system is that it would not need the same frequency of valuations as a system without bands. Once a house is in a band, it would be likely to stay within it, and the movement of values in the area would, broadly speaking, be in line. The hon. Gentleman's second point was whether it would, stay there in perpetuity, and the answer is that it would, subject to major improvements. The hon. Gentleman knows that the discussion document recommends that the valuation should be adjusted at the point of sale of the property. That also makes much sense and avoids many valuation changes that would make relatively little difference.
  As far as I understand it, the Labour party proposes four different values in an uneasy alliance, involving replacement and rental values that, by implication, would be reviewed annually. I urge Labour Members who understand these things to look carefully at what they are pledged to. I do not expect them to agree with the Government's proposals—that would be asking too much —but they have wide experience and they know that, if the Labour party's proposals are remotely as I have suggested, they do not make sense. In their own interests, let alone the interests of better discussion of local government finance, they should do a bit more homework.
  I believe that the Bill is a simple Bill that is justified. It will herald a good and better system for local government taxation and I give it my full support.
  7.37 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I rise to speak with some weariness. The Government have meddled with local government finance and must hold the record for the number of Bills introduced to adjust or change local government legislation. I note with interest that there has been little enthusiasm for the Bill among Conservative Members. It seems, having listened carefully to the Secretary of State, that the Government are in a hole and are digging themselves deeper into it because they know of no way out. We do—a general election—but the Government are frightened of that.
  I intend to be parochial. I usually hope not to be so, but I wish to speak specifically about clause 1 and the problems that it will cause district councils such as Derwentside and other small district councils, which have suffered from enormous industrial devastation in the past 20 years and are trying to deal with the consequences.
  It was interesting that the Tory leader of the Association of District Councils gave the Bill a warm welcome. His press release says:
  "A furious Roy Thomason, ADC Chairman, declared: `We appear to have a Government that is being run by the Treasury for the sake of the Treasury convenience.
  I am shocked that the Government should be threatening small-spending district councils with these centralist controls. The budgets involved are trivial sums in terms of overall public expenditure.'"
  Those sums may be trivial in terms of overall public expenditure, but they are critical to the survival of areas such as Derwentside and to the way in which they can deal with the economic devastation of the past decade.
  Other districts in Derwentside are also vulnerable because of the ludicrous standard spending assessments. The SSAs are inapplicable to small district councils which have particular problems, and they do not match needs.
  Mr. Holt: While specifically criticising the SSAs, will the hon. Lady home in on the aspect in Durham and Langbaurgh with which she particularly disagrees? Is her reason based on the fact that that area does not get large sums under SSA, like Langbaurgh, because they do not have a large immigrant population? If so, does the hon. Lady wish to have a large immigrant population in Derwentside to get more SSA?
  Ms. Armstrong: That intervention is somewhat bizarre. I am arguing that SSAs should be related to an area's needs.
  Mr. Holt: They are.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am sorry, but they are not. When regional policy was actively pursued in the north, much money was spent on infrastructure—for example, on making sure that our housing was adequate. That made us ineligible because of the way in which SSA is calculated. I shall not pursue the discreditable views of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I wish to talk about the needs of my constituents.
  Before last month's elections in Derwentside, the Conservatives held three seats—they now hold only two.
  Mr. Holt: How many do the Liberals have?
  Ms. Armstrong: The electorate have had their opportunity to give their verdict on the Government's legislation and actions. They made that clear in Derwentside.
  Mr. Holt: What about the Liberals?
  Ms. Armstrong: The district council is overwhelmingly Labour, gaining an overwhelming vote of confidence from the electorate at the elections.
  Mr. Holt: How is Derwentside doing under Labour?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) must not persist in heckling from a sedentary position. I hope that he will desist.
  Ms. Armstrong: Derwentside district council—
  Mr. Holt: Now will the hon. Lady answer?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh will not disregard my advice.
  Ms. Armstrong: Consett is located in the Derwentside district. In 1980, the economy of Consett and the surrounding area depended on the steel industry and related industrial activity. Because of the nature of the area and the town's location, the problems facing the district during the past decade are, thankfully, unique. Over the past few years since the last general election, Ministers and Conservative Members have lectured me about the economic miracle in Consett and told me that I should be grateful for the increased activity and should not run down my area when pointing to its needs.
  None of the regeneration would have been possible had it not been for the determination of Derwentside district council, which went into partnership with the public sector, the voluntary sector and whoever was prepared to invest or to work in the area—it was prepared to do whatever was necessary and possible to attract industry and support. It cost the electors of Derwentside money, but they took, and take, the view that, if they had riot been prepared to contribute, their area would die. Because of their determination to have a future for themselves, their families and their community, they were determined to contribute to attract support from the European Community, central Government, regional agencies and the private sector. Derwentside industrial development agency is a model for many other parts of the country of the way in which public and private sectors can work well together. It cost money, but it has not solved all the problems.
  Over the past year, measured unemployment in Derwentside has risen by 16 per cent. and 3,925 people are unemployed. The unemployment figures in Henley, the Secretary of State's constituency, are slightly different. Unemployment rose by 150 per cent. during the past year, but the number of people unemployed in his constituency is one third the number of Derwentside. The base in Derwentside is a much bigger problem to overcome.
  Serious problems still exist in Derwentside. The council decided that it had a responsibility to fight for economic regeneration, so it spent to ensure a future for the area, even though regional support through the regional development agency has declined significantly over the past decade. Now the council is told that, by making that commitment, it is going against the Government's views of what an authority of its size should spend. The Government have no idea of the problems that the area faces. A council has a responsibility in those circumstances
  86
  to meet the needs of its population and to work with it to secure a future. An enormous amount of work must still be done.
  If the Government succeed with the Bill, they will be saying to the people of Derwentside, "We do not see you as having any future. We are not prepared to support you in creating a future and opportunities for the people you serve." I cannot support such a Bill or such vindictive action, and I hope that Conservative Members will think again.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I suspect that it will be a good few years before we hear the last word on the community charge, but even at this stage one can make two points which will probably command some support from Conservative and Opposition Members. First, the community charge was not perceived as fair; secondly, whatever the right amount should be, it was clearly costing too much.
  On the question of fairness, there is no way in an imperfect world that there will ever be agreement across the board about what is a fair basis for local government taxation. Having said that, it has become clear to me from the many people to whom I have spoken in my constituency that even though some have misgivings about the council tax, it is seen on the whole as being fairer. In an imperfect world, that is probably the most that we could expect.
  The amount is crucial because I suspect that if we had got the amount right in advance, people would not have picked away at the concept of the charge to decide whether it was fair. We did not get the amount right and the amount was too high. It is one thing to ask how much the amount should be and one can bandy figures around. It may be difficult to define what a fair amount is but, in the end, one can see what is fair. It has seemed to me for a long time that the way to arrive at the appropriate amount for a local government tax is to shift some expenditure back to central Government. It seemed clear to me that, in these days, 25 per cent. is probably too large a proportion of expenditure to expect a local authority to raise. It is now 14 per cent. as a result of the measures taken in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which seems about right.
  Even if we now have a structure which is fair, and even if we now have a mechanism to ensure that the amount is seen to be fair, that can only work provided that one absolutely crucial point is made—we must ensure that the amount that a local authority can raise in local taxation is to some extent controlled.
  One of the miseries from the community charge debate and one of the things that may yet make it worthwhile is to try to learn what harsh experiences sometimes teach us. I have seen the operation of the community charge from inside and outside Government, and it seems that the critical aspect is to recognise that no control mechanism will work except capping. The theory was great. The theory was that, in some way, the system would police itself; that, if a local authority levied at too high a level, the electorate would in the end deal with that and there would be a self-correcting mechanism. It is a tremendous theory, which makes perfect sense, provided that it is only talk. In

  87
  reality, it did not work. Any responsible way of approaching the problem must acknowledge that simple fact.
  There are probably three principal reasons why we did not succeed in producing a situation in which the electorate would pass their own judgment on the level of the community charge in a particular area. First, in many parts of the country it is unrealistic to think that there would be a meaningful change in the complexion of local party government. Some areas are strongly Conservative, whereas others are strongly Labour. In my experience, it is unrealistic in such areas to think that there will be such a sea change in attitude that the community charge, or the local government tax, can be controlled.
  Secondly, if it is correct to say that the electorate will pass judgment, they can do so only after the charge has been introduced. The electorate are never able to pass judgment beforehand or at the time. Therefore, even if there is some electoral retribution around the corner, it does not happen soon enough. In the meantime, a locality may have imposed on it a community charge which is unjustifiable. A considerable time might elapse before the electorate can do anything practical about it. Once again, the system breaks down.
  Perhaps the most important reason why leaving the decision to the electorate does not work is that, faced with the responsibility of saying that their local authority is at fault, the good old British electorate will instead blame the Government. It has been an interesting experience to receive correspondence from people who readily admit that they understand that their local authority is responsible for setting the level of the charge, but who nevertheless decide that the Government are to blame.
  What happened in my district council is an interesting example. It is an issue with which I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal. I do not think that hon. Members are especially aware of the circumstances in my district council. The charge that it set was certainly larger than I should have liked, but it paled into insignificance when compared with what happened in many Labour-controlled areas. It was interesting to see how the debate took place locally. There was an expectation that the local council would set a community charge in line with the SSA. The debate was heated, and there was an initial vote. It seemed as though a proposition had been carried and as if a charge would be introduced at a certain level. There was then a recorded vote on a narrow majority.
  Suddenly, the electors of Teignbridge were faced with a community charge which, although nothing like as great as would have been imposed in a Labour area, was being imposed in an area with no overall Conservative control where people noticed that it had been set at a far higher level than the Government would have wanted. When people wrote to me about that, they acknowledged that the Government were not directly at fault because the local council had set the charge, but they asked, "Why on earth did the Government not see it coming? Surely all your experience of local government was such that you must have realised that, given a free hand, some local authorities will spend."
  Authorities may spend from the best of motives, but if we want to see an ultimate discipline imposed on local
  88
  authorities, we cannot leave it to the electoral mechanism because that will not work, and we have seen that in practice. People said to me that it might not be the Government's fault on this occasion, but capping powers exist. They argued many times that such powers are used only in the grossest of cases and should be applied more widely.
  One of the things that I hope to find out, now that the £15 million exemption has been removed, is at what level the Government are prepared to tell a local authority that they have confidence in the SSAs, that they will negotiate with the local authority but, if the local authority goes beyond a certain level, what degree of excess the Government are prepared to sanction.
  The starting point must be that we have confidence in the SSA mechanism. I was once on the inside and had responsibility on a day-to-day basis for the calculation for that formula. It was possible to see that it was fair and uniform and that, in the process of negotiation, it could be made to fit as best as could be in a particular area. If the Government believe that the SSA is an appropriate level, it seems strange that the charge will have to be very much in excess of it before the Government step in. I am aware of people who have been in local government—as I have —who say that that is ridiculous and that the Government are detracting from the right of people to elect their own representatives and that they should have the final say.
  I am in favour of people having the final say; I am in favour of democracy. But let us make no mistake—local government is the creation of the House of Commons, which must take the ultimate responsibility for revenue raising in this kingdom and, at the end of the day, the people will decide that, if they do not like the Government of the day, they will put that Government out of office. That is the way it should be, and I have no complaint about that system.
  For a local authority to pretend that it can set up an alternative sovereignty and say that its judgment, and not that of the House, must prevail is an extraordinary proposition. Too often, we mouth such sentiments as, "It must be a matter for the local authority—we mustn't interfere." Sometimes we must get back to first principles and the first principle in this issue is that the House of Commons must make the ultimate judgment, and bluntly, the House and the party of Government will be put out if the electorate disagree with the choices that they make.
  We are debating Government policy and it is right that we should. However, when people assess the worth of the Bill and examine the provisions in it, they will want to know something about the alternatives. I found it fascinating—I say that with all the insincerity at my command—to see the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) thinking desperately on his feet trying to work out how to explain that, in extremis, there must always be a reserve power to cap. His explanation was that it was something to do with fraud. We all know that, with matters of fraud, one does not have to a reserve power to cap. We all know that fraud can be dealt with in any event.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham apparently forgot what his earlier explanation was. At one time, it was not fraud. He said:
  "It's really just a hypothetical question to ask us to define what would be extreme circumstances. What I am saying to you—I am not ducking your question in any sense—I am saying in extremis that reserve power would have to be reserved, but it's impossible to say in advance what those circumstances would be".

  89
  There we have it from the hon. Member for Dagenham. There will be the terrors of the earth, but he is not certain what they are.
  We heard this evening a wriggling, squirming and giggling assurance, which came through in the end, that a Labour Government would not cap. On 15 February 1991, the hon. Member for Dagenham was asked what he would do about a 60 per cent. rise. He said:
  "Well I don't see, even then, that we would want to come in … and cap".
  That was his attitude. In a sense, one would expect nothing less from the Labour party; one could say that, in the end, the hon. Member for Dagenham came clean under some pressure and admitted that that was his attitude.
  What I found extraordinary was to hear the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) in no way try to dissociate himself from that proposition. He was eager, anxious and positively bouncing to associate himself with the Labour party.
  Mr. Bellotti indicated assent.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Eastbourne is nodding his assent now. He has made it clear that he too would see no restrictions imposed——
  Mr. Bellotti indicated assent.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am glad to mention the hon. Gentleman's sedentary assent, so that it can be recorded in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman made it clear, and continues to do so, that he can see no circumstances for capping.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned a passing acquaintance with local government in the west country. I remind him that we too can remember the experience of Liberal affairs in local government in Devon. We can remember a time only about five years ago when a Liberal administration was kept in power in county hall by the Labour party. The price that the Liberals were prepared to pay was to agree to abolish Devon's last grammar school. The reality of Liberal Democrats in local government is that they will always jump into bed with the Labour party in the end. It says much for the Labour party that, in the end, even it found the association with the Liberals so disgraceful that it felt the need to withdraw.
  In the end, the House of Commons must act as the ultimate protector against the exploitation of the people. Without proper capping powers, that exploitation will continue. The experience of the community charge has been bad and painful enough. It would be unthinkable for us not to be prepared to learn from our mistakes. The pity of it is that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have shown tonight that they are quite incapable of learning from a mistake. Mercifully, that charge cannot be laid against the Conservative party.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I want briefly to follow the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his constitutional analysis of the protectors of the people. In a few months—we do not know how long it will be—we shall go to the country in an election. I very much doubt whether any hon. Member will say blandly to the electorate that the real protection of the rights of the people is the House of Commons. Candidates will be pleading for votes, and there will be little discussion, especially in Scotland, about the legislative sovereignty of
  90
  the United Kingdom Parliament. There will be a great deal of speech-making about the sovereignty of the Scottish people. That shows clearly to me one of the major failures of the House of Commons, which was revealed in the nature and thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Teignbridge.
  The only part of the United Kingdom that had the poll tax in front of it, in legislative terms, was Scotland in 1987. The people of Scotland overwhelmingly rejected the poll tax, but the Government and the House of Commons in particular paid little or no attention to them. The Bill is a panic measure in a retreat from what could have been foretold—the tenacity of the people of Scotland. It is the result of ignoring the views of the people of Scotland, and of the massive campaign of righteous civil disobedience and non-payment in Scotland.
  We have moved a considerable way. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is not in his place. I understand his reasons and I am not referring to him pejoratively. He referred to an article on Sunday by a Scottish journalist, Mr. Ian Bell. The hon. Member quoted a remark by Mr. Ian Bell which showed that, on this occasion, he was speaking in terms that were not unfavourable to the Labour party. Mr. Ian Bell concluded by saying that "Labour opposes and Lang disposes".
  What does Labour do when the Secretary of State uses powers that have been called "corrupt" by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? Does Labour say, "Lie down and obey the law," or does it show some tenacity in its opposition? Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will give us some idea of Labour's intentions when the capping powers are used, as they are being used in a sense by the Secretary of State at present.
  In a point of order, I made an allusion to the nature of the Bill. It is a tawdry Bill. In view of the lack of Scottish legislation going through the House at present, there should have been a unique and specific Scottish Bill to deal with the matter expeditiously in relation to the position that prevails in Scotland. One way or another, we would have been given the opportunity of doing what is amply justified in terms of fairness. We could have abolished the poll tax in legislative form; it has already been abolished in practical terms because of the attitude of the Scottish people. We would have had the opportunity to abolish the poll tax not in 1993—if the Government persist in office —but in 1992.
  There are two ways in which the poll tax could be abolished. The first way is not entirely favourable to me, but might suit the hon. Member for Garscadden. We could introduce a Bill to reintroduce the rating system. I understand that that is the short-term Labour party measure, and it could be done.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Long-term.
  Mr. Douglas: I may have it wrong, but I understand that it would be a short-term measure and that Labour has longer-term proposals, with which I do not want to deal tonight. The idea is that the Government of the day would reintroduce the rating system. In Scotland, the basis for rating is not too outmoded because of the recent revaluation, which caused us all the difficulties in 1985. It might be uprated without too much difficulty in terms of inflation.

  91
  I argue far more strongly that, given the time scale between now and April 1992, we could introduce a local income tax for Scotland without great difficulty. I do not argue the same case for Britain or for the United Kingdom as a whole, but I suggest that, in Scotland, the mechanism is there and that we could do that.
  What have we gone through all the paraphernalia to do? We are considering the collection of about £800 million by means of a massive process of banding, valuation, revaluation, assessment and appeals, which would run in harmony with the poll tax registration. It is completely unnecessary. Why do I think that it is unnecessary? I shall repeat comments that I have made before, because they do not seem to be getting through to the electorate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garscadden sniggers. Does he or anyone else in the House know any people who pay their rates or poll tax out of anything other than income? I do not know anyone who sells his paintings or other capital assets in order to make his contribution to local revenue. Everyone I know pays out of his income.
  A tax related to income should be an income tax. We hear strictures from the Opposition about the change in the balance of taxation. They say that the Government have altered the balance from direct to indirect taxation. Might I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden whether it is the intention of the Labour party to go back on that? Would a Labour Government reverse the increase in VAT and return to a rate of 15 per cent? Those are important considerations for the electorate.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman want an answer?
  Mr. Douglas: I do not expect an answer, but the points that I make are important and must be put on the record.
  We have seen an alteration in the gearing of local government funding. In Scotland, only £1 out of £10 of local authority revenue comes from what will be called the community tax or council tax. There may have been an argument in the past for using fairly draconian powers to cap local authorities because a substantial amount—up to 25 per cent.—of local expenditure was raised locally. Where is the thrust of that argument now in relation to gearing? The Government have no confidence whatever in the local economy or local accountability. A local income tax would create local accountability. It is possible to go either way. Other countries raise a much higher proportion of their revenue from local income tax than the United Kingdom.
  I was heartened today by the decision of Grampian regional council, which is Labour-controlled, to support a local income tax. The vote was 23 Liberal and Scottish National party members for and eight Tories against, while Labour members, who could not make up their minds, abstained.
  There is a further point in favour of a local income tax in Scotland. We could dispute the figures. We asked the Secretary of State to supply his own figures. He did so, but we dispute them. I wish to put it on the record for the Scottish National party that the necessary £800 million or so could be raised by a Scottish income tax of about 3·5p or 4p in the pound.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: No.
  Mr. Douglas: The Minister disagrees, but that is a matter for discussion and analysis by both hon. Members and experts. I am willing to have such discussions with the Minister.
  To substantiate my support for a local income tax, I quote from the report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Although the institute argued initially for a property-based tax, the report says:
  "In the longer term, however, if it is intended that local taxes should contribute more to the costs of local government, we see no alternative to the eventual introduction of a local income tax, either as a supplement to, or replacing, property taxation".
  That is a considered view.
  I argue forcibly for a local income tax in Scotland by 1992. It would be possible to introduce it if there was the will to do so. The only objection comes not from Scotland but from the United Kingdom Treasury. That objection would persist whether a Conservative or Labour Government were in power. If we are to return to fundamental autonomy and accountability, local authorities must have a flexible and buoyant source of finance. The only one that would work is a local income tax.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State did not deal with some detailed points. I am aware that some of the points that I intend to raise may be Committee points, but I fancy that we shall have a truncated Committee stage. Therefore, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I shall ask the Under-Secretary to explain several points.
  Clause 2(2)(a) refers to
  "an excessive increase in those expenses over the total estimated expenses there mentioned of the local authority in respect of the financial year".
  What legal backing do the Government have for that definition? What does it mean in legal terms? Who will determine what is excessive? That is a fair point.
  An open-ended suggestion is made in the proposed section 3A in clause 2(2)(b). It says:
  "Different principles may be determined under subparagraph (3) above for different classes of local authority and the Secretary of State may classify local authorities for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by reference to such factors as he thinks fit."
  What does that mean? What criteria will be used when the Secretary of State forms a view of what he thinks fit?
  Clause 3(9) says:
  "The Secretary of State may be order amend, or substitute another definition for, any definition of domestic property for the time being effective in relation to Scotland."
  What is the nature of the power that the Government seek? It is an open-ended power. The Secretary of State could make up his mind and impose on us any definition of domestic property that he thought fit.
  We are told that clause 4 applies to England and Wales only. Clause 4(6) contains significant definitions of the charging authority, the community charges registration officer and the valuation officer. None of them applies to Scotland. The Bill contains no definition of a valuation officer in Scotland. The Secretary of State said that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would be the top dogs. This is a new procedure, under which the local assessors in Scotland would not be asked to work in harmony with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I am open to being convinced otherwise by the Minister, but as I read it, the local assessor will be subordinate to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. As far as I am aware, that is something new.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes several perfectly proper and constructive points The Commissioners of Inland Revenue will ensure consistency of approach north and south of the border. The responsibility for carrying out valuations will lie with the assessors.
  Mr. Douglas: I am sorry to pursue the matter, but that is not what the definition of a valuation officer says. I refer the Minister to clause 4(6), which says:
  "'valuation officer' means any officer of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who is for the time being appointed by them to be a valuation officer or a deputy valuation officer for the purposes of the valuation under section 3 above."
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will have an opportunity to clarify that when he winds up, which I would welcome.
  My major objection is to the regulations that could be made under the Bill, which is an important one for local democracy. It is a departure from the procedures that have existed hitherto. It will be an enabling Bill, but the Government have the audacity to provide in clause 7(3)(a) that the power to make orders will be done under the negative procedure for statutory instruments.
  It surprised me that the hon. Member for Garscadden made no real attempt to state what the Labour party would do if and when it entered office to overcome the massive difficulties that local authorities are encountering in ending the poll tax.
  In the interim, the Government have a responsibility to abolish the poll tax a year earlier in Scotland. I have suggested some ways in which they could do that, and they have a major responsibility to consider the collapse of local authority finance in Scotland. The Government cannot wash that away and say that it is a result of massive campaigns of non-payment. The situation has been imposed by the Government, and anyone with credibility in the Government has a responsibility to consider what is happening in Strathclyde, Lothian and other regions of Scotland. The Government will rue the day if they do not take action immediately.
  8.21 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I rise to support the changes in the Bill as I think they are very welcome indeed.
  May I take the House back to the question of capping powers that are included in the first part of the Bill? My main local authority is Derbyshire county council, led by the estimable Mr. Bookbinder, who is rapidly becoming known throughout the country, as we have known him for some time in Derbyshire, as the epitome of irresponsible local government. It is a Labour-controlled authority and it was capped last year. Its budget was reduced from £560 million to £520 million which, given the size of Derbyshire and the fact that on the whole we have relatively few problems, is one hell of a lot of money to be spending and to be lifting from local people.
  This year, Derbyshire has not been capped and that gives point straight away to the suggestion that the existence of effective capping powers has a substantial effect on the councils concerned. The very fact that the powers exist means that often they do not have to be used. Fewer councils are being capped this year than were being capped last year, and some of the councils that were capped last year, such as Derbyshire, have decided to behave themselves, with the consequence that they are
  94
  being much more sensible. As a result, in Derbyshire, the budget is up 7 per cent.—just a smidgeon under 7 per cent. —from last year to around £556 million. That is exactly the amount to the whisker that the county council could increase its budget to under the stated capping rules set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last autumn without being capped this year.
  I would suggest that Labour-controlled county councils such as Derbyshire are very cute indeed about the capping procedure. They know exactly what the rules are, they are smart enough to work it all out, and they are being entirely and thoroughly cynical about the way in which they operate the rules. Let me illustrate one result of their cynicism.
  Last year, Derbyshire county council was capped but, hey presto, there were no redundancies. This year, the county is not capped and has seen a 7 per cent. rise in its budget. Suddenly, 400 teaching jobs are to go, other redundancies have been announced, music lessons have been cut, swimming lessons were stopped in March, libraries all over the county have been closed and museum pieces have been sold to raise money, which has resulted in the authority being thrown out of the Museums Association and thus losing grants. In other words, everything has gone completely berserk up there, and my constituents are extremely worried.
  What puzzles me about this is that, if there has been an increase of 7 per cent. of spending in Derbyshire—a 7 per cent. increase is not a cut—why do we need any redundancies at all? What on earth does the county think it is playing at? Other councils have been capped and made similar judgments, and if they can manage, why cannot Derbyshire manage as well?
  If one takes the trouble to read Public Service, the newspaper of the National and Local Government Officers Association—NALGO—one sees that Basildon has made it clear that it can be capped without cuts and redundancies and that Bristol and Lambeth have also made that clear. That leaves open the question: why do we need redundancies in Derbyshire at all?
  The answer is that we do not need redundancies in Derbyshire. They have occurred in the most cynical way possible. It would have been very easy for the council to keep within its budget in the way that other councils have kept within theirs since councils were created, by, for example, marginally increasing some charges. The council has failed to increase, and has made a virtue of its policy of refusing to increase, the charge for school meals for 10 years. Therefore, much of the spending has gone on an increased subsidy for school meals. That subsidy is not to free school meals which are covered by statutory policy, but to others. Children in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) arrive at school in big cars and yet have their food subsidised because the council believes that without the subsidy they would not eat. What absolute, impossible, irresponsible nonsense. That is where much of the increased spending in Derbyshire is going.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: What has that to do with the Bill, which is about poll tax capping for authorities with budgets under a certain size and relates to, for example, South Derbyshire district council? Does the hon. Lady feel that South Derbyshire needs such a Bill?
  Mrs. Currie: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening. Perhaps if he listened a bit more he would learn a bit more. If he more willingly paid his own community charge and gave a lead to the whole of Derbyshire to do that instead of pretending that people on salaries of the kind that we pick up here should not have to pay anything, I should listen to him more carefully. I shall do him the courtesy of listening to him again.
  Mr. Barnes: The hon. Lady is behind the times, because my community charge has been paid. I was not going to leap to the position in which it would cross into another financial year.
  The hon. Lady's circumstances are such that she gained considerably from the operation of the poll tax and now wants further legislation that would benefit her still further. She has benefited from the £140 reduction, she benefited from the original legislation, and now she seeks to benefit from this Bill. If the hon. Lady wants to talk about individuals, she should talk about herself.
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman did not pay a bean until he was threatened with a summons. He and his colleagues in the north of the county had to be threatened with being taken to court by his own Labour-controlled council a year after he received his community charge bill, like all the rest of us. He has a long way to go before he has any credibility. In response to his point, let me say that I am interested in protecting all my constituents, from the very poorest upwards. I am trying to do my best to protect the hon. Gentleman's constituents as well.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend touches a point when she speaks about trying to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. She has spoken of the cuts and redundancies that Derbyshire introduced for purely party political purposes and for the publicity it wanted to achieve. Does my hon. Friend accept that much the same happened in Nottinghamshire? It was not capped and had a substantial increase in its budget, but to make a political song and dance, the council wanted to close 12 old people's homes. Happily, it was its own supporters that forced it off that political nightmare.
  Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend, who is also my neighbour, is absolutely right. In my home county, school meals alone are now subsidised to the tune—an admitted tune—of over £13 million, while cuts are being sought to the tune of £16 million. Derbyshire needs no cuts, and it would be easy for the county to balance its books. The cause of the problems in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and other such councils is not the Government's action on capping but cruel, stupid and short-sighted administration at county headquarters. I am convinced that, before the end of this financial year, members of Derbyshire county council will be disqualified from public office—and good riddance, too.
  This debate not only concerns Derbyshire but is of national significance—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have spoken about their constituencies and would criticise me if I did not speak about mine. I am delighted and honoured to have the opportunity to do so in the House, and shall continue to do so after the next election—so they can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
  Mr. John Maxton: Did the hon. Lady vote for the poll tax Bill? If so, did she do so for one of the good reasons that was put forward by the
  96
  Conservative party—because it would make local government accountable? Accountability means giving local councillors the right to take decisions and to pay the price through the ballot box. Why is the hon. Lady now so much in favour of removing that accountability?
  Mrs. Currie: I shall follow the hon. Gentleman down the route that he suggests. I voted for the community charge legislation, and have always voted for accountability in local government. I spent 11 years in local government and developed a considerable knack at spending enormous amounts of public money and explaining myself afterwards to the electorate. The hon. Gentleman is really saying that the Labour party has a devil-may-care approach to running the economy, which is of far greater concern than the accountability of local councils.
  I understand that the Labour party is, more or less, against capping, although some Labour Members talk of reserve powers. Indeed, Opposition Members from Derbyshire have been amongst the strongest advocates of doing away with capping and say that they would rely on the ballot box. That was the approach that we took and it does not work. I wish to heaven that it did. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has only to look through today's vote and the blue pages of more than 800 motions signed by hundreds of hon. Members to see how often we would vote for more money to be spent and how seldom we would vote, in this House, this country or this world, for taxes to be raised to match that spending. That is the problem
  Over and over again in local government, in my constituency, in the wards that I represented in the city of Birmingham and the wards and constituencies of Opposition Members, we find that, given the chance, people vote to spend more money and to defer the tax or have it sloughed off on to somebody else. That is human nature and is, ultimately, why this Bill has been introduced.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to develop this point a little further in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), who was, I believe, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party. He said that, over the past few years, local authorities should have had another £58,000 million. That figure was based on spending during a period when there had been spending limits and capping on those local authorities. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party would impose limits or whether that £58,000 million would then become £68,000 million or £100,000 million. Where on earth do they believe that that money will be found? It is the biggest con that I have ever heard.
  Mrs. Currie: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the money would come from the same place as it has always come from when Labour Governments have been in office and when Labour Governments have been backed up by Liberals because they have not had a majority in the House. It would come from the printing press. It is the easiest thing in the world to print or borrow money, and to see inflation rise and then wonder why it has risen. The net result of all those promises would be an increase in taxes, borrowing and inflation—there would be no choice —because that is the inevitable result of the promises and policies that Opposition Members offer.

  97
  The appalling speeches that we have heard from the Opposition tonight show that the Labour party is not ready or fit to govern—
  Mr. Maxton: We are going to govern.
  Mrs. Currie: No, they are not going to govern. That is what the hon. Gentleman said before the last election and the election before that, and look what happened. Indeed, that is what they said before the 1979 election. The electorate knows that the Labour party is incapable of running the economy because it makes promises that it cannot, could not and should not keep. There is no such thing as Labour probity or prudence on public spending. The fact that it is against the Bill proves that.
  The Labour party would replace the Audit Commission with a quality commission, which appears to be designed so that more money can be spent instead of being kept under control. It would abolish compulsory competitive tendering which, by any measure, has produced major savings and improvements in quality in local government. The Opposition would have regional assemblies so that, on top of Derbyshire county council, we would have a regional assembly in the east midlands. My hon. Friends and I would have to cope not only with parish councils, district councils and county councils but also with a regional assembly. I presume that that, too, would be financed out of thin air. I remember when we got rid of west midlands county council, which we brought in, and how no one noticed that it had gone because it did nothing of value. Heaven help us.
  It is apparent that the Labour party has no policy to control local government spending. It is simply against ours and against every sensible effort that we make in Bills such as this. Their approach is neither subtle or intelligent nor plausible. Capping is absolutely necessary in the national interest. It is part of the long hard struggle to reduce inflation and to keep it down. Clearly there should be no exemptions, and that is why the Bill is necessary.
  The greatest pity of all is that we did not take such a measure when we introduced the community charge in 1990.
  Mr. Maxton: In 1989.
  Mrs. Currie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as he is right about that.
  We should have taken powers in 1989 to cap every local authority in the country, knowing that it would probably not be necessary once those powers existed. If we had done so, I am sure that the introduction of the community charge would have been much less traumatic. Councils would not have been able to increase spending and load it on to the community charge. We may have been able to keep our promise of a community charge of about £250, which is the present average, and it is possible that we would not have needed to seek a third system of local government finance in as many years. However, I am convinced that the third system will be better than the previous two. If I say it often enough, I may convince my electors, too.
  I hear the bone-crunching sounds of a Government who have learnt their lesson. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that they do not intend to be caught again. However, in the background I hear the snorting
  98
  noises of a Labour party that has not learnt its lesson about inflation, and never will. On that basis, I am more than happy to support the Bill.
  8.39 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: During this lengthy debate, I have been making a careful note of the issues that Conservative Members seem to feel have some substance. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said that it was necessary to cap councils as part of the Government's macro-economic control of the economy, but at the start of the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked the Secretary of State to explain how councils making local decisions would affect the country's economy in a macro-economic sense, to which he received absolutely no answer. The answer has never been given. Conservative Members keep asserting that that is so, but never give evidence to prove it. There is quite a weight of academic evidence to show that the idea is nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) gave three reasons why councils had to have their poll taxes capped. His first curious reason was that a council can go on and on, never change hands and remain in the power of one party. Most distressing to him was the idea that a council could remain in the hands of the Labour party for years and years. It does not seem to have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that that is so because the local electorate want it and, if and when the day comes that they are dissatisfied with the council, it will be removed from office. That is why there are elections on a fixed term of every four years. Incidentally, that is a fairer system than the one in Parliament, where the Prime Minister holds the starting gun and can decide to hold an election when he or she feels that the time is appropriate.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge also said that the local electorate could not respond to decisions that they did not like because the time span involved meant that they had to respond too long after the decisions were made. He must think that his local electorate are incredibly stupid and have short memories if he believes that they cannot recall decisions made by their local authority that they did not like. All of us, particularly those who have been involved in local government, are well aware that local authorities do not always please all the people all the time. People can be annoyed with some decisions, but in local elections most electors have the common sense to make up their minds based on the whole scheme of things, not one issue that may have annoyed them two or three years before. They take the rough with the smooth and decide accordingly on the general performance of the party running the council and the opposition parties.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge offered another curious reason why councils need to be capped—that people decide that, although they are dissatisfied with local government, central Government are to blame. Could they not be right? Perhaps the Government are to blame for the decisions that the council have to make. We have only to think of occasions such as tonight when the Government are giving themselves powers to impose on a council decisions that the voters of that council did not want and clearly voted against. It is understandable but not satisfactory that people react by blaming the local council. When they decide that the Government are to blame, they are perfectly correct.

  99
  One Conservative Member said that one reason for imposing capping was that some people who vote in local elections do not pay rates and so are not entitled to a say. That is a curious argument that we have heard throughout the debates over the years about central Government control of local authorities. It was pointed out that, in reality, nearly everyone paid a share of the rates by making arrangements within families and households. Even if that were not so, it does not seem to have occurred to that Conservative Member that people who do not pay income tax have the right to vote in a general election. Is he saying that that should not be so? If so, let him say so clearly now. The principle is exactly the same: if one is entitled to vote for national Government whether or not one pays taxes, one should be entitled to vote for local government whether or not one is able to contribute to the local authority coffers. To say otherwise is simply an attack on the poor, because the only people who would be ineligible to pay would be those without the funds to do so.
  Although it will be 1993 before the poll tax comes to an end, people are still being forced to live with it. Councils that are desperate to spend money on much-needed services are having to advertise and take out large, almost full-page, adverts in newspapers urging people to pay their poll tax bills. People have been under the mistaken impression that they need no longer pay because the Government have put an end to the poll tax. It is an act of gross irresponsibility on the Government's part to allow people to believe that, because the poll tax is being brought to an end, there is no need to pay it. The Government should convey more clearly the message that the poll tax will not come to an end till 1993. They are not facing up to their responsibility to ensure that they play their part in running local authorities. Far from contributing to what councils need, the Government are already capping local authorities in Scotland. The case of Lothian council has already been mentioned.
  Earlier in the debate, some of us asked why the Government felt that there should be seven bands, and those fortunate enough to come within the highest band would have to pay only 2·5 times what those on low incomes and in poorer housing who fell in the lowest band would have to pay. I said that surely, if some hon. Members were so wealthy that they were immeasurably better off than others, were in the top band and were voting in the House, they should declare that fact when making their speeches. Conservative Members cried out that that was the politics of envy. In reality, we are talking about the politics of greed and of people who are extremely well off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, if some people save money, other people —those who are far less well off—end up paying a higher proportion of their low incomes. However, that is not the worst of it: such people pay more and suffer the effects of cuts in local authorities.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: I shall give way in a moment.
  Conservative Members have argued that we need not believe it when councils forecast large cuts, because they are not necessarily accurate. Conservative Members say, "Don't worry—it won't turn out to be as bad as they predict." Let me tell the hon. Member for Derbyshire,
  100
  South in particular that the Secretary of State for Scotland is currently forcing Lothian council to make budget cuts of £18·5 million, which is not, as Ian Bell said, a small sum of money in anyone's terms. It is a reality, not a day dream, that Lothian council is having to consider closing schools, old people's homes, children's centres and evening classes, bringing to an end free bus travel for the elderly, and cutting road repairs. Will the Government say which, if any, of those proposals they think would allow acceptable and decent levels of service? They never answer that question, but tell the councils to make the cuts and leave them to pick up the pieces as best they can.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Why does not Lothian council simply adopt the budget increase of Strathclyde—the hon. Lady's authority? If Lothian had done so, it would not have been subjected to selective action.
  Mrs. Fyfe: That was an incredible intervention, when we bear in mind that Strathclyde council faces major cuts and will have to decide how to cope with them. [Interruption.] The people of Lothian voted for Lothian council's policies because they approved of them.
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady and I will ignore the comments of the chaps sitting around her who are trying to stop both of us speaking. Would her point about wealthy people paying more apply also to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who lives in a castle, to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who has done well out of the sale of his autobiography—I congratulate him on that—or to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who lives in a castle and who drives to work in a ruddy great Daimler?
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Lady seems to miss the obvious point. Some Opposition Members are considerably better off than the average person, but they are not trying to dodge their responsibilities and get out of paying their fair share. That is the difference. Some Conservative Members are doing that, and have been doing it for years. That is their whole raison d'etre: making sure that the better-off can dodge their responsibilities, sometimes by allowing employers who are subsidised by the taxpayer to pay low wages and sometimes by other dodges that have been thought up in the past 12 years.
  Mr. Dalyell: To return to the Minister's intervention, does my hon. Friend accept that, on the figures, Strathclyde receives £914 per capita on the budget estimates, and £733 in respect of Government support per capita? Lothian's figures are £922 and £645 respectively, so the Minister's attempt at a comparison with Strathclyde was quite wicked. The figures for Dumfries and Galloway are £941 and £762. So what has happened to Lothian is a matter of pure political vindictiveness and spite.
  Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He made a point about the Secretary of State's own area earlier, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to respond to it.
  I ask again: which cuts should Lothian make which the Government believe would be acceptable? People voted for those services and it is sheer effrontery on the part of the Government, who can muster only 10 seats in Scotland and only tiny minorities in local authorities, to turn aside electors' decisions in this way.

  101
  Ian Bell's article in The Observer has been mentioned. He was of course right to attack the nature of the cuts and the way in which the Government are undemocratically imposing their will on the people who voted for the services provided in Lothian. The article comes up with one way of opposing such cuts which the Labour party has not yet contemplated. Bell asks:
  "Why not resign and allow the Tories to administer their own cuts? Why not fight local elections on this one issue?"
  I do not see the point in—perfectly legally—resigning a seat and standing again for election. Councillors who had resigned their seats would have to stand on doorsteps asking local electors who voted for them in the local elections to do so again. Householders would want to know why, to which councillors would have to reply that they were seeking authority for the council to keep to the budget that it had set. Householders would rightly say, "We gave you that authority when we voted for you in the local elections. Why do you want it all over again?" If elections are held anyway and these councillors are re-elected, will the Government cave in? Not a bit of it. They will continue to impose their will because they believe that they have a sacred right to impose their views on local authorities, regardless of the outcome of local elections.
  I certainly admire Mr. Bell's support for people to have what they voted for, but I suggest that his remedy does not work. I keep on telling people that if they believe seriously that local government should be local government and not an arm of the state—if they believe that it should have the right to run local authorities—there is no recourse but to vote at the general election for a party that genuinely believes in local autonomy, local democracy and local government. That is the answer. It is not an exciting one, but it is the truth, and soon the time will come when people can vote for such a party.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Like many other hon. Members I came to the House with a background of quite a few years as a local councillor at county borough and district level. That was a satisfactory and worthwhile role, yet until I had been in this place for a year or two I had not truly appreciated the enormously important role that local government plays in our national life. I would be the first to admit, eight years on, that I probably appreciate even more now the necessary part that local authorities play and that they must go on playing it.
  I am a great devotee of the role of local authorities. Although I understand the growth of anxiety in the past couple of years, I do not subscribe to the view that local authorities are too troublesome or that local finance is too complicated—"Scrap it all; let's do it all from Westminster." It would be tragic if that view were adopted, and I hope that it does not get to the starting gate.
  Way back about 20 years ago, there was an understanding between this place and local authorities that here in Westminster resided the sovereign power, the law makers and the guardians of what the nation could or could not afford to spend. The parties were agreed on that. I do not recall capping in those days but I do recall that if the Government of the day in their wisdom wanted to rein in expenditure, as was their right, local authorities did their best to comply. All that was necessary was a circular from the Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, or whatever it was called in those far-off
  102
  days, and we in local government did our best in response. It never occurred to us in a major county borough such as Nottingham, whether Labour or Conservative-controlled, to do otherwise, because we accepted that the Government reside in Westminster.
  All this changed, sad to say, when too many people began to think—and, almost by accident, legislation began to speak—of local government instead of local authorities. They began to think of local authorities as little governments in exile with almost unlimited powers in their areas. Piling absurdity on absurdity, such people developed the notion that someone else should pay.
  The Labour party talks about the generality of taxpayers. In an intervention, I drew attention to the large sum that the Liberal Democrats say should have been given to local government. I do not believe that that sort of money is ever likely to be available. The change in philosophy and the loss of understanding between central and local government led to everything going badly wrong. The Liverpools, Sheffields, Hackneys and Lambeths have much to answer for when we reflect on the relationship between this place and local authorities over the past few years.
  Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real tragedy that underlines the stupidity of the cuts that have been introduced by some Labour-controlled councils is that the most vulnerable in our society are hurt? Social services budgets are cut and old people's homes are faced with closure. Even in areas such as my constituency, libraries and other facilities are proposed for closure. In many instances, there is nowhere else for people to go. It is the very people who socialists tend to say they are trying to protect who are hurt the most in Labour-controlled authorities.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is right. Whenever a Labour authority is faced with trying to restrain its budget, its immediate reaction is, "Who are the most vulnerable in our society? If those people are hurt, there will be headlines in the local press. We shall be able to say that the wicked Tory Government are forcing us to stop meals-on-wheels services or to cut home-help provision." It is always the sector that deals with the most vulnerable people which is under threat. Those are the people who are nailed to the wall by the so-called caring Labour party.
  If the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want a vast sum to be found in addition to that which is already spent, and that is no small sum, and if expenditure is to be unlimited, who do they think will pick up the bill? I fear that those who are in a position to do so—the enterprising, the highly educated and the highly qualified—will not stay around waiting to be robbed, and penal taxation comes down to plain robbery.
  Under the Labour Government there was penal taxation. Income tax was levied at 83 per cent. in some instances, and it was possible to be faced with 98 per cent. taxation. Even the basic rate which the ordinary working-class person paid was 37 per cent.—and that was before national insurance. In those days, we came to realise, as we are saying now, that a Government can have 40 per cent. of something, which is better than the Labour Government's take, which was 100 per cent. of nothing. In many instances, the Labour Administration lost because of emigration. That must not happen again.

  103
  When the opposition parties talk about unlimited spending, we must remind them that the able, the skilled and the highly qualified will pack up their bags and go. It is a small world, and we cannot ask people to stay loyal when they are being robbed through penal taxation.
  I have no doubt that it is necessary for the Bill to be enacted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, "Oh that we had had draconian capping powers when we voted willingly for the concept of the community charge." When the bills came through for the first year—I accept that this is a simple rule of thumb but the result would have been not one cut—we could have provided that no local authority could spend a penny more than it had spent the previous year plus the rate of inflation. I agree that that is a somewhat simplistic approach but it serves to make my point.
  If that approach had been adopted, the community charge overall would have been £2·5 billion less than it was, roughly £70 less for every adult in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South said, "Oh that we had had that sort of limit imposed when we changed from the rating system to the community charge." Who knows, perhaps the charge would still have failed, but we would have had a charge reasonably in line with what we thought it would be when we voted for the enabling legislation. If that had been done, it is possible that we would now be in a different ball park.
  I hope that the powers in the Bill will be as tough, or even tougher, when we have the new tax. For the first, perhaps, two years I would like to see an absolute limit on spending, so that the new system can be seen and judged on its true merits—and, unlike the old system, cannot be wrecked because authorities up their spending to discredit it. Let us not fool ourselves; many local authorities were determined to ensure that, whether they agreed or disagreed with the community charge, they wrecked it by whatever means at their disposal.
  In my county council, the charge was upped by over £100 for every adult in our city. I thought that that was outrageous, but we could do nothing because my lords and masters—my senior colleagues on the Front Bench—never believed that local authorities could be so wicked as to screw their constituents to the wall by charging them an extra £100 for the pleasure.
  Even now, after all the publicity and the details that appear on our community charge bills, I still receive the usual crop of queries from constituents. They ask why on earth they are charged some £20 for excess county council spending when they live in the city. If ever there was a case for a great city such as Nottingham to be able once again to run its own affairs, what has happened in the past couple of years says it all. That change cannot come about too soon—yesterday, please, Minister.
  It is a pity that, having taken powers to cap authorities, we have not taken powers to force local authorities to collect their dues and taxes. Uncollected dues and taxes should not be lumped on to the backs of the innocent majority. Perhaps the district auditor should have the power to take action where, in his view, the local authority has been dilatory in sending out bills, never mind lax about collection. As a result of that laxity, a further financial burden is placed on the long-suffering charge payers—usually the majority of honest people.
  104
  The percentage of local spending funded from central taxation has now been increased so that only 14 per cent. is raised locally. We must have a system that avoids the trap that even the previous Labour Government recognised. Those of us who were on local authorities in those days—the 1970s—know that to be true. Today, a project may cost £100,000, and local councillors may say, "Never mind, we only have to find £14,000 and Westminster—the taxpayer—will find the other £86,000."
  Capping is a necessity. It is even more essential when we are dealing with a ratio of 86 per cent. to 14 per cent. That gearing effect worries me most. If a local authority has to raise only 14 per cent. of £ 100 of spending and only spends £100, the Secretary of State's figures, which were quoted by both Front Benches, will hold water. But if that local authority spends £114, the poor charge payer must find £28. Therefore, his charge doubles. We cannot permit that because it would be an unjust reflection on a good Bill and a good scheme. We must ensure that that does not happen.
  The valuation is set out in clauses 3 to 5. Although the old rating system may have been inaccurate, anomalous or difficult to understand, the valuations were precise. Until a few years ago, if someone carried out a home improvement which I believe added less than £30 to the rateable value, that was ignored. If the improvement added more than £30 to the rateable value, the home owner was penalised for spending his own money on his property and doing what many would argue was a national service by preserving the state of our housing stock.
  The message from the Government seems to be that we should have banding for local taxation purposes. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meant what he said when replying to my intervention when he presented his case earlier, I hope that it will be clear that there will not be precise valuations and that properties will be placed in particular bands. There must be no disincentive to the generality of home improvements, and people should not be frightened to spend their money on their own homes in case they are forced into a higher band.
  It was said earlier that the value should change only when a house is sold. I hope that we do not pursue that path. If houses are valued according to broad bands, houses in a particular street that are all much of a muchness should be in the same band. It would be ridiculous if a house in that street was sold and attracted a higher tax simply because it had changed hands a few weeks before. I hope that all properties of a similar nature in a street will stay in the same band.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Sit down.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I will sit down when I am ready. I was told to continue until 9.15 pm
  It has been said that there will be problems about appeals. Under the banding system someone would have to be convinced that the property was in the wrong band before appealing. If someone thinks that the property is broadly in the right band or somewhere near the top, he is unlikely to appeal in case the appeal body shoves the property into a higher band.
  I hope that we mean what we say and that there will be rough valuations placing properties in bands and that houses will not change in value if home improvements are carried out and that they will not change in value for

  105
  taxation purposes on resale. If I can have those assurances, this will be a first-class Bill and it will pave the way to the new local tax structure which I hope will be presented to the House in this year's Queen's Speech so that it can be up and running before the next general election.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: In a sense, we are discussing two Bills today—a Local Government Finance Bill and a Local Government Valuation Bill—because the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill falls clearly into two parts. The local government finance part is an extension of the 1988 legislation that introduced the poll tax and it is in keeping with the poll tax principles. We have not begun to get rid of the poll tax. We are building upon the earlier provisions for England and Wales contained in the 1988 legislation. The valuation part sets up what the Government call the council tax. I will not spend much time considering that as there will be a general election before the Government can introduce that principle and it will bite the dust in the long run. I should like to speak to clause 1 and about my authority in north-east Derbyshire, because that authority is seriously affected by the Bill.
  Much nonsense is talked about the operation of the standard spending assessment and its application in capping district authorities. District authorities are placed in a much worse position by capping than are larger authorities, because they do not have the leeway to manoeuvre with funds. My authority has a current budget of £7·3 million and would be £1·5 million or 27 per cent. over the SSA.
  According to the chop logic of the Government, that council is profligate and irresponsible, but nothing could be further from the truth. All the information supplied by the Audit Commission shows that my authority is well run and efficient and that it operates according to the normal tendering provisions. For example, its direct labour force has recently obtained the refuse collection franchise. However, it is close to the bottom of almost every list of grants and SSAs per head of the population or charge payers. That applies in the context of the 26 authorities with which it was compared by the Audit Commission.
  A list in answer to a parliamentary question that I asked on 5 December puts my authority at No. 346 out of 366 authorities in terms of the percentage of grant that it receives from central Government. That being the case, one would expect it to have certain characteristics that the Government would think ideal, because it would seem to need little money. However, of the 366 authorities in England, only one receives a smaller proportion of SSA per charge payer—east Dorset.
  That area and north-east Derbyshire provide a stark contrast. East Dorset is represented by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who has a majority cif over 22,000, and by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) who has a majority of almost 12,000. North-east Derbyshire is represented by me with a majority of 3,700 and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who has a majority of 14,000. I understand that north Dorset feels considerably aggrieved about the SSA level that has been adopted for it but north-east Derbyshire's grievance is even greater.
  The details of the standard spending assessment require a full debate in the House. If I had the opportunity to
  106
  speak in such a debate, I would deal with how the SSA is assessed, the different factors that are taken into account and the nonsense of the system in the context of north-east Derbyshire, which is seriously handicapped by the different methods of calculation. It is left with very little money from central Government and is now being handicapped by the total SSA level that will be provided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has yet to speak, I do not have time to describe that aspect in detail.
  However, I hope that the Minister will agree to meet a deputation from north-east Derbyshire, to explain the iniquities of the SSA as it applies in that area. It has become doubly dangerous. Before, we had higher poll tax levels than we would have had with a reasonable SSA. Now, we are likely to face poll tax capping and to be unable to provide essential services. Once one takes into account the statutory provisions and the parish precept, which has not been ignored in the figures, little leeway is left. Non-statutory money remains, so that expenditure of £2·5 million would have to be reduced to £1 million, which would have a devastating effect on a whole range of services. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet our deputation.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Bill is clearly born of the chaos that was the poll tax. Over the past few months, we have witnessed the failure of every policy for which Government supporters have argued, every principle for which they have fought, and every prejudice that they have defended with the blind faith of the zealot.
  We were told by Ministers—the Secretary of State for Scotland was prominent among them—that the poll tax would make it possible to abolish the sad and arbitrary use of central Government capping powers. Responsibility was to be built into the system, and the electorate would be master of the instance. All that is in the past. Accountability is no longer in fashion. It has become one of the many casualties of the Government's disordered retreat. We have seen also the abandonment of the 20 per cent. rule, although that is to live on illogically—because, if it is inappropriate or unjust in 1993 or 1994, it is equally so now.
  We have seen the most unlikely people come to the Dispatch Box to defend the principle of a household tax for which only the householder is liable. I remember the abuse—I use that word advisedly—to which my right hon. and hon. Friends were subjected when they tried to defend exactly the same principle. It is extraordinary to hear the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland say that one of the virtues of the new council tax is that it includes in the payment net 90 per cent. of the citizens of this country—when they would have treated with contempt any such claim for the old rating system.
  We have seen a display of intellectual flexibility that beggars belief, as the same right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have swallowed their pride, capital valuation, and the rate poundage system. I say this to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who I understand is standing in for the Secretary of State. If, a few months ago, I had come to the Dispatch Box and offered him a vision of a property-based tax and a capital valuation system that

  107
  provided an individual valuation for each property and then applied a rate poundage—and suggested one or two other small changes to the rebate system, with a small concession here and there—and had asked the hon. Member for Eastwood if that would do, he would have condemned it root and branch. He would have said that it represented a return to the old rating system and as such was totally unacceptable. If the hon. Gentleman is intellectually honest, he knows that would have been his
  It is amazing what party loyalty will do to principle. The hon. Member for Eastwood and most of his right hon. and hon. Friends are examples of intellectual schizophrenia. They have been compelled to make the bitter pill more palatable. As everyone knows, the cost is £4·25 billion. The Secretary of State made a remarkable reference to the Chancellor's generosity, as though he had taken out his cheque book and dashed off a quick personal promissory note for the sum of £4·25 billion—when, at the end of the day, every person in the country with purchasing power will make up that shortfall by paying more value added tax.
  It is clear above all that local democracy will be the victim. The Conservative party once saw itself as the defender of local democracy. It had an honourable tradition of arguing that local communities should run their own affairs, and ought not to be bullied or overshadowed by the power of central Government. Yet members of that same party now say that it is not only right—as a temporary expedient, to get them out of an electoral difficulty—that local government should control only 13 or 14 per cent. of the revenue that it spends, but that such a concept should be enshrined in our system in a way that I think is quite indefensible.
  We are promised a great future of fierce and determined capping. There will be no diversion of resources, whether it be for a child at school or for an elderly person looking for improved day care facilities, without the say-so of central Government.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman, flushed with moral indignation, is complaining about the Government developing their policy. He belongs to a party that has said for many years that the rating system is totally wrong and should be scrapped as it is unfair and unreasonable. I understand that the Labour party is now proposing its solution to the problem—a fair rating system. What is the difference between a rating system and a fair rating system? That is the sort of thing of which Alice Through the Looking-Glass would be proud.
  Mr. Dewar: If we had time, I could explain to the hon. Gentleman the difference between a fair rating system and an unfair system. He could find that difference by reading our policy and that of the Conservative party.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland courteously wrote to me on 31 May about the Bill. I found it extraordinary that he said that he did not accept
  "that the proposals in the Bill represent a major change in the relationship between central and local government. The provisions in the Bill concerning charge capping do no more than bring my powers in this area into line with those of my colleagues south of the border."
  It occurred to me that "into line" was an appropriate phrase; it has the ring of the drill square about it, which, I suspect, tells us much about the Government's approach.
  108
  I must tell the Secretary of State that this is an important change. It is only a part of what is happening, but it is an integral part of a substantial shift in power between central and local government that is not desirable and about which we protest.
  Let us consider what is being proposed. The test of reasonableness in Scotland will go. Section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966—the Secretary of State for the Environment had clearly never heard of it—is the foundation of the present powers that lie with the Secretary of State. I have been in Scottish politics for a long time and have spent a good part of the past decade poring over amendments to that section, but it has survived and is still part of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. The test, as anyone interested in local government in Scotland knows, was whether the expenditure was unreasonable and excessive. We have got rid of the test of reasonableness; it will be only whether the expenditure is excessive.
  Even on that there used to be guidelines, because the Secretary of State had to take account of the
  "financial and other relevant circumstances of the area"
  of the authority. That goes as well.
  That section offered little protection. People might tell me that I should not build too strong a case on it, but at least that test had to be applied and the Secretary of State had to meet that hurdle, but now it is gone. All that we are left with is that the test of excessive is what the Secretary of State says it is—what the Secretary of State decrees. That is a licence for arbitrary authority, which the House should not lightly grant.
  There has been much talk about the experience of Lothian region this year. I do not want to go into the figures, but what has happened to Lothian is not an encouraging precedent for granting the powers that the Secretary of State is asking the House to grant in the Bill. As many Scottish Members will know, this year Lothian received the lowest grant per head of any regional council in Scotland. Its average expenditure is well below the average of regional councils in Scotland, but if it had received the average grant per head of regional councils in Scotland, it would have been worth more than £170 for every poll tax payer in the region. That puts in some perspective the way in which even the present powers are being used by the Secretary of State, never mind the powers that he will have when we further enfeeble the safgeguards and remove what few checks and balances statute allows.
  The Secretary of State said in his letter to me that there will be no change in how grant-aided expenditure is calculated. I must accept that, as I do not believe that he would be inaccurate on that. Grant-aided expenditure is acceptable—we have all learnt to live with, if not love, the client group approach which is used to distribute the Scottish total among individual authorities, because there must be some way of distributing. It is a matter of argument, debate and dispute, but we all recognise that that machinery must exist. It is totally different if grant-aided expenditure becomes an arbitrary benchmark for penalties and a point beyond which an authority cannot spend even if it wishes to do so, if the electorate at the ballot box are willing to authorise that expenditure" and if there is a crying need in the community.
  I cannot agree with the Secretary of State's view that this is not a matter of fundamental change. We are facing a difficult time in local government. On top of what we are

  109
  discussing, we have the threat of a reform of the structure which is designed to destroy, or at least to weaken. There is also a problem of morale. The Secretary of State should not underestimate that problem. It will increase greatly if the House puts on the statute book the changes embodied in the Bill.
  I turn briefly, inevitably, to the valuation provisions of the Bill, which are also of great interest. It would be churlish not to say immediately that I welcome the small, but important, U-turn by the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State made it clear to the press in briefings that control of the valuation process would lie with the Inland Revenue valuation office. That is not now the case. The assessors—who have the knowledge and expertise to do the job—have been reinstated. That is right not only because they are best qualified to do that job but because they are a small group who took hard knocks during the row over the poll tax—sometimes from my side of the political divide and certainly from the system. Most of those I know well disliked the system that they had to administer, but they did their duty. When valuation was reinstated as part of local government finance, a proposal to deprive assessors of the duty of doing that work was ingratitude which was not entirely honourable. I am glad that the Secretary of State had second thoughts.
  In a letter to me on 31 May, the Secretary of State said that it was important, if the council tax is to come into operation on 1 April 1993, to get the valuation process under way. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will say whether he is confident that the Government are on track for April 1993, whether they will make the date or whether he will hedge his bets on 1994, as the Secretary of State for the Environment appeared to do a week or two ago.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment further on the interesting provision that the assessors will be under the direction of the Inland Revenue commissioners. I understand from the Secretary of State for the Environment—I intervened on this point—that this was merely to harmonise valuation law. My impression was that it would be about the niceties of the contractors' principle and such matters. What will the relationship be?
  This is an important matter. Traditionally, although an assessor is provided with the wherewithal to carry out his task by regional councils—which supply premises and budgets—he is totally independent and uses his professional judgment and discretion. It is hard enough to establish the credibility of any form of local government taxation, but it is important that the people carrying out the valuation—if it is that kind of system—are seen to be above political control and beyond reproach. The assessors have established that reputation. I regret the fact that we will not have the in-depth examination in Committee that we would normally have, as the Bill will be taken in short measure on the Floor of the House. It is important that the Under-Secretary gives a substantial definition of that relationship.
  Banding is another important matter. I do not intend to spend much time on this point, but it is well known that the Labour party believes that the spread within the system is not equitable. Undoubtedly—to be fair, the Secretary of State has never hidden this fact but has paraded it—there is a measure of protection for those at the top end of the housing range, which inevitably means that those in modest properties pay more than they should. The Secretary of State said in the House on 23 April 1991 at
  110
  column 938 of Hansard that the impact of banding was "dampened" by the way in which the system has been adjusted or, as some of us would say, rigged.
  If we are talking about credibility, perhaps the Secretary of State will consider the credibility of the figures that he has produced in connection with the new form of rating that he proposes to introduce. I quote from what I thought was a splendid letter of 8 May, which he was kind enough to send to me. It is a description of the valuation methods which led to the figures that were so proudly unveiled. It states:
  "it is important not to confuse the initial exercise to produce illustrative examples, which was essentially an in-house exercise conducted by IRVO on the basis of data which they already have for the purposes of carrying out their functions, with the much larger exercise that will be required for the actual distribution of properties in appropriate bands. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by publishing details of the methodology of the initial exercise which was essentially statistical".
  The last phrase is a magnificent piece of "Yes, Minister" speak for saying that there was no attempt to value properties at all. The whole thing was done, I suspect, by starting with a predetermined answer and working backwards to the desired result. It carries no credibility.
  Briefly, I want to make the important point about the absolutely startling dishonesty of the Conservative attempt to suggest that one could run the system that they outlined without any form of regular revaluation, or perhaps without any revaluation at all. I shall react the remarkable quotation from the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science which appeared in the Municipal Journal of 24 May. He said:
  "Once a property has gone into a band, we think it will stay in that band virtually in perpetuity."
  That is a staggering prospect and it is why I was so interested in the exchanges that I had with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) whom I respect as being something of an independent on such matters. The hon. Gentleman was naturally anxious to see the back of the poll tax and therefore anxious to endorse the system now offered to him. However, he said that we could not have what the Labour party suggested to get the system up and running quickly, which was to use the old valuation roll. It might, he said—this is an interesting concession —be possible in Scotland, where, after all, the last revaluation was carried out in 1985, but it was not possible in England, where the previous revaluation was as long ago as 1973.
  However, the hon. Gentleman went on to argue how splendid it was that we would not need a revaluation, and I challenged him about this but he held to it. The trouble with his position is that, if one takes the view that one can put a property into a band in the year dot and then come back some time in perpetuity and the property will still be in that band, why not do it with the 1973 revaluation?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman will concede on reflection that there is a world of difference between a system in which all properties must be valued or for which one must use a total historic value, and a system in which one allocates properties into a series of set bands and recognises that, in general, they will move within an area in roughly the same proportion.
  Mr. Dewar: I must confess that I did not understand that, but I shall read it carefully. If we assume that an honest attempt is being made to value individual

  111
  properties and to put them into a band, the nature of fluctuations in fashion, in demand and in property prices will mean that the valuation base becomes outdated. That is why we are constantly told that the whole problem of the valuation and rating system was that it required valuations periodically because the rating base became outdated. If that is the case, to suggest that we can keep property in bands in perpetuity is a striking dishonesty.
  At the end of the day, we shall find that under the pressure of events and even if the scheme sees them through for a short time if they get that opportunity, the Conservatives will be driven more and more to the Labour party's views on this issue as they have already been on others during the past few months.
  I believe and I fear that we shall face a bitter period of uncertainty. There is a genuine problem, which is that, in community associations, in residents' associations, and in ordinary homes, people imagine that the poll tax has already gone. The problem of collection is becoming almost insurmountable. At the end of April 1991, after a full two years of the poll tax in Scotland, the uncollected revenue was £427 million, or one quarter of the income from the poll tax during that period. In the first month of the new year, the total take in Scotland was £12 million, or £3 per head for every poll tax in Scotland. If that goes on, we face a catastrophe. Strathclyde, not because it has been capped by Lothian and for no other reason than the collapse of its income, already seeks £21 million of additional cuts at the beginning of this financial year.
  Against the background of crisis, the shabby little exercise that we have been offered tonight is totally unimportant. The Secretary of State for the Environment put great emphasis on what he said was, in Scotland, the increase in expenditure of local authorities. My understanding is that the revenue expenditure during the period of this Government has gone up by 9·6 per cent. in real terms. Capital spending, excluding housing which involves a different financial system, has dropped by 8·2 per cent. I believe that I am justified in suggesting that, if one compared that with the record of the Scottish Office over the same period, one would probably find that local government came out well, even if one applied the criteria that the Conservatives want us to apply.
  It is extraordinary how, under electoral pressure and concentrating on saving their electoral skins, the Government can shake out the pennies when the time comes. I will not listen to them preaching to my colleagues in local government, who face problems, about fiscal or political responsibility.
  The Bill is a paving Bill: it paves the way to the wrong scheme on the wrong timetable. I do not accuse Ministers of a lack of urgency, but I accuse them—and the electorate will accuse them—of having the wrong targets and wrong-headed objectives.
  9.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): A number of Conservative and Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), have rightly and properly used the occasion to make a number of purely
  112
  constituency points. All of them have been noted by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by myself if they refer to Scotland, although I hope that the House will appreciate that, in the time available, I will concentrate on the broad principles that have underlain the debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), in his excellent speech, said that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) had nothing to say. That criticism was a little unfair. The hon. Member for Dagenham had a great deal to say. The problem was that it was mostly the product of a fairly vivid imagination. We heard conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. To be helpful, I must say to the hon. Member for Dagenham that if, in the next Parliament, in opposition, he wishes to enhance his personal income, he has a considerable career as a political novelist in front of him.
  The second point to make about the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham is that he has a genial and cheerful brass neck. He talked about U-turns. I have counted the changes in Labour party policy on the issue of local government finance since 1987. I make it that it has had 67 different policy positions—a U-turn every three weeks. It has had the local income tax, the roof tax, the floor tax, a supplement on national income tax and a combination of them all.
  The third point to be made about the speeches of the hon. Members for Dagenham and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—I shall come back to the serious points made by the hon. Member for Garscadden—is that they seem to sing a different tune. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, said that he understood the position of the hon. Member for Dagenham on capping. My right hon. Friend is rather better at understanding the hon. Gentleman than I am. I am still not entirely clear about his position. As I understand it, he is against capping.
  In contrast, the hon. Member for Garscadden quoted favourably several times section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, which was introduced by the Labour party and created a form of rate capping. I agree that, if the hon. Member for Garscadden ever became Secretary of State for Scotland, he might wish to return to the provisions of the 1966 Act. But that is clearly incompatible with the position of the hon. Member for Dagenham.
  In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said that the key factor was the total cost to the local taxpayer, which we have reduced significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) rightly said that the Government have switched the burden from the local taxpayer to the central taxpayer. The position of the hon. Member for Dagenham on that is perfectly clear. I listened to him on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 on 26 March 1991. He said that Labour planned to increase the burden of council spending met locally from the current figure of about 14 per cent. to about 20 per cent. Would that apply in Scotland?
  Mr. Gould: The Under-Secretary should recognise that he owes an obligation, as do his ministerial colleagues, at least to treat the figures on a common basis. If the Minister checks what the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House earlier in the week to which he refers, he will see that the Secretary of State claimed that the switch to VAT had reduced the proportion of local government

  113
  spending accounted for by local government revenue from 34 per cent. to 22 per cent. That was a clear statement. The fact that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and now the Under-Secretary have chosen to alter the basis of the calculation so that they judge the proportion of a different sum——
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): No.
  Mr. Gould: Yes, that is entirely the case. If the Secretary of State does not understand that, we have a good insight into why local government finance is in such a mess.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Dagenham had a perfectly good opportunity earlier to make his own speech. My point is simple: do his figures apply to Scotland or not? We had no answer to that point from the hon. Member for Garscadden either. On issue after issue, the debate has shown that there are differences—and key differences—between the Labour party north and south of the border.
  Mr. Marlow: Is not the key difference that we have found out today from the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that, if there were ever the misfortune of the return of a Labour Government in this country, what they would do with local government finance would be to let it rip?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. A Labour Government would say to Lambeth, Liverpool arid every loony lefty council in the land, "Spend, spend and spend again." That would be their policy.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall come to the question of Lothian, which was raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  The point about policy which comes out of Labour party speeches made north and south of the border is that there are significant differences between the Labour party in Scotland and the Labour party in England and Wales. Frankly, it is a case of one left hand not knowing what the other left hand is doing.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Whatever may happen in Lambeth or to the loony left south of the border, does my hon. Friend appreciate that the loony left north of the border, in Tayside region, has taken on more than 300 extra employees in the past three weeks?
  Mr. Stewart: As always, my hon. and learned Friend makes an apt and accurate point. I hope that the community charge payers of Tayside pay full attention to his remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) spoke from experience of the importance of the role of local government. He pleaded for independence for Nottingham council. That is not the subject of this debate, but I am sure that his plea has been noted by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  One of the key purposes of the Bill is to extend capping powers. Those powers were rightly praised and justified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Hornchurch, who was right about revaluation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was also right to say that the proposed powers are necessary as they are in the national interest.
  114
  I want to deal with the three major points that were made by Opposition Members, especially those representing Scotland. The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about the capping powers.
  Dr. Godman rose——
  Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I shall give way to him.
  Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, who displays his characteristic courtesy by giving way. On the system of appeals north of the border, can the Minister say something about the appeal procedure vis-a-vis the assessment of valuations of domestic properties?
  Mr. Stewart: That is a perfectly fair point, which was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and a number of other hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be aware that the consultation on our proposals is continuing. We shall consider carefully what those consulted say about appeals. However, that issue is a matter for the main Bill which we shall introduce in the autumn. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that Bill will contain the appropriate provisions to set up an appeals mechanism. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular points that he wishes to put to us on this matter, we look forward to receiving them.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about the capping powers in Scotland. The major purpose of the Bill is to introduce stronger capping powers as the present ones are limited. Some local authorities have completely ignored accountability. They have flagrantly ignored the interests of their charge payers this year. As a result, the charge levels set by local authorities for 1991–92 have increased, on average, by 30 per cent.
  I believe that it is our duty to protect local taxpayers from the excesses of some local authorities. It is also our duty to ensure that the fundamental shift in the balance of taxation brought about by the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991 has the intended effect of keeping local taxes down to a reasonable level.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mr. Stewart: I have already given way several times, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
  The new level of local charges made possible by the 1991 Act must be passed on to local people. The new capping powers will enable us to do just that by making local authorities exercise restraint on spending. They will protect the interests of central and local taxpayers.
  In the autumn, my right hon. Friend will make a declaratory statement on procedure for capping criteria, as was done for England last year. Authorities that budget in excess of those criteria will then be subject to capping, which will constitute a much more straightforward approach to capping in Scotland.
  The hon. member for Garscadden also asked about the position on valuations in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his initial statement that we shall consult on how that will work most effectively in Scotland. The Scottish assessors and the Inland Revenue valuation office have been working together for about five years to achieve the harmonisation of non-domestic rating. In the case of the council tax, we

  115
  made it clear that supervision of the banding process at a national level would be the responsibility of the valuation office.
  A direction-making power will be given to the valuation office under the provisions of the Bill. That will simply ensure consistency of treatment north and south of the border. I should have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable objective and it is surprising, therefore, that the hon. Member for Garscadden has criticised it. His criticisms sit oddly with the comments of the president of the Scottish Assessors Association, who described the Government's decision as sensible and said that he felt comfortable about the role of the Inland Revenue at the Great Britain level.
  What are the Labour party's policies? It plans to introduce a fair rates system based not only on notional rental values but on a mixture of capital values and rebuilding, maintenance and repair costs. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) wants to return to the domestic rates system in Scotland. I remind him of the wise words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that rates were
  "an irrational, inefficient, highly resented form of taxation. If a thing does not make sense—and the rating system makes no sense whatsoever—the right thing to do is to abolish it".
  The Labour party wants to bring back that system.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me about Lothian. He suggested that in all possible tests Lothian's expenditure was no greater than that of Dumfries and Galloway. I shall answer that serious question with two comparisons. The charge that was originally set by Lothian was £420. The charge originally set by Dumfries and Galloway was £242. Lothian's budget was more than 12 per cent. above its grant-aided expenditure figure, whereas the budget for Dumfries and Galloway was below the grant-aided expenditure figure. Opposition Members have alleged that Lothian's level of grant was unfair. That grant is assessed through the client group approach, which is agreed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Office. If Opposition Members feel that the grant is unfair, why do they not ask COSLA about it, because that is not what it is saying?
  The Bill lays the foundation for the orderly introduction of the council tax from 1 April 1993. The extension of our capping powers will mean that irresponsible local authorities cannot cynically exploit the run-up to the council tax and burden their charge payers with unacceptably high charges.
  We are determined to ensure that the authorities do not frustrate our objective of keeping charges' down to acceptable levels by using the considerable extra sums that we are providing to fuel higher spending. Unlike Opposition Members, we have firm and realistic proposals, which today we are beginning to implement. We have acted and brought the Bill before the House. The debate has shown that the Opposition have no realistic policies. In so far as they do have policies, they are totally irresponsible. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 200.

  Division No.154]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Amos, Alan

  Franks, Cecil

  Arbuthnot, James

  Freeman, Roger

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  French, Douglas

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Fry, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Gale, Roger

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Atkins, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gill, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Baldry, Tony

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Batiste, Spencer

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gorst, John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Benyon, W.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Grylls, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowis, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hannam, John

  Brazier, Julian

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

  Bright, Graham

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

  Harris, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Hayward, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Holt, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irvine, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Janman, Tim

  Curry, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dicks, Terry

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knox, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  117

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shelton, Sir William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maclean, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Madel, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mills, Iain

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Sumberg, David

  Moate, Roger

  Summerson, Hugo

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mudd, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trippier, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Paice, James

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Watts, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wells, Bowen

  Portillo, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Whitney, Ray

  Price, Sir David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilshire, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wood, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Battle, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Bellotti, David

  Alton, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benton, Joseph

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blair, Tony

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Blunkett, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  118

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Buckley, George J.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Caborn, Richard

  Kennedy, Charles

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lamond, James

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Leighton, Ron

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clelland, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McAllion, John

  Corbett, Robin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Cousins, Jim

  McLeish, Henry

  Crowther, Stan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cryer, Bob

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cummings, John

  Madden, Max

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Darling, Alistair

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  ' Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Douglas, Dick

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mullin, Chris

  Edwards, Huw

  Murphy, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  O'Brien, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fearn, Ronald

  Patchett, Terry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flannery, Martin

  Prescott, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foster, Derek

  Radice, Giles

  Foulkes, George

  Randall, Stuart

  Fraser, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Fyfe, Maria

  Reid, Dr John

  Galloway, George

  Richardson, Jo

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Rogers, Allan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rooney, Terence

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Short, Clare

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sillars, Jim

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Skinner, Dennis

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Snape, Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hoyle, Doug

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Illsley, Eric

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Ingram, Adam

  Turner, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Vaz, Keith

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Walley, Joan

  119

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wilson, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Winnick, David

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Worthington, Tony

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patrick.]
  Committee tomorrow.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to enable a valuation to be carried out, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, of all domestic properties in Great Britain, including sums required—

(a) to enable the Secretary of State to make grants to regional or islands councils towards their expenditure for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the valuation; and

(b) to meet administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making any such grants.—[Mr. Portalo.]

10.15 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: I will not detain the House long, because I do not believe that we should sit after 10 pm on any evening; but I cannot let the money resolution go by without commenting on the fact that we are about to embark on expenditure in excess of £250 million. The Government often chide the Labour party on the ground that, whenever there is a problem, it throws money at it; yet every time the Government introduce proposals on local government finance, it costs the rest of us a great deal. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members below the Bar kindly leave the Chamber quietly or come and join us, please?
Mr. Blunkett: The sum of £250 million would seem very large were it not for the fact that, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury revealed on 21 January, excluding non-collection costs, the community charge—or poll tax—cost us a staggering £6·1 billion in increased expenditure from central Government in the years 1989 to 1991 inclusive. I suppose that £250 million looks positively slim against that.
However, we are not clear about the final sum that will be required to undertake the revaluation. As was revealed today during Second Reading of the Bill, we are not clear on what basis the valuation will take place. We are not sure whether it will be based on capital values or on capital values plus. We are not even sure whether it will be a sampling valuation to place properties in bands, or whether there will be a comprehensive valuation of individual properties.
The money resolution refers to the valuation of individual properties. It refers to
"all domestic properties in Great Britain".
To anyone who knows anything about the valuation system, that implies that each individual property will be individually assessed. However, every other Government statement, and clause 3 of the Bill, suggest that there will be sample valuing assisted by estate agents, who have a vested interest in increasing the price of property, from which they get a cut.
Had the Government chosen tonight to accept our solutions, the amount necessary to allocate to the valuation process would have been less. It could have been done using existing valuation staff over a rational period. it could have been done while we returned to the rating system, with the valuations from 1973 in England and

121
Wales and from 1985 in Scotland. That would have meant implementing the alternative from 1 April next year, and would have given a breathing space for the valuation process to be carried out sensibly. It would have allowed genuine consultations to take place, rather than our introducing Bills before the consultation period was over.
We could then have saved £3 billion over the next two years in under-collected tax, administrative costs and in the collection process for the poll tax. In other words, that £3 billion could have defended and protected services; it could have bought teacher time, home helps and nursery places. The Government are going to squander that money in addition to the £250 million to which the money resolution relates.
The money resolution throws bad money after bad money. I wish that we could get that message across in the media, but the media are interested in only one issue at a time. I received a letter from the director-general of the BBC, who explained that he could not cover one poll tax issue because his television crews were covering a health service issue at the time. The BBC has been brought to such penury by the Government that it can manage to cover only one major event a day.
We should make the media interested in the expenditure of sums like £250 million and why we are wasting £3 billion over the next two years by staggering on with the poll tax into 1994 instead of getting rid of it by April next year. Perhaps we could make people in the media interested in that by making them aware of what the banding system and the valuation process will mean for their properties. They should become aware that estate agents will push up the prices of their houses to ensure that they are in a higher band and pay more than would otherwise be necessary. If we could do all that, it would be possible to debate the money resolution seriously.
The Opposition know that it will cost a great deal of money to carry out the valuation. We wish that it could be carried out sensibly and rationally over a reasonable period. We also wish that we were getting rid of the poll tax by 1 April, but the Government will pay the price when the general election eventually comes.
10.21 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to raise a few points in respect of the financial effects of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states blandly, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill":
"The charge capping provisions of the Bill have no significant effects on central government expenditure."
Of course they do not. The Bill demonstrates the Government's centralisation of power. They are issuing an order or decree to local authorities which, for 100 years or more, have exercised their own tax-gathering powers without the interference or involvement of central Government, by virtue of the democratic accountability of local authorities to their local electorate. Issuing a centralised jackbooted decree in the way in which the Government are exercising the charge-capping powers does not cost much more than the price of a postage stamp. However, the cost to local residents in terms of cuts in education, services for the mentally handicapped, social services and a whole range of local government services will be savage.
I want to consider the £250 million that the Government are throwing at the problem. We should have
122
some information about how that money will be spent because that is the purpose of a money resolution. The provisional estimate is £250 million. Clause 3 provides powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations and establish the principles by which the valuation will be conducted.
The Government are clearly unprepared for this legislation. They are demanding in primary legislation that the principles that will apply should be included in subordinate legislation because they are not ready to be placed in primary legislation. It really is a topsy-turvey world when the Government introduce primary legislation and then say that the principles that they have not yet grasped or grappled with will be contained in subordinate legislation to be presented at some future date. Surely they have some notion of how that will be carried out.
Page 2 of the Bill shows that the number of public sector posts required to carry out the valuation is not known, because the Government are not certain how much of the valuation work will be contracted out to private sector professionals.
The Government say that the principles of their legislation have yet to be presented, and they tell the House that the amount to be spent is £250 million, but they do not know how much will be spent in the private sector and how much will be retained in the public sector. Will expenditure in the private sector be of the open cheque book variety for the chums of the Tory Government, or will expenditure be within the £250 million set out in the money resolution?
It is not unknown for the Government, having got a money resolution through the House, to have to come back two or three times after discovering that they do not have the authority for the expenditure. That is because they have treated the House with their usual arrogant contempt and have put through a money resolution which does not cover the whole of the expenditure. I invite the Minister to make it clear that the provisional estimate of £250 million will be adhered to and that the Government will not hand huge sums to the private sector.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, estate agents will have a vested interest in raising the amount of work that they do and the value that they place on houses. How will they maintain objectivity? Will payments to them be strictly compared with the rates for civil servants, or will they work on commission? Such issues are implied by the money resolution, and the House needs some answers.
Because of the dithering and confusion surrounding this legislation, the Government will soon have to come back to the House to ask for further authority for expenditure. I hope that that will not happen. The Opposition are protecting taxpayers against this lavish, spendthrift Government, who have already hurled £6 billion at this horrendously absurd poll tax in a vain attempt to rescue it.
The Government are asking for what they regard as a trivial amount, but £250 million is a very important item of expenditure. If it were applied to Bradford, it could solve some of its education problems. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh. There are 600 temporary classrooms in Bradford and about £40 million is needed to replace them with permanent extensions which are needed to cater for Bradford's expanding school rolls. No new houses are being built in Bradford, and there is a waiting list of several thousand. We need such money to put Bradford on an even keel, but in the past 10 years

123
hundreds of millions of pounds have been drawn away from local authorities, including Bradford, by the Government.
It is outrageous and unjust of the Government to take Government grant from local authorities, introduce wider charge-capping measures and then produce £250 million for an airy-fairy scheme whose principles the Government know nothing about.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. He queried whether the Government would return to ask for more money. They always do. That has happened regularly over the years, when they have been looking for a bit of additional cash: they sneak it through in the early hours of the morning. It is people like my hon. Friend and myself, who are regular attenders, who have to put up with that kind of thing. When the Tories come to that Dispatch Box, they are really saying, "We've come for a bit more money for our friends."
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I ask him to bear in mind the fact that the money resolution deals with the valuation of domestic properties, and that he should confine his remarks to that subject.
Mr. Cryer: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of straying outside that subject. In fact, I have had quite a bit of practice at speaking on money resolutions. I find myself able to stay within the bounds of Standing Orders while at the same time pointing emphatically at the way in which the huge sum of money that is to be spent on valuation could be used for better purposes than to help the Government out of the financial mess in which they have got themselves over the poll tax.
I remember that on one occasion, the then Home Office Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), was forced to return to the Dispatch Box two further times because the Government had made such a mess of their money resolutions.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): You have made your point.
Mr. Cryer: And it is not the only point I have scored against the Government. That is not difficult to do, given the mess into which they have got themselves in a large number of areas.
I hope that the Minister has some answers, and that he will not be coming back to the House. I want to restrict public expenditure on this kind of escapade. The valuations will create all kinds of problems, with the system of appeal and the move from one band to another. The notion that properties will remain in certain bands in perpetuity is quite ludicrous—as one Environment Minister has already suggested. We will need a much more complex system to meet all the problems that will arise.
A better solution would be to end the poll tax and to replace it with Labour's proposals. We have already told the Government that we will co-operate in the introduction of a fairer tax. Then public money can be
124
spent in the areas in which it should be spent—education, housing, and social services—rather than on propping up a tottering edifice.
10.32 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): It was most amusing to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) try to pose as some kind of friend of the taxpayer—a defender of the citizen. The Second Reading that preceded this debate was remarkable for the clarity with which Labour expressed its refusal to contemplate any capping or to defend the local taxpayer, and its determination, should it ever return to office, to let local authority spending rip.
It was remarkable also to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) claim that the Government's council tax will in some way lead to higher bills per household than Labour's scheme, which the Opposition somewhat amusingly call "fair rates". Labour's figures are based on local authority spending this year—which has been brought extremely close to the Government's £39 billion target because we have been willing to cap, and have capped, and because the threat of capping persuaded many local authorities to adjust their budgets. It will not wash for the hon. Member for Dagenham, or for other members of the Opposition Front Bench, to claim to be the taxpayer's friend. They have spent much of the afternoon proving that they are not.
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You pulled me up because I did not mention the question of valuation, but neither has the Minister. It would be fair if you pulled him up now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance. I was becoming slightly worried when the Minister was talking about capping.
Mr. Portillo: I am sensitive enough to have been able to feel some of the vibes that were emanating from the Chair.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the explanatory memorandum stated that the capital provisions have no significant effect on expenditure and spoke of the cost to local taxpayers. They are not costs but savings to local taxpayers. Derwentside, despite its small budget, has been levying a community charge £95 per head higher than the Government believe to be appropriate.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) castigated the Government for what he saw as an expensive and spendthrift proposal. I was surprised by his remarks. I remind the House that, in contrast to the £250 million proposed to allocate single properties to bands—the provisional estimate made in the explanatory memorandum, on which the money resolution is based—the Labour party proposes a return, in the short term, to the old rating list, a second change of system within 12 months and, following that, a valuation carried out not on a banding basis but on an exact valuation of all properties, which should be based on four different methods of valuation—rental, capital, rebuilding costs and repair and maintenance costs.
In addition, Labour proposes a new element to take into account ability to pay. In contrast to the £250 million that the money resolution proposes for a most simple valuation by allocating all properties to bands, the Labour party seeks to have two changes of system within a short period, and a valuation based on four different factors.
Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Minister would clarify the difference between clause 3 and the money resolution, the stated purpose of which is to provide the money for the valuation of all domestic properties.
Mr. Portillo: That was my next point. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is puzzled. All domestic properties in Britain must be allocated to a band. Therefore, they are being assigned a value—not an exact value, as the Labour party proposes, which would be an expensive process, as it would require a valuer to look at the details of every property—which will enable many properties to be valued without exact inspection.
Mr. Cryer: Whole streets?
Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Member for Bradford, South is saying, it may be possible to consider whole streets at a time and say that it is clear that all the properties in the street share certain characteristics. For that reason, the cost of valuation can be kept as reasonable as our provisional estimate of £250 million.
Mr. Cryer: The valuations may be made streets at a time, but surely the Minister is aware of the differences between houses in streets and roads. Corner houses are different and often have larger gardens, so does he not think that the Government's proposals will give rise to many problems? For example, an appeal system would be necessary so that people do not resent their houses being put in the same band, whatever the differences between them. This will create enormous problems.
Mr. Portillo: I am well aware that, within streets, there can be houses of different character. I am proposing only that a valuer might choose that approach where he is aware that all the houses in the street were basically of the same sort. I am not sure why the Labour party is being so obtuse about a banding system. I should have thought that it was an obvious way of proceeding which would commend itself to the Labour party, particularly as the Labour party now claims some interest in value for money.
The Government are interested in using the private sector to help in the valuation exercise because we believe that the private sector may be able to offer us value for money. Because that is the basis on which we would use the private sector, I am not able to say what proportion of the money will be spent with the private sector arid what proportion will need to be spent with the public sector. I should want to use the private sector where it offers value for money. If I were to prejudge matters now, I should not be able to argue convincingly to the House that I was obtaining value for money.
The hon. Member for Brightside talked about the possible loss of revenue on the community charge over the next two years of its existence. Two points make me believe that the way ahead will be better than recent experience—the enforcement procedures are up and running and local authorities are being urged to pursue non-payers to the limit of their considerable powers, and the community charge has been reduced by £140, which means that, even
126
in high-spending Labour authorities, it is now possible for many more people to pay the community charge without difficulty.
If the hon. Member for Brightside is really concerned about the workability of the community charge over the next two years, it still lies in his hands and in the hands of his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to say unequivocally that they expect everyone to pay the community charge, including Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors. Until that is said loudly and clearly, the House will have little sympathy.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman may make the statement again. Once he has made it, he can also explain why, despite that, there are still Labour Members and Labour councillors who advocate non-payment.
Mr. Blunkett: I shall deliberately and calculatingly rise to the bait. So that we do not have to go through all this in the Committee of the whole House, may I say unequivocally that we have made it clear on innumerable occasions to every Labour party member and elected representative that we expect them to pay the poll tax. We have made that clear in our resolutions and in our conference statements.
We do not yet, however, live in a totalitarian society—[Interruption.] We in the Labour party do not, which is why I do not have the power—nor should anyone else—to compel individuals to do something. The Government should not have the power; nor should I. We should have the ability to persuade and encourage, and to ensure that people understand our policies. I hope that the Minister accepts that that is a clear statement of what we stand for and where we are at. If we could say the same for Conservative Members and their friends about the manipulation of methods of ensuring that everything that should be paid was paid, we would all be much better off. Last year, the National Audit Office showed that £5 billion of national taxation was going missing. It is time that the Government did something about that.
Mr. Portillo: When I next have the pleasure of meeting Joan Twelves, I shall discuss the Labour party's lack of totalitarianism—[Interruption.] She has also been thrown out of the Labour party.
I am happy to commend the money resolution to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to enable a valuation to be carried out, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, of all domestic properties in Great Britain, including sums required—

(a) to enable the Secretary of State to make grants to regional or islands councils towards their expenditure for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the valuation; and

(b) to meet administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making any such grants.

European Community Documents
10.43 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before deciding on the European Community document on tobacco products, I seek your advice.
One of the great constitutional problems with which we are faced is the acquisition of powers by stealth by European Community institutions. The House, in agreeing to the Single European Act 1985, agreed on the establishment and functioning of the internal market of the European Community. Powers were given to the European Community to decide various issues by a qualified majority. The document that we are about to decide deals with the internal market with reference to the labelling of tobacco products. It is sensible to argue that, if a tobacco product can move from one part of the internal market to another, the labelling should be the same throughout. We have given such powers to the European Community by a qualified majority vote.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot debate the matter now. I am not clear what point of order there is for the Chair.
Mr. Marlow: I have no desire or intention to debate the issue now. I am saying that certain powers have been given with regard to the labelling of tobacco products. The document also contains a power to ban a certain product—oral snuff. Another document, by a qualified majority vote, could ban the sale of alcohol. This is nothing to do with trade between countries in the Community or with the internal market; it is to do with stopping the people of this country doing something in this country. The House has not given such powers to the European Community.
The Government's view is that, if the matter were taken to the European Court, the issue might be defeated. We know that the European Court is a political court. The Government have decided not to pursue the issue, but the
128
powers of the House are being removed from the House. It is no good voting against a take-note motion. I ask for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about what the House can do to retrieve its original powers which it never intended to give to the European Community institutions but which are now daily being acquired by stealth.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible to pursue the matter now. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises, I am bound by Standing Order No. 102(9) to put the Question forthwith.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

European Community Documents

  LABELLING OF TOBACCO PRODUCtS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10146/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Health on 8th May 1991, relating to labelling of tobacco products; recognises that the proposal would require the United Kingdom to extend legislative controls on tobacco products' labelling and to ban oral snuff products, endorses the Government's view that it is important to prevent the use of oral snuff from becoming established in the United Kingdom and the European Community and that it is desirable that the users of all tobacco products should be warned about the health risks; and supports the Government's view that the proposal is acceptable to the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  PROTECTION OF HABITATS OF WILD FLORA AND FAUNA
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8149/88, 9204/89, 5807/90 and 4684/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 10th May 1991, on the protection of habitats and wild flora and fauna; and supports the Government's intention to press urgently for an approach which would provide satisfactory protection throughout the Community for species and habitats which are endangered or vulnerable at the European level—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.

Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray (Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
10.47 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I wish tonight to raise the case of a constituent of mine, Sean Povey, who, with two other Grenadier guardsmen, lost his legs during a training exercise in Canada. The tragic accident happened on 7 July 1989 while the soldiers were digging a trench as part of a training exercise. A buried shell exploded and all three—Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray—had to have their legs amputated. They also suffered other injuries.
That is the background to the debate that I have initiated tonight. My constituent, Sean Povey, was only 19 at the time, and the others were also young. I understand that one of them—not my constituent—has already been discharged from the Army. All three received lengthy hospital treatment, and Sean remains in a military hospital for most of the time. In all, he has undergone five operations and he may have to undergo another in the near future. At 19, this young lad lost his legs while carrying out instructions in a training exercise. Clearly—and I hope that the Minister will confirm this—no blame can be attached to him or to the other two.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)indicated assent.
Mr. Winnick: I see the Minister nodding. They are entirely innocent of what occurred in the training exercise in Canada in July 1989.
The debate arises because of the Ministry of Defence's continuing refusal to pay compensation to the three soldiers. That refusal is on the basis that what occurred was not the fault of the Ministry. The Minister has confirmed—and he will no doubt do so again later—that no blame attaches to the three soldiers. However, it has also been said that no blame attaches to the Ministry. There is therefore to be no compensation.
However, the soldiers and their families were initially told, after the accident, that compensation would be paid. I was told in a reply that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in the other place that, having received the advice of the Treasury Solicitor and counsel that the Ministry was not legally responsible for the injuries, it was decided not to pay any compensation. It seems that the Ministry is hiding behind a legal briefing. It has been told that it has no legal responsibility, and Ministers have decided simply to accept that decision. I find that totally unsatisfactory, as do many other Conservative and Opposition Members. More than 200 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) which calls for the Government to pay generous compensation and calls for the return of the accumulated legal costs to the three guardsmen.
The regiment has done its best, but the decision lies with the Ministry which, so far, has refused to relent in the case. Representations by solicitors have been made on behalf of the three soldiers. Hon. Members, including myself, have written, but the response has been totally negative in terms of compensation. There has been no willingness by the
130
Ministry for the board of inquiry into the case to be reopened. I believe that there is a case for that to be done, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
The Minister will no doubt refer tonight to the fact that, if my constituent, Sean Povey, is duly discharged from the Army, a service pension will be paid to him. That is right. But a pension cannot be a substitute for extra compensation after losing both legs at the age of 19, when no fault lies with him or with the other two soldiers.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that the Member of Parliament of one of the soldiers, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, is sitting beside him. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) has asked me whether he can intervene, and I hope that he will be able to do so shortly. They know, as I do, that all three men are bitterly disappointed by the attitude of the Ministry of Defence. Who can blame them?
It will not be easy for the three men in civilian life. The only job that they have known has been the Army. They joined the Army straight after school. Although without legs and crippled for life, they will seek work in a highly competitive marketplace. Even if we were not in such a serious recession, they would be up against competition from others who may have learnt a trade after leaving school. All the experience of the three men has been in the Army. Have they not suffered enough already without being put through additional mental stress and difficulties if the case has to go to court?
I received a letter from a teacher at a school in my constituency, part of which I should like to quote. The teacher writes:
"I have known Sean for a number of years in my capacity as a subject teacher and Head of Sixth Form at St. Thomas More School in Willenhall.
For several years Sean had made it plain that the only career he wished to follow was in the army. When he was accepted for training"—
I hope that the Minister is listening—
"Sean was absolutely delighted and I remember how proud he was when he visited the school in his uniform after passing out.
It seems a great tragedy to me when a young man whose only desire in life was to defend his country is now being so shabbily treated by the Ministry of Defence."
I do not expect that the Minister will relent tonight. The Minister has his brief—I do not wish to personalise the point—and he will explain, unfortunately, that the Ministry has not changed its view. He will be full of sympathy. Indeed, the letter that I received was full of sympathy for the three young men, and I do not question that. He will refer to the pension that will be paid through the Department of Social Security if the soldiers are discharged, as I am sure that the other two soldiers will be, because of their serious injuries.
This case will not go away. This Adjournment debate is part of a continuing campaign for justice to be done to the three soldiers. I was told in the reply that I received from the Minstry of Defence that it did not intend that my constituent or the other two soldiers would be abandoned. But Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray feel, to a large extent, that they have been abandoned by the Ministry of Defence. I know that the Royal British Legion has written to several hon. Members urging them to support the campaign for compensation to be paid.
Mr. John Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winnick: If I can conclude, the hon. Gentleman may have time to make his remarks.
A construction worker who lost both legs in the channel tunnel work, also in July 1989, took his case to court and was awarded in the High Court £370,173 agreed damages. That accident took place in the same month and the same year. That person, who was aged 40, also lost both legs. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to realise how essential it is that the three soldiers, who lost their legs through no fault of their own and have been crippled for life, should receive justice. If sufficient hon. Members on both sides of the House are determined that justice should be done, in the end it will be done; but I hope that it will be done in the very near future.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Do I understand that the hon. Members who are rising have the agreement of both the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the Minister? I see that they have.
10.56 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), for allowing me to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North on initiating it. As they both know, Lance Corporal John Ray is one of my constituents. This poor young man had both his legs blown off in the accident in Canada.
What makes me particularly angry about what happened is that I believe that John Ray, Guardsman Hicks and Guardsman Povey are being impeded in their search for justice by what I can only call secrecy within the Ministry of Defence. I understand, as any sensible person understands, that there is a necessity in the MOD for keeping most things, or at least many things, secret. But there are certain matters into which secrecy should not intrude. In certain matters, honesty, common sense and compassion should rule the day. This matter is undoubtedly one of them.
In these few moments, I seek certain undertakings. The first is that the full memorandum of understanding between the Canadian and United Kingdom Governments and any amendments that have been made since 1979 are released to the legal representatives of the three guardsmen. Secondly, the full board of inquiry report should be released, possibly without restricted details such as the composition and technical details of a 76 mm Hesch round. Thirdly, the range orders that existed in 1984–85 when the blind was supposedly fired, plus the range orders in existence on 7 July 1989 when the three young men were so severely injured, should be given to the legal representatives who have a duty and a right properly to represent our constituents.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to answer some questions. First, were the young men properly warned of the dangers of buried unexploded munitions? If not, why not? If they were, what precautions were taken, and why did they not work? Does it make any difference to the legal case whether the 76 mm Hesch blind was fired from a Canadian gun or a British one?
There is no doubt about the fact that the careers and lives of those three young men have been blighted. In
132
industrial accidents of a similar nature, prompt and effective compensation is paid. We know that military training is often hazardous, and undertandably so, but while maintaining the efficacy of military training it is also the duty of those in authority to ensure that they reduce such hazards to the minimum. When that duty fails, there is also a duty on those in authority to look after those who are, unhappily, so damagingly injured.
I am by no means satisfied that the Ministry of Defence is doing its duty by those who decided to serve us by doing theirs.
11 pm
Mr. John Browne: I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for giving me the opportunity to speak. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on winning the ballot and instigating this important debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) asked several questions to which I shall be very interested to hear the answers. I believe that it will be difficult for the Minister to answer those questions, because the board of inquiry was totally inadequate: it failed to give those guardsmen any chance of proving negligence on behalf of the British Government under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. Basically, it made no attempt to look at the causes of the accident. The board looked at how to stop such an accident in the future rather than at the cause. Those guardsmen must prove negligence in terms of that accident. To do so they must have access to information.
Why was the blind shell uncleared? What were the contractual arrangments between the United Kingdom Government and the Canadian Government? What were the range orders at the time? Most important, what was the briefing given to those guardsmen when they were ordered into the impact area of a live firing range to dig trenches? Surely important briefings were given to those guardsmen at that time. If they were not given a proper briefing, that is the type of thing that would amount to negligence. Proof of negligence is the only chance open to those guardsmen to receive anything other than a mere pittance, for the sum given is a pittance relative to payments for a similar injury suffered in the private sector. The hon. Member for Walsall, North was correct to mention the compensation of £300,000 that was given for a commensurate civilian injury.
The board of inquiry must be reopened in the interests of giving an opportunity of justice to the three guardsmen. As has been said, they were doing nothing except their duty, as commanded by Her Majesty's Government.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to agree to recommend to the Government that the board of inquiry be reopened forthwith.
11.3 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on obtaining the Adjournment debate. He has raised a moving and tragic case that has received much publicity outside the House and has attracted the interest of many hon. Members.
Guardsman Povey was involved in an appalling accident, and it is deeply saddening that his career—and that of the other two soldiers involved in the incident—

133
should have been curtailed so tragically. I am very grateful to have been given the opportunity to explain to the House the background which gave rise to this incident, together with the benefits available and the circumstances in which other compensation payments may be made. It will be clear to the House that there is no intention of abandoning this soldier—or, indeed, any other service man injured in the line of duty, whether as a result of armed conflict or not.
May I express my personal gratitude to the Royal British Legion and the British Limbless Ex-servicemen's Association for their role in supporting those men, and pay tribute to the men themselves for the magnificent way in which they are coming to terms with their disabilities. All three were offered a skiing holiday in Germany last year by BLESMA, and two were able to go. I also understand that, depending on his resettlement plans, Guardsman Povey is to attend a course in Scotland later this year, encompassing sailing, riding and shooting. Furthermore, earlier this year, the British Legion look the men to the Sunshine Games for the disabled in Florida, where I believe they performed very creditably. All that demonstrates the greatest determination and courage on the part of those men.
The House will wish to know that Guardsman Povey remains in service, still receiving medical care, and, that therefore no decisions have yet been taken on when he will be medically discharged. That decision will be taken only when his treatment has been completed. Lance Corporal Ray is to be discharged later this year, and, as many hon. Members will know, Mr. Hicks was discharged at the end of last year.
As we have heard, Guardsman Povey was injured in an accident in July 1989, during a training exercise at the Suffield training area in Canada. He was engaged—together with the other two soldiers—in digging a trench for a Milan anti-tank weapons system. Having removed the turf, they went on to remove the topsoil below in preparation for a mechanical digger, when one of them struck a buried munition which exploded. Medical assistance was called for immediately, and all three soldiers were taken to Medicine Hat hospital. The munition was subsequently identified as having been fired on the Suffield training area some time in 1984–85. A board of inquiry was held into the accident and a summary—including the conclusion—has been released to one firm of solicitors, and would be released on request to any other firm, representing the three men.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) that it is not normal Ministry of Defence practice to issue the whole report of a board of inquiry, because that would affect the evidence given to that board of inquiry. However, I am convinced that the summary contains all the component parts of the report.
Mr. Sayeed: I have read the summary, which uses the term "adequately briefed". That is the crux of the problem. What does "adequately briefed" mean? Until the guardsmen and their legal representatives know, they will not know whether they have a case for compensation.
Mr. Hamilton: I am not sure that the full report would spell out the meaning of "adequately briefed". I should have thought that the report covered the whole question of the guardsmen's briefing, but I do not know whether it is possible to add to it.
Mr. Winnick: The soldiers were not responsible?
Mr. Hamilton: Investigations concluded that the fuse on the munition had not functioned when it was fired, so that a so-called "blind" was left buried approximately 8–10 in below the ground. As the round had been in the ground for up to five years, its detonator could have become very sensitive.
I must emphasise that there is no question of any of the soldiers being at fault or, indeed—I shall come back to this point—of blame attaching to anyone. The incident was thoroughly investigated and the conclusion reached by the inquiry was that it was a tragic accident for which no one could be blamed. No one could be reasonably expected to know that there was a buried munition at the spot where the trench was being dug. There is a well established procedure for reporting and disposing of these "blinds" by range safety and ammunition technical staff. The procedure is comprehensive and is assiduously applied, but we must recognise that, however comprehensive the safety procedure, there may be isolated instances, as in this case, where the munition was buried and its existence unknown to exercising troops and safety staff.
On the question of compensation, I can confirm that claims have been made on behalf of all three soldiers by two leading firms of solicitors. It may be helpful at this stage if I gave some background to claims against Government Departments.
The House will recollect very well the lengthy debates that arose out of the decision in 1986 to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. This had the effect, from the date of the repeal, of putting service personnel in exactly the same position as all other groups of employees as regards their legal right to seek compensation from their employers for injuries received in the course of their work. That is exactly the position that Guardsman Povey and the other two soldiers are now in. They have the right to take proceedings against the Ministry of Defence.
Let me clarify why it is that the Ministry of Defence should deal with these claims even though the accident took place in Canada on Canadian Government property—this answers one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). As part of the agreement with the Canadians for the use of the Suffield range by the British Army, the MOD has agreed to indemnify the Canadians against all claims for compensation, actions and suits made as a result of British use of the range. That is the usual practice for forces operating on foreign soil. Much has been made, in the press and elsewhere, of the ownership of the particular munition involved—ownership is irrelevant. If there had been any negligence or fault established in this incident, the MOD would have accepted liability on behalf of those responsible.
I have to say clearly that, if there was any degree of fault or negligence on the part of the Ministry, or anyone acting on its behalf, liability would not be in question. If it had been considered that, on the balance of probabilities, a court of law would have found negligence, we would have sought the advice of our lawyers on how much the court would have awarded in damages, and that sum would have been offered to the service men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East raised the issue of the release of the memorandum of understanding. As far as I know, there is no such memorandum. I suspect that there is an exchange of letters that covers the point

135
about indemnifying the Canadians against claims for compensation. My hon. Friend also asked whether the range orders could be released, and I can assure him that that can be done. I shall organise that.
I acknowledge that, in cases such as Guardsman Povey's, there can be an instinctive reaction to ignore the legal issues and say that the case is so deserving of compassion that we should pay compensation irrespective of our liability. But how could we distinguish the case from previous ones, or perhaps others to come, without creating anomalies and injustices? A line has to be drawn, and the fairest way is on the basis of our legal liability. Decisions on other grounds could only be a matter for arbitrary judgment.
Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend is talking about the legal liabilities of the British Government. Is he absolutely satisfied that the exchange of letters and the full briefings given to the guardsmen have been released to their solicitors, so that their legal representatives stand a chance of proving negligence on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Without that chance, the guardsmen will not receive any compensation under present legislation.
Mr. Hamilton: As I said, the issue of the briefings given to the soldiers was covered under the summary of the report and the inquiry. From then on, it is a question of legal judgment as to whether negligence can be proved against the Ministry of Defence. The advice that I am being given is that that cannot be done.
As I have said, the accident was thoroughly investigated, and it has been concluded that no improvement in procedures could have guaranteed that this tragic accident would not have happened. However, that is not the end of the matter. Lest there be any doubt about this, let me assure the House that Guardsman Povey will remain a member of the armed forces on full pay until he is medically fit to be discharged, and before he is discharged he will receive a full programme of resettlement advice and counselling interviews.
However, there remains the question of what benefits and awards are available to soldiers, such as Guardsman Povey, injured in the line of duty, but where no fault attaches to the MOD or anyone for whom it is responsible. May I first of all remind the House of the provision which is made through established pension schemes, particularly for service personnel who are medically discharged on account of injury or ill health which is attributable to their service. As hon. Members are, I am quite sure, aware, there are two such schemes. One is the war pension scheme, which is administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and about which I shall say something shortly. The other is the armed forces' own occupational pension scheme, which is administered by the Ministry of Defence.
The armed forces scheme provides a pension, and a lump sum, for any service man who is invalided, regardless of whether the cause is attributable to service or not, as long as he has given at least two years qualifying service. But where the cause is attributable to service—there is no
136
doubt of this in the circumstances of the incident being debated—the benefits are significantly greater, and there is no minimum qualifying period of service. In practice, the trigger for converting to an attributable pension is the award of a war pension by the DSS. I shall return to this in a moment.
Benefits of the armed forces scheme include an additional lump sum, and a pension which is assessed according to the degree of disability. Where the degree of disability is assessed at 100 per cent. the guaranteed minimum pension is calculated to provide an income, when taken together with the standard rate of war disability pension paid by the Department of Social Security, which is about two thirds of the military salary appropriate to the man's rank.
The war pension scheme, administered, as I said earlier, by the Department of Social Security, provides tax-free benefits for people injured or disabled as a result of service in the armed forces. It also provides pensions for the widow or other dependants of someone who dies as a result of service.
Let me give an example of what these benefits and pension awards could mean to a young soldier—a private—with something like three years' service and earning a base salary of about £8,700, and invalided from the service. First, his normal service invaliding pension would amount to a little less than £500 a year and his tax-free terminal grant would be a little less than £1,500. The Department of Social Security would then assess his degree of disability. At 100 per cent., a war pension would be £84.90 a week. In addition, the further pensions payable would amount to £7,200 a year tax-free, index-linked to take account of inflation, and payable for life.
Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I am about to finish.
He would also receive tax-free lump sum payment of about £6,500. The capitalised sum necessary to fund this range of pension awards and benefits has been actuarially assessed as in the order of £150,000. Also, these figures should be compared not to cases where compensation has been paid as a result of negligence, but to the kind of provision an employer might make for his employees injured in the course of their work where no element of negligence is involved.
Moreover, these benefits do not represent the entire picture. An ex-service man, even though awarded a 100 per cent. disability pension, may be able to find employment as the hon. Member for Walsall, North acknowledged. Any earnings he receives would of course be in addition to his combined pensions and subject to the usual tax allowances. On the other hand, if his disability made him unemployable, he would be entitled to receive additional payments under the war pension scheme, such as unemployability supplement and invalidity allowance.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he intends to take any action under sections 1 and 2 of the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957 in relation to Iraq's responsibilities under article 4 of the International Red Cross conventions of 1949; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Ministers have stated on a number of occasions that Iraqis bear individual responsibility for grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949. The question of a prosecution within the United Kingdom would arise in practice only if a person against whom sufficient evidence were available should be within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts.

ENVIRONMENT

  Residential Property Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the basis on which he concluded that the average dwelling in England was worth about £80,000; and if he will reconcile the implied £1,500 billion value of the housing stock with the figure of £964.3 billion for the whole of the United Kingdom in 1988, given in table 12.2 of the 1990 edition of the United Kingdom National Accounts.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 15 May by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), at columns 173–74. The figures in table 12.2 of the 1990 edition of the "United Kingdom National Accounts" were compiled on an entirely different basis.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update and extend the figures put in the Library on 4 April 1990 (deposit 5906) showing, for each local authority area and giving the assumptions made

  Site

  Date of refusal

  Date of appeal

  Date of receipt of report

  Date of decision

  Decision

  Barnabas, Derbyshire

  2—

  24 July 1985

  14 January 1986

  28 February 1986

  allowed

  Waverley East, Rotherham

  6 December 1985

  26 January 1986

  10 October 1986

  19 November 1986

  allowed

  Bilston, Wolverhampton

  13 June 1985

  9 August 1985

  19 August 1986

  11 December 1986

  allowed

  Kirk, Derbyshire

  28 February 1985

  16 July 1985

  17 October 1986

  28 January 1987

  dismissed

  Streets Lane, Staffordshire

  2—

  19 August 1985

  29 September 1986

  23 February 1987

  allowed

  Ryders Hayes, Walsall

  10 October 1985

  23 December 1985

  5 January 1987

  23 March 1987

  dismissed

  High Lane, Staffordshire

  25 June 1985

  14 August 1985

  6 January 1987

  31 March 1987

  allowed

  Rosehill, Durham

  21 April 1986

  19 May 1986

  10 February 1987

  8 May 1987

  dismissed

  Plenmeller, Northumberland

  2—

  4 March 1985

  2 February 1987

  26 June 1987

  allowed

  Garnet, Bolton

  5 March 1986

  25 May 1986

  26 May 1987

  29 July 1987

  allowed

  2
  about equalisation, what level of (i) capital value rates, (ii) council tax and (iii) local income tax would be required in order to raise the same amount of revenue as with (a) the 1991–92 community charge, both before and after community charge reduction grant, and (b) the 1991–92 community charge, both before and after community charge reduction grant, but on the basis that the community charge was fully operational without any transitional or related elements.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the estimated total annual payment of(a) a man on average earnings and (b) a woman on average earnings, both living in Kirklees, under a system of local income tax to replace the community charge, based on Kirklees council's current spending and the current level of external support; and what rate of local income tax would be required in Kirklees.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government issued on 23 April full information on the illustrative effect on household bills had the council tax been fully in place in 1991–92. If Opposition parties wish to discuss the precise details of their own proposals, we will gladly help to exemplify the effect in each local authority area on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to speed up the hearing of appeals to the valuations and community charge tribunals.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Valuation and community charge tribunals are judicially independent bodies, and the speed at which they deal with appeals is primarily a matter for them. I am responsible for the funding of the tribunals in England, and I am satisfied that they have sufficient staff and other resources to deal with their current work load, but I am keeping the matter under review.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of opencast coal planning applications by British Coal that have been refused by the mineral planning authorities, and appeals that have been lodged by his Department; and if he will indicate for each case(a) the date of refusal, (b) the date of the appeal, (c) the date the inspector submitted his report to the Secretary of State, (d) the date when he announced his decision and (e) whether the appeal was granted or refused.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information on opencast coal applications refused by the mineral planning authorities is not held centrally. The information on appeals lodged with the Department since 1 March 19841 is as follows:
  3

  Site

  Date of refusal

  Date of appeal

  Date of receipt of report

  Date of decision

  Decision

  Bleak House, Staffordshire

  11 December 1985

  28 January 1986

  18 May 1987

  13 August 1987

  dismissed

  Hill Top, Durham

  21 April 1986

  4 June 1986

  2 July 1987

  24 August 1987

  dismissed

  Daisy Hill, Durham

  20 May 1986

  15 July 1986

  17 September 1987

  10 November 1987

  allowed

  Slayley, Derbyshire

  24 December 1986

  23 January 1987

  20 October 1987

  14 December 1987

  allowed

  Billingham, Durham

  20 May 1986

  23 July 1986

  3 November 1987

  12 January 1988

  dismissed

  West Carr, Durham

  2—

  30 July 1986

  23 December 1987

  17 February 1988

  dismissed

  Brown Lees, Staffordshire

  25 September 1986

  26 November 1986

  23 December 1987

  6 April 1988

  allowed

  Lomax, Greater Manchester

  2—

  28 November 1986

  21 June 1988

  17 November 1988

  dismissed

  Linton Lane, Northumberland

  5 January 1988

  1 February 1988

  20 September 1988

  21 December 1988

  allowed

  Rainge, Derbyshire

  2—

  11 August 1987

  1 July 1988

  22 December 1988

  allowed

  Kirk (Revised), Derbyshire

  2—

  1 March 1988

  2 March 1989

  10 July 1989

  allowed

  Rockingham, Barnsley

  2—

  24 March 1988

  14 June 1989

  9 August 1989

  allowed

  Slayley, Derbyshire3

  2—

  27 October 1988

  14 June 1989

  10 August 1989

  allowed

  Shilo North, Derbyshire

  2—

  20 June 1988

  27 February 1990

  14 May 1990

  dismissed

  Ellerbeck West, Lancashire4

  16 January 1987

  25 March 1987

  17 May 1990

  28 August 1990

  dismissed

  Marley Hill, Durham

  24 January 1989

  21 March 1989

  18 June 1990

  22 October 1990

  dismissed

  1 Information is only available from 1 March 1984 when the British Coal Corporation were required to apply for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1972.

  2 Non determination by mineral planning authority.

  3 Application for the variation of conditions attached to the Secretary of State's decision of 14 December 1987.

  4 Inquiry re-opened.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for change in the status or management of the royal parks.

  Sir George Young
  There are no proposals to change the status of the royal parks. They will continue to be managed by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Crown. However, my right hon. Friend is considering changes in the arrangements for carrying out ground maintenance work including putting the work out to tender.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his intentions for the future upkeep and maintenance of the royal parks.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend is considering changes in the arrangements for carrying out ground maintenance work including putting work out to tender.

  Rating Appeals
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average time in the United Kingdom generally and in Essex in particular before a rating appeal is heard before a valuation and community charge tribunal.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Ratepayers have six months to propose to the valuation office any change to an entry in the 1990 non-domestic rating lists. If the matter is not resolved within a further six months of the receipt of such a proposal, it is automatically referred to a valuation and community charge tribunal as an appeal. Tribunals in England have received around 540,000 such appeals of which some 13,000 were in Essex. Most of these were received in February and March this year and some tribunals have already started to list appeals for hearing.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against revaluation remain outstanding before valuations and community charge tribunals.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Valuation and community charge tribunals in England had outstanding at the end of March 1991 some 530,000 appeals against entries in the 1990 non-domestic rating lists.

  Veterinary Premises
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average percentage increase in revaluation of veterinary premises in the south-east of England.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Information about the effects specifically on veterinary premises of the non-domestic revaluation is not available.

  Noise
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to bring forward measures to control and combat neighbourhood noise and to bring English law into line with Scottish law on this.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's policy on noise—including neighbourhood noise—is set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and reflects much of thinking of the noise review working party that reported last autumn. A number of the working party's recommendations have already been accepted and we are actively working on others. My speech to the Noise Council seminar on 15 May summarised progress.

  Some of the main neighbourhood noise measures which we have brought forward are as follows. The duty of local authorities to investigate complaints has been clarified. Also the Government are funding the first pilot neighbourhood noise awareness scheme which has been launched in Forest Hill, Lewisham. Its objective is to encourage the residents of an area to co-operate in agreeing on standards of behaviour to minimise noise annoyance. The Government have also accepted that the noise insulation standards for flat conversions should be as close to new build as practical, and we are also looking into the question of mandatory controls for burglar alarms. A study of levels of amplified music and acceptability to neighbours forms part of the Department's noise research programme.

  The statutory control of noise by environmental health officers in Scotland is not dissimilar to that in England and Wales. But there are significant differences in police powers. In Scotland a uniformed officer may request a person to stop making a noise if it is considered to be

  5
  giving reasonable cause for annoyance. These powers appear to be infrequently used. Nevertheless, we are looking at the position in Scotland to see if any lessons can be learnt.

  Water Connections
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his role under the Water Act 1989 in respect of the discretion which may be exercised by water companies to offer connections at a reduced infrastructure charge in respect of housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has no role. It is for individual companies to decide what charge, if any, to impose in individual cases, subject to complying with section 79 of the Water Act 1989 and the requirements of, and the limits imposed by, condition C of their instruments of appointment.

  Meadow Well Estate, Tyneside
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to involve the community of the Meadow Well estate in north Tyneside with the future development of the estate;

  (2) what conclusions he has drawn from the feasibility study carried out by residents of the Meadow Well estate in north Tyneside and sent to him in April; and what decisions he intends to take.

  Sir George Young
  Members of the Department's regional office participate in a multi-agency group, under the aegis of the Tyne and Wear city action team, which is looking at the feasibility of a co-ordinated approach to the regeneration of the Meadow Well estate. Consultation with the residents of the estate is an essential feature of the group's work. The report prepared by the residents' working group is an important contribution to the development of an economic and social strategy for the estate and the study team will take it into account in framing its recommendations. The multi-agency group is meeting the Meadow Well action group on 7 June 1991 for a presentation of the Collingwood centre report and to discuss its proposals. North Tyneside borough council is currently carrying out consultation with residents on options for tackling the housing problems of south Meadow Well, as part of the wider strategy.

  Water Meters
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is offered by his Department to the construction industry on the siting of water meters in new properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Water (Meters) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1048) provide for three possible locations for water meters. It is the responsibility of the water company to determine which location should be used in a particular case.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Environment if he will place in the Library the breakdown of costs for gipsy sites per pitch and by region throughout England and Wales.
  6
  Sir George Young
  I will arrange for the information requested for gipsy sites in England to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Gipsy sites in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Office.

  Burial Site, Kent
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to make his decision on the future of the Anglo-Saxon burial site at Ozengell Grange, Kent, recently the subject of a public inquiry; and whether he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  A public inquiry into an application for scheduled monument consent was held on 23 April; the inspector's report is expected shortly. When it is received, the Secretary of State's decision will be issued as quickly as possible.

  Water Services
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to offer advice on charges for water services following the introduction of a return to rateable values of properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no proposals for a return to the rating system. The director general intends to give guidance to companies about methods of charging for water services in the light of the recent consultation exercise.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the final report on the compulsory water metering trials will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply he was given on 11 February, at column 297.

  Prime Minister (Car)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Prime Minister is expected to take delivery of his new secure car; and what is its make and colour.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government car service vehicles used by the Prime Minister are not being changed at present.

  Public Sector Dwellings
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each year from 1979 to 1990 inclusive the number and value of public sector dwellings(a) constructed or otherwise acquired and (b) sold.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: Figures for completions, construction output and numbers of sales of dwellings by local authorities, new towns and housing associations in England are published in the following departmental publications:

  Housing completions

  1979 to 1989:
  Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–89 (GB), table 6.1.
  7
  1990:
  Housing and Construction Statistics (GB) December quarter 1990 Part 1, table 1.2.

  Sales by local authorities, new towns and housing associations 1979 to 1989:
  Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–89 (GB), table 9.6.

  1990:
  Housing and Construction Statistics (GB) December quarter 1990 Part 2, table 2.12.

  Value of construction output

  1979 to 1989:
  Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–89 (GB), table 1.7.

  1990:
  Housing and Construction Statistics (GB) December quarter 1990 Part 2, table 2.3.

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  The available information for England on the acquisition of dwellings by local authorities and the value of dwellings sold by local authorities and new towns is as follows. Comparable information on the value of dwellings sold by housing associations is not available.

  Undiscounted value of dwellings sold by local authorities and new towns in England 1979–901

  £ million

  Local authorities

  New towns

  1979

  743

  14

  1980

  1,201

  41

  1981

  1,561

  48

  1982

  3,169

  58

  1983

  2,351

  67

  1984

  2,033

  68

  1985

  2,025

  48

  1986

  2,185

  52

  1987

  2,797

  83

  1988

  4,818

  151

  1989

  5,542

  158

  21990

  3,862

  57

  1 Including leases, small transfers to housing associations and dwellings previously municipalised. Excludes large scale block transfers to housing associations.

  2 (provisional).

  Acquisitions of dwellings by local authorities in England 1979–901

  £ million

  Number

  Cost

  1979

  24,793

  238

  1980

  4,440

  26

  1981

  2,263

  15

  1982

  1,912

  20

  1983

  2,397

  39

  1984

  2,935

  41

  1985

  4,034

  70

  1986

  4,852

  101

  1987

  4,928

  125

  1988

  5,600

  154

  1989

  7,870

  194

  31990

  7,279

  142

  1 Includes acquisition of dwellings for continued housing use, dwellings acquired under the 'Improvement for Sale Scheme' and since 1985, the repurchase of dwellings under Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 (Defects).

  2 Figures do not include first quarter when information was not collected.

  3 (provisional)

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations his Department has undertaken into the safety factors arising from the volatility of unleaded petrol; whether they have taken account of the phenomenon of static electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  The volatility of unleaded petrol is controlled at the same limit values as leaded petrol by British Standard BS 7070. The flammable nature of petrols, leaded and unleaded, and the phenomenon of static electricity are both taken into account in the procedures and equipment used in the handling and transportation of petrols.

ENERGY

  European Energy Charter
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to press for uniform energy taxation policies in the protocols of the European energy charter.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A key priority for the European energy charter will be the fostering of full and proper market-based pricing for energy throughout Europe, including the removal of price subsidies. This will do much to encourage efficient energy use. Energy taxation should remain a matter for national Governments and Parliaments, although we will be seeking provisions protecting investors against having the results of their investments expropriated by unreasonable fiscal or other measures.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to press for a recognition of the roles of renewable energy and energy conservation in the protocols of the European energy charter.

  Mr. Wakeham
  If the charter negotiations are successful, we expect that there will be provisions in it relating to new and renewable sources of energy. We will be seeking explicit recognition of the importance of the efficient production, conversion, distribution and use of energy in the charter and relevant protocols.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to propose a non-fossil fuel obligation for inclusion in the European energy charter.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Renewables Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the review of the renewables programme will take place; what will be the terms of reference of the review; and what will be the administrative arrangements for taking it forward.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on 6 February 1991 at column 139. The terms of reference of the review are currently under consideration and I hope to make an announcement in the near future.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he anticipates a fall in the level of the nuclear levy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The percentage rate of the levy may fluctuate from one year to another, depending largely on whether any correction is needed for past over- or under-recovery of the levy. However, I am confident that the levy rate will follow a downward trend over the next seven years.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department spent £611,000 on management and computer consultancy contracts in 1990–91.

  Contracts placed with private sector firms and companies for management and computer consultancies during 1990–91 were:

  Consultants and

  Subject

  Oracle UK Ltd.

  Various IT consultancy services.

  Linear Software

  Communications advice.

  IPEC

  Petrophysical data analysis system.

  Consultants

  Review of computer facilities.

  Price Waterhouse

  Work on computer systems.

  Price Waterhouse

  Software development.

  BIS
  Communications advice.

  BIS
  Specification of cabling requirements.

  Specialist Services Scotland Ltd.
  Software development.

  Duhig Berry Ltd.
  Computer project management training.

  P E International.
  Organisation and management effectiveness study into certain aspects of Offshore Supplies Office.

  Capita Group.
  Advice on contracting out administration of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.

  Guardian Business Services
  Management training.

  WDC Ltd.
  Management training.

  TFC Ltd.
  Management training.

  Stuart McKechnie Ltd.
  Management training.

  Jonathon Coates and Associates
  Management training.

  TDA Consulting Group Ltd.
  Management training.

  ACT Services
  Management training.

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.
  Management training.

  Career Track International.
  Management training.

  Laser Computer.
  IT training.

  Naltona Ltd.
  IT training.

  Technology Training Centre
  10
  IT training.

  Hoskyns Group Ltd.
  IT training.

  Abraham Airey and Associates.
  IT training.

  CTEC Ltd.
  IT training.

  Percom Ltd.
  IT training.

  Oil Well Fires (Kuwait)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on(a) the number and (b) the proportion of oil well fires in Kuwait which have now been capped; and whether any British company has been involved in a successful capping operation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Our sources in Kuwait advise that around 600 oil wells needed to be controlled and that about 110 of these have been capped to date. No United Kingdom company has yet been involved in a well-capping operation. However, the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, a joint venture of AMEC, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey, has been awarded a contract to undertake a damage assessment survey of a number of wells in northern Kuwait. It is hoped that this will lead to a major contract for the fire group to put out the fires and cap the wells in that part of Kuwait.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 374, what are the interim results of the team of business men he led to Kuwait with expertise in the oil and gas industries.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The business men who accompanied me on my visit were very pleased to establish or re-establish their contacts in Kuwait. The most significant result has been the award of a contract to the Kuwaiti British Fare Group to undertake a damage assessment survey of a number of wells in the Sabriyah oilfield. It is hoped that this will lead to a major contract for the fire group to put out the fires and cap the wells in that part of Kuwait which could further lead to substantial opportunities for United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the discussions between Kuwaiti authorities and United Kingdom companies offering their services as fire fighters.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Initial contract confirmation has now been received by the Kuwaiti British Fire Group for the damage assessment survey of a number of wells in northern Kuwait.

  Many other companies have had contacts with the Department of Energy through my Offshore Supplies Office. Information and contact names have been provided to the companies where possible.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many Kuwaiti oil wells have been capped since his answer on 13 May,Official Report, column 50.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In the order of 14 wells have been capped since my answer to the hon. Member's previous question on 13 May.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answers of 13 May,Official Report, column

  11
  50, and 7 May, Official Report, column 374, what assistance he has given to the Kuwaiti British Fire Group; and what reports he has received from the group.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have kept in close direct touch with the Kuwaiti British Fire Group through my recent visit to Kuwait and a joint meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  My Offshore Supplies Office has maintained regular contact with KBFG both on progress of negotiations with the Kuwait Oil Company and in offering general assistance.

  The KBFG has now received confirmation of the award of contract which will allow it to start work on the damage assessment phase of the contract on the Sabriyah field. I hope that this will subsequently lead to the award of a second phase contract to the fire group for the extinguishment of fires, well capping and restoration of the field.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  An energy manager in the Department's headquarters building and local energy managers in five other premises in which the Department is an occupant are estimated to devote around one third of a man year of effort to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department moved into its new headquarters building during the latter part of 1989. The building's plant and equipment are now in the final stages of being accepted by Property Holdings as working in accordance with the design parameters following a lengthy commissioning period. Property Holdings is aiming to conduct a tender exercise for the award of an energy-inclusive maintenance contract for the building later this year; and an energy audit is expected to form a fundamental part of this exercise.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information for years from 1978 to 1988–89 is not available. However, the Property Services Agency is estimated to have invested around £1 million in energy efficiency measures in the new headquarters building into which my Department moved in September 1989.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.
  12
  Mr. Wakeham
  I regret that information for the years from 1978 to 1988–89 is not available. In 1989–90, my Department spent £167,655 on electricity and £18,930 on gas, respectively, £181,067 and £20,444 in 1990–91 money terms, equivalent to 3,292,605 kilowatt hours of electricity and 59,647 therms of gas. In 1990–91, it is estimated that my Department spent £254,357 on electricity and £49,763 on gas equivalent to 4,564,493 kilowatt hours of electricity and 160,128 therms of gas. The area to which these figures relate is 259,683 sq ft for 1989–90 and 242,200 sq ft for 1990–91. The higher consumption in 1990–91 reflects commissioning problems with air-conditioning plant in the Department's new headquarters building, and long working hours in some divisions.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Urban Fund
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what level of contribution the Church Commissioners will be making to the Church urban fund.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what grant is to be given by the Church Commissioners to the Church urban fund for 1991–92.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' board of governors has met to decide recommendations to the annual general meeting for further allocations of income. In the light of the financial problems caused by the recession, but with considerable reluctance, they were unable to recommend an immediate further grant to the Church urban fund. The board has, however, asked that the position be reviewed towards the end of the year. Meanwhile, I understand that the fund's trustees are being advised to maintain its current level of disbursements, from reserves: there should therefore be no effect on the work of the fund in the short term.

  The first statutory call on the commissioners' income is for clergy pensions and stipends and grants are committed on an annually recurring basis for these purposes. Other grants, including those to the Church urban fund, have to be voted specifically on each occasion from any surplus funds available at the time. Grants totalling £4 million have been made to the Church urban fund in the past four years in this way.

  The substantial administrative support, worth about £300,000 in 1990, which the commissioners give to the fund, will, in any event, continue.

  Stipends
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners have any plans to improve the levels of pay of assistant curates.

  Mr. Alison
  With effect from 1 April, the commissioners have introduced an improved national pay scale for assistant staff, following a resolution of the General Synod in 1989. The commissioners remain committed to improving the stipends of all parochial clergy as resources allow, but further progress will depend on the giving of Church members.

  Urban Churches
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have received regarding cuts in grants to churches in urban priority areas.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners have recently received a number of representions about further grants to the Church urban fund.

  My reply to Question 34 on this matter also applies to the grants made by the commissioners direct to dioceses to provide suitable church buildings in priority areas. The commissioners have made grants totalling £8 million for this purpose over the past decade and receive representations from time to time for further grants to be made under this heading.

  Church Urban Fund
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what consideration the Church Commissioners have given to the implications for inner city projects of the present proposal to withhold their £1 million contribution to the Church urban fund for 1991.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' board of governors met on 23 May to decide recommendations to the annual general meeting on 26 June for allocation of income. In the light of the financial problems caused by the recession, but with considerable reluctance, they were unable to recommend an immediate further grant to the Church urban fund. The board has, however, asked that the financial position should be reviewed towards the end of the year. It will consider the matter again at that time.

  The commissioners attach great importance to the work of the Church urban fund and were therefore reassured that, if they were unable to make an allocation in 1991, the vice-chairman of the fund nevertheless felt able to recommend to the trustees the maintenance of their grants. There would therefore be no effect on the work of the fund in the short term.

  The primary call on the commissioners' income is for clergy pensions and stipends and grants are committed on an annually recurring basis for these purposes. This has never been the case for grants to the Church urban fund. Any grant for this (or for certain other purposes) has to be voted specifically on each occasion from surplus funds (if any) available at the time—a procedure recognised in the fund's own annual reports. Grants totalling £4 million have been made to the Church urban fund in the past four years in this way.

  The substantial administrative support (worth about £300,000 in 1990) which the commissioners give to the fund will, in any event, continue.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Residential Private Schools
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many residential private schools catering for the needs of children with educational problems are approved by his Department; if he will list them; how often each of them has been 14
  inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate in the past five years; how many receive pupils from local authorities; and whether he will list their average annual fees.

  Mr. Fallon
  There are 118 independent residential schools in England approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under section 11(3)(a) of the Education Act 1981 to cater for children with statements of special educational needs.

  The Department issues an annual list of all approved schools, including those which take only day pupils. This list is intended for the guidance of chief education officers. I have sent a copy to my hon. Friend, and a copy has also been placed in the Library.

  Information about the frequency of visits by Her Majesty's inspectors to approved independent schools which take boarders is not held centrally or separately. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate aims to inspect all schools which have approval at least once every five years, while those which do not have approval or give cause for concern are visited more frequently.

  All approved independent schools receive pupils from local authorities, whether placed by local education authorities or social services departments.

  The mean maximum fee charged by approved independent residential schools catering for children with statements of special educational needs was approximately £21,200 as of January 1991. This figure is based on independent school returns for 1991, a small number of which have not yet been received by my Department, and derives from a wide range of schools, some of which provide for 52-week placements.

  Books
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what have been the education support grants and other grants for spending on books in each of the past 12 years and the forward plans for the next three; and in what way the need for expenditure on books is accounted for in the rate/revenue support grant.

  Mr. Fallon
  Education support grants started in 1984–85. They are allocated to local education authorities for a range of spending priorities. ESGs have been available specifically to support expenditure on books and equipment related to the GCSE; and currently ESGs are available to support expenditure on books for the national curriculum. The expenditure supported by these grants has been:

  £ million

  GCSE books and equipment:

  1986–87

  14·1

  1987–88

  10·0

  1988–89

  10·0

  National curriculum books:

  1991–92

  15·0

  The ESG programme is decided each year. The Secretary of State's proposals for 1992–93, announced on 3 May 1991, included support for further expenditure of £15 million on books for the national curriculum.

  The Government make assumptions about the appropriate level of education spending, including spending on books and equipment, as part of the annual local authority financing settlement. The revenue support

  15
  grant allocated to authorities is not earmarked for particular purposes such as spending on books, and it is therefore for individual LEAs and schools to decide their own spending priorities within the overall resources available.

  School Dinners
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school children received school dinners in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987 and (d)

  Mr. Fallon
  The percentage of school children who received school dinners was 64 per cent. in 1979, 51 per cent. in 1983, 50 per cent. in 1987 and 43 per cent. in 1990.

  First Aid
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to assist local education authorities to meet their responsibilities for first aid provision in schools and colleges.

  Mr. Fallon
  Earlier this year, the Department and the Welsh Office issued advice to education authorities following the publication by the Health and Safety Commission of a revised approved code of practice in connection with the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. I am placing a copy of the documents in the Library of the House.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide an estimate of the revenue costs of making the provision of nursery education in England a statutory responsibility of local authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost would depend on the terms of the statutory responsibility imposed. A broad extrapolation from the estimated cost per pupil for all forms of provision made by local education authorities for the under-fives1 suggests an annual recurrent cost—for full-time provision for all three and four-year-olds in England—of the order of £1·8 billion at 1990–91 prices. In addition there would be a substantial capital cost; and costs would also be incurred in training or retraining the additional teaching and ancillary staff who would be needed.

  1 Tables 11.2 and 11.6, DES Departmental Report "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94", Cm 1511.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer of the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)Official Report, 21 May, column 765, what was the basis of the calculation, including the estimate of the capital cost per full-time nursery place, which he used.

  Mr. Eggar
  I used the costing per place adopted by the hon. Member when he announced to the press on 15 April his party's proposal to transfer £150 million over three years from the city technology colleges programme to nursery education. Contrary to the hon. Member's statement at the time, only £40 million out of the total —little over quarter—were capital funds potentially available for other uses. These would, therefore, produce about 5,000 part-time nursery places a year—or 50 per authority—as compared with the 20,000 he had envisaged.

  Swanscombe School
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give an indication of when he expects to announce his decision with regard to the grant-maintained application by Swanscombe school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering this application, as part of complex set of interrelated GM and section 12 proposals, and hopes to announce his decision soon.

  Brighton CTC
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn of 22 May, on what date Mr. Revere received the commission; and what date it was discovered; on what date it was repaid; and what was the amount.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As noted in the Department's appropriation accounts for 1989–90 and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on those accounts, a deposit of £250,000 was paid by the Department to the City Technology College Trust on 20 June 1989 and the balance of £2·25 million was paid on 7 September 1989. On 8 December 1989 the CTC Trust informed the Department that, on subsequent checking of the invoices on 6 December, it had noted anomalies in the stamp duty bills and errors in the claim for legal costs. Further inquiries confirmed that South Weald Properties had purchased the site at a price of £2·3 million and transferred it to the trust for £2·5 million. After adjustments to reflect legal costs, a net recovery of £225,600 was remitted to the Department —£224,600 on 13 December 1989 and £999 on 14 June 1990.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to involve the Audit Commission in the implementation of his proposals for the development and reorganisation of further and higher education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools had already set in hand plans for a study of aspects of education provision for young people aged between 16 and 19, before my right hon. and learned Friend made his announcement about the reorganisation of further education. We welcome co-operation of this sort. As set out in "Education and Training for the 21st Century" (Cm. 1536 Volume II), the Further Education Council will be required to draw up financial memoranda with the colleges, outlining the general conditions under which funding is provided to them, including the audit arrangements.

  Castle Hill School, Ludlow
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many times inspectors from the HMI visited Castle Hill school, Ludlow, during the period between 1981 and 1989.

  Mr. Fallon
  HMI visited the school 11 times between 1981 and 1989.

  University Administration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of administrative staff employed in each university and polytechnic in England and Wales; and how much is spent on their salaries, for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the number of administrative staff employed in each polytechnic in England and Wales and their salaries is not collected centrally.

  Information on the number of staff employed in each university is contained in "University Statistics—Volume One—Students and Staff"; details of their salaries is contained in volume 3—"Finance". These volumes are published by the Universities' Statistical Record. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Atkins
  Energy management responsibilities form part of the duties of eight officials, with the major co-ordinating role being undertaken by a senior executive officer. The total time devoted to this activity is 0.5 man years per annum.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not available for the period prior to the 1988–89 financial year. For recent years, the position is as follows:

  Financial year

  Current prices £

  1990–91 prices1 £

  1988–89

  228,000

  32,093

  1989–90

  10,000

  10,775

  1990–91

  3161,000

  161,000

  1 Revalued using the GDP deflators.

  2 Resources provided by the Property Services Agency.

  3 Relates to provision of secondary glazing to mitigate noise pollution from the Channel Tunnel Terminal construction work at Waterloo. Some energy efficiency gains will accrue from the installation of the secondary glazing. A major portion of the cost of the work was provided by British Railways.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Atkins
  The PSA was responsible for processing the Department's energy bills until the end of June 1990. Complete data are not therefore available for the period prior to the 1989–90 financial year. Details for 1989–90 are as follows:
  18

  1989–90 prices £

  1990–91 prices £

  Consumption

  Electricity

  269,843

  290,757

  4,833,851 KWh

  Gas

  31,771

  34,233

  96,349 Therms

  Oil

  50,384

  54,289

  433,990 Litres

  Solid Fuel

  nil

  nil

  nil

  The above statistics relate to accommodation totalling 451,513 sq ft.

  Some bills relating to energy consumed in the 1990.91 financial year are still outstanding. It is therefore not possible to provide complete statistics for 1990–91 yet.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Atkins
  There has been one energy audit conducted in the DES during the last five years. However, energy usage is monitored regularly.

  An energy audit of the Department's main headquarters building in London, undertaken in mid-1990, concluded that it was possible to make useful energy savings by installing modern lighting, lighting control sensors, and by fine-tuning boilers, air-conditioning plant and the hot water system. The audit also concluded that capital outlay was not justified on the installation of modern lighting and control sensors because there was insufficient pay-back time left prior to the move of its London headquarters to new premises. The fine-tuning adjustments have all been implemented.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid (International Comparisons)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the per capita amount, in pounds sterling, spent on overseas aid by each member state of the EC, the United States of America, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Japan, in the most recent financial year for which information is available.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Comparative international data are available only on a calendar year basis. The information for 1989, the latest available year, in pounds sterling per capita is as follows:

  EC member countries

  Belgium

  43·3

  Denmark

  111·3

  France1

  80·9

  Germany

  48·7

  Greece

  na

  Ireland

  8·5

  Italy

  38·3

  Luxembourg

  na

  Netherlands

  86·0

  Portugal

  na

  Spain

  na

  United Kingdom

  27·6

  Canada

  53·9

  Japan

  44·3

  Norway

  132·2

  Sweden

  130·0

  United States of America

  18·8

  19

  1 France includes aid to DOM/TOM (24·8).

  Notes: na - date not available for 1989.

  Source: DAC Chairman's Report 1990 (OECD, Paris).

  South Africa
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the African National Congress about its withdrawal from round table talks with the South African Government and Inkatha.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We keep in frequent touch, both through our embassy at Cape Town and directly in London, with all the main parties, including the ANC. We shall continue to encourage all parties to seek solutions to South Africa's problems through dialogue.

  Somaliland Republic
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relations Her Majesty's Government have with the newly proclaimed Somaliland Republic.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

WALES

  Community Charge
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish tables relating to Wales of community charge levels and reductions and so on, comparable to those provided for England in the answers of 17 April to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field),Official Report, column 184–85.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The average reduction in community charges for Wales in 1991–92 resulting from the provisions of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act, before the award of community charge benefit, is £140.

  Information about the numbers of charge payers in Wales in receipt of community charge benefit in 1991–92 is not yet available, and it is not possible to estimate the number of charge payers benefiting from reductions of £.140.

  Numbers of farmers and workers employed in agriculture June 1990

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  All workers (excluding salaried managers)

  County

  Principal farmers

  Other partners

  Total

  Principal farmers

  Other partners

  Total

  Total farmers and directors

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Salaried managers

  Clwyd

  2,425

  665

  3,090

  808

  451

  1,259

  4,349

  2,191

  456

  2,647

  58

  Dyfed

  7,098

  1,634

  8,732

  2,200

  985

  3,185

  11,917

  4,769

  1,399

  6,168

  59

  Gwent

  1,300

  269

  1,569

  523

  261

  784

  2,353

  1,105

  314

  1,419

  35

  Gwynedd

  2,867

  574

  3,441

  1,021

  439

  1,460

  4,901

  1,991

  315

  2,306

  44

  Mid Glam.

  548

  128

  676

  250

  112

  362

  1,038

  521

  110

  631

  13

  Powys

  3,838

  1,067

  4,905

  946

  598

  1,544

  6,449

  3,055

  467

  3,522

  44

  South Glam.

  305

  89

  394

  114

  85

  199

  593

  431

  127

  558

  20

  West Glam.

  486

  111

  597

  241

  110

  351

  948

  489

  144

  633

  10

  Wales

  18,867

  4,537

  23,404

  6,103

  3,041

  9,144

  32,548

  14,552

  3,332

  17,884

  283

  Source: June agricultural census 1990.

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in the June census.
  20
  Estimates of average charges before and after reductions under the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act, and the Welsh community charges reduction scheme, are shown in the following table:

  £

  (a) Before Community Charges (General Reduction) Act:

  (i)Average Charge (gross)

  261

  (ii)Average charge less CCRS

  232

  (b) After Community Charges (General Reduction) Act:

  (i) Average Charge (gross)

  121

  (ii) Average charge less CCRS

  92

  Information about average charges after award of community charge benefit is not yet available.

  First Aid
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to assist local education authorities to meet their responsibilities for first aid provision in schools and colleges.

  Mr. David Hunt
  From time to time, the Welsh Office issues advice and guidance to local education authorities on a range of important safety issues, including the provision of first aid in schools and colleges.

  In February this year, the Welsh Office—in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science—issued advice to local education authorities following the publication by the Health and Safety Commission of a revised approved code of practice in connection with the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations of 1981. A copy of the code of practice is in the Library of the House.

  Farming Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers, partners, directors and farmworkers were employed on a county-by-county basis in Wales in June 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures from the agricultural census for June 1990 are shown in the following table:

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1988, the Property Services Agency commissioned a consultant engineer to produce an energy survey report on the headquarters Crown buildings in Cathays Park. The report identifies a number of building specific recommendations, which could not readily be summarised, for the DOE (Property Holdings) and my Department to consider in their respective energy efficiency programmes. Additionally, my Department's plans for this year provide for further selected energy surveys at some of our other larger buildings.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Funding has been specifically earmarked by my Department for investment in improving energy efficiency on the Welsh Office estate only since 1990–91. In that year, the investment was £41,000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Detailed information on energy consumption and costs is available only from 1 April 1990, when my Department assumed responsibility for direct payment of energy bills.

  The required information for 1990–91 is given in the following tables:

  Welsh Office—Energy Consumption

  Electricity-kwh

  8,009,506

  Gas-therms

  236,033

  Liquid fuel-litres

  274,223

  Solid fuel-tonnes

  Nil

  Square footage of accommodation

  Electricity—742,845

  Gas—273,384

  Liquid fuel—77,289

  Welsh Office—Energy Costs

  £

  Electricity

  412,986

  Gas

  92,048

  Liquid fuel

  42,927

  Solid fuel

  Nil

  Total

  547,961

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has one designated energy manager, who divides his time equally between energy management and other accommodation duties. He and his support staff devoted 1·35 person years to energy management in 1990–91.

  Welsh House Condition Survey
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify the date for the commencement of the 1991 Welsh house condition survey.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is not intended that a full house condition survey should he undertaken in 1991. However, I have it in mind that a smaller survey be conducted in due course to provide an interim indication of development and progress since the last survey in 1986.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many building societies existed (i) in 1985 and (ii) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A total of 167 building societies at end December 1985, as compared with 116 at end May 1991.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 164, what recent discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association or with individual building societies concerning alterations to the annualised systems of setting changes for mortgage interest charges.

  Mr. Maples
  We have had a number of recent meetings with the Building Societies Association and individual societies, at which a range of topics relating to housing finance were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to the legal ownership of(a) building societies and ( b) the surpluses of building societies.

  Mr. Maples
  Building societies are mutual institutions owned by investing and borrowing members. Surpluses made by a society belong to the society. The rules of societies must, inter alia, provide for the entitlement of members to participate in the distribution of any surplus assets after payments to creditors on the winding up, or dissolution by consent, of the society.

  National Savings
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in relation to each of the national savings products the criteria he uses in assessing their quality of funding.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The authorities need to ensure that funding is not concentrated in liquid short-term debt since such debt has many of the attributes of money. Debt which can be readily converted into cash to finance private sector consumption could have the same financial effects as printing money to meet the public sector borrowing requirement. Moreover, the authorities do not want to run the risk of unexpectedly having to repay a substantial amount of debt at very short notice. Thus, almost all national savings products either require a period of notice before withdrawal or impose a significant financial penally for premature withdrawals to encourage long-term holdings.

  Taxation (Savings)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans further to reduce the tax liability for people aged over 75 years who have income from savings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have no plans to do so at present. People aged 75 and over are already helped by the higher level of age-related allowances extended to them in 1989. They will also have benefited from the abolition in 1984 of the investment income surcharge which weighed especially heavily on those who had saved for their retirement.

  Taxpaying individuals 1991–92

  Millions

  Aged under 65

  Aged 65 and over

  Total

  Basic rate only

  21·5

  2·6

  24·2

  Higher rate

  1·5

  0·2

  1·7

  TOTAL

  23·1

  2·8

  25·9

  Taxpaying individuals aged under 65

  Millions

  No income subject to NIC

  Earnings1 between LEL and UEL

  Earnings above UEL

  Total

  Basic rate only

  1·1

  18·5

  2·0

  21·5

  Higher rate

  —

  0·1

  1·4

  1·5

  TOTAL

  1·1

  18·6

  3·4

  23·1

  1 Includes earnings from employment or self-employment.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the introduction of legislation based on the Green Paper, "Friendly Societies: a New Framework, January 1990."

  Mr. Maples
  Preparations for the proposed legislation are well in hand. Instructions have been sent to parliamentary counsel, and drafting of clauses is proceeding. A Bill will be brought forward in a future Session, when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985 ranked by equivalised disposable income as defined in table P, page 119 of Economic Trends No. 449, March 1991, showing by quintile groups of households (a) income tax, (b) national insurance contributions and gross rates separately as proportions of gross income and (b) VAT and other indirect taxes separately as proportions of disposable income.

  Mr. Maples
  The figures are given in the table.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total number of taxpayers after the Budget changes in 1991–92, giving figures separately for(a) those who pay national insurance contributions only on incomes below the income tax threshold, (b) basic rate taxpayers with earned income below the NIC upper earnings limit, (c) basic rate taxpayers with earned income above the NIC upper earnings limit, (d) all basic rate taxpayers, (e) higher rate taxpayers with earned income above the NIC upper earnings limit, (f) all higher rate taxpayers, and (g) all taxpayers.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest available estimates are as follows:

  Various taxes expressed as percentage of income by quintile groups of households ranked by equivalised disposable income, 1977 to 1985

  1977

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1985

  (a) Items expressed as percentages of gross income

  (i) Income tax as a percentage of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  9

  4

  5

  5

  3

  2nd

  12

  9

  9

  8

  6

  3rd

  15

  13

  13

  13

  11

  4th

  17

  15

  16

  15

  14

  Top

  18

  17

  18

  18

  17

  Average over all households

  16

  14

  15

  14

  13

  (ii) Employees' NIC as a percentage of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2nd

  4

  3

  3

  4

  3

  3rd

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  4th

  4

  4

  5

  6

  6

  Top

  4

  3

  4

  5

  5

  Average over all households

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  (iii) Gross rates as a percentage of gross income:

  Bottom quintile group

  6

  7

  7

  7

  8

  2nd

  4

  4

  5

  5

  6

  3rd

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4th

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  Top

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Average over all households

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  (b) Items expressed as percentages of disposable income

  (i) VAT as a percentage of disposable income:

  Bottom quintile group

  5

  5

  7

  8

  8

  2nd

  4

  6

  7

  7

  8

  3rd

  5

  7

  7

  8

  8

  4th

  5

  7

  8

  8

  8

  Top

  4

  6

  7

  7

  7

  25

  1977

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1985

  Average over all households

  5

  6

  7

  7

  8

  (ii) Other indirect taxes as percentages of disposable income:

  Bottom quintile group

  19

  16

  18

  19

  18

  2nd

  16

  15

  16

  16

  15

  3rd

  17

  15

  16

  16

  15

  4th

  15

  15

  15

  15

  14

  Top

  13

  13

  12

  12

  11

  Average over all households

  l5

  14

  15

  15

  14

  Source: CSO, from Family Expenditure Surveys

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by the Inland Revenue in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Inland Revenue in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Maude
  The amount spent by the Inland Revenue in the financial year 1990–91 on management and computer consultancy contracts excluding hardware and software purchases is estimated to be about 19·2 million.

  The Inland Revenue has awarded the following consultancy contracts in 1990–91:

  AC Consultancy Services—operational research service.

  Alan Gilchrist and Partners—taxation thesaurus.

  Audience Selection and Timescales Ltd—customer survey.

  B. Duff—advice on accommodation matters.

  British Market Research Bureau—customer survey.

  Communications Audit—local office communications.

  Computer Search and Selection—computer project support.

  Computer Sciences Company—computer project support.

  CUP—accommodation management.

  Design and Control Group of Bristol—energy management.

  DP Support Services—computer project support.

  EECS and Partners—energy management.

  Energy Options Ltd—energy management.

  Ernst and Young—development of financial accounting systems.

  Enviroplan Ltd—space utilisation.

  Fraser Williams—computer project support

  Furniture Industry Research Association—furniture design

  IBM—computer project support

  ICL—computer project support

  ICS (Sales) Ltd—computer project support

  LBMS Ltd—computer project support

  Lorien Technical Services—computer project support

  Marriott Consultancy Ltd—recruitment and retention research

  MDS Consultants plc—computer project support

  MORI—career attitudes survey

  Organisation and Systems Innovations Ltd—project support

  PA Consulting Group—business systems

  Peat Marwick—work measurement

  Phillips—communications design

  PRAXIS—computer project support

  Price Waterhouse—computer project support

  Ramsey and Primrose Consulting Engineers—lighting survey

  SIGNET—computer project support

  Symonds Facilities Management plc—space utilization

  T Bates—problem solving and creativity workshops

  The Clifford Talbot Partnership—energy management

  The Open College—open learning

  Torpy and Partners—energy management

  Touche Ross—communications audit

  VNG Nationwide—computer project support

  World Systems—computer project support

  26
  There were no executive agencies within the Department during the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1990.91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total amount spent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the financial year 1990–91 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, was £2·51 million.

  The management and computer consultancy contracts awarded by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, excluding hardware and software, in 1990–91 were as follows:

  SUPPLIER NAME AND PROJECT NAME

  Rede Group

  Quality Management and Training

  Rediffusion Simulation Ltd.

  Design Consultancy

  ICL

  VME Consultancy

  ITD Organisation Report

  D.I.S.S. Project Services

  Senior Management Workshop

  Project Brief for LITA Manual

  Kermon

  Telecoms Consultancy (GTS)

  Metron

  Capacity Management Consultancy

  CCTA

  Service and Support Agreements

  Oracle Corporation

  Network Consultancy

  Ranmor

  Network Consultancy

  PA Consulting Group

  Human Resources Consultancy

  Cedric II Review

  Westwood

  BRIT Project

  Forvus

  Unix Commissioning Survey

  Logica (Partnership Agreements)

  X400 Telecoms

  Tariff Team System Review

  LANCE Project

  CRAMM Review VAT(PLK) System

  Statistical Office 90 Project

  Business Analysis

  Integrated Tariff Project Data

  Modeller and Audit Security Control

  London Airport Documentation

  London Airport Seizures

  HQ Planning Systems

  Local Info Technology Help DL0

  Personnel System Implementation

  VAT Reg/Dereg System Review

  VAT PACE Project

  27

  VAT II Support

  VAT VIVA Project

  VAT II VIPPA Project

  Quality Assurance on Uniface

  Network Cabling HQ Offices

  Accommodation Management System

  VAT Enforcement Package

  Customs Operational Planning

  Excise Operational Planning

  LIT Dataease Support

  Unix System Support

  Yale Data BIS (Partnership Agreements)

  TAC for Integrated Tariff

  Project Management Task Team

  VAT II Project Management

  Review of VAT System

  Management Accounting Related Systems PM0

  Dept Accounting System Review

  Personnel Information System

  London Airport Data Comms

  London Airport Seizures System

  Review of Lees Office Tech'1 System

  EMAIL Package Evaluation

  TAC for SEM Project

  Excise/Inland Customs Strategy Implementation

  HQ Local Info Tech Strategy

  London Overseas Mail Office RL0

  BT Tonto Replacement Study

  HQ Offices Recabling Study

  TAC for Tariff Interface

  CTQU Project

  LIT Computer Infrastructure

  Technical Strategy Review

  Dun and Bradstreet

  Department Accounting System Support

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Department Accounting System Review

  ASL

  Telecoms Consultancy

  Octagon

  Telephone Management Initiative

  SJB

  Telecoms Consultancy

  Bull HN

  Cedric Technical Support

  Total Training

  Computer-based Training Package

  Ashvent

  Computer-based Training Package

  Hunterskil

  Programming Analysis

  Review of Assignment Values

  Praxis

  Personnel Technical Consultancy

  HM C&E Scoping Study

  HM C&E Management Consultancy

  HM C&E Technical Review

  HM C&E Personnel Micro Systems

  TUAM System Technical Manual

  HM C&E Enforcement Package Manual

  HM C&E EIS Implementation

  HM C&E EOPS Technical Manual

  HM C&E COPS Technical Manual

  HM C&E LITA Conference

  HM C&E Network Installation LIT

  VAT Enforcement

  Datafit

  VAT Enforcement Installation

  Support and Programming

  VAT Reg/Dereg Programming and Review

  Large Trader Control Unit Consultancy and Applications

  Work

  Comshare

  DIS Project

  Coopers Lybrand

  TAC for Personnel Info System

  DIS Project

  Ernst and Young

  GEMINI Handbook Consultancy

  28

  Personnel Info System

  VAT VIVA Consultancy

  General Consultants

  Expertech

  CEDIT/VIVA Consultancy Knowledge

  Engineering Project

  MFT Computer Systems

  CTQU Project Support including User Manual Production

  University of Bath

  FMI Study

  Sybase

  Personnel Information System Support

  White Waghorn

  Evaluation of TAWPS including production of Release 2 TAWPS

  Touche Ross

  Specification and Development of Operational Planning System

  OSI

  CHIEF implementation

  AMTEC

  CHIEF Technical Assurance Co-ordination

  Model Systems

  CHIEF SSADM Co-ordination

  VAT (Charities)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Treasury received in VAT from registered charities in each of the past five years; and how much he expects to receive in the current financial year.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid by charities in the most recent year available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that detailed information of this sort is not readily available.

  Employment Statistics (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons were employed in the civil service in the Doncaster area by Department as at 1 April in each year from 1979 to 1991; and if he will list the reasons for any substantial change in the numbers year on year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total numbers' of non-industrial civil servants employed in the Doncaster area at 1 April each year from 1979 to 1990, are as follows:

  Year

  total

  1979

  1,280

  1980

  1,240

  1981

  1,248

  1982

  1,245

  1983

  1,196

  1984

  1,102

  1985

  1,092

  1986

  1,274

  1987

  1,399

  1988

  1,425

  1989

  1,520

  1990

  1,489

  Note: No figures are available yet for 1 April 1991.

  1 Full time equivalents—part time staff count as half units.

  Details of the numbers of staff in individual departments in the Doncaster area could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  No figures are held centrally of the number of industrial civil servants employed in the Doncaster area.

  Savings
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on gross savings and gross indebtedness; and what are the comparable figures for other G7 countries.

  Mr. Maples
  Data for gross saving in the United Kingdom are published by the CSO in "United Kingdom National Accounts". Data for gross financial assets and liabilities for the United Kingdom, on various sectoral definitions, are published by the CSO in "Financial Statistics". Data for gross saving in the other G7 countries are published by the OECD in "Historical Statistics 1960–69". Data for gross indebtedness, on a comparable basis across the G7 countries, are not available.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in the Treasury and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of persons engaged on energy management in 1990–91 was four. However, this was only part of each of their duties. The total number of man years devoted to energy management in 1991–91 was one third of a man year.

  European Community
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report for the European financial year 1990 the gross amounts paid by the United Kingdom to the European Community under the following headings (a) VAT-related payments, (b) gross domestic product related payments, (c) CCT-related payments and (d) other payments, noting for each the relevant treaty and United Kingdom statutory basis, together with the gross total, the amount deducted by the Fontainebleau mechanism and the date when that agreement is subject to re-adoption or termination, together with the amounts received from the European Community by the United Kingdom Government or other agencies showing the net payments in £ sterling and percentage of gross and net contribution, respectively, together with any relevant note related to payments for administrative or collection costs.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested on the United Kingdom's contribution and receipts during 1990, including abatement, is given in the "Statement on the 1991 Community Budget" (Cm. 1490) published in April 1991. The level and structure of Community revenues are subject to the own resources decision 1988, which includes 30
  provision for the United Kingdom's abatement mechanism; parliamentary authority for our contributions is given under the European Communities Act 1972. The Commission is due to report on the operation of the own resources system later this year; any amendment would require unanimous agreement by member states and ratification by national Parliaments.

  Outturn information on the contributions of other member states is not available. However, the "Statement on the 1990 Community Budget" (Cm. 1059) estimated the United Kingdom's share of gross contributions after abatement as 15·1 per cent. The Commission does not publish full information on receipts or net balances of other member states. It is not therefore possible to give the United Kingdom's share of net contributions.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the United Kingdom in 1990 were taxed on use of company cars; how many claimed tax on cars under schedule D; and how many were liable for car mileage tax under the fixed profit car scheme.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that, in 1990–91, about 2 million people were taxed on the private use of cars provided by their employers. Approximately the same number claimed tax relief for cars against schedule D income tax liability. A reliable estimate of the number who were liable to tax under the fixed profit car scheme is not available.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from civil service pensioner representatives that uprating of pensions to take account of inflation should be carried out at six-monthly intervals rather than annually; and what is his response and his reasons therefor.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Department has received no formal representations from groups representing public service or civil service pensioners on this point, although from time to time correspondents suggest such a change. Because of the administrative work involved in uprating public service pensions and social security benefits, these payments are made in arrears.

  The uprating in April is based on the movement in prices in the 12 months to the previous September. These pensions are thus fully protected against inflation, and the system fully protects the interests of pensioners. More frequent uprating would not make the system any fairer, but would involve substantial additional administrative cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Freehold Buildings (Depreciation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of the companies in which he has an equity interest or a golden share do not make it their practice to depreciate freehold buildings.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that all such companies depreciate their freehold buildings, other than investment property which is treated as required by the relevant accounting standard. This information is taken from the latest available annual accounts of British Aerospace plc, British Steel plc, British Telecommunications plc, Cable and Wireless plc and Rolls-Royce plc.

  Import Statistics
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage, for the latest available year, of all retail goods, including motor vehicles, sold in(a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy, were imported.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are set out as follows and show the proportion of apparent consumption met by imports of consumer goods in 1988:

  Per cent.

  Germany

  35·5

  France

  26·7

  Italy

  26·6

  Source: Eurostat.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage, for the latest available year, of all retail goods, including motor vehicles, sold in the EC were imported from outside the Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figure in 1987 was 11·4 per cent. (excluding production figures for Luxembourg).

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage, for the latest available year, of all retail goods, including motor vehicles, sold in the United Kingdom was imported.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figure in 1988 was 32·7 per cent.

  Liquidations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) companies and (b) businesses have gone into (i) liquidation or (ii) been declared bankrupt in the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole in each year since 1985; and in which areas of economic activity they were to be found.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information cannot be provided without disproportionate costs.

  Computer Misuse Act
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the study which he has commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte into the workings of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 will be complete; and if he would set out the aims of the study.
  32
  Mr. Leigh
  The study is expected to be completed by September 1991. Its terms of reference are to:

  (a) identify and describe any requirements the police and/or the business community in the United Kingdom may have for expert advice on all aspects of computer misuse;

  (b) identify and describe the main sources of advice and expertise on computer misuse that are currently available to the police and the business community in the United Kingdom (whether developed in-house or "bought-in");

  (c) assess to what extent their needs are or could be met from current sources;

  (d) analyse and, where appropriate, make recommendations on any new mechanism(s) for the provision of expert advice that may be required, having regard to:

  present and expected demands for information and advice during the next five years, as knowledge of, and familiarity with, the operation and implementation of the Computer Misuse Act increase;

  the need for education and training about computer misuse issues and the implications of the Computer Misuse Act;

  (e) assess and report on the extent to which the police and the business community may be prepared to finance any new mechanism(s) that are perceived to be necessary.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what figures Her Majesty's Government have for the number of British plumbers, electricians, engineers and allied trades in the Ahmadi camp.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Numbers have varied considerably from around 25 to around 50 but there are currently about 23 people staying at the BRIT camp at Fahaheel comprising carpenters, builders, electricians, telecommunication fitters, machine fitters, interior decorators and project managers.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from the City Kuwait Group.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of verbal and written representations from the City Kuwait Group on financial issues arising from the restoration of Kuwait including advice on how the needs of claimants could be best met under the proposed United Nations Iraq compensation arrangements.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Salaries and Rents
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to meet employees and tenants of the Duchy to discuss salaries and rent levels.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I discussed rent levels at a recent meeting with the Duchy Council. I next expect to discuss salaries as affecting employees in January 1992.

  Visits
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to next visit the Duchy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have no plans to visit the Duchy estates in the immediate future.

  Honour of Tickhill
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all manors that have been or are held by the Honour of Tickhill and give their current status.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Honour of Tickhill formed one of the interests Edward III granted by charter dated 25 June 1372 to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.

  The charter did not specify all the manors included in the grant. It would not be possible, even after extensive research, to list all the manors that have been held by the Honour or to trace their current status.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the representations he has received since 29 November 1990 relating to the payment of compensation to victims of the British nuclear tests at Christmas Island; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations and have nothing to add to the statements that I have previously made.

  Fishing Policies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps better to co-ordinate the policies and spending programmes of the various Departments of state concerned with the fishing industry in England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has lead responsibility for United Kingdom fisheries policy in consultation with other Fisheries Ministers.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister what procedures Her Majesty's Government have in place in respect of protocol, security, or other considerations, for the reception or treatment of senior Ministers or heads of armed forces of another country arriving in this country on a private visit; how these procedures were applied in the case of General Pinochet's visit of 18 and 19 May; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no set procedures for private visits to the United Kingdom, although protocol, security and other aspects are considered where necessary. In the case of General Pinochet, apart from arrival and departure, arrangements for his visit were the responsibility of his hosts.

  Gas and Oil Policies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps better to co-ordinate the policies and spending programmes of the various Departments of state concerned with the gas and oil industry in England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  34
  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Energy, which is the lead department for United Kingdom oil and gas, consults on and co-ordinates its policies with other Government Departments as appropriate.

  British Service Men (Correspondence)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for St. Helens, North can expect to receive a reply to his letters of 1 February, 13 March, and 3 April, on the subject of the death of British service men in the Gulf other than by enemy fire.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's letter of 1 February as soon as possible. I have no record of having received the hon. Gentleman's letters of 13 March and 3 April.

  Journalists (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many accounts have not yet been settled by newspapers which sent journalists on official transport provided for Prime Ministerial visits abroad.

  The Prime Minister
  As of 3 June 1991, 14 accounts had not been settled.

  National Union of Mineworkers' Funds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what information Her Majesty's Government have made available about NUM funds to Mr. Brian Larkins, sequestrator of Price Waterhouse.

  The Prime Minister
  The sequestrators were appointed by the court to carry out the order of the court for the sequestration of the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers. The sequestrators requested and obtained from the Government, as well as others, information relevant to the discharge of their duties to the court.

  Downing Street
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made in the staffing and working arrangements in Downing street since he became Prime Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 28 March 1991 at column 500.

  Business Aviation Policy
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to consult the Secretary of State for Transport about the implications for the Government's business aviation policy of the Secretary of State for Defence's decision to make the Royal Aeronautical Establishment airfields at Bedford and Farnborough available for disposal.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that consultations have taken place between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport on this matter.

  Banking Transactions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations, either formal or informal, have been made by the Irish Government over the alleged surveillance by British electronic listening posts of private Dublin banking transactions.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are not aware of any such representations.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline the rules which restrict the use of surveillance on private banking transactions in Britain and in the rest of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  The interception of communications during the course of their transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunication system is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in the Cabinet Office in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  The Prime Minister
  Six energy audits have been carried out in the Cabinet Office in the last five years. The main conclusions for each audit are as follows:

  10–12 Downing street

  Installation of:

  water dams of WC cisterns; high efficiency low energy lamps: low energy garden lighting; and krypton tubes.

  Reduction of electricity supply capacity.

  24 Whitehall

  Draught sealing of windows.

  Installation of heat meter.

  Improvement in light switching practice.

  Investigation of ventilation and heating control.

  36 Whitehall

  Adjust heating controller.

  Installation of heat meter.

  Reduction of domestic hot water wastage.

  Investigation of ventilation system.

  53 Parliament street

  Change to a metered water supply.

  Reduction of electricity supply capacity.

  Adjust settings of thermostatic radiator valves.

  Installation of compact fluorescent tubes.

  Murray house

  Change electricity tariff to quarterly billed non-domestic.

  More efficient use of supplementary heaters.

  Replacement of hot water heater.

  Installation of krypton tubes.

  Hepburn house

  Change to a metered water supply.

  Improvement in energy management within boiler room.

  Improvements to domestic hot water system.

  Installation of thermostatic radiator valves.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the Cabinet Office, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption
  36
  for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes: and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures requested are available only in cash and 1990–91 money terms and only for the following years:

  Electricity £

  Gas £

  Liquid fuel £

  Total of accommodation1 in sq. ft.

  1987–88

  268,523

  74,797

  56,511

  616,899

  2(330,693)

  2(92, 114)

  2(69, 594)

  1988–89

  294,485

  53,904

  39,906

  586,843

  2(337,582)

  2(61,782)

  2(44,738)

  1989–90

  295,126

  56,575

  42,000

  545,861

  2(317,998)

  2(60,959)

  2(45,255)

  1990–91

  300,542

  58,033

  48,988

  547,481

  1 As at 30 September of start year.

  2 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in the Cabinet Office and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office has one part-time energy manager.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of the Cabinet Office in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  The Prime Minister
  The only information available relates to 1990–91 when approximately £78,000 was spent on measures aimed at improving energy efficiency in the Cabinet Office. This excludes expenditure on planned maintenance and the use of energy-efficient lighting in refurbishment programmes which is not separately identifiable from other costs.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has made any changes to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  At the request of the Leader of the Opposition the representatives and substitutes for the Labour party on the delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will now be:

  The hon. Members for:

  Representatives

  Wentworth

  Mr. Hardy

  Wallsend

  Mr. Garrett

  Tooting

  Mr. Cox

  Liverpool Riverside

  Mr. Parry

  Wansbeck

  Mr. Thompson

  Lord Kirkhill

  The hon. Members for:

  Substitutes

  Warley, East

  Mr. Faulds

  Newham, North West

  Mr. Banks

  Cunningham, South

  Mr. Lambie

  37

  The hon. Members or:

  Representatives

  Falkirk, East

  Mr. Ewing

  Manchester, Central

  Mr. Litherland

  Don Valley

  Mr. Redmond

  Newport, East

  Mr. Hughes

  In addition, I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) from the Government Benches as a substitute delegate in succession to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), taking effect from 28 June 1991.

  Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the invitations to official functions at No. 10 Downing street to which Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi has been invited since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: M r. Bedi attended a general reception at No. 10 Downing street on 1 December 1986.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Speeches
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the criteria for placing in the Library speeches made by Members of Parliament.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The texts of non-parliamentary ministerial speeches and of speeches by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are received and filed by the Library as a matter of course, where these are issued by Government Departments or by party headquarters. Texts of speeches by the Leader of the Opposition are normally received from his office in the House.

  Non-parliamentary speeches by other Members are sometimes obtained on request for a Member, or in anticipation of demand by Members.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours in(a) Government time, (b) official Opposition time, (c) Scottish National party time, (d) private Members' time and (e) statement time have been devoted to matters relating to the Gulf since 15 January.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) 6½ hours;

  (b) 6½ hours;

  (c) 3 hours;

  (d) 3¼ hours;

  and 11½ hours on private notice questions and statements.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Carcases
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to other EC countries seeking the prosecution of those exporting 38
  beef carcases which contain illegal drugs and the withdrawal from those convicted of all rights to export beef.

  Mr. Maclean
  We will continue to give our full support to any steps taken by the authorities concerned to deal with the illegal use of veterinary medicines in those EC member states where it is found to occur.

  Consultation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of those organisations which his Department consults on Government or European Community legislation or directives relating to the horticultural industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department consults a wide range of organisations on a wide range of matters affecting horticulture. In order to save costs and to reduce the burden on these organisations, we consider the need for consultation in each case and consult only those organisations with an interest in the relevant proposal.

  Sports Turf Management
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department contributes towards research into sports turf management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department does not contribute financially towards research into sports turf management. However, ADAS is actively seeking opportunities for commercial research and development with a number of organisations that are involved in this area of work.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 21 and 22 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made to the House earlier today.

  Dogs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of all dogs imported into the United Kingdom, by breed or description, age and sex for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Farming Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers, partners, directors and farmworkers were employed on a county-by-county basis in England in June 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is given in the table. Data are taken from the June 1990 agricultural census and hence exclude estimates for minor holdings not in the annual census.
  39

  Distribution of farmers and workers by county June 1990 census (England)

  Principal farmers or partners

  Other partners or directors

  Spouses of farmers/partners or directors

  All other workers

  Total

  England

  Avon

  1,619

  577

  559

  3,837

  6,592

  Bedfordshire

  995

  454

  360

  2,015

  3,824

  Berkshire

  643

  219

  221

  1,529

  2,612

  Buckinghamshire

  1,529

  625

  471

  2,460

  5,085

  Cambridgeshire

  2,955

  1,371

  1,002

  7,345

  12,673

  Cheshire

  3,537

  1,326

  1,409

  5,111

  11,383

  Cleveland

  364

  154

  118

  477

  1,113

  Cornwall

  5,771

  1,790

  2,408

  5,366

  15,335

  Cumbria

  5,324

  2,235

  2,389

  4,723

  14,671

  Derbyshire

  3,071

  1,221

  1,112

  3,331

  8,735

  Devon

  9,175

  2,897

  3,920

  9,090

  25,082

  Dorset

  2,438

  932

  990

  4,269

  8,629

  Durham

  1,832

  735

  700

  1,984

  5,251

  East Sussex

  1,775

  587

  671

  3,664

  6,697

  Essex

  2,844

  1,437

  1,036

  7,145

  12,462

  Gloucestershire

  2,608

  920

  952

  4,107

  8,587

  Greater London

  346

  174

  138

  1,192

  1,850

  Greater Manchester

  1,208

  497

  435

  1,484

  3,624

  Hampshire

  2,374

  903

  848

  6,929

  11,054

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,479

  2,050

  2,079

  9,922

  19,530

  Hertfordshire

  974

  426

  339

  2,050

  3,789

  Humberside

  2,918

  1,566

  853

  6,497

  11,834

  Isle of Wight

  419

  144

  172

  792

  1,527

  Isles of Scilly

  55

  8

  29

  77

  169

  Kent

  3,336

  1,366

  1,192

  16,393

  22,287

  Lancashire

  4,545

  2,010

  1,938

  7,203

  15,696

  Leicestershire

  2,193

  969

  721

  3,226

  7,109

  Lincolnshire

  4,835

  2,463

  1,729

  13,252

  22,279

  Merseyside

  407

  178

  160

  871

  1,616

  Norfolk

  4,075

  1,700

  1,271

  13,580

  20,626

  North Yorkshire

  7,287

  3,214

  2,590

  10,836

  23,927

  Northamptonshire

  1,586

  745

  513

  2,365

  5,209

  Northumberland

  1,989

  934

  677

  2,911

  6,511

  Nottinghamshire

  1,573

  801

  500

  3,153

  6,027

  Oxfordshire

  1,654

  684

  566

  3,491

  6,395

  Shropshire

  4,057

  1,578

  1,642

  5,695

  12,972

  Somerset

  4,697

  1,664

  1,898

  6,604

  14,863

  South Yorkshire

  1,183

  530

  412

  1,572

  3,697

  Staffordshire

  3,652

  1,339

  1,440

  5,012

  11,443

  Suffolk

  2,823

  1,335

  956

  7,817

  12,931

  Surrey

  1,360

  411

  514

  3,701

  5,986

  Tyne and Wear

  229

  91

  72

  391

  783

  Warwickshire

  1,931

  770

  665

  3,043

  6,409

  West Midlands

  368

  152

  134

  752

  1,406

  West Sussex

  1,735

  632

  670

  6,523

  9,560

  West Yorkshire

  2,488

  904

  845

  3,066

  7,303

  Wiltshire

  2,362

  921

  817

  4,533

  8,633

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by the intervention board in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the intervention board in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Curry
  This is a matter for the chief executive, who will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded 40
  by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Curry
  Our expenditure on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases in the 1990–91 financial year was £4,556,695. A list of contracts awarded in 1990–91 is as follows:

  Management consultancy contracts awarded in 1990–91

  COMPANY AND CONTRACT
  Touche Ross—Dairy Crest Foods: Monitoring of the agreement between MAFF, the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trades Federation

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock—Training needs analysis

  Training Review

  Human resource development project

  Assistance with efficiency scrutiny on staff attitudes

  41

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Regional structure review: administration of grants and subsidies

  IT computer consultancy contracts awarded in 1990–91

  COMPANY AND CONTRACT

  Asterisk Computer Services—Development of food science sub-strategy

  Mouncey and Partners—Support on business analysis

  PA Consulting Services—Support on business analysis

  University of Bristol—Development of national food survey

  FI Group Ltd.—Development of national food survey

  Ernst and Young—Support for the accounts payable/purchase order project

  Touche Ross—CRAMM security review

  Softlab—CRAMM security review

  Asterisk Computer Services—Development of R and D system for chief scientists group

  TRIAD Special Systems—Design of HECTOR personnel system

  Ingres—Conversion of applications programs for fisheries

  Kinderquest Ltd.—Support on the child care nursery project

  D M Shaw—Support of the post implementation review

  IBM (UK) Ltd.—Operations productivity study

  TRIAD Special Systems—Development of applications software for pesticides safety division

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Video conferencing

  EOSYS—Development of local area network strategy

  Grafton—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  Asterisk Computer Services—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  TRIAD Special Systems—Development of /WAS sub-strategy

  Tech Op—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  Exeter University—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  PA Consulting Services—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  Price Waterhouse—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  Intergraph—Development of ADAS sub-strategy

  TRIAD Special Systems—Support for regional administration project

  Asterisk Computer Services—Support to regional administration project

  Quanta Learning Systems—Support to regional administration project

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his earlier question on 25 June 1990 at col.29. In the 1990–91 financial year £231,038 was spent on specific energy saving measures by this Department. This sum does not reflect the cost of other works which have led to energy saving alongside other benefits but in which this element cannot be specifically identified. Nor does it include expenditure undertaken by the Property Services Agency. Figures for years prior to 1989–90 are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his earlier question on 5 June 1990 at col.503. The information requested is not yet available for the 1990–91 financial year. The area of accommodation occupied by this Department at the end of 1990 was 595,665 sq m, that is, about 6·4 million sq ft.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his earlier question on 5 June 1990 at column 503. Since then, five further energy, audits have been carried out. In London the consultants report recommended changes to tariffs, improvements to heating controls and changes to time switches, metering arrangements and electrical capacities. At Slough recommendations centred on improvements to lighting, radiators and windows. In the Ministry's South Eastern region an audit proposed draught proofing and the insulation of plant and water heaters. In Midlands and Western region two audits were carried out which recommended tariff and time clock changes, modifications to and installation of thermostats, time switches and control systems, boiler adjustments and fitting energy efficient lighting.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Curry
  The position in the Department has not changed since the answer given to the hon. Member on 5 June 1990 at column 503.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hostages
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has concerning the whereabouts of John McCarthy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive a number of reports on the whereabouts of John McCarthy, Terry Waite, and Jack Mann but we have no definite information as to their exact whereabouts at any particular time. We wish these and all other hostages to be released as soon as possible.

  Ascension Island
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 459, if he will enlarge his review of the problem of feral cats on Ascension Island to include that of rats.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Non-Governmental Organisations' Forum for Nature Conservation in the United Kingdom dependent territories is planning to assess the impact of feral cats and rats on Ascension Island's bird life. We look forward to studying its conclusions.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the rates of pay for make-work on St. Helena and the relevant rate of inflation for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The weekly wage for workers engaged on the three-day work scheme is £22·86. The tables below record the percentage change in wages paid under the three-day work scheme since annual reviews were introduced on 1 April 1988. The retail prices index is given since 1981.

  Date of review of three-day work scheme wage and percentage change from previous year

  per cent.

  1 April 1988

  4

  1 April 1989

  3

  1 April 1990

  3

  1 April 1991

  0

  Annual percentage change in retail price index from previous year

  Year1

  Per cent.

  1981

  17·3

  1982

  12·2

  1983

  8·7

  1984

  9·5

  1985

  4·7

  1986

  -2·0

  1987

  4·2

  1988

  3·7

  1989

  4·9

  1990

  2·2

  1 All figures based on 4th quarter.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 3 June and Ministers are likely to discuss VAT and excise rates, in particular VAT special schemes for mail order and exempt bodies. Discussion on technical systems is not expected.

  The Telecommunications Council will meet on 3 June and Ministers will consider a proposal for a decision to establish the second phase of the TEDIS programme, (trade, electronics data interchange system). The programme proposed includes actions on standardisation, legal aspects and security of EDI measures. It is expected that a statement will be made outlining the progress of discussions with interested parties on a memorandum of agreement for the promotion of the MAC technology standards for satellite broadcast. Ministers will also re-examine proposals for a Council directive on frequencies for the introduction of cordless digital telecommunications (DECT). There will also be a proposal for a Council recommendation on the co-ordinated introduction of cordless digital telecommunications. A common position has been reached on these measures, which are for adoption at this meeting. Ministers will consider Commission reports, on the results of the public consultation on the Green Paper on satellite communications, progress on a Green Paper on postal services which has been in preparation since September 1989 and a draft proposal for discussion on the proposed directive on the adoption of standardised international area codes.

  The Health Council will meet on 4 June and Ministers will discuss the Commission's proposals for amending the existing directive on the labelling of cigarette packets to include other tobacco products, (this amendment also includes a ban on the marketing of oral snuff), a proposal for a programme of action against AIDS, a declaration on the use of drugs in sport, actions for the reduction of drug abuse and a report on the Europe against cancer programme. Statements are expected to be made by the Commission on progress on the establishment of a public health committee, the European year of nutrition and co-operation between the EC and World Health Organisation.

  The Culture Council will meet on 7 June and Ministers will consider a draft resolution on the development of theatre in Europe, training of arts administrators, temporary entry into the United States for European artists, and draft conclusions on copyright and neighbouring rights. Ministers will also consider a progress report on the implementation of the resolutions of 18 May 1989 concerning the promotions of books and reading, and the nomination of Navplion as European city of culture for 1997. Ministers will discuss the protection of national art treasures under the single market post-1992 and a Commission report on priority projects in the cultural field.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 10 June and Ministers will discuss G24 assistance to eastern Europe and European investment bank lending outside the Community with a view to examining the possibility of extending EIB operations to other countries and regions.

  45
  Ministers will also consider the proposal on passenger baggage and possibly will continue discussing the abolition of fiscal frontiers. A directive on money laundering may be formally adopted. The EIB governors (12 Finance Ministers) will be having their annual meeting in the morning on 10 June. In the afternoon, the Ministerial meeting of the inter-governmental Conference on economic and monetary union will hold a discussion on a draft report by the Presidency for the European Council. On 11 June, the ministerial inter-governmentalconference will hold an inter-institutional meeting with the European Parliament.

  The Environment Council will meet on 13 and 14 June and Ministers will consider proposals for regulations on the importation of certain furs and the northern seas action programme (NORSPA) and the proposed directive on nitrate. Ministers will discuss proposals for a directive on habitats and its associated regulation on action relating to the environment (ACNAT), regulations concerning environmental labelling, and an environment fund (LIFE).

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 17 and 18 June. Ministers will prepare for the European Council on 28 and 29 June and review progress in the EC/EFTA negotiations on a European economic area in preparation for a joint meeting of EC/EFTA Ministers in the margins of the FAC. Ministers may consider the development of relations between the Community and dependent territories of member states and are likely to discuss political developments in Albania and EC/Albania relations. Ministers may also discuss the question of non-European participation in the European energy charter and the future integration of the Canaries, Madeira and Azores into the EC. There will also be a ministerial session of the inter-government conference on political union on 17 and 18 June.

  The Internal Market Council will meet on 18 and 19 June and Ministers will discuss a number of important issues including insurance company accounts, the baggage regulation, public procurement, the Intrastat regulations and the draft Council regulation on trans-European networks.

  The Transport Council will meet on 20 and 21 June and Ministers will discuss, and possibly adopt, proposals on the mutual recognition of cockpit crew licences, technical harmonisation of aviation requirements, harmonised driving licences, roadworthiness tests for cars, and the extension of inland waterway cabotage. Agreement may also be reached on proposals for the development of Community railways, public service contracts and the Loran C radionavigation system. Ministers are likely to spend some considerable time on the problem of third country transit, and may also discuss bus and coach liberalisation and road safety (including seat belt wearing).

  The Labour and Social Affairs Council will meet on 25 and 26 June and Ministers are likely to discuss the proposed directives on medical assistance on board ships, health and safety on construction sites, proof of employment contract, protection of pregnant workers, protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos, atypical work (article 118A), and, possibly, working time. Ministers will also consider a report on the free movement of workers between Spain and Portugal and other member states. The decisions on the PETRA youth training programme and on the European year of health and safety are also likely to be discussed. The second day of the Council is expected to focus particularly
  46
  on youth issues: items which may be included are the youth for Europe programme and a resolution on priority measures for young people.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 25 and 26 June and Ministers will discuss health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products, and live bivalve molluscs, veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries, health rules for the production and placing on the market of fresh meat, certification aspects of food quality and geographical indications, and EC-accepted plant protection products. Ministers may also continue discussions on the 1991 agriculture price-fixing proposals and organic production of agricultural products.

  The European Council will meet in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. Heads of Government will discuss progress in the inter-governmental conferences on political and economic and monetary union. There is likely to be discussion on the single market, GATT, and a range of international and EC external issues.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he intends to take any action in relation to the Kurdish people in Iraq under article 4 of the International Red Cross conventions of 1949; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has made representations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations as to the application of article 4 of the International Red Cross conventions of 1949 to the Kurdish people in Iraq; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he has made representations to the International Red Cross in relation to its responsibilities to the Kurdish people in Iraq under article 4 of the International Red Cross conventions of 1949; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Article 4 of each of the four Geneva conventions merely defines the categories of persons covered by the conventions.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the provision of United Kingdom arms and ammunition to Kurdish fighters inside Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not supplying any arms and ammunition to the Kurds. Any reports that we are doing so are wrong.

  Fish Stocks (South Georgia)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the decline in fish stocks off South Georgia; what assessment he has made of the need for remedial measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A research cruise was conducted in January this year by British Antarctic Survey and Imperial college, London, on behalf of the Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. The results of this research are still being analysed, but both this and reports of commercial fishing in the region suggest that stocks of krill and mackerel icefish are substantially lower than last
  47
  year. Conservation outside the 12- mile territorial limit is the responsibility of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which will discuss the subject thoroughly and recommend conservation measures at its next meeting in Hobart in October this year. The United Kingdom takes its conservation responsibilities seriously and will take any measures necessary to conserve fish stocks in the region.

  Guyana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Guyana concerning the conduct of elections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 29 October 1990 at c.391.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  the total spent by the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on both management and computer consultancy contracts in the 1990–91 financial year was £3,068,317.

  Individual contracts awarded during the year were:

  Management consultancies:

  AID WING

  Alex Sutherland

  Review of procedures manual

  Mr. Fowler

  Review of personnel policy

  DIPLOMATIC WING

  M. Armstrong and Associates Personnel policy

  Coopers and Lybrand Personnel policy

  Peat Marwick Training scrutiny support

  Pergamon Technical Services Revision of diplomatic service procedure

  Computer consultancies:

  AID WING

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd. Requirements analysis

  Enever Systems Systems development

  Exec Systems Ltd. Systems development

  Orac Information Systems Ltd. Data transfer

  Price Waterhouse Requirements analysis

  DIPLOMATIC WING

  Admiral Computing Ltd. Scoping study

  Admiral Management Services Project management, systems control

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd. Systems development

  BRS (Europe) Ltd.

  48

  System repair, training

  Casu Electronics Ltd.

  Training, maintenance

  CCTA

  Systems maintenance

  Churchill Software Ltd. Training

  Computer Learning Centre Training

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte Systems reports

  Database Systems Systems development

  Digitus Systems development

  Duhig Berry Ltd. Requirements analysis

  Ernst & Young Ltd. Systems review

  Express Computers Ltd. Systems Development

  IBM (UK) Ltd. Systems Development

  Infosound Ltd. Training

  Infotach Marketing Systems support and development

  James Duncan & Associates Training

  Kinesis Computing Ltd. Training

  Logica UK Ltd. Cabling standards study, systems development

  Management Systems Development Systems support and development

  Mega Consultancy Buildings infrastructure study

  NCR Ltd. Work profiles

  Praxis Systems PLC Requirements analysis

  Price Waterhouse Programming

  Roche Consulting PLC Capacity planning study

  Softlab Ltd. Risk analysis

  Systems Assurance Ltd. Strategy support

  Technological Solutions Ltd. Systems maintenance

  The Instruction Set Software support, data transfer, systems development, requirement analysis

  Towngate Software Ltd. Training

  Transaction Point Ltd. Project support

  Wang UK Ltd. Training

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he received concerning the visit to the United Kingdom of General Augusto Pinochet; and what representatives of Her Majesty's Government met him during his visit.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have received a number of representations, mainly letters from Members of Parliament and from the general public. General Pinochet was not met by representatives of Her Majesty's Government.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government's representatives at the UN in supporting a referendum in the western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Together with the other permanent members of the Security Council, we approved the secretary-general's plan on 22 April, subsequently endorsed by the Security Council on 29 April. We shall continue to do everything possible to assist the secretary-general. His plan is the best way to bring this dispute to an end.

  Soviet Exiles (Visas)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Soviet Government about the number of Soviet exiles and their families who are being denied visas to return to the Soviet Union either as visitors or as representatives of non-governmental organisations to attend conferences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. We are not aware of any Soviet exiles living in Britain who have been denied visas to visit the Soviet Union. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind, we should be happy to look into them.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recommend at the forthcoming Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Foreign Ministers meeting in Berlin that the declaration of independence by the Baltic states be referred to the disputes settlement mechanism agreed to at Valletta; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The dispute settlement mechanism, whose provisions were agreed by experts from CSCE states at Valletta in February, can as currently constituted only address disputes between CSCE participating states. All participants in the Valletta meeting, however, agreed 10 principles describing how parties should behave in settling their disputes: it is open for the Soviet authorities and the Baltic republics to agree to apply these principles. We welcome the fact that discussions are now taking place between the Baltic and Soviet leaderships.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply on the non-proliferation treaty to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill),Official Report, 17 May, column 304, whether the review of the NPT regime is carried out in collaboration with other Governments; and what resources are committed by Her Majesty's Government to conduct the review.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We attach the highest priority to the success of the NPT regime and remain in close touch with our allies and partners on all questions relating to it. We devote considerable resources to the regime. The relevant section of non-proliferation and defence department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes the lead, working in close co-operation with, among others, departments in the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Energy.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the level of intended investment by British Rail for extra regional passenger and freight traffic consequent upon opening the channel tunnel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail is planning to invest more than £300 million for international freight services. It expects regions outside London and the south east to account for about 70 per cent. of its freight business through the tunnel. It has yet to submit investment proposals for regional passenger services.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet Ove Arup to discuss the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) for a meeting with Ove Arup to discuss its rail link proposal.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision on the route of the channel tunnel high speed rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer to the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock).

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to hold meetings with representatives of the channel tunnel consortium to discuss relevant matters of transport co-ordination.

  Mr. Freeman
  I meet representatives of Eurotunnel from time to time to discuss issues of common concern.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the local authorities in London regarding the high speed rail link; and whether he has any plans for an early meeting with them.
  51
  Mr. Freeman
  On 4 February, representatives of the London borough of Newham gave me a presentation of their proposed route for the rail link into Stratford. I have no plans at present for further meetings with Newham or other London local authorities.

  InterCity Services
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there has been an increase or a reduction in the services provided by InterCity as against the performance objectives set in the past two years; and if he will make a statement on the future investment proposals of British Rail in this respect.

  Mr. Freeman
  Improving services remains one of InterCity's key objectives. InterCity fell short of its punctuality and reliability targets in the last two years. The electrification of the east coast main line, which will be completed next month, will bring a significant improvement. It will in turn allow InterCity to redeploy trains and resources to other routes. I am sure that improved quality of service will continue to be a part of InterCity's investment proposals wherever it is commercially justified.

  Danbury (By-pass)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit Danbury to assess the need for a bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  I am afraid that this is not my responsibility as the A414 is a local road. Essex county council, the local highway authority, must decide whether a bypass is needed.

  Crystal Palace (Underground)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to authorise expenditure on an extension of underground railways to Crystal Palace.

  Mr. Freeman
  My predecessor asked London Transport to consider, among other proposals arising from the London assessment studies, the case for a southern extension of the Northern line to Streatham and, possibly, on to Crystal Palace. That consideration is not yet complete. The question of authorising expenditure does not therefore arise.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received for the Isle of Wight to receive primary route status.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the review of the primary route network in 1985 the Isle of Wight made a separate application later that year, and subsequently a further application in 1988, for some towns on the island to become primary route destinations. After careful consideration, both applications were rejected.

  Road Safety
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has to improve road safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today launched a national publicity campaign on compulsory seat belt wearing by rear seat adult passengers which comes into force on 1 July.
  52
  Our proposals for reformulating the main bad driving offences and for providing tougher penalties for those who drink and drive are currently before Parliament in the Road Traffic Bill.

  In addition, regulations will be introduced shortly requiring speed limiters to be fitted to all new heavy goods vehicles from August 1992, and we propose to extend this requirement to most articulated vehicles now on the road.

  Rail Transport
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to boost rail transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment in British Rail is currently at its highest level in real terms for some 30 years, and London Underground is also investing at record levels. Major projects under way include BR's investment for channel tunnel passenger and freight services, further new rolling stock for Network SouthEast and the electrification of the east coast main line, due to be completed this summer. London Transport's major investment includes extensions of the Docklands light railway, the Jubilee line extension and east-west crossrail.

  Civil Aviation
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present position of discussions with the United States of America on civil aviation matters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Preliminary discussions have taken place about the possibilities for further liberalisation of transatlantic air services and talks will resume later in the year. Our aim will be to remove obstacles to fair competition, which hinder our airlines at present, and to remove unnecessary regulation.

  Greater Manchester (Grants)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants he has made to improve the quality of public transport in Greater Manchester in the past three years and approved for the next three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are giving total grant of £53 million to the Manchester Metrolink project over the years 1988–89 to 1992–93. Credit approvals have also been made available for this and various other projects, including the airport rail link.

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow by the Minister of Shipping on Monday 22 April,Official Report, column 755, he is now in a position to introduce legislative measures concerning the provision of immersion suits for the crew members of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels over 10 m in overall length; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The practicability of immersion suits for fishermen has to be established before legislative measures for this provision can be introduced. Funds have been allocated for a research programme to investigate the use of immersion suits, other buoyancy aids and recovery devices.

  Canning Town (Railway)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he will take of his visit to Canning Town in consideration of requests for investment in interchange facilities between the three electrified lines which will serve that area.

  Mr. Freeman
  I found my visit to Canning Town on 2 January very helpful in understanding the debate over the design of the new station there. Having heard what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others on that and later occasions, I remain content that the design proposed by the Underground is both reasonable and adequate.

  The Gulf (Pollution)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 15 April, column 1, what progress he is making with contracts to Alba International Ltd. of Aberdeen for clean-up operations; and what discussions he has had with Bechtel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are not involved in the Gulf clean-up contracts to which the hon. Member refers—they are between the International Maritime Organisation and the company.

  A1 Experimental Red Route
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the Transport and Road Research Laboratory report on the A1 experimental red route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The findings from the preliminary monitoring done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on the operation of the red route were published on 28 May. A copy of the press notice was sent to all Members with a constituency interest and copies has been placed in the Library. In summary, the findings were as follows.

  Journey times have reduced, up to 30 per cent. between the peaks, and are now 40 per cent. more reliable. Bus journeys are significantly more reliable. The number of vehicles using the route have gone up slightly. Callers had increased at some 60 per cent. of businesses monitored, although at 20 per cent. the number of callers had gone down by more than 10 per cent.

  Further monitoring will take place throughout 1991.

  Road Hazards (Warning System)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce a system of road hazard awareness similar to that in Germany in respect of use by drivers of hazard warning lights and lane discipline.

  Mr. Chope
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 have extended the use of hazard warning lights by allowing drivers on motorways and 70 mph dual carriageways to warn following drivers that they are slowing down because of a temporary obstruction ahead. The law in Germany is similar to that in this country.

  M20
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether, when the line of the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5 is published, those of the 54
  dwellings that have been acquired by his Department in connection with this widening scheme will be resold to individual home-owners as quickly as possible where they are situated outside the line of the scheme;

  (2) when the dwellings that have been acquired by his Department in connection with the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5 will be resold to individual home owners.

  Mr. Chope
  Dwellings that are clearly surplus to requirements will be released for sale as soon as the preferred scheme has been announced. Where there is some doubt, the properties will be retained until all the necessary statutory procedures have been completed. In both cases, the dwellings will be released subject to the expiry of any tenancies then in force.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what form of tenure, conferring what degree of security of tenure, the dwellings in his Department's ownership between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20 are currently being occupied.

  Mr. Chope
  Dwellings are currently let on two-year fixed-term tenancies with vacant possession on expiration of the term, unless extended by agreement.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the line of the M20 widening scheme between junctions 3 and 5, and when he expects construction of this widening to start and to be completed.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope to make an announcement about the form of widening for the M20 motorway between junctions 3 and 5 in the summer. The programme thereafter will depend to a large extent on the public's reaction to the proposals and the need for statutory procedures, including any public inquiry. Recent experience of other widening schemes suggests that construction could start by 1995 with completion two years later.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many dwellings between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20 have now been acquired by his Department; and how many more he expects will be acquired in connection with the widening scheme between junctions 3 and 5.

  Mr. Chope
  Between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20, 193 dwellings have been acquired by the Department. A further 89 are in the process of acquisition. I cannot forecast how many more properties may be acquired.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the dwellings that have been acquired by his Department between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20 are being managed by(a) the North British housing association, (b) the Tonbridge and Mailing housing association and (c) others.

  Mr. Chope
  All the dwellings acquired between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20 are being managed by the North British housing association.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Investment by the Department of Transport in energy efficiency over the past two years is estimated to have been:

  Cash terms £ 000s

  1990–91 money terms £ 000s

  1989–90

  250

  270

  1990–91

  270

  270

  Before 1989–90 the Property Services Agency was responsible for most investment in energy efficiency measures and separate figures for the Department of Transport are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of energy audits carried out in the Department of Transport were:

  Number

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  7

  1988–89

  4

  1989–90

  1

  1990–91

  2

  In each case a variety of measures to produce energy savings were recommended and have been or are being implemented.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the last year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1990–91 the Department devoted approximately three person-years to energy management. This included the time of a dedicated energy manager.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the application of the European Community directive on environmental impact assessments to the proposed M11 link road and the east London river crossing; with what result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The European Commission wrote to the Government some time ago after receiving complaints alleging that environmental assessments under Community law should have been produced for both schemes. The Department answered these allegations in written responses to the Commission. The last correspondence with the Commission was in August 1990 and the Department has received no indication from it that it is about to reopen the matter.

  Railway Passenger Coaches
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage the introduction of privately owned passenger coaches to supplement those of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have set the British Railways Board the objective of increasing the involvement of the private sector, and there are already a number of privately owned coaches operating on British Rail track. Our ultimate goal is, of course, the privatisation of British Rail.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has concerning noise abatement measures in areas in the direct flight path of Glasgow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  BAA is responsible for noise abatement measures at Glasgow airport. A number of such measures are in force including night restrictions and noise preferential departure routes. A noise monitoring system has been installed. These measures are similar to those at other major UK airports.

  Hazardous Chemicals (Shipment)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out all regulations in place to cover the shipment of toxic and hazardous chemicals, including wastes in the English, Irish and Bristol channels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his answer, 14 May 1991, col. 113]: The regulations covering the shipment of toxic and hazardous chemicals by sea are as follows:

  The Merchant Shipping (Tankers) (EEC Requirements) Regulations 1981

  The Merchant Shipping (Tankers) (EEC Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 1982

  The Merchant Shipping (Gas Carriers) Regulations 1986

  The Merchant Shipping (IBC Code) Regulations 1987

  The Merchant Shipping (BCH Code) Regulations 1987

  The Merchant Shipping (IBC Code) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

  The Merchant Shipping (BCH Code) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

  MP and MS (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990

  The Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 1987

  The Merchant Shipping (Reporting of Pollution Incidents) Regulations 1987

HEALTH

  Strokes and Heart Attacks
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will show separately for men and women the numbers of(a) heart attack cases and (b) stroke cases treated by the national health service in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the cost to the national health service of treating these patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the numbers of cases treated in NHS hospitals with a main diagnosis of heart attack or stroke are given in the tables.

  Financial returns of health authorities do not identify costs of specific treatments and operative procedures.
  57

  Estimated number of men and women where principal diagnosis is ICD410 Acute Myocardial infarction, NHS Hospitals England 1983–85, 1988–89 and 1989–90

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1983

  66,084

  36,029

  1984

  67,339

  38,249

  1985

  70,613

  39,811

  1988–89

  72,730

  42,545

  1989–90

  71,019

  42,303

  Source: 1983 to 1985 Hospital In Patient Inquiry 1988–89 onwards Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Note: Data from 1988–89 is provisional, based on incomplete data and may be subject to future revision.

  Estimated number of men and women where principal diagnosis is ICD436 Acute but ill defined cerebrovascular disease, NHS Hospitals England 1983–85, 1988–89 and 1989–90

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1983

  30,168

  35,885

  1984

  30,879

  36,748

  1985

  33,021

  40,791

  1988–89

  33,125

  39,742

  1989–90

  34,095

  41,270

  Source: 1983 to 1985 Hospital In Patient Inquiry, 1988–89 onwards Hospital Episode Statistics. Data compiled by SM12A.

  Note: Data from 1988–89 is provisional, based on incomplete data and may be subject to future revision.

  Cardiac Resuscitation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has issued to district general hospitals and independent hospital trusts about the need for training in cardiac resuscitation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for local clinical management.

  Census
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are applied to the appointment of temporary staff for the census.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Temporary staff employed on 1991 census work fall into two main categories: staff employed locally throughout Great Britain on the data collection operation, and staff employed in two central processing centres.

  The temporary data collection staff are employed in a part-time capacity for periods ranging from a few weeks to 11 months. There are four different levels, census area managers, census officers, assistant census officers, and enumerators. The following main criteria were applied in selecting temporary data collection staff:

  Census area manager

  Proven record of managing a large work force.

  Census officer

  Ability to manage a team of about 50 people.

  Assistant census officer

  Ability to supervise a team of up to 17 people.

  Enumerator

  Ability to apply detailed instructions and communicate with the public.

  The temporary staff in the processing centres are employed in a full-time capacity for periods ranging from eight to 18 months. Most of the posts are for clerical or data processing staff. The following main criteria were applied in selection of temporary staff at the processing centres:

  Ability to assimilate detailed written instructions quickly

  Ability to work quickly and accurately

  58

  Numeracy

  Ability to write legibly

  Previous relevant experience

  Evidence of suitable personal and interpersonal qualities

  Candidates for all temporary census jobs were selected on individual merit against the criteria. Where candidates were of equal merit, preference was, where possible, given to those currently unemployed and, for the processing centre jobs, to those who had participated in a relevant Government training scheme.

  Candidates for all jobs had to be at least 16 years old and those for the processing centres less than 60 years old.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing(a) the total projected cost of the current census, (b) staff costs and (c) property costs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1991 census of Great Britain is estimated to cost the following over the year period 1986–87 to 1995–96.

  £ million

  Costs

  Amount

  Staff costs

  102·0

  Property costs

  10·2

  Other costs1

  23·8

  Total

  136·0

  1 Includes such items as computing equipment, printing, and publicity.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his staff have been temporarily transferred or seconded to posts relating to the census; and what arrangements have been made to cover their work.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1991 census in England and Wales is an integral part of the work of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, one of the departments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. The question of transferring or seconding the office's own staff does not therefore arise. To supplement its permanent staff at the time of the census, the office engages temporary staff by direct recruitment and some staff on temporary secondment from other departments. No staff from the Department of Health are currently seconded for this purpose.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the percentage increase of fees allowed to dentists in the NHS for laboratory services in 1989 and 1990; and if he has any plans to increase these in 1991 to take into account the raised rate of VAT in force.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Fees for NHS dental treatment provided under the general dental service are set by the independent dental rates study group (DRSG). Where laboratory work is involved, DRSG uses a sample of current trade catalogues to calculate the average laboratory component of each item of treatment priced. The overall increase in the laboratory costs used by the DRSG in 1989 and 1990 was 1·04 per cent. and 5·36 per cent. respectively. We expect to receive the report of the 1991 DRSG shortly, and I understand that the group's recommendations have taken account of the effect of the change in the rate of VAT.
  59
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that NHS dentists do not cut costs by using inferior laboratory services; and if he will ensure that all NHS dentists purchase their laboratory work only from laboratories registered with the CADLAS certification scheme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  General dental practitioners (GDPs) are required by their terms of service to use only materials which are suitable for the purpose for which they are used. GDPs are, however, independent contractors with family health services authorities and are free to buy products from the dental laboratories of their own choosing. It follows that, while the Government welcome CADLAS, it is not prepared to countenance the restrictive rule suggested by my hon. Friend.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by the Northumberland Ambulance Trust to persuade leading ambulance men to opt out of the Whitley Council pay and conditions; how many ambulance men have stayed within the Whitley Council agreement; and what disciplinary action has been taken against them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Staff transferring to trust employment retain their existing terms and conditions of service. Changes in terms and conditions of service are a matter for the trust and staff together and can be negotiated at any time after transfer.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current full salary and total expenses allowances and other emoluments and payments in kind to the chief ambulance officer in the Northumberland Ambulance Trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. That is a matter for the board of directors of the trust.

  Mental Health Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available figures of cost per patient per week of in-patients at each(a) mental handicap and (b) mental illness hospital in the Trent region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the steering group on national health services information (the Körner committee) the costing information submitted by authorities from 1977–88 is no longer compiled on the basis of type of hospital but focuses on district-based treatment costs by speciality/speciality groups within all hospitals.

  Information relating to the Trent region for the financial year 1989–90 (the latest currently available) is shown in the table.

  Average Speciality Costs per Patient Day—Patients Using a Bed—1989–90

  District

  Mental handicap £ (cash)

  Other psychiatric specialities1 £ (cash)

  North Derbyshire

  35·99

  42·93

  Southern Derbyshire

  43·83

  42·17

  Leicestershire

  35·83

  42·28

  North Lincolnshire

  68·19

  55·16

  60

  District

  Mental handicap £ (cash)

  Other psychiatric specialities1 £ (cash)

  South Lincolnshire

  56·36

  41·48

  Bassetlaw

  30·58

  30·84

  Central Nottinghamshire

  63·98

  46·20

  Nottingham

  60·86

  51·64

  Barnsley

  51·22

  50·54

  Doncaster

  37·70

  34·38

  Rotherham

  47·24

  42·92

  Sheffield

  38·95

  40·41

  1 Includes, where applicable, mental illness, child and adolescent phychiatry, forensic psychiatry, psychotherapy and old-age psychiatry.

  Notes

  1. The figures may include treatments provided both to in-patients and day cases (those who occupy a bed for at least a period of time but do not stay overnight) under the recommended Körner definition "patients using a bed".

  2. The figures cover direct treatment costs only. Expenditure incurred on general services, overheads and capital is excluded.

  Charges (Exemptions)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the cost of extending exemption for all NHS charges to recipients of(a) housing benefit, (b) community charge benefit, (c) state pension, (d) invalidity benefit, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) mobility allowance, (g) attendance allowance and (h) disability working allowance and to people in full-time education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available. People within the categories listed may already be entitled to exemption from NHS charges under the present arrangements or may qualify for full or partial remission of their charges on grounds of low income.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current salary of the chief executive of each NHS trust; and what was the salary payable in each case to the equivalent post before the granting of trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No information is held centrally on the salaries of national health service trust chief executives, which are a matter for individual trust boards.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make public the report prepared by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte on trust applications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 16 November 1990 at column 246.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown in percentage terms of the occupation of those appointed to the boards of directors of hospital trusts.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will tabulate by current occupation, or former if retired, those persons he has appointed as chairmen in the first wave of national health service trusts and as chairmen designate in the second wave.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Chairmen and non-executive directors of NHS trusts are appointed on the basis of their
  61
  personal qualities and experience and for the contribution they can make to the effective management of the trust. Each chairman's and non-executive director's curriculum vitae is submitted in confidence.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those spheres for which he was responsible to Parliament prior to the recent reorganisation of the national health service and introduction of hospital trusts, and for which he no longer is responsible.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I remain accountable to Parliament across the whole range of my responsibilities, including for all aspects of the national health service.

  Productivity
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he measures productivity in the national health service; and whether he intends to introduce other forms of measurement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no single measure: the Department looks at a number of indicators, including unit costs, throughput and hospital length of stay. However, a broad measure of the overall increase in efficiency of the hospital and community health services (HCHS) can be obtained by comparing increases in activity levels with increases in expenditure. The overall increase in activity is obtained by weighting together the increases in various areas of the service by their costs. This shows improvements in efficiency of 15 per cent. since 1978, or 1·4 per cent. per year on average.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Health if he will make a statement on the infant mortality rate in the north east.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The infant mortality rate for the Northern regional health authority for the last five years is set out in the table, together with that for England and Wales.

  Infant mortality rate for England and Wales and for the Northern Regional Health Authority1. Rate per thousand live births

  Year

  Northern RHA

  England and Wales

  1986

  9·8

  9·6

  1987

  8·7

  9·2

  1988

  8·4

  9·0

  1989

  8·4

  8·4

  1990

  27·9

  27·9

  1 Coterminous with North standard region.

  2 These figures are provisional.

  Friern Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from North East Thames regional health authority on the facilities for patients in Friern Barnet hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Temporary Posts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing(a) the total number of temporary posts relating to the census, (b) the
  62
  number of these posts filled by transfer or secondment from each Government Department, (c) the number of these posts filled by transfer or secondment from Government-funded agencies, (d) the number of posts filled by people who are registered as disabled and (e) the number of posts filled by temporary transfer of health board employees.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Excluding the temporary data collection staff, the total number of temporary posts created in OPCS to handle work in connection with the 1991 census for England and Wales is 2,292.

  The numbers of posts expected to be filled by temporary transfers from Government Departments or executive agencies are:

  Number

  National Savings Bank

  31

  The Scottish Office

  20

  Department of Social Security

  20

  Ministry of Defence

  11

  UK Passport Agency

  6

  Employment Service

  4

  Customs and Excise

  2

  Home Office

  2

  Central Office of Information

  1

  Charity Commission

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  1

  99

  Not yet confirmed

  24

  Total

  123

  A total of 286 posts have been filled by the internal transfer of OPCS staff and the remaining 1,883 posts are being filled by direct recruitment.

  None of the posts has been filled by transfers from other Government-funded agencies.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the number of posts filled by people who are registered as disabled.

  None of the posts has been filled by transfers from the health boards.

  Laundry Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is provided to fund the incontinent laundry service; and what is his estimate of the number of patients requiring that service in(a) Waltham Forest, (b) London (c) nationally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the percentage of national health service patients above the age of 65 years who are suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department can make no reliable estimate of the number of NHS patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Current scientific evidence suggests that about 7 per cent. of people aged 65 years and ever suffer from dementia. About 70–75 per cent. of the cases in this age band may be attributed to Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his estimate of the cost of Alzheimer's disease to social services;
  63
  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of Alzheimer's disease to the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where he ranks the development of an effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease among other priorities for elderly health care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The prevention of, or the development of an effective treatment for, Alzhiemer's disease would be a major step forward in the care of the elderly. The Government support biomedical and clinical research into a wide range of disabling conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, through grants in aid to the Medical Research Council.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the percentage of(a) all deaths, and (b) deaths beyond the age of 65 years which are attributable to Alzheimer's disease (i) throughout the world, and (ii) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no data on mortality readily available for the world. The table shows the percentage of(a) all deaths; and (b) deaths for persons aged 65 years and over which are attributable to Alzheimer's disease in the United Kingdom and for Great Britain for the most recent years for which data are available.

  Number and percentage of deaths from Alzheimer's disease1 for the United Kingdom and Great Britain 1989 and 1990

  All ages

  65 years plus

  1989 United Kingdom

  Deaths Number

  1,220

  1,124

  Percentage

  0·19

  0·21

  1990 Great Britain

  Deaths Number

  1,504

  1,397

  Percentage

  0·24

  0·28

  1 Ninth revision International Classification of Disease Code 331·0

  NHS (Employers' Salaries)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 30 April,Official Report, column 117, if he will list all those persons who are classified as employers in the national health service, stating the salary in each case.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National health service employers are corporate bodies.

  Condoms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been specifically provided to general practitioners for them to supply condoms to at-risk patients in relation to family planning and the spread of AIDS; and if he will indicate their areas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no provision for general practitioners to prescribe condoms. District health authorities, where they perceive a local need, are able to supply condoms to local GPs for free distribution to any patient, if this is thought desirable. Condoms are also available without charge at family planning clinics.

  Leukaemia
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has yet received advice from COMARE, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, on the study of parental occupations of children with leukaemia, published in the British Medical Journal on 23 March.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. The Government are grateful to COMARE for its advice. We note that COMARE endorses the authors' caution in drawing conclusions from the data, and that the study findings do not warrant any specific recommendations for the Government to consider.

  Following is the full text of COMARE's advice:

  Comare statement on LRF study

  Background

  1. On 23 March 1991 the British Medical Journal published the findings of a study entitled "Parental Occupations of Children with Leukaemia in west Cumbria, north Humberside and Gateshead". This study was undertaken by the Leukaemia Research Fund Centre at the University of Leeds in conjunction with the Childrens' Cancer Unit at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  2. The authors' stated objective was to determine whether parental occupations and chemical and other specific exposures are risk factors for childhood leukaemia.

  3. This study is independent of the programme of research recommended by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) which includes research aimed at elucidating any relationship between parental occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and development of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Nevertheless, aspects of the study are clearly of relevance to the work of COMARE which has undertaken to update its advice to government as further research data concerning possible associations between ionising radiation and childhood leukaemia—NHL become available. In view of this, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive have referred the results of this study to COMARE for consideration and advice.

  The Study

  4. 151 Children under 15, diagnosed with leukaemia/ NHL between 1974 and 1988 while resident in west Cumbria, north Humberside or Gateshead were ascertained from the Yorkshire Regional Children's Tumour Registry and the Northern Region Children's Malignant Disease Registry. Those who had been born in the same area as that in which they were resident at diagnosis met the criteria of eligibility for analysis. Interview data were obtained for 109 such cases.

  5. Controls, obtained mainly from district health authority birth registers, were matched for sex, date of birth and health district of birth. The study design aimed to obtain two controls for each case. For those controls for whom interview data could not be obtained, replacement controls were recruited where possible but not all cases had two controls.

  6. A complete history of employment and of exposure to specific substances and radiation was obtained for the biological parents from the time they started work to the end of the analysis period. Similar data were collected for any other adults living with the child for more than three months from before birth to the time of diagnosis. 9 industrial and occupational groupings, coded according to Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) classifications were tested as hypotheses. In addition, data on 15 specific exposures and a check list of 22 known chemical carcinogens were analysed. In all 480 comparisons were computed.

  7. A fundamental part of the study design was a separate analysis of the data for evidence of risk through six pathways: each of the biological parents both prior to conception and during gestation (four pathways) and all adult male and female household contacts (includes biological parents) from birth to diagnosis (two pathways). In all cases where a

  65
  statistically significant result was found for exposure of bilogical fathers during gestation the fathers had also been exposed around the time of conception.

  8. For the 25 fathers who reported radiation exposure prior to birth, a subclassification of their exposure to ionising radiation was produced after checks with the National Registry for Radiation Workers (NRRW) at the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and British Nuclear Fuels PLC, Sellafield, Cumbria (BNFL). Exposures were classified as "certain" for those recorded on the NRRW or by BNFL and "possible" for other contract workers on nuclear sites and industrial radiographers. Those reporting exposures in occupational settings such as education and medicine were classified as "unlikely". The remainder reported non-ionising radiation exposure and included radar and radio operators.

  9. Selected results of the occupational analyses were reported, including the results that were statistically significant in any one of the six pathways analysed. Adjustment was made for inter-dependence of some results and in some instances interpretation was aided by direct inspection of the data. In addition the authors undertook comparative analyses of the six exposure pathways.

  10. The authors state that few risk factors were identified for mothers but note that the results show some associations for mothers working in food-related occupations or in catering, cleaning and hairdressing before conception. However they consider that the absence of any specific range of occupations accounting for the significantly raised risks suggests that the finding may be due to chance. The only other preconceptional risk for mothers that reached statistical significance was exposure to wood dust. Preconceptional exposure of biological fathers showed the greatest numbers of significant odds ratios. After adjustment for possible confounding factors independent contributions to risk in the preconceptional period were found for exposure to wood dust, radiation and benzene.

  11. The authors urge that the results be interpreted cautiously because of the small numbers, overlap with another study and multiple exposure of some parents. They state further, that it is important to distinguish the periods of parental exposures since the risk factors identified were almost exclusively restricted to the time before the child's birth.

  Comare's Advice to Government

  General considerations

  12. This study has been undertaken independently of COMARE's recommendations and the committee is grateful to the authors for making a draft available for discussion.

  13. We agree with the authors that the results must be interpreted cautiously and we would stress that interpretation of this type of research is a complex matter. Demonstration of a statistical association does not necessarily imply a causative relationship. Proper interpretation requires that the study be considered in the context of other research, both epidemiological and biological. There is, in general, little consistency amongst the findings of epidemiological studies relating to possible links between parental occupation and childhood malignancies and the authors of this study draw attention to some of the reasons for this in their Discussion.

  14. Although this statement contains some general observations which apply to all the findings, the remit of COMARE has necessarily led us to restrict detailed discussion to those findings which relate to radiation exposure.

  Methodology

  15. The use of retrospective questionnaires is inevitably open to some reporting bias.

  People who agree to participate as controls in such studies may be intrinsically different from those who refuse. The findings for the controls may therefore be unrepresentative and replacement of non responders will not necessarily ameliorate this effect.

  16. The original study design did not incorporate any means of validating the occupational and exposure histories. The interpretation of the results hinges on the validity of the data and the study's potential value would be enhanced considerably if validation could be achieved. The data relating to radiation exposures has been validated to some extent by
  66
  cross checking with the NRRW and BNFL records. However the validation is incomplete since it did not include those parents who did not report occupational exposure to radiation. Furthermore, validation was not attempted of the radiation exposures of contract workers and industrial radiographers.

  Results

  17. A large number (480) of comparisons were computed in the analysis and we share the authors' view that some significant associations might have been expected purely by chance. Indeed, we note that the number of significant associations found, falls within the limits of chance expectation. This observation reinforces both our and the authors' caveats against using the results to draw conclusions about causal links.

  18. The authors report a threefold risk associated with radiation exposure during the preconceptional period which remained significant after adjusting for possible confounding factors. They state that the finding is not independent of that of Gardner et al. in West Cumbria because of the geographical overlap for cases and similarity of methods of selecting controls. However they also state that this risk is not confined to Cumbria and that exposed case fathers did not work exclusively in the nuclear industry.

  19. The above statements refer to the results derived from the basic data prior to any attempt at validation by cross checking with the NRRW and BNFL records. However, for those fathers subsequently classified as having "certain" exposure to ionising radiation, the statistical significance of the result is dependent on the cases common to both this and the case control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria undertaken by Gardner et al. Thus, while this study's findings offer some confirmation of those of Gardner they do not provide independent evidence of an association between objectively confirmed paternal exposure to ionising radiation prior to conception and development of leukaemia/NHL in children. The data do not provide firm evidence of a risk to children of fathers exposed to radiation outside the nuclear industry.

  General Conclusions

  20. This study has documented various parental occupational exposures as having a statistically significant association with cases of childhood leukaemia/NHL in the three areas studied. The authors have been cautious in drawing conclusions from the data and we feel that this is appropriate. We do not consider that the findings, of themselves, warrant our making any specific recommendations. However, we urge the authors to explore the possibility of extensive validation of the occupational and exposure histories and welcome the authors stated intention of considering further analyses.

  Reference

  1. Gardner M.J., Snee M.P. et al., Results of a Case Control Study of Leukaemia and Lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in west Cumbria, BMJ 1990, 300, 423–429.

  Fluoridation Act 1984
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken to implement the Fluoridation Act 1984.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Fluoridation Act 1984 provides that fluoridation of water supplies is a matter for local decision. In the past five years funds have been made available to a number of health authorities to assist with the costs of new fluoridation schemes and to contribute towards the major costs of replacement of outdated plant and equipment.

  In the Water Act 1989 provision was made for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to indemnify any statutory water undertaker against liabilities and costs incurred in connection with anything done by the undertaker for the purpose of increasing the fluoride content of any water supplied by the undertaker.

  Tooth Decay
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of five-year-old children in the north-west region suffered tooth decay in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988, (e) 1989 and (f)

  Mr. Dorrell
  Surveys of five-year-old schoolchildren in the north-west region carried out in the school years 1985–86, 1987–88 and 1989–90 showed that 58 per cent., 55 per cent. and 56 per cent. respectively suffered tooth decay.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned on the link between nutritional standards in school meals and the extent of dental caries in young children in the north-west region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not commissioned any research seeking to establish a link between the nutritional standards in school meals and dental caries in young children, and, indeed, it would be extraordinarily difficult to mount research which isolated the effect of such standards from other factors influencing dental caries.

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of doctors in Wanstead and Woodford have now achieved targets for smear tests for cervical cancer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. Forty-five per cent. of GPs in the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority area received a cervical cytology target payment in respect of their achievements at 1 April 1990.

  The North East Thames regional health authority has targeted cervical cytology as one of the key areas for improvement in its planning statement for 1991–92.

  Drug Budgets
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria have been used by family health services authorities for setting indicative drug budgets where medical advisers have been unable to visit a general practitioner practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In setting indicative prescribing amounts family health services authorities consider practices' historic spending patterns, comparable average costs for the FHSA, special circumstances of the practice including high-cost patients, anticipated changes in demand and an allowance for the forecast increase in the cost of drugs. These criteria will apply whether or not a medical adviser visits an individual practice.

  Student Nurses (Bursaries)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase bursaries to student nurses under the Project 2000 scheme.

  Year

  Cash £ million

  Therms Million

  kWh Million

  Litres Million

  Tonnes

  Area Square metres

  1985–86

  11·76

  13·34

  110

  9·5

  7,314

  1·48

  1986–87

  9·68

  8·5

  110

  9·05

  8,230

  1·51

  1987–88

  9·8

  8·4

  130

  9·05

  7,077

  1·56

  1988–89

  9·95

  7·8

  130

  4·6

  4,250

  1·61

  1989–90

  1·92

  0·49

  24·77

  1·17

  0

  0·.32

  68
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 20 May that bursary levels for Project 2000 students will increase by 8 per cent. from 1 September 1991. The new rates payable will be:

  £

  London

  Under 26 at start of course

  5,075

  26 and over at start of course

  5,615

  Elsewhere

  Under 26 at start of course

  4,320

  26 and over at start of course

  4,860

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) of 16 May,Official Report, column 250, if he is able to provide any statistical information about cases of osteoporosis among men and women.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Comprehensive statistics on the number of people with osteoporosis are not available.

  The best available proxy is the number of hip fractures most of which are in the elderly group and are associated with osteoporosis.

  Hip fractures

  Women

  Men

  Total

  All admissions

  1987–88

  32,708

  9,055

  41,763

  1988–89

  33,371

  8,677

  42,048

  Admissions over 75

  1987–88

  25,049

  4,860

  29,909

  1988–89

  25,722

  4,866

  30,588

  The figures are extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics. They are provisional estimates based on incomplete data and may be subject to revision when analysis has been completed.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each available year from 1978, the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available is as follows:
  69
  Note: All figures are in cash terms only.

  Information is not available for earlier years, nor yet for the Department of Health (DH) for 1990–91.

  Figures given for 1985–86 to 1988–89 are the combined DH/Department of Social Security totals.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information availabe is as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  1 54,000

  1988–89

  1 65,000

  1989–90

  2 75,000

  1990–91

  2 100,000

  1 Joint DH/DSS

  2 2DH only

  (All figures are in cash terms only)

  Information for years before 1987–88 is not available. Further investment was made in the period covered by the table by the Property Service Agency, but the amount cannot be identified separately from the agency's overall expenditure on energy efficiency.

  Nurses' pay: April 1979 and April 1989

  April 1979

  April 1989

  Grade

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Grade

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Estimated earnings on maximum of grade April 1989 £

  Basic pay

  Enrolled nurse

  2,850

  3,411

  D

  8,565

  9,815

  11,611

  Staff nurse

  3,150

  3,813

  E

  9,815

  11,365

  13,460

  Sister

  3,888

  4,949

  G

  12,840

  14,860

  16,346

  London zone

  Enrolled nurse

  3,248

  3,809

  D

  110,317

  111,680

  13,476

  Staff nurse

  3,548

  4,211

  E

  111,680

  113,369

  15,464

  Sister

  4,286

  5,347

  G

  1 14,844

  116,864

  18,350

  1 These figures include an inner London supplement of 9 per cent. of basic pay up to a maximum of £1,023.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the average fine imposed on motorists convicted of illegally using bus lanes in London during the hours of restricted use in each of the last three years;

  (2) what has been the number of prosecutions of motorists charged with illegally using bus lanes in London during the restricted hours of use in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not separately identified in the motoring offences statistics collected centrally.
  70
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of persons-years devoted to energy management in the latest years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has one designated energy manager supported by the building managers appointed for each building on the estate. Information is not available on the proportion of time that each dedicates to energy management.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average wage was for an NHS nurse in 1979 and 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]Information is not collected centrally on average rates of pay. The minimum and maximum rates of basic pay received by enrolled nurses, staff nurses and sisters in 1979 and by their broadly equivalent grades in 1989 were as set out in the table.

  In addition to their basic pay, nurses received additional earnings from leads and allowances. Their total earnings from these sources in 1989 were as indicated in the table. There are further additions to basic pay for nurses in the London zone and the effects of these are also shown.

  Prisoner Mothers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money per week a prisoner in a mother and baby unit receives at Her Majesty's prison at(a) Askham Grange, (b) Styal and (c) Holloway, excluding any personal money a prisoner may have accumulated.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Earnings received by mothers in mother and baby units vary according to the activities in which they are involved and are set at the same levels as for prisoners elsewhere in the establishments.

  At HM prison, Askham Grange, the earnings of the women at present in the unit range between £1·90 (unemployed) and £5·95 per week. At HM prison, Styal, the earnings range between £2 (light duties) and £3·80 per week. At HM prison Holloway, they range between £1·90 (unemployed, including remand inmates who are willing to work) and £4·45 per week.
  71
  In addition, mothers who apply and who meet the normal eligibility criteria receive child benefit at the appropriate rate.

  Animals (Research)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amounts given to funding research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures for each year since 1984.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 28 November 1990 to the question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) at columns 416–17.

  In addition to the projects listed in that reply, a further project was funded in 1990–91—Dr. P. D. Minor, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control "Development of in vitro testing of polio vaccines" (£10,600 over one year).

  Sex offenders released on licence from Prison Service Establishments 1990

  Month

  Over 12 up to 18 months

  Over 18 months up to 3 years

  Over 3 up to 4 years

  Sentence length Over 4 up to 5 years

  Over 5 up to 10 years

  Over 10 years less than life

  Life

  Total

  January

  10

  44

  23

  10

  9

  —

  —

  96

  February

  13

  42

  12

  8

  11

  1

  —

  87

  March

  15

  33

  15

  16

  9

  —

  —

  88

  April

  9

  35

  17

  10

  16

  —

  —

  87

  May

  12

  34

  22

  12

  19

  —

  —

  99

  June

  11

  27

  11

  4

  15

  —

  —

  68

  July

  12

  26

  16

  7

  14

  —

  —

  75

  August

  16

  37

  16

  16

  15

  —

  —

  100

  September

  3

  38

  14

  10

  12

  —

  —

  77

  October

  16

  22

  17

  11

  18

  —

  1

  85

  November

  7

  31

  10

  7

  12

  —

  —

  67

  December

  9

  21

  13

  8

  9

  1

  —

  61

  1990

  133

  390

  186

  119

  159

  2

  1

  990

  Missing Persons Bureau
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made to supply the juvenile section of the missing persons bureau at New Scotland Yard with a computer system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that details of all juveniles reported missing in the metropolitan police district, except absconders from care unless they are considered to be immediately at risk, are now recorded on the missing persons computer at New Scotland Yard as soon as the report is received. Most absconders from care return after a few hours and the general practice is to record their particulars on the computer after 14 days.

  Prisons (Coal Supplies)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 377, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, if he will list those prison establishments that (a) receive their coal from British Coal and (b) receive it from elsewhere; and where they obtain it from.

  Prisoners (Sexual Offenders)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in England and Wales imprisoned for committing a sexual offence have been released on licence in each month of 1990 and 1991 to date; how many years each person had actually served in prison since conviction; what was their original sentence; and how many such persons have since been re-imprisoned for committing a further criminal offence.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Provisional figures for sex offenders released from prison service establishments on licence during 1990 by sentence length are as tabulated. I regret that the statistics on time served in prison since conviction and on re-imprisonment for committing a further criminal offence could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general, prisoners serving sentences of over 12 months receive one third remission of sentence less any deduction made for offences against prison discipline. The time served by those released on licence is further reduced by the period of the licence. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  All the prison establishments listed in that answer receive their coal supplies from British Coal.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in England and Wales sentenced to life imprisonment have been released on licence in each month of 1990 and 1991 to date; how many years each such person had actually served in prison since conviction; and how many such persons released have since been re-imprisoned for committing a further criminal offence.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The numbers of life sentenced prisoners released in each month of 1990 and the time they served is given in the following table. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  The only readily available information on reconvictions of life licensees is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin. A copy of the latest report (issue 27/90 —Reconvictions and Recalls of Life Licensees and Mentally Disordered Offenders: England and Wales 1988) is held in the Library.
  73

  Persons released from Prison Service establishments on life licence by time served1 and month of discharge 1990

  Number of persons

  Month

  Up to 7 years

  Over 7 up to 9 years

  Over 9 up to 11 years

  Over 11 up to 13 years

  Over 13 up to 17 years

  Over 17 years

  All periods

  January

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  3

  9

  February

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  1

  8

  March

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  6

  April

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  2

  8

  May

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  June

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  4

  8

  July

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  6

  August

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  6

  September

  —

  —

  3

  2

  1

  1

  7

  October

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  2

  6

  November

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  6

  December

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  6

  1 Excluding any time spent on remand in custody, in non-Prison Service establishments or following any subsequent recall.

  Animal Experiments
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is held on the percentages of macaques used as laboratory animals in the United Kingdom which are singly housed; and what is the total number used.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, 2,904 scientific procedures involving macaques, were started. Information is not collected centrally on the number of such animals which were singly housed.

  Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest waiting time for refugees from Somalia to join their families in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time between receipt of an application in the asylum division and a decision is about 16 months. This applies to cases of all nationalities. No details are recorded by specific areas of the United Kingdom such as Liverpool.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make a statement on Government policy towards refugees and asylum-seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on 3 May at column 341.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest number of refugees awaiting entry into the United Kingdom from Somalia at the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 1,700 applications for entry clearance from Somalis are awaiting consideration in the Home Office.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside to discuss the present situation in Somalia and the number of refugees awaiting entry to the United Kingdom.
  74
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for immigration would be glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss these mattters.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest number of refugees seeking settlement in Liverpool at the latest date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available. We do not record separately where in the United Kingdom asylum applicants would wish to live.

  Road Tax
  Mr. McMaster
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how minty prosecutions were recorded in courts relating to the non-payment of road tax in each year since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information, relating to England and Wales, for each year since 1983 is as follows:

  Number of Proceedings for failing to pay appropriate motor vehicle licence duty, England and Wales

  Year

  Proceedings

  1983

  156,520

  1984

  159,113

  1985

  168,119

  1986

  181,893

  1987

  170,124

  1988

  178,875

  1989

  166,575

  Source:

  Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables. Issues 1983 to 1989.

  Statistics for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and those for 1990 will be available in the autumn.

  Dogs
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the imposition of a ban on the importation, breeding or ownership of(a) American pit bull terriers, (b) Japanese tosas and (c) any other breeds of dog; and if he will make a statement.
  75
  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on Wednesday 22 May at columns 945–46.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names of those organisations among the 65 representations made to him on the disclosure of criminal records of the convictions of taxi licence applicants as indicated in his answer of 20 May,Official Report. column 347.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the East Anglian Federation of Taxi Associations and the Association of District Councils have made representations directly to the Home Office. Of the remaining representations 51 were from hon. Members, some on behalf of other individuals or groups, and the rest from local authorities and members of the public.

  Re-offenders
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men serving non-custodial sentences are known to have re-offended during the period of that sentence; and how many have re-offended on more than one occasion during this period, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1989, the latest year for which information is available, convictions for a further offence were the reason for 16 per cent. of the terminations of probation orders and 8 per cent. of terminations of community service orders. (tables 2.15 and 6.11 of "Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1989").

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what immigration facilities were provided at the British Aerospace aerodrome at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, on the weekend of 18–19 May for the visit of General Augusto Pinochet; how many members of the Chilean party were admitted through those facilities; whether any were refused admittance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what immigration procedures were followed during the visit to Britain of General Augusto Pinochet to Britain on 18 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On arrival at Hatfield on 18 May, General Pinochet was accompanied by 11 Chilean nationals. By arrangement under paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971, entry was granted by two officers from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, St. Albans.

  Silicosis
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the reports of post-mortems carried out for the Home Office, where death was caused, or materially accelerated by, the prescribed disease silicosis in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act 1918, and the resultant Refractories Industries (Silicosis) Scheme.
  76
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Coroners, who are independent judicial officers, have a duty to inquire into a death where there is reason to suspect that this is caused by a prescribed industrial disease and they have power to arrange a post-mortem examination. Under the Coroners' Rules a coroner is required, on payment of a prescribed fee, to supply a copy of a post-mortem report to a properly interested person and this will normally include the spouse. In cases where death is believed to be due to a prescribed industrial disease, the Home Secretary has issued guidance to coroners recommending that copies of the post-mortem reports should be made available to Medical Boarding Centres (Respiratory Diseases) to assist in the consideration of claims for industrial death benefit. But the coroner has no authority to make post-mortem reports generally available.

  Fowsia Hussein
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has not replied to the letters of 4 February, 8 March and 24 April with regard to Fowsia Hussein of 24 Craston road, sent to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton; and if he will now do so.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The delay in replying to the right hon. Member's representations on behalf of Mrs. Hussein has been caused by the large increase in the number of applications for asylum in the past two years which has produced a considerable backlog of work in the asylum division. I announced on 26 April my intention to increase the staff in this division from about 120 to over 500. I shall be writing to the right hon. Member shortly.

  Prisoners (Parole)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners dealt with by the parole board in 1990 and during the first quarter of 1991 were heard before their parole eligibility date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  These statistics could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. However, while there were delays in early 1990, there are no longer any general delays although some cases may be held up for special reasons such as late changes in inmates' circumstances or a need to obtain additional information.

  Mr. David Dawson
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will initiate a review of the conviction and sentence passed on Mr. David Dawson, a prisoner at Her Majesty's prison, Liverpool.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider new representations about the safety of a conviction. Mr. Dawson's case was examined last year in the light of representations made and no grounds were then found to justify any further action. There are currently no representations before my right hon. Friend about this case.

  Prisoners (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide the figures of remand and convicted prisoners still held in police cells in
  77
  Greater Manchester, and for surrounding areas, and the number expected to be held in such accommodation on 3 July, 3 August and 3 September.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Thursday 30 May there were 464 prisoners in police cells as a result of accommodation lost at Manchester prison. Of these, 134 were sentenced and 330 unsentenced. These figures reflect a recent increase in the number of persons remanded in custody by the courts. Efforts are continuing to overcome the difficulties caused by action on the part of the Prison Officers Association in certain prisons. While these difficulties persist and having regard to the fluctuations in demand from the courts it is not possible to predict accurately the level of usage of police cells on particular future dates, but the expected availability of further refurbished accommodation at Manchester and of new accommodation in Yorkshire should enable substantial inroads to be made into the task of clearing police cells from July onwards.

  Immigration (Ad Hoc Group)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library, as soon as they become available, minutes of the ad hoc group on immigration, to which the British Government are a party.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The ad hoc working group on immigration is an intergovernmental forum and it is not usual to publish details of intergovernmental negotiations while they are taking place. This group is directly accountable to EC immigration Ministers who are kept fully informed of its work. Public statements are normally issued following each of the six-monthly meetings of immigration Ministers and my right hon. Friend will, in the usual way, report to the House the conclusions of the meeting of immigration Ministers due to take place in Luxembourg later this month.

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library, as soon as they become available, minutes of the meetings of the Trevi group of Ministers from EC countries.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Trevi group does not make public the minutes of its meetings; but as on past occasions I shall inform the House of the main conclusions of the next meeting of Trevi Ministers in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is as follows and is for the prison service estate only.

  Spend for Energy Projects

  Year

  Cash

  1990–91 Money Terms

  1980–81

  3,300

  6,039

  1981–82

  228,000

  380,760

  1982–83

  557,000

  885,630

  78

  Year

  Cash

  1990–91 Money Terms

  1983–84

  363,000

  540,870

  1984–85

  408,000

  579,360

  1985–86

  578,000

  774,520

  1986–87

  363,000

  471,900

  1987–88

  313,000

  384,990

  1988–89

  240,000

  276,000

  1989–90

  1,230,000

  1,328,400

  1990–91

  1,620,000

  1,620,000

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  There are four dedicated energy managers in the Home Office. In 1990–91 a total of about six person-years was devoted to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Twenty-two energy audits were carried out in the Home Office in the last five financial years. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Home Secretary on 5 June 1990 at columns 421–23, which gave details of 16 of these audits. The main conclusions of the other six audits were as follows:

  HMP Onley

  Improved controls to heating distribution mains system.

  Change all GLS and tungsten halogen area lighting to compact fluorescent lamps.

  Change perimeter lighting from 500W tungsten halogen lamps to high pressure sodium lamps.

  Upgrade gymnasium lighting.

  Replace Manor House heating system.

  Ashford Police Training College

  Replace tungsten lamps with compact fluorescent lamps.

  Improve boilerhouse and heating pipework insulation.

  Install Building Energy Management system.

  Install new heating control.

  Insulated Pool cover.

  Heat recovery to swimming pool.

  Automatic shut off taps to hand basins.

  Ryton Police Training College

  Replace tungsten bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps.

  Replace overhead heating distribution mains.

  Install lighting control system.

  New heating controls.

  Install Building Energy Management System.

  Modify/upgrade boilers.

  Birmingham Forensic Science Laboratory

  Automatic lighting controls.

  Install thermostatic radiator valves.

  Recalibrate heating controls.

  Install solar screening to some glazed areas.

  79
  Cwmbran Police Training College

  Replace tungsten bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps.

  Install lighting control system.

  Improve heating pipework insulation.

  Change external floodlighting lamps.

  Heat recovery swimming pool hall.

  Chantmarle Police Training College

  Replace tungsten bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps.

  Boilerhouse control and insulation improvements.

  Road insulation.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people over the age of 60 years have applied for naturalisation for each of the past 10 years; how many have been accepted; and how many of those refused were refused because they did not pass the language test.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is available only from 2 October 1986 of those applicants who were aged 60 or over at the time their applications were granted.

  Year

  Granted

  1 1986

  17

  1987

  93

  1988

  71

  1989

  104

  1990

  98

  2 1991

  110

  1 2 October to 31 December.

  2 1 January to 29 May.

  It is not possible to say how many applicants aged 60 or over were refused in a given year, nor whether their refusal was because they had an insufficient knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has of how much would have to be added to the price of each television set to replace the television licence fee, assuming the average life of a set to be five or 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On current estimated sales volumes, an additional charge of about £355 per TV set would be needed to raise a sum equivalent to current net licence fee revenue.

  Passports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many officials were involved and what procedures were followed in issuing EC passport number 003147077 by the Liverpool passport office; on what date an application was submitted by Phelim McManamon; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action has been taken by his Department since Sunday 26 May concerning the immigration and nationality department and the Passport Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when Mr. Phelim McManamon was issued with a current British passport; whether the original application with photographs is retained; what checks were carried out on the file and photographs prior to issuing an EC passport in the name of Phelim McManamon; 'and if he will make a statement;
  80
  (4) on what date and from which office Mr. Vindokumar Patel of the east midlands immigration service was issued with a British passport; and what sort of passport was issued.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The matter referred to has been placed in the hands of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average delay in issuing(a) British citizenship and (b) an EC passport; and what is the appropriate fee in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average waiting times for those certificates issued in April were 36 months for certificates of naturalisation and 24 months for certificates of registration. From 1 March 1991, the fee for single and joint applicants for naturalisation on the grounds of residence has been £170, for applicants for naturalisation on the grounds of marriage to a British citizen £135, and for applicants for registration £85.

  The average processing time for non-urgent straightforward properly completed passport applications was about 10 working days as at 26 May 1991. The fee for a standard United Kingdom passport is £15.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in the immigration and nationality department and the Passport Agency have access to Home Office and police computerised records; how many complaints he has received in the last year of unauthorised access to computer records; what action has been taken to combat such unauthorised access; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officials of the immigration and nationality department have access to various internal departmental computer systems used in their day-to-day work activities, but have no direct access to other Home Office systems or in the normal way to police computerised records. However, members of the immigration service involved in law enforcement may have access to police computerised records of convictions where this is relevant to inquiries into breaches or suspected breaches of the immigration laws.

  Passport Agency staff at computerised offices, currently Liverpool, Glasgow, London and part of Peterborough, involved in the issue of United Kingdom passports have access to the United Kingdom Passport Agency computer. No agency staff have direct access to other Home Office computer systems and none have access to police computer records.

  No unauthorised access to either the IND or United Kingdom Passport Agency computers has been reported.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who prints British and EC passports available in the United Kingdom; who provides security at printing and during distribution and delivery of such passports; what checks and inspections are made at stores; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what complaints he has received about genuine British and EC passports being stolen from stores; how many such stores there are in the United Kingdom; who provides security at each store; what improvement in security is being introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  United Kingdom passports are printed, stored and distributed to passport offices under
  81
  conditions of high security by arrangement with HMSO. Details of internal security procedures must remain confidential. The recent allegations about theft of passports are being investigated by the police.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that genuine British and EC passports and visas are not obtained from his Department for illegal sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  United Kingdom blue and burgundy red (in the EC format) passports are issued only to people who have a legitimate claim to one. Checks and safeguards are built into the issuing system and procedures kept under regular review.

  Visas are issued only at posts abroad, except that visa endorsements in the form of a stamp are made, in respect of dependent territory applicants, by the United Kingdom Passport Agency Office in London.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal application procedure and normal application requirements for(a) a British passport holder and (b) a non-United Kingdom national to apply within the United Kingdom for an EC passport; whether he proposes to change any part of these procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Satisfactory evidence of nationality and identity are required to support any application for a United Kingdom standard passport. There are no plans at present to change the procedures although the procedures are kept under regular review.

  A non-United Kingdom national, unless he or she is a dual national, holding also British nationality, cannot qualify for the issue of either a standard blue or EC common format United Kingdom passport.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when police are requested to carry out inquiries into the operation of the Passport Agency; which police forces are involved; how many officials have, to date, been interviewed; when he expects police inquiries to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Metropolitan police, who are the only police force involved, began their inquiries on 28 May. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the first officials were interviewed on 31 May, and that inquiries are expected to take about three months.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in the last year in the immigration and nationality department and the Passport Agency have been(a) dismissed, (b) suspended on full pay, (c) suspended without pay, (d) retired early and (e) are on extended sick leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the past year, eight officials of the Passport Agency and the Immigration and Nationality Department have been dismissed, eight officials were suspended (four of whom were eventually dismissed and are included in the foregoing figures). Of those suspended four were on full pay, two on part pay and two without pay. There were no compulsory early retirements. Statistics for sick leave are not readily available in the form requested.
  82
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contacts the east midlands immigration service has had over the past five years with the immigration and nationality department and the Passport Agency; whether the company is on the list of those able to submit applications for new passports and for passports to be renewed on a priority basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics of contacts with individuals, individual agencies, organisations or representatives are not recorded by the Immigration and Nationality Department. The information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Such information is not available either in the United Kingdom Passport Agency, although I can confirm that the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is riot listed as an authorised agent by the agency.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information those applying for(a) British passports and (b) EC passports are normally required to supply; whether applicants are normally required to be interviewed by police officers; in what circumstances such application requirements may be varied; and who is authorised to approve such application variations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applicants for standard blue British passports and for British passports in the European Community common format are required to prove entitlement by production of documentary evidence to satisfy the Passport Office of their national status and of their identity. The requirements may be varied in cases of emergency or other urgent need for travel if authorised by a supervisor. Applicants are not normally interviewed by police officers.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the abolition of re-entry visas and visa exemption certificates by the United Kingdom; and what consultation he undertook with interested parties before taking this action.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a small number of representations. They have included both favourable and critical comment. It is not our normal practice to consult about immigration rules changes.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to minimise inconvenience to travellers, officials and airlines arising from the abolition of re-entry visas and visa exemption certificates by the United Kingdom; and what particular action he has taken to assist those visitors to the United Kingdom wishing to go on religious pilgrimage to Mecca.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are issuing applicants with an explanatory card and are providing guidance to airlines. Most travellers should find the new arrangements more convenient and their greater simplicity should make them easier for immigration staff and airlines to operate.

  I recognise that the timing of the changes may cause difficulty for visitors who plan to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Officials have therefore notified Islamic bodies that

  83
  my right hon. Friend is prepared, exceptionally, to grant an extra one month's leave in order to bring such visitors within the scope of the visa exemption scheme. Applications should be made to the public inquiry office at Lunar house by 28 June and should be accompanied by a return ticket to Saudi Arabia valid for the Hajj period, as well as a ticket for the applicant's subsequent return to country of origin.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what benefits he expects from abolishing with effect from 16 May re-entry visas and visa exemption certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Because re-entry visas were issued without substantive consideration of applications they did not represent an effective use of resources. A new short-term multiple entry visa and an extended visa exemption scheme have been introduced to assist those who wish to travel abroad and return during a stay in the United Kingdom. Now that the visa exemption scheme applies uniformly to all visa nationalities the "visa exempt" passport endorsement, which was previously available on application, is no longer considered necessary or helpful.

  Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the reasons for his decision in November 1990 to undertake inquiries into the activities of Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mr. Vindokumar Patel
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Vindokumar Patel of the east midlands immigration service has been retained by the immigration and nationality department or the police as an interpreter or in any other capacity in the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Patel has not been employed by the immigration and nationality department. The employment of interpreters by the police is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the police concerning legislation required to deal with dangerous dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: Police forces and the police associations were consulted last year in connection with the proposals set out in the Government's "Control of Dogs" consultation paper. Three police authorities and 15 police forces responded to the Home Office along with the Police Federation, Police Superintendents' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary have also been obtained.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on Wednesday 22 May at columns 945–46.

  Probationers
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of persons(a) under probation service supervision and (b) in gaol in England and Wales have previously been in local authority care.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: These statistics are not available centrally.

  Research
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to carry out research into the effects of transfer under the provisions of circular instruction 37/90 and its predecessor circular instruction 10/74.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: There are no plans at present to carry out such research.

  Prison Sentences (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were serving a prison sentence in England and Wales for each of the last five years; and what percentage was for drug offences.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: The readily available information is given in the table.

  Population of sentenced prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June who were recorded as foreign nationals and whether sentenced for drugs offences, 1986–1990.

  Drugs offences

  Other offences

  Offence not recorded

  All offences

  1986

  Number1

  886

  1,880

  27

  2,793

  Percentage

  32

  67

  1

  100

  1987

  Number1

  1,172

  1,851

  41

  3,064

  Percentage

  38

  60

  1

  100

  1988

  Number1

  1,097

  1,768

  30

  2,895

  Percentage

  38

  61

  1

  100

  1989

  Number1

  1,192

  1,772

  59

  3,023

  Percentage

  39

  59

  2

  100

  1990

  Number2

  1,248

  1,790

  134

  3,172

  Percentage

  39

  56

  4

  100

  1 Excluding fine defaulters.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Football (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 235, to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, when he will take a final decision on the terms of the Home Office circular to police authorities on the subject of police charges for policing at football matches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon.

  85
  Friend to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 21 May at columns 408–9.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has, by year for the last five years to date, on the number of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle drivers who have been found guilty of re-committing a criminal offence;

  (2) what information he has, by year for the last five years to date, on the number of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle drivers who have been found guilty in United Kingdom courts of (a) rape, (b) child molesting, (c)

  Number of offenders convicted of offences relating to hackney carriages (cabs and taxis') and private hire vehicles 1985–89

  Offence Description

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  England and Wales

  London Hackney Carriages Acts, 1831, 1834, (excluding section 28) 1850 and 1853

  300

  439

  172

  193

  129

  London Hackney Carriages Acts, 1843,—Being drunk during employment as a driver of a hackney carriage or a driver or conductor of a stage carriage in the MPD

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  Town Police Causes Act, 1847, Sections 40–60, 62–68

  422

  364

  595

  648

  786

  Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, Section 61—being intoxicated while driving a hackney carriage

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Town Police Clauses Act, 1889

  6

  2

  6

  5

  2

  Road Traffic Regulations Act, 1984, Section 35(7)

  1

  2

  —

  1

  5

  Local Government (miscellaneous) Act, 1976, Sections 45–80

  45

  49

  20

  28

  27

  Scotland

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Northern Ireland

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Data not collected

  Note: In some instances, unless stated, the occupation of the offender (ie. driver or owner) is not known.

  Open Prisons (Escapes)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what nationalities are the 54 women drug offenders and the 18 men who escaped from open prisons in the last three years and were not recaptured; and who held their passports.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: Of the 54 women drug offenders unlawfully at large after absconding from open establishments in the last three years 34 are Nigerian, five are Ghanaian, eight are Jamaican, one is Colombian, one is Swiss, one is Indian and four are Guyanian.

  Of the 18 male drug offenders unlawfully at large after absconding from open establishments in the last three years seven are British, two are Nigerian, three are Jamaican, one is Dutch, one is Italian, three are Pakistani and one is German.

  The information requested as to who held all their passports is not readily available and a search of immigration, customs and prison service case files would entail disproportionate cost.

  Parole
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of life sentence prisoners who were released for each year since 1981; and what was the number in each year whose release was proposed by the Parole Board and turned down by him or his predecessors.
  86
  indecent assualt, (d) false declarations, (e) unlawful sexual intercourse and (f) any other criminal offence, and, in the case of (f) above, what the offence was.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: Information is not available centrally on the number of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle drivers who have been found guilty of re-offending.

  Data are not collected centrally on the profession of offenders convicted of violent and sexual offences. The following table shows the number of offenders found guilty from 1985 to 1989 in England and Wales under Acts relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles only. Similar information is not collected centrally by the Northern Ireland Office or the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 22 May 1991, c. 480]: The number of people released on life licence in 1990 from prison service establishments was 80, not 81 as stated in the earlier reply.

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of individual applications for asylum in the United Kingdom and (b) the number of dependants of the principal applicants for asylum received in (i) 1988, (ii) 1989, (iii) 1990 and (iv) January to March in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 May]: Information is not available in the form requested. The available information records dependants by the date of application of the principal asylum applicant and also does not generally include dependants who join a principal applicant after the principal application has been decided.

  Available information on total asylum applications, including recorded dependants, is given in the following table.

  Applications1 for asylum in the United Kingdom, 1988–90

  Year

  Number

  1988

  5,570

  21989

  16,400

  21990

  30,000

  1 Including dependants applying with the principal applicant. and those, to date, arriving subsequently but before the principal

  87

  application was decided. Figures are tabulated by the date of the principal application.

  2 Provisional figures.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Agricultural College
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of the applications for agricultural advice made to the Scottish agricultural college in 1989–90 and 1990–91 were for advice which was(a) wholly publicly funded and (b) partly publicly funded;

  (2) what are the trends in the demand for agricultural advice from the Scottish agricultural college which is (a) wholly publicly funded and (b) partly publicly funded, measured over the three most recent financial years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available in the form requested, since most free advice is given alongside charged advice but is accounted for differently. However, based on the number of invoices issued, the trend has been towards increased demand for charged advice; and the college estimates that well over 30 per cent, of professional advisory staff time involves the giving of free advice.

  Loch Creran (Bridge)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a public local inquiry has been held into the proposed bridge over Loch Creran, in Argyll and Bute; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A public local inquiry has been held and it is expected that my right hon. Friend's decision will be issued during the course of this summer.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in assessing the priority of the proposed bridge over Loch Creran and other competing schemes elsewhere in the trunk road network; when he expects building work to begin; what timetable he envisages for the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The scheme to build a bridge over Loch Creran on the A828 cannot command priority at present in the trunk road programme given the high returns available from competing projects of national importance. Following publication of the public local inquiry decision, further preparation work on this scheme will proceed only when there is a reasonable prospect of early funding being available. Present indications are that this is unlikely to be the case within the next five years.

  Historic Buildings
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the major churches and historic houses which have been restored with Government funds since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1979 Government grants totalling just over £50,000,000 have been spent on churches and historic houses. The major recipients of these funds are set out in the table:
  88

  Historic Buildings Repair Grants over £100,000 (either individually or cumulatively) paid to major churches and historic houses between April 1979 and March 1991

  Amount £

  CHURCHES

  1984–85

  St. Andrews, Glasgow

  149,962

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Buccleuch and Greyfriars, Edinburgh

  364,610

  Free North church, Inverness

  132,000

  1987–88

  Glenorchy church, Dalmally

  160,000

  Cathedral of St. Paul, Dundee

  314,500

  St. John's kirk, Perth

  103,500

  Kelso North, Roxburgh

  105,000

  1988–89

  Pilrig and Dalmeny, Edinburgh

  139,500

  St. Cuthberts, Edinburgh

  100,500

  St. Mary's parish church, Edinburgh

  118,687

  St. Paul's and St. George's, Edinburgh

  455,500

  Cathedral church of St. Mary The Virgin, Glasgow

  427,300

  Evangelical church, Glasgow

  262,000

  Lansdowne parish church, Glasgow

  308,270

  St. Magnus Cathedral, Orkney

  138,750

  Dunbar parish church, East Lothian

  400,000

  1989–90

  The Round church, Bowmore

  103,115

  (between 1980–90)

  Beith High, Cunninghame District

  128,766

  (between 1985–90)

  St. Cuthberts, Edinburgh

  335,300

  (between 1979–90

  St. Luke's Greek Orthodox, Glasgow

  513,200

  (between 1988–90)

  Penicuik South Midlothian district

  175,000

  Paisley Abbey, Renfrew district

  216,955

  (between 1979–90)

  Renfrew Old, Renfrew district

  101,000

  (between 1980–90)

  St. Mathew's Church of the Nazarene, Paisley South

  250,000

  Church, Stirling

  403,200

  (between 1988–90)

  1990–91

  St. Andrews cathedral, Aberdeen

  291,700

  (between 1985–91)

  St. Machars cathedral, Aberdeen

  167,470

  (between 1982–91)

  West Kirk of St. Nicholas, Aberdeen

  159,100

  (between 1987–91)

  loan abbey, Argyll

  158,107

  (between 1982–91)

  High kirk of Stevenston, Cunninghame district

  109,000

  St. Andrew's, Dundee

  115,400

  St. Peter's, Inverkeithing

  109,000

  (between 1979–91)

  Canongate kirk, Edinburgh

  235,400

  (between 1989–91)

  89

  Amount £

  Cathedral church of St. Mary The Virgin, Edinburgh

  345,000

  (between 1982–91)

  Dalmeny kirk, Edinburgh

  103,200

  St. John The Evangelist, Edinburgh

  261,006

  (between 1985–91)

  Magdalen chapel, Edinburgh

  127,300

  North Leith parish church, Edinburgh

  129,200

  (between 1989–91)

  Cathedral church of St. Mary The Virgin, Glasgow

  517,300

  (between 1987–91)

  Ettrick parish church, Ettrick and Lauderdale district

  100,300

  (between 1987–91)

  St. Margaret's RC Huntly

  242,000

  (between 1988–91)

  Daviot parish church, Inverness district

  113,700

  Episcopal church of St. Margaret, Braemar

  110,000

  Johnstone High, Johnstone

  135,600

  Thomas Coats Memorial church, Paisley

  126,600

  (between 1988–91)

  Church of The Holy Rude, Stirling

  414,756

  (between 1987–91)

  Wellington church, Glasgow

  103,600

  Gilcomston South church, Aberdeen

  1,432,000

  HISTORIC HOUSES

  1984–85

  Aikenhead house, Glasgow

  150,000

  Fatima house, Kyle and Carrick district

  135,500

  1985–86

  Hatton castle, Angus district

  150,000

  Martyrs' public school, Glasgow

  105,000

  Trinity college, Glasgow

  155,050

  1986–87

  Castle Grant, Badenoch and Strathspey district

  150,000

  Corehouse, Lanark, Clydesdale district

  198,514

  Dalzell house, Motherwell district

  190,000

  1987–88

  Hospitalfield farm steading, Arbroath

  159,000

  Dowanhill centre, Glasgow

  253,500

  Grecian building, Glasgow

  171,480

  (between 1982–88)

  St. Andrews-by-the-Green, Glasgow

  158,400

  (between 1979–88)

  Wemyss Bay pier, Inverclyde district

  100,000

  Niddry castle, West Lothian district

  136,400

  1988–89

  House of Dun, Angus district

  240,908

  Barbreck house, Argyll

  260,000

  Auchinleck, Cumnock and Doon Valley district

  204,300

  (between 1983–89)

  House of Gray, Dundee

  223,600

  (between 1979–89)

  St. John's Highland Tolbooth church, Edinburgh

  637,140

  (between 1983–89)

  52 Charlotte street, Glasgow

  110,202

  Clyde port authority building, Glasgow

  110,480

  Glasgow university

  488,930

  St. George's in the Field, Glasgow

  200,000

  Stephen's Engine Shop, Irvine

  565,000

  The Granary, City Mills, Perth

  121,450

  90

  Amount £

  Fyvie castle, Banff and Buchan district

  502,420

  (between 1985–88)

  Advocate's close, Edinburgh

  133,506

  (between 1984–89)

  1989–90

  Forter castle, Angus

  220,275

  Marchmont house, Greenlaw, Berwickshire

  172,846

  (between 1986–90)

  Hill house, Helensburgh

  235,681

  (between 1987–90)

  Dunimarle castle, Culross

  171,000

  George Heriot's, Edinburgh

  111,045

  (between 1982–90)

  Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh

  120,000

  Mertoun house, Newtown St. Boswells, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  313,284

  (between 1988–90)

  Thirlestane castle, Lauder

  546,420

  (between 1979–90)

  David Cargill house, Glasgow

  166,340

  Theatre Royal, Glasgow

  504,670

  (between 1986–91)

  Bargany house, Girvan

  142,166

  Arniston, Gorebridge

  142,400

  (between 1979–90)

  Aberlour house, Aberlour

  101,010

  1990–91

  Ascog house, Bute

  128,000

  Duart castle, Mull

  176,477

  Winter Gardens, Rothesay

  119,408

  (between 1987–91)

  Paxton house, Berwickshire

  473,000

  (between 1980–91)

  Alloa tower, Alloa

  195,986

  Morgan tower, Dundee

  119,076

  (between 1989–91)

  Balgone house, North Berwick

  100,000

  Esk Mills, Musselburgh

  206,280

  Yester chapel, Gifford

  139,000

  Melrose railway station Ettrick and Lauderdale

  172,832

  (between 1984–91)

  Barony church, Glasgow

  535,300

  (between 1989–91)

  Carlton place, Glasgow

  1,795,212

  (between 1988–91)

  Elder Cottage hospital, Glasgow

  116,930

  North Spiers wharf, Glasgow

  591,407

  (between 1989–91)

  Queen's Cross church, Glasgow

  257,335

  (between 1979–91)

  Culzean castle, Kyle and Carrick district

  281,415

  (between 1982–91)

  Royal Faculty of Procurators, Glasgow

  401,030

  (between 1988–91)

  Annanhill house, Kilmarnock

  493,950

  (between 1988–91)

  91

  Amount £

  339–343 High street, Kirkcaldy

  298,000

  Kinlochmoidart house, Lochaber district

  (between 1988–91)

  149,675

  Prestonhall Folly, Pathhead

  110,000

  Tinwald house, Nithsdale district

  (between 1988–91)

  283,500

  Birkhill house, North-East Fife district

  158,150

  Dall house, Rannoch school, Perth and Kinross district

  120,000

  Old Manse, Cromarty

  (between 1981–91)

  208,900

  Bardowie castle, Strathkelvin

  (between 1982–91)

  114,940

  Hopetoun house, West Lothian district

  (between 1983–91)

  593,524

  Niddry castle, West Lothian district

  (between 1987–91)

  182,100

  Rossdhu house, Dumbarton

  (between 1983–91)

  131,000

  Community Charge
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish tables relating to Scotland of community charge levels and reductions, and so on, comparable to those provided for England in the answers of 17 April to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field),Official Report, column 184–85.

  Mr. Lang
  The available average charge figures, which exclude the community water charge, are given below:

  £

  (a) Before Community Charges (General Reduction) Act

  (i) Average charge (gross)

  393

  (ii) Average charge less community charge reduction scheme

  377

  (b) After Community Charges (General Reduction) Act and revision to community charge reduction scheme

  (i) Average charge (gross)

  253

  (ii) Average charge less community charge reduction scheme

  241

  Information about average charges after the award of community charge benefit is not yet available. Figures for average charges make no allowance for reduction due to capping.

  Detailed information on reductions in payments is not readily available, but as I indicated in a reply I gave to the hon. Member on 15 April, at column 163, at least 2·25 million persons in Scotland are expected to benefit to the full extent of the £140 reduction.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide comparable but extended figures for Scotland to those put in the Library by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 April 1990 (deposit 5906) showing, for each local authority area and giving the assumptions made about equalisation, what level of (i) capital value rates, (ii) council tax and (iii) local income tax would be required in order to raise the same amount of 92
  revenue as with (a) the 1991–92 community charge, both before and after community charge reduction grant, and (b) the 1991–92 community charge, both before and after community charge reduction grant, but on the basis that the community charge was fully operational without any transitional or related elements.

  Mr. Lang
  Illustrative figures on household bills under the proposed council tax were issued by the Government on 23 April. On local income tax, I refer to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on 7 May at columns 415–17. If the hon. Member can supply precise details of any alternative proposal which he wishes to put forward I would be happy to consider what assistance can be given in exemplifying it.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the work force in employment in Scotland are thought to be holders of two jobs.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many self-employed people there are currently in Scotland; and how this is calculated.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There were an estimated 234,000 self-employed in Scotland in June 1990. Estimates of the number of self-employed, compiled by the Employment Department, are derived from the 1981 census of population and trends in the number of self-employed recorded in the annual labour force surveys conducted in the spring of each year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees in Scotland are part-time workers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Successive Governments have always treated part-time and full-time workers equally in the employment count.

  In December 1990 there were an estimated 416,000 women part-time employees in employment in Scotland. In September 1989, the latest date for which an estimate is available, there were some 76,000 male employees in employment in part-time work in Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are currently on Government work-related training schemes.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish civilian work force estimate for December 1990 included an estimated 56,000 on Government work-related training programmes. The estimated numbers in Government work-related training aim to include most youth training and employment training participants with contracts of employment. The estimate is also designed to exclude those youth training and employment training participants whose training does not include work experience with an employer.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many self-employed people in Scotland pay national insurance contributions.
  93
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest estimate, from the 1988–89 survey of personal incomes conducted by the Inland Revenue, is that there were 230,000 individuals resident in Scotland with self-employment income, of whom some 120,000 were estimated to be liable to pay both class 2 and class 4 national insurance contributions in 1988–89, while an additional 70,000 were estimated to be liable to pay class 2 contributions only. Tax units with a total income under the PAYE threshold are excluded from these estimates. Some tax units having sufficient income to pay class 4 national insurance contributions, but sufficient personal allowance to prevent them from paying tax also may not be represented in the estimates.

  Dental School, Edinburgh
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has been any change in his plans for the provision of a replacement dental school and postgraduate institute in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have endorsed the proposals of the McCallum working party for a dental hospital and postgraduate dental institute in Edinburgh. As Lothian health board is currently reviewing its acute service strategy there may be implications for how these proposals can be implemented. Any revised strategy will require the consent of Ministers. That will not be given unless Ministers are satisfied that the changes proposed would lead to a better standard of care and, therefore, be in the interests of patients.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount paid by each area health board in claims for medical negligence in each of the past five years; and what are the contingency estimates for 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested was not held centrally prior to 1 January 1990 when financial responsibility for medical negligence was assumed by health boards. Given the small number of cases in certain health boards, it is not appropriate on the grounds of confidentiality to publish the information for 1990 in the form requested, but the total amount of compensation payments, including claimants' costs, for all boards in that year was £1,364,446. Present estimates indicate that the settlement figure for 1991–92 is likely to be close to the 1990 figure.

  Health Board Expenditure
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and which health boards overspent and underspent on(a) salaries and (b) supplies in the financial year ended 31 March.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally. Revenue expenditure allocations to health boards are not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for boards themselves to determine how much will be spent on salaries and supplies.

  Southern General Hospital
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total capital investment in the Southern general hospital for each year from 1985 to 1990; and what is planned in the current year.
  94
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Figures for capital investment in the Southern general hospital are not held centrally for the financial years 1985–86, 1986–87 or 1987–88. Expenditure for the remaining years is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  396,000

  1989–90

  86,000

  1990–91

  1,535,000

  1991–92

  14,307,000

  1 Estimate.

  Child Abduction
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been abducted from(a) a parent or other relative with custody, and (b) local authority care to locations (i) in other parts of the United Kingdom and (ii) outside the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During 1990 the Secretary of State received eight applications for assistance under the 1980 convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. These applications related to 11 children of whom it was alleged that three had been wrongfully retained outwith the United Kingdom or abducted from Scotland. Information is not available about how many children were abducted where the abduction constituted a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984.

  Arts Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing expenditure on the arts in Scotland in cash and real terms for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Public expenditure by my Department on the arts is set out in the table below. In addition, substantial sums are made available to support the arts in Scotland through the Scottish Arts Council which is funded by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts.

  Arts expenditure £ million

  Arts expenditure in real terms at 1990–91 prices £ million

  1979–80

  12

  26

  1980–81

  19

  35

  1981–82

  21

  35

  1982–83

  21

  33

  1983–84

  18

  27

  1984–85

  20

  28

  1985–86

  22

  30

  1986–87

  26

  34

  1987–88

  26

  32

  1988–89

  28

  32

  1989–90

  29

  31

  1990–91

  135

  35

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Source: Scottish Public Expenditure Commentaries and the Government's expenditure plans 1991–92 to 1993–94, Cm. 1515.

  Dogs
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people in Scotland have been treated by the national health service for bites by dogs in Scotland in each of the past five years;
  95
  (2) what was the cost to the national health service in Scotland in each of the past five years for treating people bitten by dogs;

  (3) how many children under the age of 16 years have been treated by the national health service for bites by dogs in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following is the number of in-patient and day-case discharges of patients from NHS hospitals in Scotland with a diagnosis of dog bites:

  Year

  Under-16 discharges

  Over-16 discharges

  Total discharges

  1986

  103

  100

  203

  1987

  83

  90

  175

  1988

  118

  124

  242

  1989

  97

  92

  189

  1990

  84

  105

  189

  In addition, cases will also be treated at accident and emergency departments and by GPs, but the numbers are not recorded centrally.

  The costs associated with the treatment of dog bites cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dog owners in Scotland have been fined because their dogs have fouled pavements in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the criminal statistics maintained by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to mark World No Tobacco Day on 31 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The main United Kingdom event in this field, on which efforts are concentrated, is our own long established and successful No Smoking Day, but the importance of World No Tobacco Day is also recognised.

  On 31 May, the health education board for Scotland and Action on Smoking and Health (Scotland) will be formally integrated into GLOBALink, an international communication system for the exchange of anti-smoking information, while Glasgow 2000, a project supported by the board, will launch its initiative to promote smoke-free taxis throughout the city.

  Royal Observatory
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his powers and responsibilities in respect of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Royal Observatory, Edinburgh is funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council, for which responsibility lies with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the most recent review of access to further education by disabled students; what were its findings; and if he will make a statement.
  96
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A report was completed in June 1990 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools entitled "Pupils and Young People with Physical Disabilities". That report included a chapter describing and evaluating regional and college policies. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Education authorities have a statutory duty to secure the adequate and efficient provision of further education for their area. The report was accordingly drawn to their attention.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were recorded in Scottish courts relating to the misuse, abuse or illegal use of orange badges intended for the exclusive benefit of disabled people in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the criminal statistics maintained by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were recorded in Scottish courts relating to illegal parking in places designated for the exclusive use of disabled people in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the criminal statistics maintained by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote sport among disabled people in Scotland; what plans to provide local authorities in Scotland with additional funding for sport among disabled persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The promotion of sport for people with disability is undertaken on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Scottish Sports Council as an important part of its overall programme for widening access to participation in sport. The council enjoys a close working relationship with the Scottish Sports Association for the Disabled which it is supporting in 1991–92 with grant aid of £15,000 and the services of a senior council official. In addition, the Scottish Sports Council will be holding a national conference later this year on the topic of developing opportunities for people with disability.

  It is for local authorities in Scotland to determine, within the resources available to them, their provision of sporting facilities, including those for people with disability, in the light of their assessment of local needs.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a resident of Renfrew district to the Argyll and Clyde health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health board members are not appointed to represent particular areas. As it happens, however, two executive members of the Argyll and Clyde health board are resident in Renfrew district.

  Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing Scottish Office contributions to each voluntary hospice in Scotland for the most recent year available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Voluntary hospices, as locally based organisations, look to health boards for financial assistance under the funding initiative which the Government introduced last year. Records of financial allocations by health boards are not held centrally.

  Census
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many Scottish Office staff have been(a) temporarily transferred or seconded and (b), given extended leave to take up posts relating to the census;

  (2) if any Scottish Office staff temporarily transferred or seconded to the census are in receipt of salaries or payments from the Scottish Office;

  (3) how many Scottish Office staff have been given extended leave to take up posts relating to the census;

  (4) if any staff have been seconded to posts relating to the census; and on what basis their posts have been temporarily covered.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The processing of the Scottish returns for the 1991 census is being undertaken by staff of the General Register Office (Scotland). At the peak period, a total of 150 staff will be employed at the regional processing office, Hillington. Of these, 21 will be staff transferred temporarily from other duties and the remainder will be casual appointees. In addition, 85 staff in GRO(S) in Edinburgh, of whom 15 are casual staff, are currently assigned to census work. The costs of all these staff are met by GRO(S).

  A further 20 Scottish Office staff have been lent to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for work relating to the processing of the England and Wales returns for the 1991 census. These staff are being paid by OPCS. Arrangements have been made for existing Scottish Office staff to cover the resultant vacancies on level transfer or temporary promotion.

  No Scottish Office staff have been given extended leave to take up census-related posts.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if any staff of Scottish health boards have been seconded to posts relating to the census; and on what basis their posts have been temporarily covered;

  (2) if Scottish health boards have incurred any costs due to staff being transferred or seconded to take up temporary posts relating to the census;

  (3) how many staff of Scottish health boards have been given extended leave to take up posts relating to the census;

  (4) what payments have been made to Scottish health boards for staff temporarily transferred or seconded to assist in the census;

  (5) if any staff of Scottish health boards temporarily transferred or seconded to posts relating to the census, are in receipt of salary or payments from these health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Staff working in Scotland on the 1991 census of population are employed by the Registrar General for Scotland or, in the case of most of the staff at 98
  the Hillington processing office, by the Registrar General for England and Wales. No general arrangements for transfer or secondment of staff from Scottish health boards have been made and no payments to the boards for this purpose are being made.

  Information on agreements between Scottish health boards and individual members of staff relating to leave and payments of salary is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure, Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of the expenditure by the Scottish Office in each area of priority treatment within Strathclyde.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Records showing the division of all Scottish Office expenditure between areas of priority treatment and other areas are not maintained. The breakdown of urban programme-approved expenditure for 1990–91 for projects in areas of priority treatment within Strathclyde region, for which the Scottish Office meets 75 per cent. of the costs, is as follows:

  Approved expenditure in 1990–91

  Areas of priority treatment in Strathclyde region

  Capital £

  Current £

  Total £

  Ardeer

  9,200

  36,315

  45,515

  Ardrossan Central

  2,000

  131,368

  133,368

  Ballochgoy

  —

  27,581

  27,581

  Balornock

  9,767

  63,904

  73,671

  Barlanark

  —

  55,194

  55,194

  Barmulloch

  —

  11,029

  11,029

  Bellsbank

  —

  132,661

  132,661

  Blantyre

  94,883

  899,387

  994,270

  Bow Farm

  110,000

  194,696

  304,696

  Braehead/Dalmilling/ Lochside/Whitletts

  10,908

  281,500

  292,408

  Brucehill/Castlehill/ Westcliff

  12,887

  234,000

  246,887

  Burnbank/Udston

  —

  57,669

  57,669

  Cambuslang

  54,627

  394,308

  448,935

  Carnwardric/Arden/ Kennishead

  65,179

  389,647

  454,826

  Carfin/Cleekhimin

  —

  —

  —

  Cartyne

  37,000

  98,678

  135,678

  Castlemilk

  854,055

  2,448,811

  3,302,866

  Craigneuk Motherwell

  220,590

  313,998

  534,588

  Craigneuk Petersburn

  74,221

  94,208

  168,429

  Cranhill

  —

  81,188

  81,188

  Croy

  —

  —

  —

  Drumchapel

  242,061

  2,579,786

  2,821,847

  Dunterlie

  327,752

  325,561

  653,313

  East End Clydebank

  8,138

  561,488

  569,626

  Eastfield

  —

  —

  —

  East Pollokshields

  51,665

  190,561

  242,226

  East Woodlands

  —

  89,427

  89,427

  Easterhouse

  306,336

  962,758

  1,269,094

  Faifley

  2,048

  110,833

  112,881

  Ferguslie Park

  889,745

  774,552

  1,664,297

  Foxbar (Rivers)

  46,613

  165,169

  211,782

  Fullarton

  16,070

  35,492

  51,562

  Gairbraid/Botany/ Wyndford

  188,098

  63,870

  251,968

  Garthamlock

  2,173

  90,460

  92,633

  Germiston

  61,769

  249

  62,018

  Gibshill

  212,493

  122,764

  335,257

  Gorbals/Oatlands

  103,421

  451,064

  554,485

  Govan

  528,548

  1,141,556

  1,670,104

  Govanhill

  2,213

  166,804

  169,017

  Greater Possil

  80,480

  319,130

  399,610

  Greenend/Sykeside

  13,280

  177,088

  190,368

  Green head

  —

  24,599

  24,599

  Haghill

  3,448

  254,167

  257,615

  99

  Areas of priority treatment in Slrathclyde region

  Capital £

  Current £

  Total £

  Molendinar

  —

  19,862

  19,862

  Haldane

  102,306

  75,402

  177,708

  Hayocks

  —

  23,655

  23,655

  Hillhouse

  159,247

  328,684

  487,931

  Howwood Road

  326,720

  212,087

  538,807

  Inner Gear

  299,516

  910,385

  1,209,901

  Kelburn/Woodhall

  446,266

  197,006

  643,272

  Kirkshaws

  —

  44,498

  44,498

  Kirkwood

  118,091

  230,392

  348,483

  Laighstonehall/Fairhill

  24,438

  192,978

  217,416

  Langloan

  16,164

  1,690

  17,854

  Larkfield

  —

  336,909

  336,909

  Maryhill

  195,932

  242,146

  438,078

  Milton

  368,534

  597,479

  966,013

  Moorpark

  7,038

  264,000

  271,038

  Newmains

  12,350

  109,967

  122,317

  North Airdrie

  278,349

  448,353

  726,702

  North Forgewood

  119,759

  318,382

  438,141

  North West Kilmarnock

  9,582

  207,057

  216,639

  Orbiston

  56,417

  149,481

  205,898

  Parkhead

  33,552

  250,575

  284,127

  Plains

  15,601

  80,971

  96,572

  Pollok

  5,572

  495,369

  500,941

  Priesthill/Nitshill

  73,929

  203,871

  277,800

  Renton

  66,655

  322,695

  389,350

  Riccarton

  34,844

  112,956

  147,800

  Royston Corridor

  —

  212,694

  212,694

  Royston Hill

  75,677

  131,488

  207,165

  Ruchazie

  —

  33,377

  33,377

  Ruchill

  152,844

  99,680

  252,524

  Saltcoats

  337,223

  679,671

  1,016,894

  Shettleton

  50,422

  427,899

  478,321

  Shortlees

  —

  99,239

  99,239

  Springburn

  22,993

  346,945

  369,938

  Community Paramedical Physiotherapy Services per capita expenditure

  Health Board

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·23

  0·22

  0·22

  0·32

  0·24

  0·30

  0·39

  0·46

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·09

  0·12

  0·17

  0·26

  0·23

  0·36

  0·58

  0·69

  Borders

  0·60

  0·58

  0·68

  0·69

  0·77

  0·87

  0·47

  0·51

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·40

  0·15

  0·25

  0·28

  0·30

  0·43

  0·34

  0·56

  Fife

  0·30

  0·28

  0·30

  0·39

  0·45

  0·58

  0·60

  0·67

  Forth Valley

  0·31

  0·34

  0·37

  0·39

  0·45

  0·56

  0·77

  0·84

  Grampian

  0·19

  0·16

  0·14

  0·23

  0·29

  0·31

  0·49

  0·45

  Greater Glasgow

  0·29

  0·28

  0·38

  0·54

  0·62

  0·72

  0·65

  0·73

  Highland

  0·18

  0·19

  0·22

  0·32

  0·37

  0·33

  0·38

  0·38

  Lanarkshire

  0·27

  0·32

  0·38

  0·41

  0·54

  0·62

  0·72

  0·78

  Lothian

  0·26

  0·29

  0·31

  0·49

  0·50

  0·64

  0·77

  0·85

  Orkney

  —

  —

  0·37

  0·42

  0·55

  0·94

  0·84

  0·87

  Shetland

  0·60

  0·82

  0·94

  1·05

  1·25

  1·49

  1·32

  1·73

  Tayside

  0·09

  0·10

  0·10

  0·10

  0·18

  0·18

  0·22

  0·25

  Western Isles

  0·52

  0·64

  0·79

  0·77

  0·11

  0·05

  0·02

  0·06

  Scotland

  0·24

  0·24

  0·29

  0·39

  0·43

  0·51

  0·57

  0·64

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the gross amount spent by each health board on community physiotherapy services in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Community paramedical physiotherapy services

  Health board

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  102,352

  98,908

  98,292

  139,218

  102,577

  131.484

  173,945

  202,571

  Ayrshire and Arran

  33,576

  44,987

  60,963

  96,069

  85,988

  136,012

  213,166

  258,508

  Borders

  60,078

  58,490

  68,313

  69,898

  78,221

  88,387

  48,348

  52,761

  Dumfries and Galloway

  17,881

  21,791

  36,374

  40.147

  43,062

  62,393

  49,441

  83,203

  Fife

  100,751

  92,717

  101,416

  131,412

  151,998

  200,702

  205,368

  230,175

  Forth Valley

  82,556

  91,338

  100,170

  104,210

  121,331

  151,336

  208,384

  226,857

  100

  Areas of priority treatment in Strathclyde region

  Capital £

  Current £

  Total £

  Strone/Maukinhill

  —

  89,864

  89,864

  Temple

  39,440

  275,687

  315,127

  Townhead

  192,533

  111,733

  304,266

  Viewpark/Fallside

  3,897

  46,919

  50,816

  Vineburgh

  2,059

  57,574

  59,633

  Wellhouse/Easthall

  —

  1,374

  1,374

  Whinhall

  19,846

  35,758

  55,604

  Woodside/Firhill

  25,780

  264,477

  290,257

  Yoker South Langholm Street

  1,313

  233,220

  234,533

  Shortroods

  19,106

  46,294

  65,400

  Whitehill

  108,530

  78,713

  187,243

  Other Groupings1

  3,487,246

  9,822,111

  13,309,357

  Total

  11,951,439

  34,025,087

  45,976,526

  1 Projects covering communities which do not readily fall into one distinct APT.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the per capita expenditure on community physiotherapy services by each Scottish health board in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information given in the table relates to community paramedical physiotherapy services and is available only from 1982–83. Details have been taken from health boards' annual accounts and the publication, Scottish Health Service Costs. Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information given in the following table relates to expenditure by health boards in Scotland on community paramedical physiotherapy services. Details have been taken from health boards' annual accounts and are available only from 1982–83. Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.
  101

  Health board

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Grampian

  89,829

  77,476

  67,506

  112,226

  142,875

  158,011

  224,401

  228,224

  Greater Glasgow

  282,081

  272,805

  371,183

  520,942

  591,712

  681,020

  610,291

  681,040

  Highlands

  34,293

  35,967

  42,512

  63,024

  74,117

  66,521

  75,788

  76,287

  Lanarkshire

  152,823

  182,324

  212,583

  228,768

  302,120

  350,691

  403,309

  440,670

  Lothian

  193,990

  214,789

  229,644

  359,441

  363,944

  476,449

  568,126

  628,319

  Orkney

  —

  —

  6,981

  8,075

  10,538

  18,238

  16,396

  16,953

  Shetland

  14,504

  19,174

  21,942

  24,520

  29,244

  33,459

  40,731

  38,375

  Tayside

  35,514

  36,006

  37,711

  38,757

  68,716

  72,798

  35,317

  100,632

  Western Isles

  16,275

  20,022

  24,326

  24,067

  3,448

  1,465

  607

  1,803

  TOTAL

  1,216,503

  1,266,794

  1,480,426

  1,960,774

  2,169,891

  2,628,966

  2,923,618

  3,266,378

  Caliper Repairs
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contracts previously existed between the Common Services Agency and Glasgow firms for the repair of calipers; when these were terminated; which companies received new contracts covering the Glasgow area; and how satisfactory their work has proved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No contracts existed previously between the CSA and Glasgow firms. Up to 30 June 1989 health boards used contracts for the supply and repair of orthoses which had been nationally negotiated by the North West Thames regional health authority on behalf of the national health service. Among the suppliers was the company, Camp Cross Rhind based in Glasgow.

  There are no separate contracts for the repair of calipers. New contracts for the supply and repair of orthoses were arranged by the CSA from 1 July 1989 and Camp Cross Rhind were one of three existing suppliers who were unsuccessful in tendering.

  Companies covering the Glasgow area at present are:

  McLeod and Napier (Glasgow)

  M. Galloway (Glasgow)

  John Barrons (Kilsyth)

  Gilbey Orthopaedic Footwear (Glasgow)

  Buchanan Orthotics Ltd. (Glasgow)

  R. Taylor and Son (Orthopaedic) Ltd.

  Remploy Ltd.

  Spencer (Banbury) Ltd.

  Generally the work of these companies has been satisfactory and in keeping with the terms of the contract.

  Road Tax
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were recorded in Scottish courts for offences relating to the non-payment of road tax in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table. Prosecutions are for offences under sections 8 and 12 of the Vehicle (Excise) Act 1971 and include failure to display a licence as well as keeping a vehicle without a licence.

  Year

  Number of persons proceeded against

  1980

  8,176

  1981

  5,567

  1982

  6,874

  1983

  9,665

  1984

  9,378

  1985

  9,468

  1986

  9,941

  102

  Year

  Number of persons proceeded against

  1987

  9,478

  1988

  7,975

  1989

  6,825

  EC Funds
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments were made to Scotland from(a) the European social fund and (b) the European regional development fund in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Awards to Scotland from the European regional development fund and the European social fund are set out in the table.

  ERDF(£ million)

  ESF(£ million)

  1979

  38

  1—

  1980

  28

  1—

  1981

  70

  1—

  1982

  72

  1—

  1983

  84

  1—

  1984

  103

  1—

  1985

  69

  1—

  1986

  84

  1—

  1987

  93

  15

  1988

  95

  18

  1989

  68

  29

  1990

  84

  30

  Totals

  888

  92

  1 Not available.

  Note: Figures for the European social fund prior to 1987 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Gas and Oil Policies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public money has been spent by his Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available to encourage firms involved in gas and oil to relocate all or part of their operations(a) from England and (b) from the rest of Europe; and what assessment he has made of how effective the policy has been.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not available.

  The attraction of inward investment to Scotland, both from overseas and from the rest of the United Kingdom, is the responsibility of Locate in Scotland which is funded and run jointly by the Scottish Office Industry Department and Scottish Enterprise. The resources expended by

  103
  Locate in Scotland in fulfilling this role are not allocated, nor capable of being assigned, to particular industrial sectors.

  Housing
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what income Scottish Homes has received from(a) enabling receipts, (b) stock disposal, (c) voluntary transfers, (d) house sales and (e) disposal of non-housing assets, in the fourth quarter of 1990–91 and in the first quarter of 1991–92.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: The information for the fourth quarter of the 1990–91 financial year is set out in the table. Details for the first quarter of 1991–92 are not yet available.

  £ million

  Enabling receipts

  5·605

  Stock disposal

  0·410

  Voluntary transfers

  Nil

  House sales

  10·393

  Disposal of non-housing assets

  0·653

  Total

  17·061

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) new dwellings for rent were completed by housing associations, (b) new dwellings for rent were started by housing associations, (c) dwellings for rent were rehabilitated by housing associations and (d) other new dwellings were built for owner occupation, or improved for sale into owner occupation by housing associations, by Scottish Homes (or SSHA or HCS) in each calendar year and in each financial year since 1979 to the nearest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: The information requested is set out in financial year form; records are not held on a calendar year basis.

  New build for rent starts

  New build for rent completions

  Rehab for rent starts

  Rehab for rent completions

  Low cost home ownership provisions

  1979–80

  1,274

  800

  2,261

  1,059

  —

  1980–81

  911

  1,116

  2,325

  2,448

  —

  1981–82

  1,169

  1,286

  2,323

  2,820

  30

  1982–83

  1,682

  845

  3,056

  2,302

  308

  1983–84

  1,145

  1,693

  2,262

  2,983

  211

  1984–85

  1,935

  1,561

  1,455

  2,434

  25

  1985–86

  652

  1,083

  1,469

  1,357

  230

  1986–87

  1,742

  1,422

  11,502

  11,346

  169

  1987–88

  1,454

  1,445

  11,388

  11,472

  230

  1988–89

  2,095

  1,723

  11,756

  11,277

  387

  1989–90

  2,287

  1,376

  11,543

  11,464

  340

  1990–91

  2,419

  1,585

  121,467

  11,496

  640

  1 Includes Partnership Areas and Community Ownership schemes

  2 Includes Transfers from Local Authority Housing Stock.

  Health Board

  Chairman's remuneration at 1 April 1988 £ per annum

  Chairman's remuneration at 1 April 1989 £ per annum

  Chairman's remuneration at 1 April 1991 £ per annum

  Greater Glasgow

  14,863

  18,594

  22,960

  Lothian

  13,158

  16,724

  20,695

  Grampian; Tayside

  11,460

  14,855

  18,430

  Lanarkshire; Argyll and Clyde

  9,758

  12,986

  16,165

  Hairmyres Hospital
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of days, or part of days, in each of the last four quarters when there were no acute medical beds available for admissions to Hairmyres hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of occasions per quarter

  1990

  27

  28

  31

  1991

  30

  Total

  116

  These figures take no account of the fact that two beds are kept available to provide for emergency admissions during the night.

  When no medical beds were immediately available at Hairmyres, GPs would contact one of the other acute hospitals in the area.

  Islay
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what alternative proposals are under consideration by the Scottish Office and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland regarding geese on Islay; which interested parties will be consulted; when he expects a conclusion to be reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: A number of alternative approaches to the question of the effect of geese on agriculture in Islay are under consideration including proposals from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Consultation will take place in due course with appropriate bodies representing farming and other interests. There is at present no specific date for a conclusion to be reached, but my right hon. Friend is aware of the concern on Islay about this matter.

  Health Boards (Remuneration)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual rate of remuneration of(a) chairman of health boards and (b) members of health boards as at April 1988, 1989, and 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The levels of remuneration paid to health board chairmen reflect the significant increase in their workload and time commitment in recent years and are thus not directly comparable.
  105

  Health Board

  Chairman's remuneration at 1 April 1988 £ per annum

  Chairman's remuneration at 1 April 1989 £ per annum

  Chairman's remuneration at 1 April 1991 £ per annum

  Ayr and Arran; Fife; Forth Valley; Highland

  8,068

  10,826

  13,550

  Borders; Dumfries and Galloway

  6,368

  8,655

  10,920

  Orkney; Shetland; Western Isles

  3,903

  5,299

  6,575

  Health board members did not receive remuneration prior to April 1991. From 1 April 1991 remuneration of £5,000 and £2,000 per annum is paid to the non-executive members of mainland and islands health boards respectively.

  Local Authority Care
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole were received into local authority care where the cause was (i) family homelessness and (ii) alleged abuse or neglect in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The full information requested is available only from 1988 and is given in the table.

  Year ending 31 March

  Family homeless

  Abuse or neglect1

  Strathclyde

  1988

  8

  1,085

  1989

  5

  765

  Scotland

  1988

  18

  1,442

  1989

  7

  1,307

  1 Includes all children who were made subject to compulsory measures of care, whether on a residential basis or in the community, in relation to grounds (b), (c), (d) or (dd) of section 32(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

  Foxes
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 414, to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), when he expects to make a statement on Government grants for fox destruction, following research by Dr. Ray Hewson of Aberdeen university.

  Mr. Lang
  I have considered the report "Victim of Myth" and whether as a result of its findings any changes should be made to the present arrangements for the payment of grants to fox destruction clubs in Scotland. These grants are designed to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of the clubs with the balance being met by the members.

  While the study is to be welcomed, I do not, however, consider that it supports conclusively the claim that the killing of foxes in the interest of sheep farming cannot be justified in Scotland. The evidence is that foxes do predate on lambs, possibly at about 2 per cent. of all births, and that, as the report itself points out, if foxes are numerous predation on lambs may increase. Group activity by farmers has proved effective in reducing their losses.

  I therefore intend to continue the present scheme of grants to clubs for the purpose of controlling predation by foxes on sheep.

EMPLOYMENT

  Paint (Safety)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence has been reported by the World Health Organisation that painters in the construction industry have an above-average chance of contracting cancer.

  Mr. Forth
  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation, reported in 1989 that, on the basis of an extensive analysis of epidemiological data from a number of countries, a raised risk of cancer in those occupationally exposed as painters, including painters in the construction industry, had been identified.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which states in the European Community have banned solvent-based paint.

  Mr. Forth
  On the basis of information available, I understand that no state within the European Community has banned solvent-based paint.

  Health and Safety (Publications)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies have been printed, and at what cost respectively, of the Health and Safety Executive publications(a) the "Control of Substances Hazardous to Health in the Construction Industry", (b) "Essentials of Health and Safety at Work" and (c) "Health Surveillance under COSHH".

  Mr. Forth
  The numbers printed and costs are as follows:

  Title of publication

  Copies printed

  Cost £

  (a) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health in the Construction Industry

  30,000

  17,303·02

  (b) Essentials of Health and Safety at Work

  130,000

  201,818·93

  Essentials of Health and Safety at Work (leaflet)

  200,000

  6,956·23

  (c) Health Surveillance Under COSHH

  25,000

  11,669·87

  Redundancy
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to allow the Secretary of State for Employment to award interest payments from the statutory redundancy fund to those whose statutory redundancy claim has been settled in their favour but whose case has taken a considerable time to conclude.
  107
  Mr Forth
  I have no plans to do so. A major part of the redundancy payment procedure is outside the control of the Department of Employment and interest payments would therefore be inappropriate. Additional resources have been allocated to the redundancy payments service in 1991 and new procedures and equipment have been introduced to improve the speed of payment. These efforts will continue.

  Mr Robert Jordan
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those bodies to which he has appointed or nominated Mr. Robert Jordan, formerly group managing director of FOSECO.

  Mr. Forth
  Mr. Robert Jordan has not been nominated or appointed to any bodies sponsored by this Department.

  Meadowell Estate, Tyneside
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to include the feasibility study by residents of the Meadowell estate in north Tyneside in the study being prepared under the chairmanship of his Department's regional director.

  Mr. Forth
  The regional director of the employment service in Northern region under the aegis of the Tyne and Wear city action team, chairs a multi-agency group, which includes local authority and Tyne and Wear urban development corporation representatives. The group has been charged with determining the feasibility of a co-ordinated approach to the regeneration needs of the Meadowell estate in North Shields and has commissioned a study. Members of the group have received copies of the report prepared by residents and have attended a presentation given by the residents. The study team has been asked to take the report findings into account when preparing recommendations for consideration by the agencies involved.

  HORIZON Grants
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to issue guidelines and application forms to United Kingdom organisations for HORIZON grants to increase employment opportunities for disabled people, along the lines of those issued by other EC countries.

  Mr. Forth
  The amount of funding available to the United Kingdom for HORIZON was recently notified by the European Commission. My Department is now therefore in a position to compile the overall operational programme that has to be submitted to the Commission by the end of June. Guidelines and further information will be issued shortly.

  TECs
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Forth
  Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in England and Wales are now in place with 75 fully operational. The whole network will be operational later this year, nearly two years ahead of schedule.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested in the form shown could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, records of investment have been kept from 1 April 1990 and the amount invested is £523,000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Forth
  Over the last five years, energy surveys have been undertaken on 251 buildings. Because of the large number of surveys and the wide variety of recommendations it is not practical to list the main recommendations of each of the surveys.

  Implementation of the recommendations of the surveys has led to reduced energy consumption and cost savings.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has two dedicated energy managers, covering the major estates in the Employment Department Group. In addition we have a part-time departmental energy manager.

  Energy management also forms part of the duties for those staff engaged in estate management.

  The total number of person-years devoted to energy management in 1990–91 was six.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each available year from 1978, the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Forth
  I regret that this information is not available from 1978 to 31 March 1990. Before 1 April 1990 the Property Services Agency was responsible for energy monitoring and did not retain this information in the form requested. From 1 April 1990 we have been responsible for paying our own bills and monitoring cost and consumption. However, utility companies are still submitting bills for the final quarter of 1990–91. Therefore the latest information which is available is for the first three quarters of 1990–91, which is as follows:

  Consumption

  Cost

  Electricity

  52,082,398 KwHours

  3,938,749

  Gas

  3,029,381 Therms

  1,219,556

  Oil

  670,016 Litres

  86,067

  The square footage of the estate to which the figures relate is 11,579,518.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Terminal Illness Claims
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the success rate for(a) initial claims and (b) reviews of claims for attendance allowance under the terminal illness rules for his Department's offices in the Doncaster area; and if he will list the number of refusals by grounds for refusal;

  (2) how many claims for attendance allowance under the terminal illness rules have been received by his Department's offices in the Doncaster area since the new rules came into force; what is the average number of days between day of claim and the date of decision for such claims; what are the shortest and longest clearance times to date; and what is the average clearance time for reviews.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for social security-related agencies(a) those that have published their business plans for 1991–92 and (b) those that have not.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All DSS agencies have published their 1991–92 business plans and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the total staff of the Benefits Agency are on secondment from(a) his Department and (b) other Government Departments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Benefits Agency, along with other DSS executive agencies, is a part of the DSS. Accordingly it is staffed by departmental civil servants.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the establishment of the Benefits Agency and (b) the annual salary for each category of employee; and what savings his Department is expected to make in connection with this agency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response the Government made to the European Commission on its proposals for a European travel card for British pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 25 March at column 290. I will send him a copy of my letter to Members of the European Parliament issued on 28 February.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost currently incurred 110
  weekly by pensioners in the Doncaster area for (a) heating, (b) lighting and (c) travel; and what were the comparable figures for (i) five and (ii) 10 years ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham of 29 January,Official Report, column 486, how many (a) single and (b) married pensioners in 1987 had no income other than the state basic pension and/or means-tested benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: In 1987 there were 810,000 single pensioners and 150,000 pensioner married couples with no income other than state retirement pensions (including net additional and graduated retirement benefit), supplementary benefit and housing benefit.

  Mr Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to his Department of(a) paying pensions to foreigners retired in the United Kingdom and (b) topping up the state pensions paid to them by their country of origin.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available. The United Kingdom retirement pension is paid to anyone who meets the national insurance contribution conditions, irrespective of nationality.

  Appeals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants in the Doncaster area for severe disability premium are awaiting the decision of the appeal tribunal.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each month of 1990 and 1991 to date, for his Department's offices in the Doncaster area, the number of single parent(a) mothers and (b) fathers of small children who have lost benefit by working.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the level of funding of community care loans and grants at his Department's offices in the Doncaster area; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Scott
  No such representations have been received.

  National Insurance Fund (South-West)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of employers in the south-west region, and (b) nationally, defaulting on

  111
  payments into the national insurance fund, (c) the number of employees involved, (d) the cost to the fund, and (e) the number of prosecutions made for the offence, for each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of employers defaulting on payments into the NI fund is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Indexation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government plan to introduce the limited price indexation under the terms of the Social Security Act 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No final decision has yet been made.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were accepted for Motability in each of the past five years; and what proportion this represented in each year of the total number of people granted mobility allowance for the first time or on renewal.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Information on the number of people who have been accepted by the Motability scheme is a matter for Motability itself. However, the information in the table gives the number of mobility allowance beneficiaries who, at a given time, (and shown as a percentage of the total number of beneficiaries current on that date,) had their mobility allowance paid direct to Motability Finance Ltd. (MFL) in respect of lease or hire purchase agreements with Motability.

  Information on the number of initial and renewal awards of mobility allowance was given in my earlier answer. It is not possible to draw a direct comparison between these figures, which are a cumulative total over the year, and those shown in column (a) of the table which are snapshot figures.

  Date

  (a) Total number of awards paid direct to MFL

  (b) Total number of Mob A recipients

  Percentage of (a) to (b)

  At 28 March 1987

  39,725

  472,268

  8·4

  At 31 March 1988

  52,492

  523,181

  10·0

  At 30 March 1989

  64,846

  566,099

  11·5

  At 29 March 1990

  81,714

  605,235

  13·5

  At 26 March 1991

  96,323

  648,045

  14·9

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the total numbers of persons who were(a) awarded mobility allowance for the first time and (b) had their mobility allowance entitlement renewed, in each of the past five years, and for each quarter during the present year; and if he will provide an analysis for each group between those awarded mobility allowance for an indefinite period, for three years and for periods less than three years.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Available information is in the tables.
  112

  Number of people awarded Mobility Allowance

  Period

  First awards

  Renewal awards

  April 1986-March 1987

  91,992

  25,760

  April 1987-March 1988

  93,247

  26,684

  April 1988-March 1989

  91,043

  31,389

  April 1989-March 1990

  93,918

  29,489

  April 1990-March 1991

  95,480

  34,775

  January 1990-March 1991

  22,407

  10,439

  Number of beneficiaries1 by duration of award

  Date

  Under 3 years

  3 years

  Over 3 years2

  At 28 March 1987

  38,221

  5,398

  428,649

  At 31 March 1987

  43,145

  5,138

  474,898

  At 29 March 1989

  46,827

  5,046

  514,226

  At 30 March 1990

  48,076

  5,403

  551,756

  At 26 March 1991

  50,884

  5,748

  591,413

  At 25 April 1991

  50,579

  5,783

  593,451

  1 Figures relate to all Mobility Allowance beneficiaries

  2 Includes awards of Special Mobility Allowance

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state what is his latest assessment of the date on which the new mobility allowance provisions of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill will be fully in force.

  Mr. Scott
  We anticipate that entitlement to the new disability living allowance, which will replace both attendance allowance for people under 65 and mobility allowance, will commence in April 1992. We intend, however, to accept claims for the new benefit from February 1992.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates for the number of severely disabled people who have had to move into residential care without the support of the Independent Living Fund in each of the past three years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information regarding the number of severly disabled people entering residential care is not available.

  Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the recent judgment of the European Court in Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange; and if he will make a statement on the costs and other implications of implementing this decision.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have been giving careful consideration to all the implications of this judgment and we are in close touch with the European Commission and other member states about it. There are, however, several aspects of the ruling which are unclear. To obtain clarification we have agreed in principle to support a case brought by the Coloroll group pension scheme trustees who are proposing to seek directions from the European Court on how their liabilities to members should be discharged, in the light of the Barber judgment.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report a table, showing separately for England, Scotland, Wales and

  113
  Northern Ireland for the years 1985–86 to 1993–94 expenditure on income-related rebates from local authority taxation, distinguishing rate rebates from community charge rebates, and showing, if necessary, a reconciliation to table 3 of Cm 1514.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of total spending on rate rebates and community charge benefits in England, Scotland and Wales from 1985–86 to 1990–91 are given in the table. The figures published in table 3 of the departmental report (Cm 1514) reflect assumptions

  Total benefit spending £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Rate rebates

  England

  1,251

  1,389

  1,425

  1,157

  1,212

  —

  Scotland

  176

  188

  215

  168

  —

  —

  Wales

  51

  58

  61

  48

  50

  —

  Total:

  1,479

  1,635

  1,701

  1,373

  1,262

  —

  Community Charge Benefit

  England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,977

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  197

  208

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87

  Total:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  197

  2,272

  Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of the Disablement Income Group; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We regularly meet representatives of disability organisations to discuss a wide range of disability issues. In particular, on 21 February my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and I met the Disability Benefits Consortium which is an umbrella group representing over 250 disability organisations including the Disablement Income Group.

  £ million

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 provisional outturn

  Crisis loans (gross)

  17

  22

  28

  Budgeting loans (gross)

  108

  119

  128

  Crisis loans (net)

  9

  8

  9

  Budgeting loans (net)

  68

  25

  22

  Community care grants

  41

  60

  67

  Regulated payments (gross)

  32

  39

  57

  Regulated payments (net)

  32

  38

  56

  Total gross expenditure

  199

  240

  281

  Total gross expenditure in 1988–89 prices1

  199

  226

  245

  1 Deflated using the estimated GDP deflator.

  Mr Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for help through the social fund have been made since its introduction(a) in England and Wales and (b) in Leicestershire; and how many of those applications were turned down.

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

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many families have benefited from the social fund in Leicestershire since its introduction;
  114
  current at the time of the autumn statement. Since then both the community charge reduction scheme and the £140 general reduction have been announced, and expenditure is now expected to be £1,300 million in 1991–92. A territorial breakdown of this figure is not yet available. Revised expenditure projections for 1992–93 and 1993–94 have not yet been finalised.

  Information about spending in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Social Fund
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the gross and net budget of the social fund for each year since its introduction, broken down into(a) crisis loans, (b) budgeting loans and (c) community care grants and the fall in real terms of the social fund budget since 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The figures are as follows. The gross expenditure has risen in real terms since 1988–89. Repayments have taken time to build up.

  (2) what is the allocation of the social fund to Leicestershire county council for the year 1991–92; and what was it for the year 1990–91.

  Mr Scott
  Information is not collected in this format, but such information as is available is in the Library.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Equal Opportunities Commission about a European Community draft directive on the equalisation of state pensions; and what position he has adopted.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There have been no firm proposals on the third draft directive on equal treatment in social security since it was last discussed in 1989. The Government are committed to the principle of equal treatment. We intend to co-operate in working with the European Commission and other member states to achieve an effective directive.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will amend regulations made under the Social Security Act 1975 to permit a person on sickness benefit with an untreatable condition and incapable of work to be absent abroad without losing the right of benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Sickness benefit may be paid during a temporary absence abroad if the absence is for the specific purpose of being treated for an incapacity which existed before the person left Great Britain; or if, on the day the absence begins, incapacity has already lasted for at least six months. We have no plans to amend these regulations.

  Fraud
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total annual cost of operating the fraud sector of his Department; and whether he intends to grant the sector agency status.

  Mr. Jack
  Social security fraud staff were reorganised into fraud sector teams on 2 January 1991. The estimated annual cost of operating these teams is £62,000,000, producing an annual benefit saving of about £383,000,000.

  Since 1 April 1991 fraud sector teams have been included in the executive responsibilities of the new Benefits Agency. We have no plans to grant these teams separate agency status.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the element within income support which covers community charge payments for(a) single people aged under 25 years, (b) single people aged over 25 years, and (c) a couple, in 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income support levels were adjusted in April 1989 to include help towards the average 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge. The amounts included were:

  (a) for single people under 25 years and each member of a couple—£1·15;

  (b) for single people over 25 years—£1·30.

  These amounts now form an integral part of overall benefit rates which were uprated in April 1990 by 5·2 per cent. and in April 1991 by 8·1 per cent. Overall benefit rates are reviewed in the autumn and benefit levels for 1992–93 will be announced then.
  116
  The Government have proposed that from April 1993, when the new council tax is introduced, maximum benefit for those on income support and equivalent levels of income will be 100 per cent. of their liability for the new tax. There would be no minimum contribution to the new tax.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money income support claimants are expected to pay to local authorities in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income support recipients have to pay a 20 per cent. contribution towards the community charge. Across Great Britain as a whole this will amount on average to around 80p a week during 1991–92, taking no account of charge capping.

  Estimates for 1992–93 are not available. However, the Government propose that from the introduction of the council tax in April 1993, maximum benefit for income support recipients will be 100 per cent. of their liability and there will be no minimum contribution.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Jack
  Two full-time technically qualified managers have been appointed in the DSS; one in the Benefits Agency and one in the Information Technology Services Agency. Nine energy liaison officers have been appointed in the territorial directorates of the Benefits Agency to promote energy-saving practices and to monitor the energy target. They are assisted by colleagues in the territorial offices and in each local office. Detailed information about the time spent on energy matters in the territorial directorates is not readily available so it is not possible to calculate the total number of man years devoted to energy management.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training Benefit Agency strategic planning teams with district management units are to receive before they draw up their strategic plans.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The training of Benefits Agency management is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the scale rate for supplementary benefit or income support for a single adult for each year since 1970; by what percentage this was increased each year; and what are the percentage increases in national average earnings and in the retail prices index for each of those years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: The information requested is in the table and is given for each

  117
  uprating date, rather than for each year; percentage increase columns show the change between each date. Comparisons between the uprating increases (column C) and the RPI and earnings increases (columns D and E) are

  A Benefit Uprating Date

  B Benefit Rate

  C Percentage Increase in 'B'

  D Earnings Percentage Increase

  E RPI Percentage Increase

  2 November 1970

  5·20

  —

  —

  —

  20 September 1971

  5·80

  11·5

  7·5

  8·0

  2 October 1972

  6·55

  12·9

  15·7

  8·5

  1 October 1973

  7·15

  9·2

  11·6

  9·9

  22 July 1974

  8·40

  17·5

  14·2

  13·5

  7 April 1975

  9·60

  14·3

  20·2

  17·7

  17 November 1975

  10·90

  13·5

  11·5

  11·7

  15 November 1976

  12·70

  16·5

  12·5

  15·0

  14 November 1977

  14·50

  14·2

  9·3

  13·0

  13 November 1978

  15·55

  7·2

  14·9

  8·1

  12 November 1979

  18·30

  17·7

  19·1

  17·4

  24 November 1980

  21·30

  16·4

  18·4

  15·3

  23 November 1981

  23·25

  9·2

  10·7

  12·0

  22 November 1982

  25·70

  10·5

  7·4

  6·3

  21 November 1983

  26·80

  4·3

  7·3

  4·8

  26 November 1984

  28·05

  4·7

  8·7

  4·9

  25 November 1985

  29·50

  5·2

  6·5

  5·5

  28 July 1986

  29·80

  1·0

  5·7

  1·7

  6 April 1987

  30·40

  2·0

  6·2

  4·4

  11 April 1988

  33·40

  9·9

  9·7

  3·9

  10 April 1989

  34·90

  4·5

  9·6

  8·0

  9 April 1990

  36·70

  5·2

  9·7

  9·4

  8 April 1991

  39·65

  8·0

  —

  6·4

  Notes:

  Column B—shows the Supplementary Benefit basic single householder scale rate for the years 1970–87 excluding housing costs. These were paid through Supplementary Benefit until 1982–83 (not included in the scale rates) and then paid via Housing Benefit. From April 1988 the figures are the Income Support basic personal allowance for a single person over 25. No Supplementary Benefit additional requirements or Income Support premiums for special needs have been included.

  Column C—shows the percentage increase from one uprating date to the next. This will not necessarily reflect the uprating index for that year because of rounding. Also in the earlier years uprating was calculated by forecasting likely changes in the RPI and this sometimes meant that adjustments had to be made the following year.

  Column D—gives the percentage increase in the average gross weekly earnings of all adult males form the New Earnings Survey. The figure for April 1991 is not yet available.

  Column E—Shows the actual movement in the Retail Price Index for all items between uprating dates.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Clenbuterol (Livestock)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will support the introduction of legislation to authorise the removal of all livestock without compensation from farms where Clenbuterol/angel dust has been fed to farm livestock illegally.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am still considering the detailed provisions of new regulations to provide further controls and sanctions against the abuse of Clenbuterol. Such regulations will be made under the Food Safety Order (Northern Ireland) 1991 and will be subject to full consultation.

  Livestock Marketing Commission
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to appoint a representative of the Northern Ireland Master Butchers Association to the Livestock Marketing Commission, Northern Ireland;

  (2) how long the Livestock Marketing Commission has operated in Northern Ireland; and how many persons representative of the Northern Ireland Master Butchers Association have served on it; and for what periods.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Livestock Marketing Commission has been in operation since 1967. Members are not appointed
  118
  difficult because each uprating factor either contained an estimate of future movements in the index or was based on a period earlier than the uprating period itself. The RPI and earnings figures are actuals for each period.

  to represent sectoral interests. They are appointed as individuals in their own right on the basis of the experience and expertise which they are able to bring to work of the commission. No representative of the Master Butchers Association has been appointed and there are no plans to do so. Individual members of the association will, of course, be considered for appointment on their merits.

  Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average waiting period for appointments, examination and fittings experienced by disabled persons at Musgrave Park hospital, Belfast, in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Eastern health and social services board is responsible for the management of the artificial limb and appliance centre at Musgrave Park hospital. I am advised that in each of the last two years, the average waiting time for appointment/examination following amputation was one week. On average, fitting was then carried out within two to three weeks in a routine case and within six weeks in more complex cases.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many disabled patients in Northern Ireland require services provided at Musgrave Park hospital limb fitting centre, Belfast, annually.
  119
  Mr. Hanley
  In Northern Ireland there are 1,700 patients with artificial limbs. About 1,200 of these patients attend annually.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated waiting period which disabled persons are likely to experience in future as a result of the decision to withdraw cover for absent doctors who normally deal with disabled patients.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am informed by the Eastern health and social services board that it has no knowledge of any such decision in relation to the services provided for disabled patients at Musgrave Park hospital.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to reduce the waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the past two years, the Department of Health and Social Services has made available an additional £467,000 for orthopaedic services in Northern Ireland in recognition of the need to improve the level of services and reduce waiting lists. I hope to announce shortly details of further additional resources for regional medical services developments this year, including orthopaedics. I believe that more can also be done to reduce waiting lists and waiting times through better management. Health and social services boards are currently responding to a report on better waiting list management by a group of clinicians known as CREST (clinical resource efficiency support team) which offers advice to the Department, boards and clinicians on ways to improve clinical efficiency. I am pleased to say that the numbers waiting for orthopaedic surgery fell from 4,939 in September 1988 to 3,456 in September 1990.

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the implications of the introduction of trust status in respect of the Royal Victoria hospital for job security, job tenure and health care.

  Mr. Hanley
  Should the Royal group of hospitals be successful in its application for HSS trust status, I would expect it like any other trust to provide better health care for patients. Staff transferring to trust employment retain their existing terms and conditions of service, but they and the trusts can negotiate changes at any time thereafter.

  Youth Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the education budget has been allocated to youth services in each year from I April 1985 to 31 March 1991 in the South Eastern education and library board area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  120

  Percentage of recurrent block grant allocated to youth service

  Percentage of capital grant allocated to youth service

  1985–86

  3·85

  3·88

  1986–87

  3·26

  0·71

  1987–88

  3·44

  1·74

  1988–89

  3·30

  2·31

  1989–90

  3·26

  2·07

  1990–91

  3·15

  0·57

  Armagh Four
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received seeking a judicial review of the case of the Armagh Four; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend has, in addition to a petition and numerous letters from the public, received a total of 144 representations about the case. These have generally sought to encourage him to exercise his discretionary power to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, which he would do only if some new evidence or consideration of substance is produced. It is claimed in a dossier presented to my right hon. Friend in January that such new evidence does exist. The document is, therefore, being examined in detail and inquiries are being conducted at present to see whether this claim can be substantiated. Only when these inquiries have been completed and the results fully considered will my right hon. Friend be in a position to decide whether or not he would be justified in referring the case back to the Court of Appeal.

  Social Fund (South Down)
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the budgetary allocation in respect of the social fund to each social security office in South Down in each year since 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991, respectively.

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

  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people who made applications for social fund loans and grants who were in receipt of income support were refused at each social security office in South Down.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 are shown in the table. The figures include a small number of instances where crisis loans have been claimed by people who are not receiving income support. It is not possible to identify these cases.
  121

  Number of refusals

  Social Security Office

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Ballynahinch

  51

  29

  168

  163

  101

  99

  Banbridge

  212

  86

  347

  257

  331

  315

  Downpatrick

  433

  147

  462

  391

  522

  423

  Kilkeel

  35

  23

  69

  53

  100

  71

  Newcastle

  147

  46

  232

  133

  205

  150

  Newry

  424

  315

  689

  841

  1,258

  1,196

  Totals

  1,302

  646

  1,967

  1,838

  2,517

  2,254

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were refused a loan or a grant from the social fund in each of the social security offices in South Down because the budget was overspent, in each of the years since 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social fund budgets are allocated for the full year and managers must aim to ensure that they are

  Applications refused on grounds of insufficient priority

  Social Security Office

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Ballynahinch

  3

  3

  42

  55

  7

  1

  Banbridge

  45

  28

  52

  150

  60

  23

  Downpatrick

  180

  10

  140

  82

  118

  8

  Kilkeel

  4

  2

  18

  28

  18

  3

  Newcastle

  17

  2

  46

  72

  59

  3

  Newry

  —

  1

  29

  121

  196

  78

  Totals

  249

  46

  327

  508

  458

  116

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the full-year cost of raising child benefit in October to £9·55 a week for all children on the same basis as the answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), 30 April,Official Report, column 163.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost for Northern Ireland over that of next October's actual benefit increases would be £29 million.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families will benefit from the uprating in child benefit which will take effect from October.

  Mr. Hanley
  Child benefit is paid to 218,000 families in Northern Ireland, all of whom will benefit from the uprating in October 1991.

  Muckamore College
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(a) how many teachers with initial training qualifications from Muckamore college were appointed to teach within the education service in Northern Ireland with a reduction of five increments of teacher's salary prior to 1 April 1987; (b) how many teachers in schools for mentally handicapped children, with initial training qualifications from Muckamore college, transferred to the education service, Northern Ireland, from health and social services on 1 April 1987 without facing any reduction in salary; (c) what are the reasons for the difference in treatment of these two categories of teachers;
  122
  not overspent. In order to achieve this and ensure that there is money available throughout the year, managers draw up monthly profiles based on estimated expenditure. They also issue guidance to their social fund officers on the level of priority of application that might be met. Details of the number of applications refused on grounds of insufficient priority for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 are shown in the table.

  and (d) what is the estimated cost of an ex gratia payment to teachers trained at Muckamore college who voluntarily transferred to the education service prior to 1 April 1987, to provide equality of treatment of teachers in (a) above with teachers in (b) above for salary and pension purposes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Pensioner Couples (Income Support)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of new basic pensioner couples who are no longer entitled to income support because of the recent rise in basic pension; and what is the average amount that their income is above the required level.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general, the income of those ceasing to be entitled to income support from the week commencing 8 April 1991 would have increased by at least 8·1 per cent. However, there was an additional real increase in the basic pensioner premium of £1 for single pensioners and £1·50 for couples aged 60 to 74 years.

  Housing Benefit (South Down)
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are in receipt of full housing benefit and partial housing benefit at each of the social security offices in South Down.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information is not collected in the form requested. The available information is as follows:
  123

  District

  Full/partial housing benefit

  NIHE district office area (tenants)

  Banbridge

  2,072

  Downpatrick

  3,501

  Kilkeel

  1,040

  Newry No. 1

  2,822

  Newry No. 2

  2,571

  District council area (owner-occupiers)

  Banbridge

  474

  Downpatrick

  917

  Newry and Mourne

  2,651

  Source: Northern Ireland Housing Executive and Rate Collection Agency.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost in 1991–92 of raising the single pension by £5 a week and the married pension by £8 a week above current levels on the same basis as the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, 30 April,Official Report, column 162.

  Mr. Hanley
  The additional cost of increasing the basic retirement pension in this way in Northern Ireland would be around £53 million, assuming a corresponding increase in income-related benefits. A reliable estimate is not available of the net cost with no such corresponding increase.

  School Transport
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the total cost of providing early afternoon transport for primary 1 and primary 2 students in each education board area in each year since 1985;

  (2) how many pupils availed themselves of early afternoon transport in each education board area, in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Statistics of the actual cost and numbers of pupils for whom early afternoon transport was provided since 1985 are not maintained separately by the education and library boards, but are included in overall costs and numbers for home to school transport. The estimated costs and numbers for 1990–91 are as follows:

  Education and Library Board

  Number of pupils

  Annual cost £

  North-Eastern

  350

  24,000

  South-Eastern

  430

  22,000

  Southern

  727

  61,000

  The Belfast and Western education and library boards do not provide early afternoon transport.

DEFENCE

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to inform the local emergency services when a bomb-laden aircraft(a) takes off or (b) lands at Royal Air Force Finningley.
  124
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Advance notification of operations is not given to civil agencies for operational security reasons.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date a bomb-laden aircraft last(a) took off and (b) landed at Royal Air Force Finningley.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Available records cover the last seven years, during which time no such aircraft took off or landed at RAF Finningley.

  The Gulf (Mitla Ridge)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the RAF participated in the attack on Mitla ridge in the final day of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 25 March, at column 301.

  Memoranda of Understanding
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Canadian Governments on the use of training facilities in Canada and the use of British troops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the original memorandum of understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Canadian Government that governs the use of the Suffield range, Canada, by United Kingdom forces and any amendments that have been made to the memorandum of understanding.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The training of the Brtitish armed forces in Canada is governed by an exchange of notes between the two Governments. These notes were exchanged on 26 November 1979, and in accordance with usual practice published in 1980 as Cmnd. 7894.

  Training Injuries
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the liaison between his Department and the Department of Social Security when dealing with cases such as that of No. 24754102 Lance Corporal J. Ray, Grenadier Guards, who sustained serious injuries during training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am satisfied with the liaison between the MOD and the DSS, which is kept under review.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the full report of the board of inquiry instituted to investigate the circumstances that led to No. 24754102 Lance Corporal J. Ray, Grenadier Guards, and two others sustaining injuries as a result of an explosion on the Suffield training area, Canada on 7 July 1989 or as much as will illuminate the unclassified summary of investigations dated 19 February 1991 in respect of whether Lance Corporal J. Ray or others were advised as to the possibility of buried unexploded munitions; and what precautions they were advised to take.
  125
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Board of inquiry reports are internal Ministry of Defence documents produced to enable the appropriate authorities to ascertain the cause of an accident or incident and to take steps to prevent its recurrence. As such they are confidential to the Department. A summary of the board of inquiry report into the tragic accident which occurred on the Suffield range on 7 July 1989 has been sent to solicitors acting for Lance Corporal John Ray. This summary includes the comment of the board of inquiry that the three soldiers were adequately briefed for the task they were undertaking when the accident occurred.

  Radiation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 256, (1) if he will now provide a breakdown for (a) Rosyth dockyard, (b) Devonport dockyard, (c) Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment, (d) Coulport RNAD and (e) the Faslane submarine base, of individual radiation dose exposures for workers in the bands (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 15, (iii) 15 to 20, (iv) 20 to 30, (v) 30 to 40 and (vi) greater than 40 rnSv for the year 1990;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown for (a) HMS Neptune and (b) HMS Defiance of individual radiation dose exposures for individuals in the bands (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 15, (iii) 15 to 20, (iv) 20 to 30, (v) 30 to 40 and (vi) greater than 40 mSv for the year 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am unable as yet to add to the information set out in my letter to the hon. Member following my answer of 1 May at column 256. Final dose figures for the dockyards and naval bases will be produced at the end of May, but I regret that Aldermaston data are now unlikely to be complete until the end of June.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the present cost of scrapping a main battle tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department would expect to incur no net cost in disposing of a main battle tank for scrap.

  Output
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage is defence output of the total output of the (i) south of England and (ii) the north of England;

  (2) what percentage is defence output of the total output of (i) Wales and (ii) Scotland.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Government statistics do not identify "defence output" as such.

  Civilian Jobs
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of civilian jobs in the United Kingdom which are dependent upon defence expenditure.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the right hon. Member to tables 4.1 and 6.8 of volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990".

  Research and Development
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of Her Majesty's Government's defence budget is spent on research and development.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Figures for the defence budget and defence research and development are published in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". In 1990–91 the percentage was 11·6 per cent.

  Electronic Systems
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of Her Majesty's Government's expenditure on defence is spent on electronic systems.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Government estimates exist only in respect of MOD expenditure placed with the electronics industry in the United Kingdom. I refer the hon. Member to table 2.5 in volume 2 of the 1990 "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Degaussing Range, Barons Point
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with the representatives of local fishermen concerning the establishment of a degaussing range, for use by Trident submarines, near Kilcreggan at Barons point; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The degaussing range at Barons point was selected after a major study of possible locations in the Upper Clyde and proved to be the only site to meet all the required parameters.

  The Clyde Fishermen's Association (CFA) was not consulted during the early discussions in 1989 to consider the proposals to lay a degaussing range at Barons point. However, it is now our practice to consult the CFA on matters affecting fishing in the Clyde.

  Training Flights
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the regulations governing the carriage of live ammunition by aircraft in training flights over Britain are identical for British and American aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In general the regulations governing the carriage of live ammunition by British and American aircraft on training flights over Britain are comparable, although they take account of differences in aircraft types and roles, and weapons carried.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the carriage of nuclear weapons on combat aircraft over the United Kingdom in peacetime.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is long-standing practice neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons in specific instances.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why military police refused access to the Powys emergency services to undertake radiation monitoring at the site of the crash of a US aircraft at Capel-y-ftin in February 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Under regulations governing the guarding of crashed military aircraft in the United Kingdom, access to a crash site is permitted only to specifically authorised personnel.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of(a) the replacement and (b) installation costs of an alternative pipework system to the zone one ductwork plant area A90.1 in the building complex A90 at Aldermaston, is attributable to an ambiguous specification; what percentage is attributable to bad workmanship in (i) manufacture or (ii) installation; and what steps he is taking to recover any costs from the contractor.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Details of the A90 ductwork problems were given in evidence by my Department to the Select Committee on Defence and published in the reports "The progress of the Trident Programme" 5th of Session 1988–89 and 9th of Session 1989–90 (HC374 and HC237). All necessary remedial work has been completed and a thorough investigation by the appropriate authorities has failed to produce any evidence to support action for recovery of any costs from the contractor.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether recent leaks of gases/solutions from prefabricated pipework in building A90/A91 at Aldermaston was due to the pipework(a) not complying with the contract specification, (b) not being capable of withstanding the waste material passing through and (c) not being inspected before installation; whether the safety inspectorate approved the installation; and what steps are being taken to ensure that faulty pipework does not create an unsafe workplace for the operators.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There has been no leak of radioactive material from building A90 or A91; neither building is yet in use. During commissioning tests using simulated liquid waste corrosion has been discovered in pipework which is wholly contained within building A91. A detailed technical investigation is now in progress to discover the cause and extent of the problem. The installation will not be brought into use until we are assured of its safe operation.

  Equipment Exhibitions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held since November 1990 with(a) Members of Parliament and (b) others concerning the policy of not releasing lists of countries invited to or attending defence equipment exhibitions.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have discussed this subject with representatives of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade at a meeting attended by some hon. Members.

  Gulf War
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discrimination was exercised by coalition air forces in their attacks on Iraqi conventional power stations;

  (2) what proportion of Iraqi conventional power stations were bombed by coalition air forces during the Gulf war;

  (3) what was Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the bombing of Iraqi conventional power stations during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Coalition forces attacked Iraqi power stations in order to disrupt Iraq's military command control and communications, and other military capabilities such as air defence radars. These attacks were carefully planned to minimise the risk of causing civilian casualties and collateral damage. It is believed that over half Iraq's major power stations were damaged by coalition forces during the Gulf conflict.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department defines(a) a sub-strategic nuclear weapon and (b) a tactical nuclear weapon.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD would understand both terms to refer to those weapons which provide the link between conventional forces and strategic nuclear forces in the spectrum of deterrence.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of currently deployed NATO land-based short-range nuclear weapons that have an operational service life that extends beyond the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom's ground-launched short-range nuclear systems currently comprise Lance and nuclear-capable artillery. Only the artillery (capable of firing nuclear warheads supplied by the United States) will have an operational life that extends beyond the mid-1990s. Questions relating to the nuclear systems of our NATO allies are a matter for their Governments.

  Missiles
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will outline his Department's policy towards restricting the European deployment of NATO tactical air-to-surface missiles to time of crisis only;

  (2) what decisions have been taken regarding NATO deployment plans for tactical air-to-surface missiles;

  (3) what are the deployment implications for land-based short-range nuclear weapons of the deployment of tactical air-to-surface missiles by NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We fully support the alliance's policy of keeping nuclear forces up to date where necessary and based in Europe in peacetime. But no decisions have been taken on NATO deployment in tactical air-to-surface missiles. As for currently deployed systems, the London declaration identifies a significantly reduced role for sub-strategic systems of the shortest range, and looks forward to new negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the reduction of short-range nuclear forces.
  129
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision will be taken on the United Kingdom tactical air-to-surface missiles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Consideration of replacement systems for our WE 177 free-fall bombs is continuing. The House will be informed as soon as a decision is taken.

  JP-233 Bomb
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the JP-233 bomb will complete its effective in-service life.

  (2) what is his Department's policy towards the replacement of the JP-233 bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We expect the JP-233 bomb to remain in service until well after the turn of the century. We will consider its replacement at the appropriate time as part of the Department's normal equipment planning process.

  Combat Training
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards the balance between low and medium-level combat training conducted by the RAF, in light of the experience of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are still considering the outcome of the air campaign in the Gulf and the conclusions to be drawn from it.

  Armament Sites
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours of inspection are allowed under existing disarmament treaty arrangements for(a) British and American observers to visit Soviet armament sites and (b) Soviet observers to visit British and American armament sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom has incurred rights and duties of inspection of military sites under two main agreements to which it is a signatory: the Vienna document 1990 on confidence and security-building measures in Europe, and the CFE treaty, which has not yet been ratified.

  Section VIII of the Vienna document sets out compliance and verification provisions, under which the United Kingdom and Soviet Union are obliged to accept evaluation visits. Each such visit must take place within a single working day and last no more than 12 hours.

  When ratified, the inspection protocol of the CFE treaty will allow inspection teams of participating states to spend up to 48 hours at sites notified as containing equipment limited by the treaty. There will also be provision for challenge inspections which may last up to 24 hours.

  Although the United Kingdom is not a party to the INF treaty, the Soviet Union has the right to conduct inspections of sites within the United Kingdom to verify the elimination of US missiles. Procedures are set out fully in the associated protocol on inspections. For base-line,
  130
  close-out and short-notice inspections, inspectors may spend up to 24 hours at a facility they are inspecting; this may be extended by up to a further eight hours if the inspected site agrees. For elimination inspections, because of the number of missiles to be eliminated, there is no specified time limit for each inspection.

  The equivalent rights and duties of the United States Government under agreements to which it is a party are a matter for the US Government.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what pre-retirement courses are currently offered to civil servants in the Gosport and Portsmouth area; and if there are plans to change the existing arrangements.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Two pre-retirement courses are run by the Ministry of Defence in the Portsmouth area each year; there are no current plans to change this. In addition, one will be held in the Gosport area in the near future. Anyone who is unable to attend one of these courses may be included in a course held at another location.

  Trident
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of constructing(a) four Trident submarines and (b) three Trident submarines over the next five-year period from the start of the financial year; and if he will give revenue running costs where applicable.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government remain committed to a four-boat Trident submarine force. Whilst it is not our practice to provide detailed forecasts of project expenditure, I can confirm that the estimated cost of constructing the four Trident submarines over the next five years is about £1,400 million.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence spent some £3·94 million in the financial year 1990–91 on management consultancy contracts placed centrally. Details are listed. Computer consultancy contracts form, in many cases, part of wider computer procurement and support contracts, but it is estimated that consultancy contracts to a value of £14·34 million were placed in 1990–91. Details of individual contracts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  131

  Management consultancy contracts let in financial year 1990–91

  Firm

  Subject

  Anderson Consulting

  Defining a cost management system for RAF logistics

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  The Joint Service Job Evaluation Review

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Specialized mortgage schemes for Service personnel

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Military Survey quality initiative total quality programme

  Kienbaum Unternehmensberatung

  A study into the presentation of British Forces in Germany, to the German public

  Marketing Consultancy Network Ltd.

  Contractorisation of AWE—Assistance with staff communications

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Nuclear Test Veterans Report

  P A Consulting Group

  A study of the customer interactions with micro-electronics research unit.

  P E Inbucon Ltd.

  Tri-service resettlement review

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice to MoD in respect of the creation of the DRA

  D Quilter

  RAF ground training review

  T Q M International Ltd.

  Total quality management for the Royal Naval Aircraft Repair Organization

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1990–91 the MOD invested some £12 million in specific energy-saving measures throughout the defence estate. Additional sums which are incorporated as part of major general works programmes are not separately identifiable. Figures for earlier years are not readily available. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Staff devoted wholly or mainly to energy management in the Ministry of Defence represented about 15 person-years of effort in 1990–91. A much larger number of personnel were employed as energy wardens at units and establishments on a part-time basis. The proportion of energy wardens' time devoted to energy management is not separately recorded.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has carried out 346 energy audits over the last five years. It is not practicable to summarise the findings of this number of audits without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. Expenditure on consumption of non-operational fuel on the defence estate in 1989–90, the latest available, was as follows:
  132

  £000

  Electricity

  159,989

  Gas

  39,868

  Solid fuel

  9,576

  Liquid fuel

  42,854

  For details of expenditure in earlier years and other available information I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 June 1990 columns 428–29.

  Nuclear Installations, Iraq
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 April,Official Report, column 164, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), what are the results of the inspections of Iraq's nuclear facilities with regard to radioactive contamination.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The International Atomic Energy Agency has not yet made public the detailed findings of its mid-May inspection of the Tuwaitha reactor sites.

  Residential Property
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of which RAF air stations other than RAF Leeming his Department has acquired dwellings with the agreement of their owners.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the MOD's noise compensation policy was reviewed in 1985, dwellings have been acquired with the consent of the owners in the vicinity of the following military airfields where the qualifying criteria were met:

  RAF Stornoway

  RAF Leeming

  RAF Upper Heyford

  RAF Fairford

  RNAS Yeovilton

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of which RAF air stations other than RAF Leeming his Department has paid injurious affection compensation to nearby home owners on account of depreciation in value caused by noise disturbance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the MOD's noise compensation policy was reviewed in 1985, injurious affection compensation has been paid to home owners living in the vicinity of the following military airfields where the qualifying criteria were met:

  RAF Upper Heyford

  RAF Leuchars

  RAF Cottesmore

  133

  RAF Coningsby

  RAF Marsham

  RAF Wattisham

  RAF Honington

  RAF Leeming

  RNAS Yeovilton

  Medical Services, Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks are now kept of the British Army medical team working unit at the Ahmadi hospital in Kuwait; what is their turnover rate; and what plans he has for the monitoring of health of those in the Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal Engineers working in the Ahmadi area, or who have worked in the Ahmadi area, over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Full medical cover is provided for all United Kingdom military personnel in Kuwait, including checks on lung function for those in the area of the fires. Medical personnel will return to the United Kingdom with remaining British units. Periodic medical checks will continue to be conducted on service personnel as a matter of routine.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library all the public statements of Colonel Brooke of the Royal Engineers on the subject of service men's health in Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the course of his duties Lt. Col. Brooke has given considerable public advice on the hazards of unexploded ordnance in Kuwait and has also been interviewed on a number of occasions about the work of the Royal Engineers there. Transcripts are not available as the MOD does not require detailed records of all public statements made by members of the armed forces.

  The Gulf (Pollution)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has formed from the air samples collected by the RAF Hercules on 28 March about the deviation from the norm of radiation of the sun.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, Dr. J. T. Houghton, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  NATO and WTO
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers, seamen and airmen are currently under arms in NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on 8 May 1991,Official Report, column 506.

  Ordnance Services, Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of Royal Ordnance plc and 21 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, Royal Engineers, in Kuwait.
  134
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not for the Ministry of Defence to comment on the work of a private company. As for 21 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 May (Official Report, column 58).

  The Gulf
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for deployments of British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Further to my right hon. Friend's statement of 27 March at column 482, it has been decided to redeploy the battle group currently conducting exercises in Kuwait. The major part of the battle group, which comprises 2 Royal Anglian and supporting elements, will move to A1 Jubayl. Two companies of 2 Royal Anglian will then relieve 1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers, who have been employed on security duties in support of the logistic support group. 1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers will return to the United Kingdom in the middle of June.

  The logistic support group is planned to withdraw at the end of July, and 2 Royal Anglian will return at the same time. Until then, those elements of 2 Royal Anglian not providing security at A1 Jubayl will remain in Kuwait to provide further reassurance to the Kuwaitis. We are also discussing with the Kuwaiti Government our defence relationship in the longer term, in particular what assistance the UUnited Kingdom could provide in the rebuilding of the Kuwaiti armed forces.

  The squadron of GR1 Tornados stationed in Bahrain has now returned to RAF Bruggen in Germany. The Armilla patrol continues to provide a frigate/destroyer presence in the region; and United Kingdom mine counter-measures vessels are carrying out mine clearance off the coast of Kuwait as part of a multinational mine clearance force.

  Wind Tunnels
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) to what extent the wind tunnels at Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, and the motion simulator sites have been relegated to the Defence Research Agency; and to what extent he has reserved authority over these facilities;

  (2) to what extent the Bedford airfield has been relegated to the Defence Research Agency; and to what extent he has reserved authority over the site.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: Ownership of all land occupied by the Defence Research Agency (DRA), including Bedford airfield, the wind tunnel site at Thurleigh, and the motion simulator site, remains vested with the Secretary of State for Defence in his capacity as owner of the DRA. Decisions as to the future of these, and other DRA sites, are a matter for the Secretary of State in consultation with the chief executive of the DRA.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1979–80, and for 1991 to date, the number of low-flying sorties that have taken place by aircraft from Royal Air Force Finningley; and what number occured after dusk.
  135
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: Central records are not held in a form which would enable
  136
  the information requested to be provided. However, no low-flying sorties are flown out of RAF Finningley after dusk.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Spring Bank Holiday Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Rented Housing in Rural Areas
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any further proposals to deal with the acute shortage of low-cost rented housing in rural areas.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have taken a variety of measures to boost the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas. We have increased public resources through the Housing Corporation, including a new special rural programme, and allocated extra credit approvals to rural local authorities this year. We have also amended planning guidance to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that although the measures the Government are taking are welcome, the people in this difficult position do not accept that they adequately meet the present need? Is the Minister also aware that in some rural communities the opportunity for young couples to rent low-cost housing has disappeared completely? The situation is so bad that the clergy in those areas are saying there is a danger of communities breaking up if accommodation is not found quickly. Although the Minister's reply appears to be sympathetic, it is not of an innovative nature. Therefore, will she again look at the problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the House that the Government will continue to look at what is an area of concern. However, there are a number of measures in addition to those I have mentioned in my first Answer; for example, £50 million has been allocated to local authorities this year for low-cost housing. There is also a special rural programme where the number of houses available in villages with a population of below 1,000 is set to rise to 2,250 a year. A number of measures are therefore being taken, but I do not wish my answers to seem as though we are detracting from the seriousness of the issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the statement reported in the press that the Government are considering giving guidance to local authorities to enable low-cost housing—I do not know whether for rent or for sale —to be built in places where otherwise normal planning permission might not be given?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to that particular measure. In rural areas where land is not normally designated for housing that measure enables local authorities, under the exceptions policy, to designate areas for housing; thereby depressing the price of the housing and bringing low-cost housing to people who live in the country.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that to stop selling council houses would help the situation? Many of these council house sales are not genuine sales. I cite a typical case where a family bought a council house in anticipation of the decease of the parents and the house was then dolled up and sold. Quite a lot of that goes on and it should be stopped.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are not at all apologetic for the right-to-buy policy. I understand the noble Lords opposite also approve of that policy—or perhaps they have had a change of mind. Many people who have now bought their council homes would not normally have been able to buy on the open market. The Government believe that increasing home ownership to 69 per cent. of the home owning population is a very good thing.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if the Minister will not agree to that, will she not agree to allow councils to use the money obtained from council house sales to build further houses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, local authorities are spending 25 per cent. of their receipts on new build. In addition, the other three-quarters of that money is being used to reduce down debt, which frees up revenue. Also—I notice at least one eminent Back-Bencher on the other Benches nodding her head —allocations are made to local authorities where the needs are greatest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider her last answer? She rightly says that 25 per cent. of the receipts from council house sales are available for new build housing programmes. However, she then added that the remainder frees up money for revenue. It does not free money for expenditure on housing; that is controlled by the capital controls of government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood me. Where debt is reduced by the application of the other 75 per cent. it inevitably releases revenue because it reduces down debt, which reduces the need to service the debt. The Government allocate the equivalent of the other three-quarters to those areas in the greatest need.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister explain a little further? Are those people who have bought their council houses people who probably could not have bought them on the open market? These people still cannot buy houses on the open market and there are now very few council houses left, even to rent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord makes, though interesting, is not an argument against the right-to-buy policy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that what noble Lords on this side are saying is that there should have been a building programme running at the same time over the past 11 years to replace the houses being sold. Why has it taken the Government so long to heed the warnings they have been given, instead of ignoring them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is comparing local authority built houses with houses that are provided from a variety of sources. Whether it is housing corporations through the housing associations, the private sector, or local authorities, the house building programme has been buoyant throughout the past 11 years.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, what advice would the Minister give to a young couple living in a rural area with their parents where there were no houses to let and they cannot afford to buy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept that it is not easy for young people to get into the house buying market. However, it may be helpful if I set out some of the initiatives which the Government have put in place in order specifically to help people at the lower end of the income scale. Funding to the Housing Corporation will rise from £1.1 billion to more than £2 billion by 1993. The Rural Development Commission has a further £337,000 which is specifically to help people start to buy their own homes. An extra £50 million has been made available to local authorities specifically for housing in rural areas. There is also the special rural programme for villages with populations below 1,000. A considerable number of measures are in place specifically to help people at the lower end of the income scale to own homes or at least to have homes to rent.

Retail Prices Index: Food Component
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the retail prices index for foodstuffs is calculated and what is its statistical accuracy.
The Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the food component of the retail prices index is calculated as the average change in price for the full range of available foodstuffs. It is based on 45,000 prices obtained from retailers throughout the country and is therefore soundly based and robust. It is not possible to state its accuracy in conventional statistical terms.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he give a little more detail on what types of food are taken into consideration and in how many towns across the country? Is it not fair to say that these types must vary from place to place? Is it
430
not the case that, regardless of whether one is dealing with poor areas or better off areas, the cost of food is going up and up?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, the cost of food is going up. In the most recent figures for April, the food component went up by some 6 per cent., whereas the all-items index went up by some 6.4 per cent. The survey looks at food prices in some 180 different areas throughout the country and at some 175 different components. As I said in my original Answer, 45,000 different prices are looked at.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this whole question was under review by the Public Accounts Committee in another place? Its report revealed, at paragraphs 20 to 29, that the whole system of taking prices was a complete farce and that in point of fact 80 per cent. of the prices were taken on a part-time basis by employees of the Department of Employment, that the samples taken were minute and that the results were not monitored in any way even by the RPI central office? Will he give some indication as to whether the Government will take steps to ensure that a reliable sample is taken over a wide area in order that the existing position can be changed? Everyone knows that the price of food is going up not by 6 per cent. per annum but by nearer 15 per cent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord is saying. I said that some 45,000 different items are looked at. That strikes me as quite a big sample. Obviously some prices rise faster than others. I do not know what specific foodstuffs the noble Lord himself buys in the shops. He will know, for example, that tea, cake, fish, sugar and preserves have all risen in price by more than the all-items retail prices index or even the food component, whereas coffee, vegetables, butter, beef and lamb have gone up by considerably less than the all-items retail prices index or the food component.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord give me the name and address of his grocer, because where I go to shop all the prices have gone up irrespective of the stated rate of inflation? I should like the names and addresses of the places mentioned. Is he satisfied that the weighting given to the price of foodstuffs in the retail prices index adequately reflects the hardships being faced by pensioners and others on low and fixed incomes? Can he do something about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think it would serve any purpose to tell the noble Lord where I buy my own food. The retail prices index covers a great many areas and a great many prices. As I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, some prices rise faster than others. The weighting of food in the retail prices index is some 15 per cent. Twenty years ago or so the weighting was 25 per cent. As a result of surveys conducted every year by the family expenditure survey, the weighting is adjusted to reflect the average expenditure on food by the average family.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Welsh lamb is a particularly good buy at the present time?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have the figure somewhere for the increase in the price of lamb. I understand that in April home killed lamb came down by 3 per cent.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that where the Minister buys his food, including Welsh lamb, is immaterial. However, is he aware that there has been some controversy over the best way to measure inflation? The controversy relates to questions of statistical validity as well as of accuracy. Is he further aware that the Governor of the Bank of England has argued recently that it would be helpful to make more use of a measure which reflects what is happening now? In the light of that, will he confirm that, by using the underlying rate of inflation or those measures that reflect what is happening now, the rate of inflation rose last month?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, we are talking purely about the food component in the retail prices index. The year on year figure for April was 0.6 per cent. I admit that in the previous year it was 5.7 per cent. The underlying trend for the food component is still down. It came down from 6.9 per cent. last November, to 6.6 per cent. in December and to 6 per cent. this month.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in his original Answer the noble Lord used what struck me as an interesting and resonant phrase. He said that the statistic was "soundly based and robust". I have since been contemplating that. Can he tell us exactly what "robust" means in relation to a statistic?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was trying to get over the point that no index will ever precisely reflect the spending of every individual. The noble Lord may go to a different grocer from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. That grocer might charge different prices. The noble Lord might also buy more expensive food or more expensive wine, the prices of which might again increase faster than the all-items index. For that reason the index we have could be described as robust.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has been kind enough to say that the foodstuffs index has no statistical accuracy. While accepting the fact that the Family Expenditure Survey gives a proper indication of weighting, will he not admit, as the testing of prices of foodstuffs in the shops as a result of that survey and of the CSO techniques has no statistical accuracy, that that is a false basis upon which to incorporate anything into the retail prices index?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. I did not say that it had no statistical accuracy; I said that it was not possible to state its accuracy in conventional statistical terms.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what is the difference between the two statements?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should have thought that that was perfectly clear.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister correct himself? He said that the price increase over the past month was 0.6 per cent. whereas later, according to his own figures, he said that it was 6 per cent. Further, will he answer the question I put to him: are the Government acting on the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in another place?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am delighted to correct myself; of course, it should have been 6 per cent. rather than 0.6 per cent. Moreover, I can tell the noble Lord that we have made improvements to price collection during the past year. There has been an increase of about 20 per cent. in the number of locally collected prices. There has also been greater training, supervision and quality control as regards those collecting prices.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister address himself to the vital question? The Public Accounts Committee is highly dissatisfied with, and highly critical of, the present system. The RPI is of interest to many people, organisations, industries and trades. When the committee makes such a statement, would it not at least be reasonable for the Government to consider the question of whether there ought to be a thorough examination as to how the RPI works and how it is collated?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe I answered that point when responding to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I said that improvements had been made to price collection. Moreover, as I said earlier, the index will never reflect every individual's personal experience. It is a robust figure, but one which will represent the average for all people.

Wild Birds and the Pet Trade
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to prevent the import of captive wild birds for the pet trade.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government recognise the growing concern about trade in birds and other wildlife species. We have therefore asked our scientific advisers to review the evidence as to whether the trade in wild-taken plants and animals is compatible with maintaining species at satisfactory levels. The results will assist us in considering whether any changes in existing controls are required.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am encouraged by the Minister's Answer. However, can she please explain who the official advisers will be? For example, will it be the concern of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee? If so, who will foot the bill? As I understand it, the JNCC's allocations for the present year have already been made and are thought to be inadequate. Therefore, are the Government making

433
extra money available? Given the fact that for every live bird imported into this country at least three die after capture, there is an urgency about the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the statistic just quoted by the noble Baroness requires scientific evidence to support it. We know that 13 per cent.—that is 13 in every 100 and not three in every four (75 in every 100) —is in fact the case, as stated by MAFF. If there is scientific evidence to support the noble Baroness's statistic, we should be most pleased to see it.
The Government have commissioned an independent study which is to be carried out jointly by Kew Gardens and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I understand that the commission has been accepted. However, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness as to the specific funding arrangements.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider increasing the level of training given to Customs and Excise officials so as to help them in identifying species of wild birds being illegally imported?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that there is a particular problem in this respect. However, if there is, we hope that it will be revealed during the course of the study.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to an earlier question in which she mentioned the need for scientific study of the problem, will she accept that an increase in the quarantine period from, say, 35 days to 60 days might assist? I say that because that is the time during which the shock of the importation procedure causes the greatest number of deaths.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important for me to repeat that we are most concerned about proper implementation of the convention on the import of wild birds. Therefore, if that is a problem, we hope that that fact will also be revealed during the course of the study.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the European Community has prohibited the trapping trade and the export of native wild birds to supply the pet trade, it allows the importation of large numbers of wild-caught birds from outside the EC? Is she also aware that the Community is the world's largest market in this respect? It imports more than 1.5 million birds each year. Therefore, is it right that the UK should be involved as an importer, and also as a middle man, for birds passing through to other countries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said, it is most important to have scientific evidence to support some of the statements which have been made. Last year, 180,000 birds were imported, of which 13 per cent. either died in transit or during the quarantine period. Clearly, the situation needs to be looked at and such numbers reduced. However, the European Community is now considering whether to produce a
434
regulation which would enable member states to restrict imports of species which do not travel well or which are unlikely to survive in captivity. The Government are considering which species should he covered by such a regulation.

Test Ban Treaty Conference: UK Position
3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who were the delegates from the United Kingdom present at the meeting held in New York in January 1991 at which a comprehensive test ban treaty was discussed; and why these delegates voted with the United States delegation against further attempts to achieve such a treaty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the UK delegation to the Partial Test Ban Treaty Amendment Conference consisted of the deputy head and one member of the UK delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and two members of the UK mission to the United Nations in New York. The delegation made clear that in our view the Conference on Disarmament provides the most appropriate forum for discussion on nuclear testing issues and therefore we were unable to support moves to resume the work of the PTBTAC.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the informative aspect of his Answer. However, as regards policy, is it not rather absurd for the Government to continue to take the position that they are in theory in favour of a test ban treaty while, at the same time, appearing not to be prepared to take steps actually to discuss the matter? They are getting themselves into the position where 75 countries vote in favour and only two against. Ought not the Government to try to avoid that position?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. As I said in my original Answer, we believe that the conference on disarmament is the best forum for discussions on the issue. Our view remains that a comprehensive test ban is a long-term goal of the Government.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that rather than make objections on procedural grounds, the British Government would do better to say that they need to retain the option to test in order to test the new Trident warheads?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have never hidden from anyone the fact that UK security will depend partly on some kind of deterrence; that is, the possession of nuclear weapons.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the announcement by President Mitterrand today, that France is to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is extremely encouraging? Does that not stimulate Her Majesty's Government and other governments who are not parties to the comprehensive test ban treaty to consider what steps

435
they should take? Is it now the case that China is the only country which has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If so, what steps will Her Majesty's Government and their allies take to ensure that China becomes a signatory as well?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises a most important point. We give a wholehearted welcome to the news from France today. It goes to prove the point that the Question phrased by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not accurate, because when France and China are not signatories to the partial test ban treaty, it is not a comprehensive measure. Of course we welcome the proposed signature by France of the non-proliferation treaty. I shall have more to say on that during the debate on the noble Lord's Motion on Wednesday.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that his first two answers to the Question would have been appropriate if, at the meeting in New York, the question under discussion had been where a complete test ban should be negotiated—that is, in what organ of the world's system it should be negotiated? Does he also agree that that was not what the vote concerned? It was not about where the ban should be negotiated but whether it should be pursued. Surely, it was not a matter of 75 countries being in favour of negotiating the ban in New York and the United States and the United Kingdom alone in favour of negotiating it in Geneva. Rather, there were 75 countries in favour of negotiating it and the US and UK alone were against negotiating it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's statement is absolutely right. I am not sure that I see the point of the question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that my noble friend has put his finger on the point? The United States and the United Kingdom give the impression that for procedural reasons—under the cloak of procedure—they conceal unwillingness. Would it not be better for them to say, "We shall want to make a caveat in respect of our own needs but nevertheless we are prepared to go forward with discussions on the principle"? At present, continual avoidance by procedural methods brings both the UK and the US Governments into disrepute.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that it brings either the United States or the United Kingdom into disrepute. As I said in my original Answer, which I am sure the noble Lord will read again carefully in the Official Report, we believe that the conference on disarmament provides the best forum in which to discuss these matters.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after the debate on the Second Reading of the British Technology Group Bill, my noble friend Lord Henley
436
will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Staffordshire Children's Home Report.

Oversea Superannuation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

British Technology Group Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The British Technology Group Bill is an enabling Bill which will permit the British Technology Group to take its place in the private sector where we think it belongs. BTG was formed in 1981 by the amalgamation of the National Research Development Corporation, founded in 1947, and the National Enterprise Board, which was established in 1975. It was charged with the primary task of translating new research ideas into commercial products. To this end, the technology transfer activities of the NRDC were developed and the role of the NEB was restricted to disposing of its existing portfolio of investments. At present the NEB is, in effect, a defunct shell (with one solitary, possibly undisposable, remaining investment) and technology transfer has become the predominant business of BTG.
Technology transfer is the movement of research ideas to an environment where they can be commercially exploited. BTG achieves this by seeking out innovations from a broad range of inventors, assisting with development, patenting where appropriate, and licensing the resulting intellectual property to industry worldwide. BTG does this with a staff of 210 worldwide and generates a turnover of around £30 million a year.
BTG is a profit-making, commercial organisation, which has been self-financing for 20 years. No element of public subsidy figures in the books. Indeed, BTG has paid dividends totalling over £30 million to the Exchequer since its formation and made tax payments during the same period of approximately £36 million. Nor has the Exchequer been the only beneficiary. Revenues generated by licensing are shared by agreement with inventors on a 50/50 basis. In 1990 BTG returned £13.1 million to the academic sector by way of revenue sharing and other moneys.
Until 1985 BTG enjoyed the right of first refusal of all publicly funded inventions when this monopoly was ended. Since then universities have been able to choose the route by which their research could be exploited. However, the ending of this monopoly did not result in the flow of technology to BTG drying up. On the contrary, it has increased since that time. In 1986 BTG registered 355 inventions; and by 1990 that figure had risen to 524.
This increase, however, has been accounted for largely by the private sector. In 1985, 9 per cent. of BTG's business came from inventions in the private sector and 66 per cent. from the academic world. By

437
1990 this had shifted to 42 per cent. from the private sector and 46 per cent. from universities and polytechnics. Some of the technologies taken on by BTG have enjoyed spectacular success. Pyrethrin pesticides have generated revenues of £94 million, the cephalosporin antibiotics a further £152 million and, more recently, exploitation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has produced £27 million, with more to come.
However, although BTG is a successful business, its activities are small when viewed in the context of the total volume of research and development in the United Kingdom. In 1990 BTG put £11 million into R&D compared with a total for the economy as a whole of £11.4 billion (made up of £4.5 billion by the Government and £6.9 billion by industry). BTG thus accounts for around 0.096 per cent., or less than one-tenth of 1 per cent., of national R&D efforts. Turnover of £30 million in 1990 compares with turnover of £21 million in 1979.
BTG's profitability has come from a commercial approach when dealing with both the innovative suppliers of technology and the industrial licensees. It is business criteria, not public interest considerations, which are taken into account when deciding which inventions to take on and which licensing arrangements to enter into.
It can be seen from what I have said that BTG has been operating more and more like any of the other technology transfer businesses that have grown up in the private sector. It has therefore become more and more unnatural to burden it with limitations which derive from its position as a public sector body. For as a public sector organisation it is obliged to operate within severely restrictive constraints. All investments above — ¼ million have to be approved by Ministers. Indeed, one of my first ministerial acts was to consider whether or not to give approval to one such investment by BTG. The salaries of board members and of senior management are set by the DTI. In addition the organisation is saddled with the extremely low external borrowing limit—even with ministerial approval—of £250,000. The rigidity imposed by these restrictions is bound to be a severe impediment in the way of the development and growth of such a business in today's markets.
It is also the case that BTG wants to develop as an international business. Some 70 per cent. of BTG's revenue now comes from overseas, with roughly 40 per cent. coming from the USA and 20 per cent. from Japan. But here again BTG's status as a public sector organisation has been found to be an obstacle to the development of the business. It has cast a shadow over prospective deals in France, Spain and the USA.
Some have said that the rules should be changed. But BTG is a public body which has to be accountable in the normal way for a body in the public sector. We cannot have one rule for BTG and another rule for the rest. In short BTG will be able to take up more opportunities, more quickly, both here and abroad, and provide better services to both suppliers and buyers of technology once it has been placed in the private sector.
438
Let me turn to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 is the key clause in the Bill. It vests all the property, rights and liabilities of the National Research Development Corporation and the National Enterprise Board into a Companies Act company, which is referred to throughout the Bill as the successor company. All the shares in the successor company will be owned by the Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will then be in a position, with Treasury consent, to privatise BTG by selling the government shares in the successor company. Clause 2 extinguishes the corporation's statutory reserve and the board's public dividend capital to be replaced by the government's shareholding. Clause 3 provides for the creation of this initial Government shareholding in the successor company.
Clauses 4 to 6 deal with the subsequent treatment of this government shareholding and its sale. Clause 4 is essentially a contingent provision which allows the Government, with the consent of the Treasury, to obtain further securities in the successor company, if this should prove necessary; and Clause 5 empowers the Government to appoint nominees to hold its securities. Clause 6 will limit the government shareholding, as a proportion of all the ordinary voting rights, to the level at which it stands after privatisation. Clause 7 provides for the creation of a statutory reserve, and thus for the establishment of an appropriate mix of securities and reserves, and also for continuity of accounts.
Clause 8 provides for loans to be made by the Government to the successor company, should the need arise, in the period between vesting and privatisation. If this power were used, such loans would have to be repaid before privatisation. But I should add that at present BTG has no outstanding loans from government of any kind; nor does the Bill in any way involve subsidies or the writing off of debts. Clause 9 is another contingent provision, which empowers the Government to restrict the successor company's borrowing in the national interest by means of a provision in the articles of association of the successor company. Clause 10 provides for both the corporation and the board to continue, if necessary, for some time after the successor company is established. This could be necessary in order for them to assist with the transfer of all their assets to the successor company.
Clause 11 deals with tax matters and Clauses 12 to 17 make further supplementary provisions of a technical nature, which I will not delay your Lordships by describing. However, for those who are interested, my department has made available in the Printed Paper Office detailed Notes on Clauses explaining the provisions of the Bill.
Turning to the schedules to the Bill, Schedule 1 provides for the corporation and the board to do anything necessary to assist in the vesting of their property, rights and liabilities in the successor company. It also, most importantly, makes it clear that all existing agreements and contracts, including those affecting employees and their pensions, will continue in force after vesting, and that the only effect of the Bill on such agreements and contracts will be to

439
substitute the name of the successor company for that of the corporation and board. Continuity in the business and employment affairs of BTG is an important issue, and Schedule 1 is designed to deal with it. Schedule 2 provides for the repeal of all legislation which currently regulates or refers to the corporation or the board, and Schedule 3 makes various transitional provisions.
I should now like to leave the provisions of the Bill which will pave the way for the privatisation of BTG, and turn to the question of how that privatisation is to be achieved. Noble Lords will be aware that my honourable friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs announced in another place on 12th February that the Government had appointed Price Waterhouse to provide the Government with financial advice on the options for sale open to the Government.
Price Waterhouse has now delivered its report on the options for privatising BTG, and that report is being studied by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. No sale option has been ruled out at this stage. The Government share the concerns of those who want to see BTG's activities continued after privatisation. At the same time the Government see it as their duty to maximise the return to the taxpayer. Accordingly Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to maximise the net return to the taxpayer, consistent with a good prospect of the continuation of BTG's technology transfer activities. How best to ensure this continuation whether it should be by way of the articles of association or in the contract of sale or by some other means—will to a large extent depend on the nature and identity of the purchaser. Whether the Government should retain a special or golden share to safeguard certain provisions in the articles of association of the successor company for a limited period is likewise a matter which the Government are presently considering. In doing so we will need to bear in mind our position in European Community discussions on unequal voting structures under the proposed fifth company law directive. As far as the timing of the privatisation is concerned, this will take place as soon as practicable after the Bill becomes law.
It has been alleged in some quarters that the Government's wish to privatise BTG demonstrates a desire on the part of the Government to wash their hands of any future involvement in British technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government place great emphasis on the need for innovation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave an important speech on this topic on 21st May at Warwick University. In it my right honourable friend identified competition as being the main motive force behind innovation. He also singled out as a particular British weakness our failure to exploit commercially the huge investment in the public sector science base. The Government have given priority to this field, seeking where they can to create the right environment for innovation and its commercial exploitation. The Government spend some £3 billion a year on civil R&D, and of this the DTI expects to have spent more than £300 million to encourage industrial R&D and technology transfer in 1990–91.
440
In fact, far from this Government having neglected technology, UK government funded R&D as a percentage of GDP is on the same level as that of Germany and the USA, and at twice the level of Japan. What has tended to be low by international standards has been British industry's investment in R&D. In 1983 this stood at 0.9 per cent. of GDP compared to 1.3 per cent. of GDP in the USA. But this is something that has been rising fast. Between 1983 and 1989 British industry's own funding of R&D grew by 50 per cent. in real terms. This is a development this Government will continue to encourage.
In conclusion, there was once no doubt a need for BTG to be in the public sector. There is no longer such a need. The universities and other public sector organisations have now many other ways of exploiting their inventions. Many have successfully set up their own companies or have created joint ventures or reached other agreements with industry. As I hope I have shown, privatisation will give BTG a chance to burst out of the shackles which have held it back. BTG is on course to provide a modest but not insignificant addition to the long and proud trail of companies, now approaching 50 strong, whose progress from the public to the private sector has formed one of the success stories of the past decade. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Reay.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, my first duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. I congratulate him most sincerely and I wish him every reasonable success in his endeavours. I hope the House will not think me churlish if I inform the noble Lord that he is the fifth Minister from the DTI that I have had the honour to address across the Table since I commenced my responsibilities as the Opposition spokesman for trade and industry in 1986. Your Lordships will be quick to work out that the average tenure of office for a Minister on the Benches opposite within the Department of Trade and Industry is one year. Arithmetically, therefore, the noble Lord's term of office will end in June 1992. That may be an interesting date for all of us.
I am sorry that the Minister had to introduce a Bill in such defensive terms. It is a Bill which in itself is difficult to justify. I shall come later to why it is difficult to justify. The noble Lord devoted a great deal of his speech to defending the Government's record on research and development. Indeed, it was not the Government's record but industry's record. He said that everything was getting better. As numbers of reports flowing from your Lordships' Select Committee have not failed to point out, over the past several years the Government have had a very poor record on this issue. It is sad that at this particular time the Government should introduce this Bill which will make that record worse.
I agree with the Minister that over the years the British Technology Group has performed what I regard as an essential service. It is a technology

441
transfer service for the British research community —for academic research and publicly-funded research. Everyone would agree that it has done so extremely well, without any direct charge to the Exchequer. A patent is registered. The return is 50 per cent. to BTG and 50 per cent. to the inventor. The funds for the development of the invention are put in by BTG on the back of successful patents which BTG holds.
Large companies obviously have their own facilities for doing that. One of their inventors in a laboratory creates a new product. Nobody knows at that point whether or not it is a commercially viable product. However, large companies have facilities for drafting patent applications and for the development of ideas to the point where they are commercially saleable. They have money and the lawyers to enforce the licences which are given to industry under those patents. Therefore, in the case of large companies I agree with the noble Lord that BTG has no particular function.
However, in the case of individuals, whether in universities, government laboratories, polytechnics or involved in research funded by research councils, no such facilities exist automatically. In his speech the Minister said that a number of companies have grown up. There have been joint ventures between universities and private enterprise and a certain number of patent agencies have become expert in this business. However, to my knowledge none of those companies offers as comprehensive a facility as BTG.
There is encouragement for the research community not only to continue with research but to feel that they can enjoy the financial fruits of their research and receive a proper reward. At the same time there is no cost to the Exchequer. Indeed, BTG has built up substantial financial reserves which will be useful in the exploitation of future patents. Some 8,200 patents have been accumulated by BTG since its foundation under the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in 1949.
What happens elsewhere? In the EC, on the whole those services are provided by state-owned or state-subsidised entities. France has a state-owned enterprise called ANVAR which provides technology transfer in the same way as BTG. Germany has the Frauershofer Gesellschaft, which is heavily subsidised by the government. Denmark has a public body which does the same thing. Even Japan has formed a body on the lines of our old NRDC. The question that your Lordships have to ask yourselves is why it is proposed to privatise in the first place.
In previous privatisation Bills it has been argued that there will be increased competition. However, as the Minister himself pointed out, since 1985 there has already been increased competition and anyone has the right to set up in competition with BTG. Therefore, that cannot be a serious argument for this proposal.
Will there be greater access to funds for the development of scientific inventions? That is not needed. BTG has plenty of reserves and a good cash flow from existing successful patents. Will there be a substantial return to the Treasury? By any reasonable
442
estimate the Treasury will cash in £35 million to £40 million on the sale of this enterprise, which in the context of the public accounts is nothing more than peanuts.
So why are the Government pressing this? Perhaps the answer to that question came in Standing Committee in the other place when it was admitted by the government spokesman that it was the management of BTG which was pressing for it. The noble Lord went some way towards acknowledging that when he said that it would be free from the shackles of government control and all the usual things that we hear in relation to privatisations.
We have in front of us a Bill which enables the Government to sell off an asset which is reasonably valuable in financial terms but which is immensely valuable in terms of research in the academic community. The Government propose to do so without having consulted the inventors who have patents with BTG, without having consulted the staff, without having consulted the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and knowing now that 75 per cent. of BTG staff oppose privatisation.
The Government have to put forward some serious arguments in favour of privatisation. I assume that the serious arguments were contained in a report which was commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand in 1988. I am told that that report was submitted to the Government some time ago. I have asked a Question for Written Answer as to whether that report will be published. I am told that it contains commercially sensitive information. I should like to ask the Minister today whether he will publish that report before we reach Committee stage, omitting the commercially sensitive information and publishing only the conclusions. I believe that the conclusions will tell against the Government.
If the Government are determined to privatise and to go ahead on whatever basis may be convenient for them, let us look at the Bill before us. It is, after all, only an enabling Bill. It simply provides for vesting. Certain ministerial assurances were given in another place. I am bound to say that some of those assurances were pretty odd. Mr. Leigh said:
"It will be for the new owners to decide exactly how to go about running the business".—[Official Report, Commons. 16/4/91; col. 196.]
Mr. Leigh said that there will be a short interval between vesting and sale. He said that there can be no undertaking about what will happen in five years' time.
Before the noble Lord goes further with this Bill, I should like to put it to him that your Lordships will require certain categorical assurances before vesting. The only assurances that are categorical are those which are on the face of the Bill. Once vesting has taken place, as the Government say and as the noble Lord repeated, the interval between vesting and sale will be short. We shall want to be sure that the independence and integrity of the business remains. The only way to ensure that is to have some residual role for the Secretary of State. ,
We shall want to be sure that' there can be no question of asset stripping and patents being sold off without any consultation with the inventors, solely for

443
the purpose of short-term profits. We shall want to make sure that there is no trade sale. We shall want to make sure that the articles of association of the company in which the organisation is to be vested are published before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House .
Finally, we shall want to make sure that the protection of the staff, to which the Minister referred, will be properly enshrined in the Bill because they are the real asset of the BTG. It is not enough just to talk about employees' pension rights and entitlements. All that must happen before vesting because once vesting has taken place Parliament will cease to have any control over what the Government do. If we pass the Bill in its present form, we shall pass a blank prospectus.
The Minister devoted part of his speech to the form of privatisation. I tried to take notes while he was speaking, but I did not get the impression from my notes—I remain to be corrected by the noble Lord when he winds up—that the Government's thinking had moved forward since the Third Reading of the Bill in another place. He told us that they would ensure that there was a good prospect that the new, privatised organisation would carry on the business of BTG as it exists at the moment. He told us that there was a good prospect—not a very good prospect, not an excellent prospect, not a sure prospect, but a good prospect. He told us that the Government were committed to innovation. I have read the speech made by the Secretary of State at Warwick and confess that I did not find in it anything particularly novel or interesting.
We have heard talk of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals having a small stake in the new enterprise. We have heard talk of a trust and of a financial institution taking over the whole thing. I do not know where we are at the moment, but I hope that the Minister it is his difficult task—will be able: to reassure your Lordships before the Bill leaves our House that the Government's thoughts on those matters are much clearer than they appear to be at the moment.
Nothing that I have said should be taken to imply that we are in any sense in favour of the Bill. For a Government who profess an interest in technological advance, research and development, pushing forward the leading edge of technology and knowledge, this is fundamentally a retrograde measure. Their record on the subject is bad enough without now introducing a new element of uncertainty into the area of university academic development and its commercial application.
The problem is that the proposal is ill-thought out and, as such, extremely damaging. My advice to the Minister as regards this, his first Bill—I am trying to be sympathetic to his role—is therefore to consider precisely what amendments to the Bill he is prepared to accept so that your Lordships may know exactly what vie are approving when the Bill leaves this House. However, unless and until he can give us that reassurance and can tell us fully, cleanly and clearly exactly what the Government intend to do by way of
444
sale, my second piece of advice to him is to drop the Bill entirely and come back to us when he is properly prepared.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we too thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. This is a Bill in respect of which we must listen carefully to what the Government tell us of their intentions because the Bill itself tells us so little. It deals merely with the mechanics of the transfer of the group's assets and liabilities to the successor company. Reading the Bill, one learns nothing about the future of the group, save that it is obscure. Even now, having heard the Minister and read the debates in another place, we know little about the shape, functions or objectives of the new company. No model is put before us and I strongly suspect that no model will be put before us.
It is common ground that the work done by the group is of considerable value to the research community, that the group is both profitable and successful in what it does and that it has been truly competitive since 1985. I do not propose to argue the pros and cons of privatisation. Opinions are apparently divided even within the group itself, although I doubt whether much positive good can come of it in this case. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in asking why the Government are so coy about giving us even edited highlights of the Coopers and Lybrand report. Putting aside partisan and dogmatic arguments, it behoves us to listen to and ventilate the concerns of those who know best the work of the group and the true value of its experience, expertise and organisational strengths. Those who know best are those most directly affected by what is proposed: the universities and other research bodies and the staff of the BTG.
We shall not persuade the Government not to privatise. My own profession tried to argue that, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it". Reading the calls surrounding the Bill to respect the integrity, impartiality and independence of the group, I was inescapably reminded of the calls of the legal profession when faced with recent reforms not seen to be for the better. That led me on to wonder whether, as with the legal profession, the best of the old could be ensured by a variant of the cab rank rule so that the successor company was obliged to support the kind of work which the BTG now does well and which the successor company might otherwise shed or allow to wither.
The concern that has been expressed is not about what the Bill says but about the great deal that it does not say. That concern does not appear to have been allayed by the generalities expressed in another place. It is a concern produced by entirely reasonable fear of the unknown. Under the Bill this valuable organisation will, on an unknown day, become the property of an unknown company or of unknown nominees. There is to be merely consultation with the existing board and corporation, the process of which might be cursory and the result of which will not be binding. It is perfectly natural for fear of the unknown to he fear of the worst—the worst being sale to a ruthless asset-stripping monopoly. Furthermore, the whole

445
procedure under the Bill will depend on a series of ministerial orders and directions. The sense of uncertainty cannot be good for the business of the group or the morale of its staff who must be quite dismayed to find themselves in the political arena.
I do not propose to take time on Second Reading with the detail of the Bill, but I ask the Minister why it is necessary to have in Clause 1(5) provision for an order to revoke or vary the appointed day or nomination of a company for the purposes of the Bill. Is it envisaged that the day will be appointed or a company nominated and then, before the decision is put into effect, the Government will have second thoughts and will want to revoke or vary the order? What on earth is envisaged by that provision?
If it is common ground that the group's work is of value and in the public interest, we should not allow the group to be sold unconditionally to the highest bidder. I therefore suggest that the more important decisions to be made under the Bill should be brought to Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure for the Government to explain their thinking and the merits of any specific transactions then proposed.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in urging a number of safeguards. There should be long-term safeguards for the future to ensure that the breadth, quantity and quality of the group's work is preserved. The Government and anyone who has read about the proposals will know the anxiety to have some formal preservation of the role of the universities and similar bodies in whatever future organisation comes into being.
The Government will also know of the considerable anxiety to protect and encourage speculative and innovatory research which may not be specific to the needs or interests of the commercial backer or may not be short term enough for such a backer. Surely we must protect such research, which may not require considerable funding. It is research which indeed quite often requires comparatively modest funding in its early stages but funding which is not available elsewhere.
When one asks what guarantees there will be, one can see nothing on the face of the Bill and find little reassurance from the generalities expressed by the Government. If there are no guarantees and safeguards, there should be; and they should be on the face of the Bill. Surely the time is fast coming, if it has not already arrived, when it is not enough for the Government to say that they have an open mind and have ruled out no options. That was the refrain in another place and it appears to have been taken up by the noble Lord the Minister in this House.
The time has come when the Government must crystallise their thinking and allow assurances to be in enforceable form on the face of the Bill. This is a piece of the family silver which is useful as well as valuable.
3.41 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House on the subject of this Bill, which I welcome, it might be helpful if I indulge in a
446
little narrative about the climate into which the National Research Development Corporation was born. It was born in the aftermath of the groundnut fiasco. None of your Lordships under the age of 60 has probably any political recollection of that fiasco. It was an over-ambitious scheme sponsored by the government of the day to grow monkey-nuts in Tanganyika. No pilot study was ever undertaken. The scheme was launched prematurely and failed dismally at considerable cost to the public purse.
In the aftermath of the atmosphere of distrust of government interference in industrial matters, it became the responsibility of the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Harold Wilson, now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, whom I was glad to see in his place at Question Time. No doubt he will read this debate tomorrow, since he is not present at the moment. Because of that general atmosphere of distrust, the Government made concessions concerning the form of the Development of Inventions Act, which proved very embarrassing later on, and there was an amending Act which made my life a lot easier.
The usual protocol when setting up a quango is for the Minister and his advisers to approach a potential chairman to secure his willingness to act. The chairman and the ministry then proceed to choose a board and the board appoints a managing director from among its number. That normal protocol failed in the case of the Development of Inventions Act because no one thought suitable to be a chairman was willing to take on the job in the prevailing atmosphere of distrust. However, it was agreed that I might be a suitable person to act as managing director and I was therefore given the unusual position of managing director designate and adviser to the Board of Trade on matters connected with the formation of the National Research Development Corporation.
That was very acceptable to me. With the President of the Board of Trade I was able to pick a team with which I thought I would work well and which would work well with me. We held our first board meeting on 28th June and on 30th June I flew to America to license IBM on the Manchester University computer patents. All the early IBM machines were made under licence from the National Research and Development Corporation under an agreement which I negotiated.
One of the embarrassments was that the amendment accepted by the President of the Board of Trade was that development should be entrusted to a firm engaged in the industry concerned. Nobody foresaw that there might be no "industry concerned". There was no computer industry into which I could, as it were, feed our computer patents. Three computers were under construction: one at Manchester University, one at Cambridge University and a small one at Birkbeck College. The last mentioned left no descendants; the other two did.
There being no firm engaged in the industry concerned, what was I to do? I stretched my terms of reference to the utmost. I shall deal with that point later, but I was rapped over the knuckles on various occasions. The relationship between the Government and the NRDC was never a love relationship. Each was somewhat of an embarrassment to the other. A

447
divorce is now proposed. The Government want it, the directors of BTG want it and I, too, bless it. In the event of the divorce I can only say: BTG is dead, long live BTG plc! The question is not so much one of a divorce but of a remarriage. We must arrange the remarriage in such a way that NRDC, renamed BTG for all practical purposes, will continue.
I have received notice of a very constructive suggestion by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to the effect that the future shareholding in NRDC should be a consortium of academic entities. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that creative suggestion and respond in favourable terms to my plea that it should be taken seriously.
A little while ago BTG was given a directive which has been met completely. I shall not offer too many figures to your Lordships. I take these from the last published annual report. The products made under licence from NRDC-BTG now reach an annual turnover of £1.5 billion. The revenues accruing to BTG are £29.5 million. Profits were £9.5 million, after recirculating £13.5 million to the sources of their inventions either as development contracts for the future or as royalties earned by the inventors under agreements in which royalties are split between them. I was a party to the very first model agreement on those lines. The dividend to the Government last year was approximately £4 million. It is therefore a going concern.
On 16th April last, the Minister in charge of the Bill made the point, which was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that:
"It will he for the new owners to decide exactly how to go about running the business and what areas to expand into". [Official Report, Commons, 16/4/91; col. 196.]
That is utter rubbish. Shareholders do not tell directcrs how to manage a business. They cannot; they are a continually labile population. They appoint the directors to run the business in their interests. Can one imagine the shareholders in the Ford Motor Company telling the management of the company what the next model of the Ford Escort ought to be like? They would never come to any agreement at all. The statement is complete rubbish.
With regard to the second marriage, on the due date the Government will use their powers to become a shareholder. To do that they must write the articles of association. One cannot have a public limited company without a memorandum and articles of association. So in due course the Government must do that. About what then are we anxious? We are anxious that the Government will in fact themselves choose the next marriage behind the scenes, back stage, and will then concert the memorandum and articles of association with the future spouse. Parliament will then be landed with a fait accompli that nothing can shift. That is not good enough. The staff are anxious on all these counts. Anxiety is not good for morale. Lowered morale is not good for heightened performance. For all those reasons, while I bless the Bill, I must put the Minister on notice that I may have amend-rents to propose in Committee.
I now turn to another matter on which I have to declare an interest. I am a pensioner of the old NRDC. It pays me a pension of approximately £4,000 a year.
448
I have the status of a retired public servant. Every other pensioner has that same status. That means that whatever provision is made to counter inflation for retired public servants NRDC can follow suit. When I refer to NRDC, it is habit. BTG is a merger of the NRDC and the NEB. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, pointed out, NRDC has proved the dominant factor in that merger.
I wish to continue to be treated as a retired public servant. I served that body for 10 years. I left on my tenth year because I did not seem to have an option between staying on for 25 years or redeploying myself aged 50. One cannot redeploy oneself as one's age increases. It seemed to me that it was not in the public interest for anyone to occupy the position of chief executive for a quarter of a century. One is bound to end up in a condition of complacency. I did not think that it was fair to me to bind myself to continue when I could not have a chance of redeploying myself until after 50. I told everyone that I would leave after 10 years. No one believed me. They were all taken by surprise when I handed in my notice.
I speak not only as probably the senior pensioner of NRDC but on behalf of all other pensioners. They want a guarantee from the Government that their status will be preserved.
The pension fund—an independent trust—is in good health. The actuarial evaluation of its liabilities is considerably overpassed by the value of its assets. There is no particular danger of the trustees not being able to meet their obligations. What is at stake is this: what are those obligations? Do we continue as retired public servants with the benefit of whatever other public servants receive as funded by their pension fund; or do we not? In speaking in these terms, I have declared my interest in the matter. I wish to continue as a retired public servant. Why should I not? I have been a public servant for very much longer than those years because I have done many voluntary jobs for many years and have enjoyed them.
I am afraid that I have spoken one minute over the 10 minutes that I allow myself on these occasions. I hope that what I have said will inform the debate and enable your Lordships to form a just judgment of the merits and demerits of what is now before us.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I too am unable to speak against the principle of privatisation, as was the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but more particularly since I attach, as he knows, more importance than he does to getting rid wherever possible of the dead hand of the Treasury from innovation. However, that does not mean that I am without reservations on the Bill which are not dissimilar to those which have been voiced by noble Lords who have spoken.
The Government have either not made up their mind what they wish to do in the future, or they have made up their mind but do not wish to reveal it. One of those alternatives must be the case, otherwise we would have before us a detailed account of what the successor company is likely to be, its obligations to government and society at large, and the safeguards in its articles of association.

449
Why should these details be kept secret? Are the Government torn between their fidelity, expressed by the Secretary of State, to the idea that Britain ought to do more and be better in the field of industrial technological innovation and the hope—again the Treasury's ugly head rears itself —that they might receive a little more money from some buyer who was prepared to be an asset stripper on a large scale? That might be a buyer with no allegiance to this country or its future since we are not even assured that foreign bidders would be out of the running.
I believe that this is an important matter. I have studied with care the debates in another place, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I have rarely read a Minister's replies which were so unsatisfactory in reference to the core issue. I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance, however uncomfortable it may be. It would be well if he were to take this point on board. Whether or not the presentation of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, of the position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is acceptable, or whether there is some other way in which the university interest can be maintained, the Government at present run the risk of being thought an enemy of universities and of research.
As noble Lords echoed in a debate just before the Recess, and has been said in other debates in your Lordships' House, there has been a rundown in the allocation for research. Burdens have been put upon universities in other ways which cramp their activities. I do not know why this Government should be hostile to universities. Most of their Ministers are the product of universities. Perhaps they all had a bad time! However, they certainly give the impression of being hostile to universities.
I take a particular example in the defence of the Bill. It is said that it is no longer important that BTG should exist as a way of enabling universities and other such institutions to cash in on their discoveries because other methods are open to them. It is true that a university can employ an expensive firm of patent agents or it can enter into a partnership with a private sector company. All those avenues are perfectly possible. But they are less desirable because they involve the universities expending already limited funds on undertaking activities for which adequate machinery already exists. The staff of BTG has been referred to by other noble Lords. BTG has expertise in this difficult and competitive field both in this country and, perhaps even more importantly, overseas which could not be at the command of a single university unless it were to employ at the level of BTG. That would hardly be an appropriate use of university funds.
I cannot understand why there is no wish by Government to say, "We shall privatise it. There are arguments for putting this area in the private sector; but at the same time we shall ensure that this invaluable service to universities and other research institutions is guaranteed". Whether it is guaranteed by the setting up of a trust which would have a controlling shareholding or by the interposition of the
450
Government through a golden share are technical matters on which other noble Lords are better qualified than me to advise Her Majesty's Government. I can only say that it is no use the Minister saying, as his colleague said in another place, that "all this will be revealed in due time". That is how the South Sea Bubble was launched. The due time is when a Bill is before your Lordships' House. We are entitled to know the purpose of the Bill. That can be done only if we are told about the conditions that are to be imposed on the purchaser of the new group. If we are not told, the Minister will find that the opposition to the further progress of the Bill will by no means come only from Opposition Benches.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is with hesitation that I rise to speak, not because I am not a scientist but because I am genuinely baffled by the Bill. I do not know why it has been introduced nor why it is being pressed. It has been described as being "quite unnecessary" by one vice-chancellor; "As it is not broken don't mend it", said another vice-chancellor; "Deplorable", said a plant geneticist; "Utterly perverse", said an eminent mathematical physicist; "Wrong", said the inventor of pyrethrine; "I fear for the consequences", said the inventor of M RI.
Then who wants the Bill? Certainly it is not the academic community, the research councils or the hospitals, all of whose intellectual property BTG patents and promotes. Certainly the inventors do not want it, because if they wanted a different type of technology transfer company they would not have gone to BTG in the first place. Nor do 75 per cent. of the staff want it; nor does any siren voice in the City, whether financial consultants such as Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse. Who, then, wants the Bill, apart from perhaps a handful of senior staff members?
If not who, my second question is why? As my noble friend Lord Williams has asked, is it that the company is producing such profits that its sale is a significant source of privatisation revenues to the Government? Hardly; the company is valued at between £30 million and £55 million within a margin of error of most departmental budgets. Is the company instead making considerable losses subsidised by the taxpayer which could instead be turned around by the private sector? Hardly; BTG makes a tidy and increasing profit, half of which, net, goes to the Treasury. It is clear that the taxpayer gains more from the current flow of revenues than is likely to be received from any proceeds of sale. Is the company perhaps a complacent monopoly, uncompetitive, its clogged arteries impeding the transfer of technology to our industry? Hardly; since 1985 it has operated commercially, competitively and in entrepreneurial fashion. It has become the biggest and best technology transfer company in the world, emulated in France, Germany and Japan.
Then perhaps the company's customers, the inventors and the owners of our intellectual property are unhappy and are seeking a different structure. Hardly; since 1985 universities have had a choice of

451
where to go. One or two universities, such as Imperial College, have set up their own companies, but 50 universities, 17 polytechnics and eight medical schools have made BTG their preferred choice. As the University of Kent said:
"After several years doing our own patenting and licensing we, at the University of Kent, have become absolutely convinced that this is not a cost effective way for a university to proced… The BTG route is much to be preferred".
Or, as was said by the vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia, BTG:
"are responsive, efficient and prepared to take a risk, and in addition are profitable. They have our confidence: so why change it?"
That vice-chancellor, Professor Burke, should know; he helped to invent and develop Interferon. Do their views count for so little?
Perhaps wisely the Government have not advanced, or have not been able to advance, any of those arguments for the privatisation of BTG. In another place they offered only two arguments. The first was that civil servants are unable to pick winners; only businessmen can do that. The second argument was repeated by the Minister this afternoon: that BTG is hampered by restraints placed on public sector bodies. I doubt whether either of those arguments need detain the House for long this afternoon.
As regards the first argument, that civil servants cannot pick winners, I must point out that we are not talking about different people running BTG after privatisation. Indeed, the scientific community fear that different decisions made after privatisation will be worse and not better because they will be influenced by commercial short-termism. As regards the second argument, that BTG is hampered by restraints which are inevitable in the public sector, I draw attention to the fact that the managing director of BTG, Mr. Ian Harvey, has produced a shopping list of constraints that fall on the company.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of some of them. The Government have refused to allow BTG to participate in Link or in Alvey. The Government have refused to allow BTG to handle high-temperature super-conductors. The Government have refused to allow BTG to take over another technology transfer company on the ground of that being backdoor nationalisation. The Government have refused to promote BTG in their literature.
It will strike your Lordships that all those limitations are Government made and not God given. They have everything to do with the Government's attitude to the public sector and nothing to do with the public sector body as such. Your Lordships may think that the answer is that the Government should change their perceptions rather than change the company.
The second argument that the managing director of BTG advanced was that within the public sector BTG must ask Government permission to borrow more than £ 250,000. That figure was set in 1967 and is equivalent to £2 million at today's value. At a stroke the Government could raise that figure, and we all know that. However, we have been led to believe that that is not a real issue because BTG already has sufficient revenue flows and its main constraint is good inventions rather than a capital constraint. A further
452
argument has been advanced that as a public sector body the Government fix salaries but that senior management will wish to be free to fix its own. Your Lordships will give that consideration the weight that it deserves.
Finally, BTG management points to two, possibly three, potential contracts that got away. The first, in Spain, was dropped because the Spanish Cabinet would have needed to discuss the matter. The second was in France where the Quai d'Orsay raised an eyebrow. Such significant contracts were lost. They were apparently not so significant that the DTI felt impelled, required nor propelled to intervene on behalf of BTG to pursue the matter further.
Against the two contracts that may have got away —and it is not clear that the public status of BTG was the reason for their loss—must be set, first, the 140 successful overseas licensing agreements that BTG has negotiated; secondly, the access that BTG has to overseas universities, government laboratories and national agencies which favour public status bodies; and, thirdly, the additional clout that a national agency can carry over and against a small private company when it comes to enforcing patent rights. Most academics doubt whether a privatised BTG would successfully have defended its Hovercraft patents against the Pentagon.
As the University of Manchester's Institute of Science and Technology has argued:
"With a few notable exceptions which can easily be resolved by the Government, BTG has every freedom to operate nationally and internationally for the exploitation of its intellectual property base".
Quite so.
If the arguments for privatisation are so improbable and so perverse, I suggest to your Lordships that the arguments against privatisation of the company are a much more substantial and serious matter. First, we are talking about intellectual property, 75 per cent. of which has been produced by universities and research councils and 100 per cent. of which has been funded by public money. Why do the Government believe that the inventors of MRI and pyrethrine and the holder of an Interferon patent should go to and stay with BTG? Is it inertia, indifference, their ignorance, their absentmindedness, their folly or their shortsightedness? Those people who possess the intellectual property for our benefit have chosen BTG over its competitors precisely because BTG combines genuine entrepreneurial competence with a perceivable commitment to the public good. It is able to brigade the personal and private interests of the inventor, his concern for confidentiality and the proper exploitation of his products, with a wider sense of social responsibility and the anxiety that the first beneficiary should be British industry.
The scientific community is committed to the ethic of public service as well as public research. I find it quite extraordinary that the Government should value and jettison that commitment so lightly. As Lancaster University has said, several inventors have gone to BTG in the past to ensure that their ideas were licensed non-exclusively for wide benefit. In other

453
words, BTG is the organisation which those inventors would have created had they needed to. If it goes, that may need to be done again.
The scientific community has more hard-headed reasons for supporting the present structure of BTG. The Government may suggest that a private sector BTG responsible to shareholders may be even more successful. That is what the scientific community fears. Shareholders, in their quest for safe and speedy profits, will reduce the risk taking and the speculative investments with uncertain pay-offs which BTG now provides. Many patents, especially of pharmaceuticals, take 10, 15, 17 or 20 years to develop fully. MRI —body scanning—required development funding for 17 years. Few private companies will wait that long. Indeed, one need only look at British Telecom's research programme at Martlesham. Since privatisation it has become notorious in the academic world that BT now pursues only those projects which have a two-year pay-off.
BTG can also offer critical mass: 190 scientists, engineers, lawyers, patent officers and financial experts who together possess an unequalled expertise which commands academic confidence. If BTG is privatised, the academic and scientific community has real fears about its ownership, some of them having already been expressed. A trade sale could mean inventions being suppressed. An overseas sale might mean that piranha properties—Taiwan—will milk existing licences without funding research and development. If change there must be, then a trust would be preferable to other privatised options. However, it means that universities are being asked to buy rights to develop the intellectual property they already own and to buy what they cannot afford, given their straitened financial circumstances. However, if they fail to buy, their own intellectual property will be at risk.
Perhaps the Government will finance the universities to buy out BTG so that the financial proceeds may return back again to government. If that is so, why do they not invest in them now and make clear that they are vesting in them a golden share for a nominal consideration?
If BTG is privatised it will lose those features which make it so attractive to many academics and universities. If BTG loses their confidence, they will go elsewhere and the privatised company will wither and not grow. The UEA states:
"If BTG were now to be privatised and enter the private sector with no distinction in its role from that of any other short term finance venture capital company, we shall certainly reconsider our position here at UEA, since there would be no advantage in staying with BTG".
Lancaster University makes a similar comment. It states:
"there are many private sector companies doing a similar job … why create another?"
The distinctiveness of BTG is that it is a national agency, commercially run, which brigades the private and public interest. That distinctiveness is not its liability, as the Minister suggested, but is its asset and the reason that it commands the confidence of the
454
scientific community. In its present form, it adds to the plurality of outlets and opportunities. It is properly competitive and offers choice.
The universities and the scientific community do not want this change. Only 20 per cent. of universities support the Bill. The rest either want no change or the least change possible; that is, a trust. They want to know from the Minister what assurances can be given that BTG will not be divided, dismembered, disbanded and lost to the nation.
Finally, in the words of the University of Kent:
"From the point of view of the nation as a whole, it is vital that full advantage should be obtained from inventions made in this country; and a genuinely independent, comprehensive and commercially experienced service such as BTG now provides is the best, probably the only way, to prevent fruitful inventions from being lost or suppressed".
From the point of view of the nation as a whole, we ask the Minister to think again.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask, does she accept that her reference to inventions being bought up and suppressed is pure illusion from a legal point of view, because any invention patented and not being worked can be the subject of an application to the controller of the Patent Office for a licence of right?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I shall not take up more than a few moments of your Lordships' time this afternoon. I am afraid that I have nought for my noble friend's comfort this afternoon in his maiden voyage in the Department of Trade and Industry beyond a logically founded belief that it is right for BTG to seek privatisation, but the unity of voices raised this afternoon on the absolute necessity for certain key reservations to be built into the Bill is a unity which I share.
I always find it extremely difficult to disagree with the points of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Sometimes I find his lucidity dismaying when I genuinely disagree about the political platform from which he speaks. However, in this instance the way he picked up Mr. Leigh's comments in another place—and I have read those —rang all sorts of bells with me. My noble friend Lord Beloff also commented on the curious evasions in this thin and less than incisive Bill. I am no parliamentary draftsman. Perhaps of necessity an enabling Bill of this sort is as lacking in detail as is this Bill confronting us this afternoon.
For a while I thought I was to be the only voice from these Benches speaking on this Second Reading. I find that extremely distressing and possibly an insight into the views of my government friends about the importance of science and technology, again subjects touched upon my noble friend Lord Beloff. However, the Bill has my personal support and I hope that its passage into law will be smooth, although from the debate this afternoon I believe that that is a forlorn hope.
Before continuing I should declare a sort of interest. I have personal links with a profit-making scientific organisation, the founder of which is on the council of BTG.

455
Going back into the history of BTG and how it was fused out of NRDC and NEB, which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, touched upon, I must admire the skill with which the original architects left an entity to get on with its own business. I shall not repeat the figures because they are well laid out for anybody to read, but today we have an exceptionally sturdy, flexible, profitable and attractive organisation; a hybrid which could easily have been stifled by the politics which surrounded its formation.
Today BTG is a credit to its executives and it reflects credit on the foresightedness of the people who brought it into being. However, a philosophy from which will not swerve is that all organisations must evolve. We heard from the opposite Benches a series of persuasive reasons why no change should take place. But BTG is no exception to the rule that organisations must evolve or they die. BTG is now ready to migrate from state-ownership.
Anyone who knows me will have heard me often say that I have a personal distaste for ideologies, left or right. This afternoon we are in the front line of an ideological issue —I am surprised it has not been mentioned because Second Reading is surely the time to do so—as to whether a successful enterprise should be state owned. On the whole, ideologies tell us how the people who frame them think other people should behave. I prefer to watch and encourage what actually works rather than what people believe other people ought to work at. Change works and commercial freedom works. None of the events over the past two years allow for any denial of that. The rigour of profit works and BTG must be excepted from any colour of criticism—its profit record has been outstanding. The time is appropriate for the organisation to go through a thres iold of evolution, and I am glad to give my support to it today.
A subject touched upon this afternoon, but not given sufficient emphasis, is intellectual property—what it is, what it is in law and how it can help the nation. On the whole, we use BTG's terminology which is "technology transfer". In a commercial climate in which there is a decline of manufacturing, whether politically driven or simply a cycle in a society, the management of intellectual property—I make that distinction as vehemently as I can; I am not speaking of intellectual property as an entity in itself but the management of intellectual property—is a difficult skill for a society and for a company. However, it is absolutely essential in Britain today. The management of intellectual property as represented by BTG is too important to be left to the state. It is a key enabling skill. It is a key enabling activity.
The management of intellectual property is world wide. We have seen that in the track record of BTG with its increasing dependence on global rather than domestic issues. But it is still fragmented. It is an immature commercial activity. BTG owns around 3 per cent. or 4 per cent.—possibly less—of the world revenue in the management of intellectual property. That makes it twice as big as the next organisation in the word in that field. Voices were raised with regard to whether capital would be found during the privatisation process. I suggest that with those ratios
456
in front of us capital will be the least of our problems. Once BTG is released from its cage or its present hot house there is no realistic limit to what it can be. Even if it obtained 6 per cent. of the world revenue in this area, it would double its size.
I was puzzled by the pronouncements of the vice-chancellor of the committee, which I consider to be a little paranoid. I do not see why the universities' output should suddenly be blocked by BTG changing its status; quite the contrary. I suggest that its increasing flexibility and the faster speed of response which will be possible in a private environment will enhance its attraction to university intellectual output.
It is a tribute to BTG that it is often perceived as a private organisation. Material which it pointed out to us listed a few cases in which its relationship with the state and its hybrid nature prejudiced possible exploitation contracts. I prefer to regard myself as an inventor in this country. How would I feel about giving the management of intellectual property embedded in my invention into an organisation owned by, for example—I do not want to sound xenophobic —the French Government? I would be happy to give it to a French company if that company showed me that its track record and intellectual ability to resonate with what I was producing was the best possible policy. Contrary to what some noble Lords opposite said, I would feel more comfortable—I know that this opinion is shared by many people responsible for innovation—passing innovation over at an early stage to a private organisation with appropriate safeguards rather than to a state-owned organisation.
Before I sit down it may interest your Lordships to learn that today's issue of Fortune International is almost entirely dedicated to the importance of intellectual property. On the front cover it is referred to as, "America's Most Valuable Asset". As I touched on earlier, it is also an exceptionally valuable asset for this country. The opening paragraph of the key article states,
"Brain power has always been an essential asset. It is, after all, why Homo sapiens rules the roost. But it has never before been so important for business. Every company depends increasingly on knowledge—patents, processes, management skills, technologies, information about customers and suppliers, and old-fashioned experience. Added together, this knowledge is intellectual capital … Such collective knowledge is hard to identify and harder still to deploy effectively. But once you find it and exploit it, you win".
BTG, as a private entity with the safeguards built into it —I wish the Government had seen fit to spell out some of those safeguards —is in a position to win for all of us. Somebody much wiser than I said that the future that is with us now is not going to draw a distinction between the haves and the have nots, but between the knows and the know nots.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to start by echoing what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said in welcoming the Minister to the Front Bench in his new role. We think it is a deserved promotion, albeit in a dying Government, but on his baptism he can draw scant comfort from any support that he may have had so far as concerns the Bill. Even those who welcomed the Bill, like the noble Earl, Lord

457
Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, were critical and they raised a number of highly pertinent questions which I hope the Minister will be able to answer rather more fully than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said that the Bill was lacking in detail and contained no safeguards. Those views have been expressed by virtually everybody who has spoken in this debate. The Minister also had to witness a most paralysing indictment of the Bill by his noble friend Lord Beloff and by my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord Williams of Elvel.
This has been a very interesting short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his powerful indictment indicated that the Government have not made up their minds about what they want to do in the future or, alternatively, having made up their minds, they do not want to reveal their intentions. I think that that just about summarises the Government's position today. The noble Lord went on to pose the question: why did the Government care to be seen as the enemy of research and of the universities? He added that after all most of the Government Ministers are the product of universities. Perhaps in moments of introspection that may be why they are hostile to universities at the present time, having regard to the record of those self-same Ministers.
The Bill has no connection with the national interest. It is by no means inconceivable that the new entity, whatever it is, will cease to promote British interests. It has no connection with the employment interests of the BTG staff and no connection with long-term planning in order to ensure the interests of BTG's clients and the scientific community as a whole, because by its very nature it will have to become far more preoccupied with short-term considerations, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said. Coupled with that —and this was reiterated on all sides of the House —is the danger of asset stripping, which would unquestionably destroy the integrated service on which public sector research so strongly relies.
The Bill has no connection with the recommendations of the Coopers & Lybrand report. My noble friend Lord Williams and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, both asked why the Government were so coy about that report. The explanations that have been proffered in another place simply will not do. Indeed, one might well ask the question: what would have been the Government's reaction had the Coopers & Lybrand report been favourable to the Government in its conclusions? I suspect that we would then have heard no argument about confidentiality or giving undue help to those wishing to negotiate a purchase, which are pretty lame excuses for non-publication. In those circumstances everything would have been out in the open.
The Bill has no connection with the experience in Europe. Again, as my noble friend Lord Williams observed, in France, Germany and Denmark all similar companies have been able to operate perfectly well, unencumbered of course by the ideological baggage of the kind that still dominates what poses as the thinking of this Government. There is no
458
connection with the Government's own experience when they misguidedly set up defence technology enterprises—a "whizz" idea in the mid-1980s of Mr. Heseltine's. That of course was a sad precedent but it is also an unhappy augury for what they now have in mind.
Least of all does the Bill have any connection with the Government's proffered rationale for privatisation in this instance. They say that BTG has held back because it is a public sector organisation, because there are bureaucratic restraints and because in the private sector it could offer a more comprehensive service and take up rather more opportunities. This rationale, which was stated over and over again by the junior Minister in another place, is exploded by the fact that any such holding back as has occurred has been accomplished as an act of deliberate policy by this Government over the past 12 years. Despite the fact that that has happened, BTG has continued to make profits and pay dividends and has on occasion, on demand, even given extra cash to the Government.
The Bill certainly has no connection with usual legal practice. The Government have steadfastly resisted publication of the memorandum and articles of association—a point very strongly made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—on the strange and spurious grounds that they should wait and see who are to be the prospective purchasers before determining what should go into the memorandum and articles of association. To say the least, it is unusual to depart from the practice that the memorandum and articles of association should be prepared on the instructions of the promoters of a company. I have never heard of a situation in the real world where the memorandum and articles of association are prepared in consultation with or as a result of identifying the potential purchasers of the company.
The real reason for this privatisation—and the cat was well and truly let out of the bag by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place—is of course to maximise the receipts to the Treasury and also, as part of the continuing remnants of Thatcherite ideology, to privatise for the sake of privatisation. That is why they have failed or refused to consult the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals before embarking on this hard-boiled and half-baked idea. It is true that Mr. Leigh, under great pressure, saw the committee later and then all he could say was, and I quote:
"the Government would give careful consideration to the universities' favourite opinion."
Equally, as we have heard again today from the Minister, the Government have refused to rule out other options and the likelihood is that it would be the other options that would prevail. It is clear that the Government have not convinced the universities, their staffs and others that the future of their intellectual property—and the universities are the most significant single source of BTG's intellectual property—will be safeguarded and will be effectively exploited to the continuing benefit of those who, after all, are the originators of the intellectual property.

459
The Government, in their purblind state, fail to recognise the extraordinary contradiction in what they are currently bent on. That is to say, at one turn they urge the universities to maximise the commercial exploitation of their intellectual property and to procure financial support from sources other than the Government and, on the other hand, they have to maximise the returns to the Treasury. This conflict of course would be most marked if a successful bidder for BTG wanted to engage in asset stripping—that is something which has concerned a number of your Lordships this afternoon—and also for commercial reasons sought to suppress or slow down the exploitation of BTG's intellectual property. Over and over again the Government have refused to offer safeguards against any such possibilities; or even to acknowledge that they exist. Therefore, the Opposition will continue to attack what we believe to be a misconceived concept of privatisation. Assuming that the Government refuse to back down, which I believe is the rational course for them to take, we shall seek to mitigate the mischief of the Bill by seeking to introduce appropriate safeguards at Committee stage and subsequently on Report. First, we shall seek to insist on the publication of the Coopers & Lybrand report, or at the very least on a resume which excludes highly confidential information—if there is such highly confidential information. We insist on the Government being much more open than they have about t hat. For example, does the Minister agree that the Coopers & Lybrand report recommended a course completely contrary to that which the Government have now taken?
Secondly, we shall seek to insist on the publication of a satisfactory form of memorandum and articles of association to prevent any potential purchaser—not just the immediate purchaser from engaging in asset stripping. We are not prepared to give the Government a blank cheque in this regard, which is what they are asking for. Thirdly, we shall urge the retention of a special share by the Government to ensure that changes are not made to the fundamental business of BTG without the consent of the Government and, more particularly, of Parliament. This point was made most specifically by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Fourthly, we shall seek to avoid, by inserting suitable provisions in the memorandum and articles of association which ought to be before this House, deterring or instigating others in similar technical sectors from using BTG because of its possible, sale to a commercial or manufacturing undertaking. Such a trade sale or break-up sale would be inimical to its independence, impartiality and integrity so far as concerns inventors and a wide range of different companies.
Those three i's—independence, impartiality and integrity —are crucially important to inventors and a wide range of people who are deeply concerned about the Bill. We shall also seek to ensure—and this point was made by several noble Lords this afternoon—that the locus of universities in the managerial structure of any new enterprise will be properly regarded and taken account of.
460
We do not like this Bill. My noble friend Lord Williams and I have made that abundantly plain. There are very good reasons for not liking the Bill. We feel reassured by the number of noble Lords on both sides of the House who have expressed the strongest misgivings, not from the point of view of any ideological instincts but because they believe that this Bill ought not to have been brought before Parliament. It is not too late for the Bill to be rejected.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his very gracious opening personal words in which he was joined later by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; though I do not want to enter into his teasing speculations as to the length of time I am likely to be here.
We have had a short but lively debate with some very interesting contributions from all sides and some most useful markers put down for the Committee stage. I can give an assurance that I shall study carefully all the different concerns and, in some cases, warnings that have been expressed from different quarters of the House. I shall do all I can to meet what reasonable concerns there are.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, wondered what was the real reason for privatisation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I explained this very fully in my opening remarks. While self-financing and profitable, BTG is severely constrained by the obligations which rest on a public sector company and which prevent it from developing in the way it could to the advantage of customers and inventors—and perhaps even the Exchequer. As I explained, a public sector BTG has to seek permission for its principal investments from Ministers whose judgment is not necessarily the most informed or appropriate, and which only delays matters. The department must approve the salaries of senior personnel according to public sector criteria; and again that may not be the most suitable yardstick for a company operating in the free market.
The company may not in any circumstances incur external borrowings over £250,000—a fairly paltry sum for the international business BTG has a chance of becoming. Moreover, as I attempted to show, BTG has developed the habits of a commercial company. All in all, we believe these are quite sufficient reasons to justify the privatisation of BTG. BTG is successful, but we believe it could be much more successful in the private sector. It is emphatically not a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, charged, of it being privatisation for privatisation's sake.
In regard to the need for BTG to preserve its three i's, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, put it—its independence, impartiality and integrity—the Government are looking at what conditions it may be necessary to impose on the sale in order to try to meet some of the anxieties that have been expressed. As I said, no sale option has been ruled out. We are looking at measures which might be included in the sale contract or articles of association. Subject to EC law, we have not ruled out the retention of a "golden"

461
share to safeguard any provisions for a limited period. Decisions on these matters can only really be taken once the identity of the buyer is known. What protective measures are necessary will to a large extent depend on who the buyer is. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, argued we do not believe it would be sensible to try to write such measures into the Bill. For one thing, we do not see how such abstract concepts as independence, impartiality and integrity could be written into the Bill in any meaningful way. It would provide insuperable problems of interpretation. It might also prejudice the whole process of privatisation which would, in our view, be in nobody's interest. Let me repeat: we will try to maximise the net return to the taxpayer consistent with there being a good prospect for the continuation of BTG's technology transfer business. How that can best be done will very much depend on who the buyer is.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, on the question of the memorandum of articles of association, does the Minister not recognise that the practice he has now recommended, if applied to the private sector generally, would make nonsense of the way in which companies carry on their business?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was coming on to say something about the articles of association about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a specific question. As I said, we are taking that issue into account. Work has already begun on drafting the possible articles of association for the successor company. My department has recently appointed a leading firm of City lawyers to act as external legal advisers on all aspects of the sale process and it is looking closely at that particular aspect.
Noble Lords will appreciate that it is necessary to take pains to get these matters right. If these draft articles of association are ready while the Bill is before the House we shall certainly table them. I can assure noble Lords that I shall make every effort to ensure that that is done.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister as I know that he has gone very far on this matter. However, will he please give the House an assurance—because an assurance is what the House requires—that the articles of association will be before your Lordships before the Bill leaves this place?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot go beyond the assurance that I have given. If the articles of association are ready while the Bill is still before the House we shall certainly table them; and I shall do my best to ensure that they are ready.
It has been argued, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Government have ignored or overridden the interests and opinions of the universities, of the inventors and of the staff. It is not correct to suggest that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has not been consulted. My honourable friend met the CVCP on 15th April. The CVCP expressed the desire to see BTG as a lively commercial concern in the private sector and also
462
expressed a wish to own a small but not negligible share in the privatised company. The Government will give most careful consideration to any proposals that it may make.
So far as concerns inventors, the Bill ensures continuity of all existing contracts and agreements. In future inventors may use the BTG, as they have done in the past, or any other exploitation mechanism if they so choose. It is indeed the case that one leading inventor has expressed his concerns on the Bill to us. We have met him. Although BTG holds a portfolio of around 8,500 patents, we have met or had representations from a total of only three inventors. There is a notion that some inventors, driven by altruism, have assigned their ideas to BTG principally because it is in the public sector. But to my knowledge inventors have very rarely refused revenue-sharing arrangements.
It is natural that the staff should have anxieties when a major step that is bound to affect them all intimately is about to take place. We have discussed the matter with the employees' representatives, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State having met the union representatives earlier this year to hear their views. Their views have been noted by the Government. I repeat that the Bill will not affect existing pension and redundancy arrangements. Schedule 1 to the Bill makes this quite clear. As with management, employee participation in the sale has not been ruled out.
I was asked some other specific questions. I was asked about the excising of the commercially sensitive parts of the Coopers & Lybrand report, a question also put recently in written form by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As we made plain to him in our reply, the contents of the report are very largely commercially sensitive or confidential. For that reason we believe that partial publication of the report or its conclusions would be pointless.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the report recommended against privatisation. Examination of the principle of privatisation was not within the remit of that study. The report analysed BTG's business and looked at the feasibility of various privatisation mechanisms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, referred to universities being reliant on BTG. As my noble friend Lord Birdwood pointed out, we do not believe that there is any reason why BTG could not continue to provide services to those universities which wished to use it in the private sector. The Government are currently considering what alternative arrangements would be needed for those which chose not to do so and which currently have no alternative arrangements. However, whatever noble Lords may have been told, only two universities have expressed concerns to us.
The noble Baroness asked about the raising of borrowing limits. We do not believe that we could raise such limits. There must be control of a public sector body. She also asked about contracts which had been lost because of BTG being within the public sector. I must make it plain that BTG has had problems in gaining overseas contracts. The noble

463
Baroness asked why the Department of Trade and Industry had therefore not done more to help it get these contracts. In two of the cases, the Government were not asked by BTG to help because BTG took the view that representations by the Government would be counterproductive in terms of helping it to try to obtain the contract. However, we have been asked to intervene in a recent case that has arisen in the United States. We arc doing so.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for his welcome for the general principle of the Bill. He was for 10 years the managing director of the NRDC and knows this matter intimately. He asked about the status of retired public servants and whether they would be affected by privatisation. The BTG privatisation would not affect retrospectively the status of its retired officials. The pension arrangements covered by the NRDC pension trust deed are vested in the successor company by Clause 1 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill.
I conclude by reverting to the principle behind the Bill, which is the issue of privatisation. We see BTG as an eminently suitable candidate for privatisation. It already operates along commercial lines. Yet it is restrained from making advances by rules which have become inappropriate but which necessarily apply to public sector bodies. On this side of the House we believe that privatisation can bring great benefits—and mo,;t of the rest of the world evidently agrees with us. I do not believe that this case will prove any exception. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Staffordshire Children's Homes: Report
4.56 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Health on the report on Staffordshire children's homes. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the report on residential care for children published during the Recess by the Staffordshire County Council. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"The House will know that after a thorough inquiry Allan Levy QC and Mrs. Barbara Kahan have reported on the so-called "Pindown" approach to the residential care of children that had been practised in some Staffordshire residential homes. They say that this was,
'in all its manifestations intrinsically unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable:'.
"They also conclude that the children who were in Pindown,
'suffered in varying degrees the despair and the potentially damaging, effects of isolation, the humiliation of having to wear nightclothes during the day, … and of having all their personal possessions removed; and the intense frustration and boredom from the lack of communication, companionship with others and recreation'.
"Their report says:
464
'It has been suggested that "Pindown" by any other name probably exists the length and breadth of the country, and is probably more prevalent than anyone would officially care to admit. We received no such admissions in evidence. The practice of Pindown has ceased in Staffordshire. If it exists under any other name elsewhere it should be summarily terminated'.
"The report covers a number of other related issues. It examines in detail allegations that known adult sexual offenders were on occasion permitted contact with children in a home: and that county council officers arranged for a young person for whom they had responsibility to obtain accommodation in a house owned by a convicted sexual offender.
"Their findings on these points are drafted with scrupulous care. They found inadequate vetting and notification in the cases they examined and made recommendations of general importance.
"The Government will respond with the greatest seriousness to these.
"The report also criticises Staffordshire's supervision of arrangements known as 'Fundwell'. Under these, from the mid-1970s until 1987 a council officer set up and developed a network of voluntary organisations and private companies which in some instances contracted their services directly back to the social services department. The district auditor is undertaking a further investigation into financial aspects of these arrangements.
"When honourable Members read this comprehensive report in full, they will recognise the lucidity, balance, compassion and firmness of purpose of its authors. Looking after the often extremely difficult and disturbed children and adolescents in residential care has become increasingly challenging for those responsible. But Parliament has laid a statutory duty on local authorities to,
`give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child … and so far as practicable, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child'.
"The House, like the Government, must deplore the position revealed in Staffordshire up to 1989.
"The report was commissioned by Staffordshire County Council in June last year after consultation with the Department of Health. It examines the Staffordshire issues in the wider context of national policies. It makes valuable recommendations for social services departments about the objectives, management and control of children's homes and the recruitment and training of their staff. Many of these reflect existing good practice around the country.
"As the House knows, the Children Act 1989 is to be implemented in full on 14th October this year. By common consent it is the most important reforming measure in the children's field that we have had in this country in this century. The Government, after consultation, have already issued four substantial volumes of regulations and statutory guidance on its implementation.
"The volume which covers residential care and secure accommodation was issued for consultation in September of last year. It will be published in

465
amended form this month. Many of the recommendations in the Levy Report are already addressed in this document. These binding regulations and statutory guidance will require scrutiny of residential care for children throughout the country and its reform where necessary.
"The Government are not content to rest on the significant work already in progress. We are today issuing a statutory guidance circular charging all social services authorities to check immediately that their residential care practices are wholly free of the abuses found in Staffordshire; and that they conform with the statutory provisions and regulations governing these matters made by successive Secretaries of State. We are also urgently requiring them to ensure that a statutory complaints procedure is in place and readily understood by all children in residential care.
"The House will already be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has instructed Sir William Utting, the Chief Social Services Inspector, to undertake a special review of residential child care concentrating particularly on questions of monitoring, control and implementation in the light of this important report. Sir William will consult independent experts outside government. We will publish his report and promptly address its conclusions."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for reading the Statement made by his honourable friend in another place. From these Benches I also express our thanks to Mr. Allan Levy and to Barbara Kahan for what is a very remarkable, though sad, report. In my view they brought the best of their skills to the task. Those of us who have known Barbara Kahan for many years are grateful to her for the wisdom and experience contained in the report.
I have a modest interest to declare in that about 18 months ago some young people from NAYPIC (the National Association of Young People in Care) with which I have had contact over many years, came to see me with much of the evidence which was presented to the inquiry. They were deeply concerned because they could not get anyone to express an interest in the situation or to undertake an inquiry. Therefore, on their behalf, I wrote to the county council and to the social services department urging that there should be an inquiry into the matter. I was then asked whether I would care to give evidence. However, I had no direct evidence and therefore I did not avail myself of the opportunity. Nevertheless, I took an interest in the matter from that time onwards.
This is an unusual case in that the inquiry did not follow the death of a child. I suppose that it is worse in the sense that the inquiry was into a regime called Pindown which had existed since 1984 and which was imposed by a fully qualified social worker over a period of roughly five or six years.
466
The report tells a terrible story. Pindown was not a clandestine policy. The routines of punishment and control were recorded in council records. However, the social services inspectorate officers who visited three of the homes in 1977 failed to detect the dangers of Pindown; though the circumstances which existed at the time in those homes must have been drawn to their attention. Similarly, the local authority's supervisory visits did not identify the problems. I believe that we must ask why it was that the social services department did not realise the extent to which they were not only in breach of practice but also in breach of the law. We must also ask how it was that the SSI officers did not report the existing circumstances to the Secretary of State or even to the local authority.
Only yesterday the Minister, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, accused Staffordshire social services department of having,
"singularly failed to discharge its responsibilities".
She said it was unsatisfactory that unqualified youngsters in their first job should be trying to care for disturbed children. I entirely agree with that statement. However, she went on to say:
"We need our streetwise grannies back in the children's homes".
I wonder how that aim is to be achieved and whether the Government will say what further funding will be made available. Further, will the strategy of training recommended in the report be implemented? That seems to me to be one of the most disturbing aspects of this and, indeed, other cases. Staffordshire County Council, in a statement on the issue of staffing resources, said that,
"only central government can resolve the constraints upon Staffordshire and other local authorities trying to deliver good quality residential care for children".
I agree with that. However, it is not good enough that the buck should be passed back and forth between local authority social services departments and the Department of Health. Both of them must share the responsibility for what has happened. They must also share responsibility for putting the matter right. I hope that this excellent report will lead to positive action. I also hope that it will lead to a complete overhaul of the way that we treat children and young people who do not fit in with society.
From these Benches we call, first, for an independent national inquiry into the complete range of children's homes, including resource levels and complaints procedures. I believe that what has been done thus far is just not good enough. Two days before the Levy Report was published the Government commissioned an inquiry into the state of children's homes which is to be headed by Sir William Utting, the Chief Social Services Inspector. It is said that the report is expected to be published within seven weeks; that is, before Sir William retires on 19th July.
Having known Sir William Utting for many years, I must stress that I have the greatest possible respect for him and for his abilities. However, I do not believe .it is proper that the inquiry should be conducted by the head of the inspectorate who quite patently did not discover the circumstances which gave rise to the

467
report. I believe that there needs to be an independent inquiry which must be able to draw on a wider range of information than will be possible in the seven weeks available to Sir William Utting. He says that he will have completed the report by the time he retires on 19th .July. It is difficult to see how adequate research and analysis can be brought to his attention in that time.
Secondly, we hope that there will be a more positive attitude on the part of the Government towards funding, staffing and inspection. Staffing levels are dangerously low. Social services are failing to attract people with relevant training and experience. Indeed, social services directors were reported only yesterday in the Observer as having difficulty in recruiting suitable staff. It is said that new recruits often leave after only a few weeks. Moreover, there are currently 2,000 vacancies for residential social workers with a starting salary of £8,000. I hope that we shall hear a little more about what the Government intend to do as regards training.
I quote from paragraph 17.22 on page 154 of the report:
"Recruitment policies and practice clearly indicated that filling gaps was more important than obtaining the services of qualified and experienced staff. Some of the holders of unqualified social work posts had, in our opinion, inappropriate experience and education for such work and should not have been expected to carry it out".
It is important that the Government should recognise the fact that the training of residential social workers is crucial to finding a solution to the problem.
In conclusion, perhaps I may make two points. I do so without in any way retreating from the condemnation in the report, which I entirely accept, of appalling practices. First, it should be pointed out how incredibly difficult many of these young people are properly to discipline, control and help. They represent a quarter of those in care. The other three-quarters of those in care are fostered. Those in residential care are probably the most difficult of children. The girls are as bad as the boys. Many people with experience know that to be true. Secondly, I wish to say how difficult is the social workers',.task. My heart goes out to them. Every time there is an inquiry it is into something that has gone wrong. No one has an inquiry into something that has gone right. It is a thankless but crucial professional task. At the same time as handing out criticism, we should give credit to the many dedicated and highly efficient social workers who perform a remarkable service.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we too wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I pay tribute to the painstaking work done by Mr. Allan Levy QC, who has been known to me for a number of years, and to his colleague Mrs. Kahan. There is the inevitable sound of the stable door being belatedly shut when one reads such a report and hears the governmental response to it. That is not a criticism but a fact.
In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has just observed, we are not dealing with one incident or episode but with a regime which had amazingly been in place for a number of years. Children in children's homes are almost certainly already vulnerable and damaged. It is also hard in retrospect to imagine how
468
such wretched practices could have been encouraged by the supposed carers of such children. It is also hard to imagine how they can have gone on for so long unchecked. One reason was that Pindown was practised behind closed doors. In that respect, I welcome the proposed review to be undertaken by the Social Services Inspectorate. Is it intended to encourage truly unannounced inspections of children's homes? They would seem to be a necessary feature of the future work of the inspectorate. Will the review to be undertaken by Sir William Utting be published sooner rather than later?
It is opportune that the guidance and regulations which are still in draft under the Children Act 1989 will provide an opportunity to close the gap between good practice and what has apparently been happening on the ground. Another more worrying reason why these matters went unchecked was the acquiescence by the officers and middle management of the social services department concerned; combined, it appears, by the admitted cover-up by the chairman of the social services committee who tried to justify Pindown by attempting to minimise it as an isolated occurrence.
In that context, I wish to pay tribute to the persistence of Mrs. Christina Jebb, the local Liberal Democrat councillor, who tried to expose a cover-up. Your Lordships may have read the disturbing report contained in the Sunday Times yesterday which claimed that an injunction banning the Pindown method in council homes was kept hidden from members of the social services committee for six months even though the council had lost a High Court case in which details of the procedure had come to light. The report claims that requests for meetings and information about Pindown were postponed repeatedly, and delays were an attempt to prevent damaging disclosures in the run up to a by-election. That is a worrying aspect of the matter. It is astonishing that the matters were suppressed for so long and that the chairman of the social services committee then tried to explain it as merely an isolated incident.
Surely the Government should address the problem of installing mechanisms to ensure that such matters cannot be kept from the social services committee in such a way. I hope that the Minister will give us some insight into the Government's response to what was reported in the Sunday Times.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about training and the many dedicated social workers who get things right. We must remind ourselves that we hear only about things when they go wrong. It is important that social workers should not have a siege mentality if effective social workers are to be recruited and retained.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join both noble Lords in offering my further praise for the authors of this excellent report. I also join them in yet again condemning the bad practices that existed in Staffordshire until 1989. I shall deal with some points raised by them. First, and predictably, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked for a national inquiry into the matter. We see no point in setting up such a large-scale inquiry. The key moment will be the implementation

469
of the Children Act on 14th October. The inquiry suggested by the noble Lord would take one and possibly two years. The major changes in progress are reflected in regulations and guidance to be issued later this month. We already have a comprehensive report. It is the one that we are discussing. It has made valuable recommendations.
In the Statement I mentioned the guidance that has been issued today to all social services authorities. That guidance will bring to the attention of those social services authorities the report and the recommendations contained in it. Again, as I said in the Statement, we have already commissioned Sir William Utting to undertake a quick, special report to ensure that we cover all the issues involved in the implementation of the Children Act. We shall obviously consult outside independent experts. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked whether unannounced visits could be considered. That is an issue that will be covered by Sir William in his report.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why the SSI had missed the Staffordshire problem. One should read the report on that point with some care. It contains no criticism of the SSI which was never told of Pindown when it visited the two Staffordshire homes in the course of its wider investigation of residential care management arrangements. In particular, one should look carefully at the finding that those Staffordshire homes were not residential homes but had become secure accommodation, and that at no stage did Staffordshire take legal advice on their status. Had it done so it would have discovered that due to the amount of secure accommodation it would have had to seek my right honourable friend's approval under the secure accommodation regulations which have been in force since 1972. Such approval is never given without a full SSI inspection directed wholly at the care regime in the individual facility. It would never have obtained the necessary approval in this case.
Where approval is given, regular and detailed subsequent inspection of the facility by the SSI is automatic. We are confident that such inspections of the Staffordshire homes would have uncovered the problem and led to a remedy or have prevented the problem occurring in the first place. It is misguided and unreasonable to confuse the two visits to homes in the context of the wider exercise undertaken for a different purpose with the targeted, more detailed SSI inspection that there would have been had Staffordshire realised the true nature of its homes.
Again predictably, the noble Lord complained of under-funding and blamed the Government. I agree that the report shows that the lack of resources in residential child care in Staffordshire was due largely to poor priority setting by the county council over a number of years. It may be worth quoting from the report the remarks of Mark Fisher, one of the MPs for the area who is a member of the noble Lord's own party. He said at paragraph 3.28:
"historically we have been negligent both in expenditure and in policy … not just in social services. It is traditional … I think they are probably right in saying that the money is not there because they have always set very low budgets".
470
I accept, however, that Staffordshire's net expenditure on personal social services has risen from £18.4 million in 1979–80 to £57.2 million in 1990–91. That is an increase in real terms of 43.7 per cent. However, Staffordshire spent 4.5 per cent. less in 1988–89 than its grant-related expenditure figure for that year. Thus we must blame Staffordshire County Council and its social services committee for the lack of resources. It spent less than other comparable authorities on these services.
The noble Lord mentioned staffing and training. It is not the Department of Health that employs those working in personal social services. The provision of adequate staff and any analysis of the workforce and planning are for local authorities to determine, depending on the policies and priorities they decide on locally for the client groups for which they have responsibility. It is for those authorities to give enhanced grading to residential child care posts, to ensure that staff can obtain qualifications and are given proper training and to provide to residential care staff, proper management, supervision and support from appropriate senior levels in the social services department.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with unqualified people carrying out certain tasks in these homes as long as there is adequate supervision and management from the department. That must be a matter for the social services department and the social services committee of Staffordshire County Council. It is to them that we should look and they should consider their position. They decided on the level of resources.
The noble Lord asked what support the Government give to training. The training support programme has been continued and extended. The central grant was increased from £19.4 million to £24.8 million in 1991–92. The local authorities have been urged specifically to target the training needs of the residential child care staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about requests for meetings with the social services committee which were not met. He said that the Government should put in mechanisms to deal with them. We feel that it must be a matter for the local authority and its electors, the people of Staffordshire.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points made by the two noble Lords in their remarks. I welcome their support for the report and for the skill and expertise that went into it from Mr. Levy and Mrs. Kahan. I hope that noble Lords agree with me that the Government's response, particularly in issuing guidance today to local authorities, has been both swift and effective.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's rejection of a general inquiry, can he assure the House that the Government are confident that no establishments run on the Pindown principle in other parts of the country and that no other local authority operates such a system? Are the Government confident of that?
Further, in the light of what can happen, as this case has shown, is there not a great deal to be said for

471
ensuring that the continued detention of children in such establishments should be subject to an order of a competent court?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on whether Pindown exists in any other part of the country, I can only say that we do not believe that it does. In the guidance which I mentioned and which we issued today to social services departments, we brought to their attention the remarks in the report that if the practice exists elsewhere under any other name, it should be summarily terminated. The report also said that the authors received no admissions in evidence that the practice was continuing. If my noble friend has evidence that it is continuing, we shall be pleased to receive it. We shall try to ensure that it ceases.
My noble friend also asked whether children kept under restraint should be subject to a court order. My understanding is that it is and will be the case under the Children Act that a court order will be necessary in future if a child is to be locked up. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, if a local authority operated a home as secure accommodation, it woulc need the permission of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the one thing we cannot do is, as he said over and over again, to leave this to the local authorities? In the wake of the cases in the Orkneys and Cleveland and this affair, there must now be a form of;uperimposed control. This would be not only supervision but training standards. My noble friend said that it did not matter whether the staff were qualified, but surely it is asking too much of these well intentioned young people to do their best without adequate training. Training costs money. Staff should have a kind of pupillage, as we do at the Bar, perhaps for three or more years, to acquaint themselves, as they do in other countries, with the nature of their duties ard how to deal with such people. There should be standards of excellence and qualifications for people when they have learnt their profession. They should be paid according to their merits or the degree they have taken.
We cannot just let this go, sweep it under the carpet and say that it is all a matter for the local authorities. There must be a sound regime, with adequate supervision and reasonable working hours. Do your Lordships realise that some of these young social workers work so hard over long hours that probably many have never had a chance to read the Cleveland report? It is no use blaming the social workers. One blames the colonel of the regiment. That is the only thing to do. The Government must be responsible. There is no other way in which we shall ever come to grips with the problem.
I am not criticising the Government, because the problem was not apparent on this scale until the facts were revealed. It is not a criticism, but I suggest that now the situation has been revealed, it is idle to say, "Oh, it's a matter for the local authorities". Yes, in part it is; but the responsibility must lie with the Government of any political party.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that the Government have a responsibility. However, it is important to accept that the elected local authority in the area has a responsibility. Failure in one part of the service does not mean that there is no need for services or that the local authority is not capable of performing those services. In the main, local authorities perform the services very well and properly. We believe that it is right that they should have the responsibility for this area. As I said earlier, I do not believe that the Government are sweeping this matter under the carpet. As I have made quite clear, we have issued guidance rapidly today to all social services departments bringing their attention to the Levy Report. We hope they will take note of that.
I wish to pick up a point which my noble friend made. He implied that I had said that it does not matter whether staff are unqualified. I was trying to say that in certain situations it does not matter whether staff are unqualified provided they are adequately supervised and managed. That management should have been in place in Staffordshire, but obviously it was lacking. However, it is misguided to say that the policy we are discussing was instigated by untrained staff. The policy originated with Mr. Tony Latham who I believe had obtained a qualification in social work from Ruskin College. Therefore he was distinctly qualified in these matters. The fact was that he came to the wrong conclusions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the people we are discussing are unqualified. I never said that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise. I thought my noble friend was picking me up on a point I had made and was suggesting that I had said it was perfectly permissible for unqualified people to carry out such work. I repeat that I said it is perfectly proper for unqualified people to carry out certain work if they are adequately supervised. What was lacking in Staffordshire was adequate supervision and management of such staff. That must be a matter for Staffordshire County Council and the social services committees in Staffordshire to discuss. I hope that the local electorate will bear those matters in mind.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the Government send directives to local authorities on other matters. Will they therefore send a directive to local authorities that all members of social services committees should visit the homes for which they are responsible? Most of us have served on such committees as unpaid members. We regarded it as an obligation to make unannounced visits to children's homes, old people's homes and schools so that these kinds of incidents did not occur. The Government are failing in their duty if they do not at least suggest to local authorities that the members of social services committees have obligations which they cannot opt out of. The Government are good at sending suggestions to local authorities about money and the community charge, so why cannot they send a directive on this vital matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness started by asking the Government to issue a directive.

473
Normally noble Lords opposite do not like the Government to issue directives to local authorities. As I have said, we have issued guidance on this matter. As regards the substantive point the noble Baroness made, I agree with her that it must be good practice for members of social services committees to make unannounced visits to homes in their areas. I certainly did so when I served on a social services committee in my local county council. I am sure that most social services committees follow that practice. However, I do not agree that that is necessarily a matter for Government. Local authorities must decide their own priorities. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that all members of social services committees should make visits, preferably unannounced, to local authority homes under their jurisdiction within their areas.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as regards the final point my noble friend made, it is laid down under regulations that members of social services committees should visit children's homes. As regards my own local authority—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will know this is the case—the social services committee has to report at every committee meeting on visits made to local authority homes. It is essential that those regulations are fulfilled.
I understand that we should not use the occasion of a Statement to indulge in a long debate. The report contains 39 recommendations and none of us has had time to read the report fully. I suggest to the House that we might consider through the usual channels holding a debate on the report at some stage.
I have two comments to make on the report. The first comment concerns training. Many other noble Lords have referred to this. Recommendation No. 23.45 of the report states:
"We recommend that a strategy of training for the next five years is developed as a matter of urgency with a particular aim being to increase the numbers of trained and qualified staff in residential care without delay".
Although it is the business of the local authority concerned to ensure that it engages qualified staff, and although Her Majesty's Government have provided more money for training, the money has only just been provided and the training for residential staff in this country is totally inadequate. A number of training courses have been closed down. When I worked in Oxford I recommended strongly to the then central training council that the polytechnic should instigate a training course for people aged 35 and upwards. That course was most successful and a number of married women whose children had grown up completed it, as did a number of retired army and navy personnel. Those people became qualified and they made splendid social workers. The course was, alas, closed down. The whole issue of training for residential and field social workers needs to be considered.
I repeat what I said in this House some time ago. Is it right that the Treasury should dictate social policy in this country? The poor resources that are available for training are not the fault of local authorities. They are the fault of the Treasury. At one stage we recommended a three year training course for social
474
workers. However, the Treasury turned down that suggestion. We must look closely at the position in France, Germany, the United States and Italy, all of which offer training courses lasting three to four years for both residential and field social workers.
That brings me to my second point which concerns the philosophy of residential social work with children. The Minister has said that the person who is most involved in the incident we are discussing was a trained and qualified social worker. That is true, but I maintain that the philosophy of our residential work has gone awry. I believe it diminishes every child and young person to make excuses for wrong doing. Such young people have done wrong and have committed misdemeanours. But having accepted that fact, we need to adopt a therapeutic attitude and to offer therapeutic training for those young people. I refer to the Caldecott community in Kent where there are 60 deeply disturbed children. Most of the girls have been abused. That community offers therapeutic treatment for those children. The chairman of the committee of the institution is Lord Brabourne. Pepper-Harrow also offers therapeutic treatment for its inmates. Its president is Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. Those institutions have instigated a training course at Reading University that is run on therapeutic lines. Many homes run by the National Children's Home, Barnardo's and the Church of England Children's Society are splendid institutions. Nevertheless we need to consider the matter of training. The various ministries have taken little interest in institutions such as the Caldecott community and Pepper-Harrow. We need guidance from the top as regards training, the way homes are run and the philosophies behind their administration.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her remarks. Should there be a debate on the report, many of those points could be addressed. No doubt that is a matter than can be taken up through the usual channels. I wish to respond to a couple of points that my noble friend made. I thank her for her remarks about unannounced visits. The policy on this matter varies between different local authorities. My noble friend said that in her own local authority committee members produced a report that was presented at the next meeting of the social services committee. That is certainly not the case in all local authorities and it was not my experience with my own local authority. However, it appears to be a sound practice and it is something that I believe all local authorities might be advised to consider.
My noble friend then went on to make the rather extraordinary remark that the Treasury was dictating social policy. That is not so. However, obviously the Treasury has the interests of the taxpayer at heart and it must be a matter for those raising taxes to decide how money is spent. There is no bottomless pit from which money can come for whatever policy my noble friend wishes to pursue. In this particular case in Staffordshire spending was 4.5 per cent. below the GRE level. It is therefore a matter for the electors of Staffordshire and the Staffordshire social services committee and county council to consider where they should be putting their resources.

European Agreements: ECC Report
5.40 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move that this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on European Agreements with Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (8th Report, HL Paper 35).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the report resulted from an inquiry by Sub-Committee A, which was well assisted by the specialist adviser, Mr. Jim Rollo of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Once again I want to pay tribute to all my colleagues on the committee whose experience and wisdom, as well as their tolerance of and kindness to their chairman, has been remarkable. And, once again, I wish to pay tribute to the clerks. This time we had two clerks, with a handover taking place in the middle of the inquiry. What more can any of us say about them? We did not suffer as a result; the clerks may have.
We were particularly aware that the inquiry was focused on the social, political and economic future of three countries which were until very recently part of the Eastern bloc. We greatly welcomed, therefore, the help which we received from the Foreign Minister of Poland, from the Hungarian Ambassador in London and from the Director-General of the Hungarian Ministry for International Economic Relations. We visited Prague, where we met members of the Czech and Slovak governments as well as of the federal government and also representatives of the House of the People and the House of Nations. To all of them this House owes special thanks, as we do to all who gave evidence.
All the evidence that we received led us to conclude that the rebuilding of the three economies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the full conversion of those countries to free democracies will be an enormous and daunting task. The European Community has a real interest in their success, in the same way as we believe that the three countries have a real interest in the successful development of the Community, which is not only the closest large market for their exports but also a major source of the capital which they so badly need for their economic growth.
The agreements on which the report is based are currently being negotiated between the Community and each of the three countries separately. Those agreements rightly provide, among other important matters, for the opening of the Community market to their exports over the next few years.
The initial speed of the economic development in the three countries, however, depends in large part on the amount of aid, loans and investment from the Western world, particularly from the Community and its member states. It also depends on the ability of each of the three countries to absorb the help which they are offered. However, we consider that the Community and the other countries of the Group of 24 will be wise not to overstrain the donor economies by too fast or too large subventions and loans or investment. Nor will the donor countries help the recipient countries by failing to co-ordinate and
476
monitor what is being done and to regulate their help accordingly. However, I repeat that trade will be the key to rebuilding their economies.
Events reported in the press before, during and after our inquiry all lead to the conclusion that, if economic factors point to a steady pace of advance, political factors call urgently for the fastest possible pace of progress. Political stability will be put under strain as economic transition produces recently unknown levels of unemployment and offers little immediate improvement for the consumer. A growing degree of foreign private domination in commerce and industry may produce further political strain. The shorter that transition the less will be the political strain.
What are the objectives of the agreements? Their purpose is to create a climate of confidence and stability in order to encourage the reform process. The agreements seek to enable each country to play, and feel it is playing, a part in the wider process of political change in Europe. They seek to facilitate the transition to market economies and to encourage trade and investment. The committee supports all those objectives, as I am sure your Lordships will, too.
How many years will the process of reform and conversion take? We are clear that the economies of each of the three countries are likely to develop at different speeds. We hope that all three will be ready to complete a free trade relationship with the Community within 10 years, but we warn that that target may be too ambitious.
Much can be done, and is being done, apart from the relationships of the three countries with the Community. The Council of Europe is encouraging political reform. The committee hopes that the three countries will all soon become parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and will accept the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. We point also to the importance of encouraging political and trading links between those three countries and the former Comecon countries. We welcome reports of meetings between the three heads of government.
I shall now pass for a few moments to some of the specific points that we thought important in relation to the agreements and their background. First, we stated as our firm opinion that the preamble to each agreement should indicate the wish both of the Community and of the country concerned that each country should accede to the Community when the political and economic situation allows. We were told that that is controversial in some places, but I hope that the Minister will agree with us.
Secondly, we were concerned about the threat of large scale and perhaps mass migration east to west. We were quite clear that it would not be in the interests of any of the three countries for a substantial number of their workforce to emigrate to the Community; nor would it be in the interests of any of the member states of the Community if they did. The Community should therefore act with caution in allowing full, free movement of people, despite whatever may be the

477
political pressures. One of the purposes of aid provided by the Community should be to help create such a climate that few people wish to leave.
We have a number of points to make about financial help. We are quite clear that financial support is essential now, and will remain so until at least the end of the century. There will be the need for continuing support for each country's infrastructure, certainly beyond 1992. Many of those infrastructure projects are unlikely to attract private sector support, at least in the early years. The modernisation of that infrastructure is essential if the economies of these three countries are to be competitive with the West. Indeed, the extent of modernisation necessary after the years of command economies may be difficult for many of your Lordships to comprehend. We stress that the help given towards modernisation in that way must be co-ordinated and monitored.
The next point relates to the change in attitudes and methods in these three countries following their conversion from command economies. We believe that that is at least as important as an improvement in or a renewal of infrastructure and plant. I spoke earlier of the importance of the ability of each country that is in receipt of financial support to make full use of it. This puts a spotlight on the training and know-how projects, both in the Community's PHARE programme and in the programmes of member states. Some of your Lordships may not know how PHARE is spelt. "P" stands for Poland and "H" for Hungary. We were impressed with all that we heard about the British know-how projects. There is a strong case for extending know-how projects which give good value for money and make the best use of the private sector in Britain in assisting those countries and the future of our private sector with them.
We have no doubt that there is a good potential for British commerce and industry in those three markets. We were impressed both with the facilities and advice which the East European Trade Council offers British traders and investors and with the enthusiastic support of Her Majesty's embassies in those three countries. However, Britain is not at present doing as well in trade or investment as some other countries.
The point was made to us that, although the ECGD's short-term credit facilities are in general satisfactory, the extended credit facilities of other member states are better and put our industry at a disadvantage. It seemed to us important that our export credit facilities should in general match those of our competitors. Poland is a difficult case, but if Britain is right about not wishing to add to that country's indebtedness at present, then other countries should surely be persuaded to take the same view, or there should be some agreement between all trading countries to scale their credits to what is practicable. That point may be thought to be tangential to our report, but the Select Committee has always been keen to ensure that Britain is as able as others to take advantage of Community-created opportunities.
I have left until this moment the question of private investment in each of these three countries which is
478
most urgently needed by all three. The climate there must be right for that: the legal climate—their laws; the economic climate—their economic practices; and the political climate. Investment will not happen at once to the degree needed. When it does happen, it will bring with it not only foreign exchange but also skills, training and know-how generally. The opportunities for investment are long-term, not short-term.
It is rightly thought that the indebtedness of the three countries, particularly of two of them, is relevant to future investment and lending. Public sector indebtedness is now handled by the Paris club and there is hope that the debtor countries will not be left with an intolerable debt burden to governments and public institutions. However, we note the importance in that difficult situation, stressed by Hungary, of creditworthiness which is vital for securing new investment, and the will to pay old debts is not irrelevant to creditworthiness. Private sector debt—so far I have dealt with public sector debt—is in our view a matter for the creditor and debtor to arrange.
Before I come to the end of my remarks, I wish to stress once more that the committee agrees with the Commission and the Council that trade is as important as aid in the short term and in the long term, and that in the long term it is the only way in which these three countries can develop their economies in a competitive way. It is therefore right that the Community should open its market earlier than the full opening by the three of their markets. That will raise some sensitive issues for some member states and special arrangements may have to be made while the state aids in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are run down and their pricing arrangements are put on to a market economy basis. However, we must understand that in those command economy countries currencies do not operate and prices are not worked out in the same way as that to which we are accustomed. Agriculture also raises special problems in some areas and has a special importance for the earning of foreign exchange. A solution to all those special problems must be found.
Before I sit down I must say that I am sure that your Lordships will have other issues to raise in the debate and I look forward to hearing your comments. There are wider issues which will be in your minds. This is the second debate that we have had in recent times about the association of the Community with European countries that are not at present members of the Community. The proposal for the European economic area with EFTA was the first. There are fears among some people, including some of your Lordships, that by going at too fast a pace towards closer union in the Community, new aspirants to membership will find the difficulties of joining too great for them. There is no sign that that is so. Those who are not yet members are as aware as we are of the history of the Community and how it has developed, and of the step-by-step approach taken by the Community to strengthen its ability to be a world force for economic strength and peace. As I see it, it must be a comfort to these three countries with which the debate is concerned that the Community's economic strength is able to offer them help in their

479
daunting task. It should be a comfort to all that the vision of the founders of the Community—the Six who signed the Treaty of Rome—should now lead to a new set of agreements with Eastern European countries to prepare them for eventual membership, however many years that may take. It is your committee's belief that the successful conclusion of those agreements will help each of the three countries to solve their undoubted, indeed daunting, problems, and offer new long-term opportunities too to the existing member states of the Community, including—very much so—Britain itself. I commend the report to your Lordships and beg to move the Motion.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on European Agreements with Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (8th Report, HL Paper 35)—(Lord Aldington.)
6 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I was not a member of the sub-committee which prepared the report, but I venture to offer the House some reflections on this important subject, as I seem to have spent some years of my life thinking about the problems of central and Eastern Europe. In 1953 I was on the staff of our Mission in Bonn when the population of East Berlin rose in anger against the tyranny of the Socialist Unity Party. That was a cruel day in the post-war history of Europe. The terse, questioning telegrams that we received in Bonn from London, written in Churchill's unmistakable style, left no doubt that the Prime Minister of the day understood the terrible significance of what was taking place. June 17th became a red -letter day in the German political calendar as the Day of German Unity. I hope that it will be long so remembered.
Just a year later I found myself living in West Berlin as one of a small group of British officials studying the communisation of East Germany, the very process which is now being reversed with such pain. I shall never forget the talks which I had then with the many refugees of all kinds from the Soviet zone—farmers, engineers, priests, professional men—all people who had left their homes for the West in revulsion at what was happening. That human tragedy left an indelible impression on me. After that I spent four years in the Foreign Office dealing with the affairs of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The saddest moment of those years was the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956.
Those experiences gave me some idea of the attitudes, resentments and ambitions of the countries of Eastern Europe which are the subject of this report. The attitude of the Soviet Government and of the Russians themselves I was able to study more closely later when at the embassy in Moscow in 1969 and 1970. That was not perhaps the ideal time to live in Moscow. It was at the very height of the Brezhnev years of stagnation and soon after the Soviet military intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968, an act on which the British Government had stated their view with an exemplary clarity and firmness not employed by many others. The result of our own official reaction
480
to the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia was the relegation of our embassy by the Soviet authorities to the very outer periphery of the diplomatic circle—a doghouse shared only with the Chinese. Even so, I learned a good deal at that time about the Soviet attitude to Eastern Europe.
I judge the report to be an admirable survey of the issues that it considers. It is thorough, balanced and dispassionate. I have no critical remarks to make on its content but, given the personal experiences that I have just described, perhaps I may be forgiven for feeling that if the report has a fault it is that it is perhaps a shade too dispassionate.
On what it says I have two main observations. I wish to emphasise that this is a central and vital issue. How the Europeans will fare in the next century will depend in part on the way in which we respond to the challenge and our success in making these three countries (and I believe their neighbours to the East in due course) once again full members of the European family of nations. Secondly, there is the enormous problem of matching their aspirations with our possibilities. The report covers very fully the individual problems. But we should make no mistake about the very high and urgent expectations that exist in the three countries. Nor should we mistake the size of the contribution that will be required of us.
More precisely, I mention the following areas. There is the quantity of financial resources needed to transform the economies of just those three countries. The PHARE programme only scratches the surface and we must remember the heavy burden of existing debt, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which must also be dealt with. Then there are the sacrifices that will be involved in this country and the other member states of the Community if we are to open our markets to imports of consumer goods in sensitive sectors such as shoes and textiles which have already suffered much in the cause of freer international trade. Will public opinion here accept the burden for that cause?
What of the dangers of mass migration? If pessimists are to be believed, an outflow of refugees on the scale of 1945 may be in the offing. How can humanitarian governments in the West balance their obligations to their own citizens and to suffering refugees in extreme need? There are already rumbles of dissatisfaction about our stringent visa requirements for Polish nationals who wish to travel to this country. I suggest that some clearer statements by the European Community as a whole in the context of the European agreements are required so that all may understand both what we are seeking to avoid and what we can hope to offer.
I ask whether we have fully understood the major transformation that is necessary in these three countries. After all, they seek to expunge 40 years of enforced collectivisation. New habits of thought and action must be engendered. It is an enormous and daunting task. We may expect progress to be patchy, uneven and often disappointing. Personally I do not anticipate a central European Wirtschaftswunder of the kind that was overseen by Chancellor Erhard in the Federal Republic of Germany.

481
Those seem to me to be some of the most difficult and central problems treated in the report. Their dimensions and difficulties need to be clear to us all.
There are some other broad issues that are not examined in detail in the report, understandably as they fall outside the range of the Community policies under examination, which I should also like to mention. There is the effect of those Community policies on the long-term structure of the European Community itself. If we assume, as I think we must, that the 12 existing member states reach agreement at the intergovernmental conferences now in progress, beyond that core of 12 full members we can see two wider circles.
First, there is the group of EFTA countries in the new European economic space—a free trade area with close institutional links with the Community. I assume that these negotiations will in the end succeed. Secondly, beyond that circle there is a further circle of those countries covered by the European agreements mentioned in this report—initially Poland, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Hungary, but later perhaps extending to others. Again, beyond those two circles are the Community's existing associates—Turkey, the Mahgreb, the ACP nations covered by the Lomé agreements and so on. To make matters more complicated, we know that some but not all the EFTA countries are looking to the Community for full membership, as are some of the outer group of associates.
To my eye the structure looks unwieldy: difficult to manage and, above all, difficult to understand. There is, I suggest, some danger in having too many antechambers, each with conflicting and competing claims on the Community's generosity and resources and with uncertain ambitions for ultimate membership. I greatly hope that the inter-governmental conferences can pay attention to this wide and important problem. The architects of the structure should reflect carefully about its appearance, which should be as simple as possible and easy to comprehend from within and without. We do not want to create a series of confusing interconnecting dungeons, somewhat like the Barbican.
Above all, we need to be clear about who is responsible for the Community's external policies. It needs to be firmly established and understood by all that such responsibility rests with full members alone and is not shared with those in the two surrounding circles. That question is apparently already arising in the negotiations with the EFTA countries, and we need to be firm about the distinction. Of course the consultative arrangements envisaged in the European agreements can be useful in explaining Community policies and how we expect them to develop, but responsibility should remain with the full members. I underline that point because I suspect that there may be a natural tendency to blur the distinction in the negotiations, and that needs to be avoided.
Finally, there is what in shorthand I may call the vacuum problem. This arises because of the removal of barriers between East and West and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Poland, the Czech and Slovak
482
Federal Republic and Hungary have regained their political sovereignty but lack a wider framework of collaboration in the field of political security, other than the CSCE. The CSCE has played an essential role in encouraging peaceful change and the respect of human rights. It was indeed the essential catalyst in the process that we have seen. But it is not exactly an instrument of day-to-day co-operation between states with strong common security interests. Its virtue is rather in the breadth of its membership, which is a different function.
We cannot yet judge whether the absence of any security umbrella will present problems in future years. But we need to recognise that this is a novel situation. We can now see a belt of East European countries which have severed their close military ties with Moscow and which would be hard put to protect their independence on their own. We can all recall what that meant in the terrible years of 1938-1939.
The reverse of the coin is the need to understand the feelings of the Russians. From their viewpoint, the Soviet state, under its present leadership, has written off the investment of many billions of roubles, and much else, spent in Eastern Europe over a generation. That was a painful decision for it, and those who took it had the courage to admit a catastrophic failure of policy. In no nation in the world are such decisions easy. Nor should we overlook the special sentiments which the Russians have for their Slav brothers and cousins in Eastern Europe, a dimension that we may ourselves overlook. Presumably the present leaders of the USSR expect their former East European allies to adopt more independent and more neutral policies. However, it remains to be seen whether they could countenance any form of multilateral association or other arrangements which the East Europeans might themselves wish to create in the interests of their own security.
The purpose of these remarks is not to suggest that there is any gap in the report but rather to supplement what I view as an admirable document by indicating what may be an area of policy in which some further careful work may need to be done. I should also explain that I do not see any current dangers, but I am mindful of the past and suspect that temptations may present themselves again to some in due course. For our part, the action may or may not fall to the European Community; and whatever it is that we undertake, we must remember that any imprudent or thoughtless action could be dangerous at a time when the political evolution of the Soviet Union is so uncertain.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in commending the report to the House. I hope that the European agreements will fulfil the expectations placed on them. As the committee recommends, they deserve our full support and their purpose should be fully and carefully explained to the public in this country.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as I am sure were other noble Lords, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. He was able to set the

483
report against the background of his own considerable experience. I shall not attempt to comment on points that he raised except one. The noble Lord referred to the high expectations in the countries about which we are debating. I believe it is a very real danger that they may be expecting and hoping for far more to be provided and achieved than may be practical under present circumstances.
I was a member of the committee which prepared the report. We had the advantage, to which I pay tribute, of the wise and experienced chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Aldington. He led us wisely through the depth of the problems facing those countries. The report is of considerable value. It affects the lives of many scores of millions of people on either side of the old Iron Curtain. Their future must depend on how Europe and other Western countries treat tl-e economic and political problems that lie ahead.
In a brilliant exposition my noble friend Lord Aldington touched on many of the main areas of the report. I propose to confine myself to three. Those are: the problems of these countries earning the currencies that they need in the short term; the problems of dealing with external debts; and the know-how fund.
Perhaps I may first refer to the external debts. My noble friend Lord Aldington touched upon that and the other matters which I wish to raise. External debts produce a number of contrasts between Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. The debts of Poland and Hungary are substantial. Poland has defaulted upon many of those debts and wishes to secure debt forgiveness. In contrast, Hungary has honoured its debts and has serviced them. From the evidence at the inquiry there was a difference of view on those two countries. Some witnesses believed that Hungary was mistaken in trying to service its debts. Others, including the London Chamber of Commerce, believed that it was right and in the interests of those countries to continue to do so. It pointed out—it is a point on which I agree—that such defaults could undermine a country's credibility and its chances of raising t le capital that it so badly needs in the future.
The debts of Czechoslovakia are relatively small. Again, its position is different. My noble friend pointed out that one of the matters that should be considered is the way in which the Paris Club—the international debt controllers —may be prepared to forgive or postpone payment of some of those national debts. That poses a problem. If debt forgiveness is applied by the Paris Club in the case of Poland, how will Czechoslovakia (which has no debts of any significance) feel on the subject? Will it not feel that it 11.s been badly treated? What about Hungary, which believes that it should honour its debts?
Different circumstances apply to each country. I had hoped to see some rescheduling of the debts and not debt forgiveness. Rescheduling would make it possible for the countries to balance their books within their immediate resources. It would then leave them with a long-term credit rating enabling them to raise the capital that they need for fresh investment.
I now turn to the export potential of these countries. Each has a real need to earn hard currency.
484
Their former markets tended to be Russia or East Germany. For obvious reasons they are no longer the same markets. Where can these countries turn? They can turn to the Community. What can they sell? Their potential exports are the goods that are the most sensitive within the Community—agricultural products, textiles and footwear. We know from existing problems within the CAP that additional agricultural imports into the Community will present further problems. Yet the only short-term potential for those countries to earn hard currencies lies in exporting those, or similar, commodities. The problem relating to agriculture, footwear and textiles is extremely difficult, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The issue is potentially divisive between the Community and these countries, and we hope that the Western world and the Community will be able to act. I hope that it will be possible to resolve the issue while avoiding the potential dangers that lie ahead.
I wish to comment about the know-how fund. My noble friend Lord Aldington referred to the value of the fund. The United Kingdom was the first country to operate the know-how fund in these countries. We first provided such a fund to Poland and that has been extended to Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The total amounts have not been large. In 1991 the amount was £15 million, which in national terms is fairly insignificant. The amount will be increased in the future. The funds are directed largely to areas where they can best be spent; into improving the management skills in those countries. They already possess considerable skills by way of craftsmen and so forth. However, after years of living in a command society they have lost the management skills, the accountancy ability, the legal systems and skills that are essential if they are to compete with the Western world. The know-how fund is now attempting to fill some of those gaps and to provide accountancy training and management consultants to try to pull the businesses together. It endeavours to use the skills already within the countries in order to produce competitive products for sale to the rest of the world. It seeks to help the transition from a command economy to a market economy. The funds provide a valuable role which, in a variety of ways, can reinforce the training in the English language and in management skills which is severely lacking at present.
In order to create an effective private sector those countries need such skills. There is no doubt that there are craftsmen, and so forth, whose skills should properly be harnessed with management ability to make effective economic units. However, a tremendous amount remains to be done. It is not only for their benefit but for ours that the change should be made as rapidly as possible. I hope that one of the objectives will be that those countries and the United Kingdom will obtain their fair share of the benefits to come.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, during the war crimes debate I noticed that one of the criticisms made of this House by the media was a claim that

485
speeches of Members were almost always self-congratulatory. It is perhaps true that congratulations are sometimes spread a little widely but in the case of this report they are fully justified. I must apologise for being unable to stay until the end of the debate. I have an engagement out of town and if my speech appears a little sketchy it is because I am racing against a railway timetable.
The introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the report deserve to be carefully studied, and I am sure that they will be both here and in Europe. We have good reason to thank the noble Lord and his qualified sub-committee for their rapid dispatch of such complicated business. In particular we were fortunate to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, speak early in the debate. We were able to draw on his unique experience of the subject and to look into the future with some of the statesmanship that those who knew his father were accustomed to hearing.
I have little difficulty in sharing the opinions of the Aldington Report set out in paragraphs 100 to 115. I wish to comment briefly on one or two of them. The committee stated that the rebuilding of the economies of these three countries will be an enormous and daunting task. No one can dispute that. The task requires not only the efforts of friendly Community governments. More important and more difficult is the need for sustained efforts by the three countries themselves. They were unprepared for the suddenness of the success of their revolutions and were ill-equipped and ill-trained for the consequences. They were influential members of their societies which resisted and still do so. No outsider can easily solve their internal difficulties.
I do not know whether many noble Lords heard Dr. Klaus, the Finance Minister of Czechoslovakia, speak in London in March last year. I know that my noble friend Lord Roll did so. The Minister described frankly and vividly the extent of the changes required in his country. He insisted that there must be no half measures, no fudges, no compromises but only deep and radical changes. He concluded his speech by saying:
"We appreciate all kinds of support from our European neighbours but it is predominantly our task to create a free and efficient Czechoslovakia".
That is indeed true; it is also true in respect of Poland and Hungary. Throughout the generations the three countries have produced people of talent and character. Therefore we can hope that with help those countries will have the necessary spirit and stamina to succeed. It is asking a great deal of them but there must be a risk that they will tire and lose heart if there is slowness of progress and they will seek scapegoats for failure. There are latent political problems within them which failure will bring to the surface. They will watch with anxiety the progress of the Community of 12. They will be alarmed if they see it plunging ahead and making it more difficult for them to join what may become an exclusive and envied club. There must be no reason for Eastern Europeans to doubt the Community's good will towards them and sincerity in
486
due time to accept them as new members. However, they should not expect priority over, for example, the Scandinavians.
There appears to be still some overt and covert opposition within the 12, and certainly in the European Parliament, to expansion. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, rightly refers to the need of the three countries to retain their talented nationals and to deter them from impatiently seeking their fortunes in the West. Much will depend not only on the trade policies of the 12 but, in great measure, on the recovery of the failing Soviet economy. The USSR should be a natural market for those Eastern European countries and their goods. The report refers to that.
In his speech to which I referred, Dr. Klaus reminded his audience that one of the slogans of the Czech election of 1990 was, "Let's get back to Europe". He said that he preferred a variation: "Let's get back not just to Europe but to the rest of the world". Of course he is right; for example, the log jam in the GATT talks is one impediment to the recovery of Eastern Europe as it is to the rest of the world. The Community cannot be expected to shoulder the whole burden. It is a much wider responsibility to be shared with others.
Of course we wish to be satisfied that the United Kingdom is playing an appropriate part. The committee and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, seem to think that it is not doing too badly but points to some areas in which we may do better. Such contacts as I have suggest that that is correct.
I should like to draw special attention to the work of the Voluntary Service Overseas organisation in training teachers of English and converting teachers of Russian into teachers of English. A rather surprising statistic is that there are 20,000 redundant teachers of Russian in Czechoslovakia who are ready for conversion. That work is to our mutual advantage and we wish it all success.
Perhaps I may digress from the subject under immediate discussion for a few moments. It is the present situation rather than the future, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred, which worries me. My digression may be considered premature, but if it is I apologise. There is no doubt that the publication of this report is important. However, the revival of Eastern Europe is only one of the many problems facing this country and is not the most urgent.
This debate is a disturbing reminder of the formidable international agenda which faces our country in the immediate future. Are we not in danger of being manoeuvred into unwelcome and premature decisions? The next six months may well be crucial. Are we perhaps underestimating the problems within the IGCs? I do not know whether the latest news from Dresden helps or hinders. There have been some reassuring reports from some quarters but they have been qualified by impatient and somewhat ambitious observations from the Commission which from time to time assumes for itself in the IGCs the status of a national government. There are other developments which must be carefully looked at.

487
A recent comment in the Financial Times took my eye and is very pertinent. It referred to "protectionist policies" which are developing and reviving. There is talk again of "fortress Europe" in the form of some industries. The Financial Times remarked:
"If tie fortress looks like becoming a reality, the new French Prime Minister will be there with her cement mixer".
It will be not much more than six months before important differences may emerge in the IGCs which will demand resolution. I am perhaps over-anxious. Are the political parties here prepared for those choices which may have to be made rapidly and with far-reaching results? How far are our parties here agreed on what is acceptable? Our negotiators would be greatly strengthened in the eyes of our Community partner; if they were recognised as having very wide domestic backing. We have seen that the Commission and others are not above exploiting our domestic politics.
One controversial area on the agenda ahead is the future of our defence policy. We are to debate that on 12th June and I must not anticipate the occasion. However, defence matters will be argued in the IGCs before the end of this year. With the role of NATO and WEU and the rival assessment of global threats, it would be reassuring to see a greater measure of consensus reached among us in spite of the approaching election.
Superimposed on the puzzle of the future of the Community and Europe are the massive and growing problems of the Middle East, Africa, the Far East and the world economy. With such an international agenda, one cannot but be worried. I hope that in his winding up speech the noble Earl will put our minds more at rest.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, although I was not a member of his committee—and perhaps because I was not a member—I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Aldington and his colleagues on their excellent report on these agreements. The Foreign Affairs Council chose the right countries with whom the European Community should first have closer relations. All three have decided to change their political systems from communist states to democracies and, as my noble friend said, their economic systems from command economies to market economies. Certainly we have a duty to help them with aid and access to our markets.
Generally speaking I endorse the Commission's paper proposing political dialogue, progressive movement towards free trade and the approximation of laws as well as economic, cultural and financial co-operation on to enable those countries to benefit from the single market, although I must admit that the amalgamation of laws will certainly prove to be a major problem.
I support, too, the Commission's concept of the three bodies which would comprise the institutional framework for the agreements. In my view that would help to establish the right conditions in which the rebuilding of the three economies can best be achieved and help create a climate of confidence and stability.
488
The terrible damage inflicted on those countries by totalitarian regimes over the past 50 years cannot be overestimated. The challenge of sustaining and developing the fragile beginnings of democracy is huge.
Having visited all three countries both before and since the Second World War—Hungary quite recently —and having been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of that fateful year, 1956, when I presided in the Albert Hall over a massive all-party protest over the invasion of that country, I agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said, in different degrees they all lack people with experience of democracy and management skills in finance, commerce and industry in open markets. The danger of their most skilled people migrating to the West can be averted only through a commitment to help them raise their standard of living.
I agree also that the provision of financial and technical support is essential and likely to remain so at least until the end of the century, and that the various Western aid programmes need to be co-ordinated and monitored. It would be unwise to overstrain the donor economies by too fast or too large loans or investments. We should certainly draw on the experience of the PHARE operation—the Poland and Hungary Assistance for Economic Restructuring programme—as well as our own Government's know-how fund, which has been particularly successful. I agree with the committee's conclusion that a central clearing house for providing and monitoring aid to these countries should be established.
It is right that the committee should emphasise what was emphasised by my noble friend: that there are good potential markets for British exports to those countries but that some other countries seem to be benefiting from more favourable export credit guarantees. I endorse the committee's view that failure to harmonise export credit guarantees distorts the market as well as adding to the countries' indebtedness. I join the committee in welcoming the discussion on government and public sector debt by the Paris club and hope that agreement will be reached soon. I agree also that the need for those countries to attract private investment and the management skills and technology it brings is an urgent priority. Their financial, banking and accountancy systems all need to change if they are successfully to face the challenge of competitive free markets.
I recognise the leading role of the Community and the Council of Europe in helping to create the prerequisite conditions for the successful conduct of business. I am glad to say that as president of the European Atlantic Group I shall soon be presiding over a meeting to discuss the enlargement of the Council of Europe. As we know, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are already full members and Poland has applied to join. As I said recently in a speech in America, I fervently hope that an enlarged democratic Europe will become united. I believe that these agreements are the right framework for paving the way for the eventual accession of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the European Community.

489
Moreover, as I have said in speeches on both sides of the Atlantic, I believe that those Eastern European states which have reasonably strong Christian democratic movements and perhaps liberal and social democratic parties as well as trades unions such as Solidarity, should be welcomed in an enlarged EC. Although I am not a Roman Catholic, yet certainly an Anglo-Catholic, I greatly welcome the Pope's present visit to Poland and the moral torch now shining in that country.
Finally, I should like to add that last Thursday, with my noble friend Lord Aldington, I attended the all day highly comprehensive conference on European monetary union. I agreed with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and indeed other speakers at the same conference—that convergence must come before the single currency. But I was a little disappointed in his slightly negative remarks on progress towards the latter, especially in view of the recommendations made by the committee of my noble friend Lord Aldington on European monetary union debated last November.
I was glad to hear from my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his concern with the economic problems of Eastern Europe, especially regarding the dumping of agricultural products on a large scale. My noble friend Lord Caithness will surely endorse that view.
We must certainly not forget that through these agreements the EC may eventually be enlarged. Indeed, in ending his speech last Thursday my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that opening our markets is the best way we can help the newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. He emphasised the need for competition in key industries in order to help ensure that newly liberalised price mechanisms are working correctly —two important stepping stones on the path to a market-oriented economy—thus allowing those countries to become full members of the international economic system and one day, I think we all hope, of an outward-looking European Community.
I thought that the views of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter were of great interest. All in all it is a most useful report and again I congratulate my noble friends, noble Lords opposite and those on the Cross Benches for the valuable work that they have put into it.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest. The investment bank with which I am connected is currently advising the Polish Government on a number of economic and financial problems, some of which are covered in the report before us.
Despite what my noble friend Lord Greenhill said, I hope I may be forgiven if I say that we have once again been given an opportunity to express our admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for an excellent report on an extremely important European issue, and to thank him for initiating this debate. On this occasion, as I had the privilege of being a member
490
of the sub-committee, I had first-hand experience of the combination of wisdom and gentle firmness with which he conducted his work.
The report makes abundantly clear what a formidable task the three central European countries concerned are facing in the political and economic reconstruction on which they are at present engaged. It was, I suppose, understandable and perhaps inevitable that in the immediate wake of the tremendous revolution which freed these countries from the previous authoritarian political regimes and which broke the shackles of the command economy some rather exaggerated expectations had been entertained both in the West and in the countries themselves, and—at least to my mind—perhaps some rather unwise things were said at the time. One of them, for example, was that, now that those great historic cities Warsaw, Budapest and Prague are going to become a part of the great European family and tradition, it would be very unwise for the Community to push its further development too fast.
I do not think this is the occasion to debate the current preoccupations of the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has referred to the IGC, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has referred to some of the problems arising at present within the Community. I happen to have views on this subject which I have expressed on previous occasions and I will not go into them now; but if there is one thing which is clear from the report and which has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, it is that a strong and developing Community can only be of advantage to the progress of the three countries concerned, and perhaps, eventually, also to other countries of central and Eastern Europe. Exactly what that means in particular terms I will leave for another time.
In some quarters it was felt that an avowed commitment to certain ideological principles of the free market and free economics would be sufficient to lift these countries out of the mire in which the command economy had left them, and that a kind of ritual repetition, provided it was loud and made often enough, of a few selected quotations from Adam Smith would, as it were, at one bound bring them into a—I use deliberately an academic rather than a political model —sort of Hayekian paradise. Well, we have learned that things do not happen quite so quickly or as simply as that.
What the report brings out extremely clearly is that there is still a long and difficult road to travel before these countries can be seen to have really become members of a democratic and free market economy. I became particularly aware of this last week when I was briefly in Budapest, and perhaps even more so during a slightly longer visit last week in Vienna. Vienna was called, rather aptly I think, by a pre-war statesman "the balcony of Europe", and you can certainly observe a great deal from that city. Somehow or other one had the feeling that, certainly in cultural and economic matters, they were hard at work wiping out 75 years —practically three-quarters of a century—since the disappearance of the old monarchy.

491
Certainly almost everyone one speaks to there—and I can tell you that people there in the three countries and in other countries in eastern and central Europe talk about this all the time, some more optimistically than others—emphasises the enormous difficulties that still lie ahead. While on the subject of Austria, perhaps I may say one word which is perhaps slightly peripheral to the theme we are debating tonight. It seems to me that there is a particularly good argument in favour of accelerating the accession of Austria to the Community in the fact that it would provide a particularly useful bridge to these three countries which are at present in the antechamber and trying to achieve association agreements with the Community.
The report we are debating covers the whole ground so admirably and so fully that I shall confine myself to only one general point and to two particular ones. The report stresses, rightly I think, that the rebuildhig of these three countries requires if not simultaneous at least carefully integrated progress on both the political and economic fronts. As always, it is very difficult in such a chicken-and-egg situation to say exactly where the primary emphasis and the first priority lie. I happen to agree very much with the report and with the points so strongly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in his press statement, that there is an urgent need for the most rapid possible progress on the political front. Not only does any lesson that we care to derive from our own historic development of, say, 300-400 years ago in the complexity between political progress, democratic rights, legal developments and the development of markets and the economy, support this particular view, but it is quite clear not only that the progress of the domestic economy and the profound change of mental attitudes it requires are dependent on the indispensable emergence of the appropriate political, legal and administrative infrastructure but, as the report rightly points out, the ability to absorb the financial and other assistance coming from abroad depends very much on the same factors.
May I add just a few remarks on two particular matters? The first refers to agriculture, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and more
particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. For at least two of the countries concerned—Poland and Hungary—the ability to export increasingly their agricultural produce to other markets, including those in the Community, is absolutely crucial. Both the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, have rightly stressed that trade is at least as important as aid and perhaps, in the long term, even more important. I can think of no single aspect of external trade of these countries which would as quickly and effectively help them in their external payments situation and so on as an increase in their agricultural exports. We are all aware what a sensitive political subject that is; but it has to be faced, and if in the process it leads to a loosening and perhaps even a reform of the common agricultural policy, I think that many of your Lordships would regard that as a very desirable by-product.
492
The second point is investment. Privatisation—that very fashionable word—has of course a part to play and the import of foreign capital through investment in privatised industries and enterprises by means of joint ventures or otherwise is extremely important. But this is a very difficult process, if only because the valuation of these enterprises, on the sort of terms that we are used to in western economies, is an almost impossible task. If I am correctly informed, I understand that the firm which was advising Skoda —probably the biggest single industrial enterprise in Czechoslovakia—ended up by producing a value of nil. That may even have been an over-estimate. It was probably what I believe was mistakenly called "onerous property". I understand also that the arrangements recently made between Skoda and Volkswagen were in fact made without any valuation at all.
This simply illustrates the extremely difficult task of creating the very basics, the elements, of the market economy and the capital structure. However, while obviously the import of capital in one way or another —investment, the purchase of privatised companies and all the rest of it —is extremely important, it is also absolutely vital to create a domestic capital market if domestic capital formation is really to take off; and this is a very difficult task indeed because these countries are beginning not even from scratch but from a negative situation.
In this connection I should like to draw attention to the so-called "free" privatisation process with which Poland is at the moment experimenting. I regard this as a highly interesting experiment, whatever may come of it. It may appear paradoxical to encourage privatisation, that is to say private enterprise, by the means of a free distribution of shares—probably in the major part of the larger companies—to every single citizen. But it is very difficult to think of any other way which would as effectively and quickly produce private ownership of securities, and with it the possibility of creating a market and a capital market. It is a very big experiment indeed in turning the country towards a market economy. Perhaps it is the biggest experiment that can possibly be envisaged. A somewhat similar scheme is proposed in Czechoslovakia although I understand it will involve a small payment on the part of the recipients of the securities, rather than a totally free distribution.
These and similar experiments may, ideologically, appear somewhat peculiar, not to say unorthodox. Nevertheless they deserve a good deal of attention and, I would hope in the end, support from western countries, no less than a willingness to assist by the restructuring of debt and a provision of further financial aid.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Aldington and his committee for presenting a most important report. The relationship between the countries of the European Community and these new developing democracies in Eastern Europe must be one of the most important issues confronting Europe today.

493
It still seems almost unbelievable that Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary should now be free democratic countries. It must surely be very much in the interest of the west that they should remain so with all the difficulties which confront them. I read the report with great interest and, like other speakers, find myself in agreement with the summary of conclusions. I should like to comment on one or two of the conclusions further on in my remarks this evening.
The most important point which comes out is the first conclusion in paragraph 100, which refers to the incredibly daunting problem that these countries face in trying to cope with a new and fragile democracy while at the same time moving from a command to a free enterprise economy. Indeed, when one considers the problems which western democracies face when trying to cope with economic and political problems one can appreciate their problem the more. As other speakers have already said, there can be few, if any, people in these three countries who have had any practical experience of working in a democracy, or indeed of working in a free enterprise organisation. It may be argued that Hungary went as far as possible in its economy under a Communist government to try to find some small outlets for private enterprise. But for the other countries that was not the case. As other speakers have indicated, the problems are therefore immense.
The last time that I visited any of these three countries was in October 1989 when I was in Budapest. I arrived when the Communist party was meeting to decide its own future in Hungary, let alone what the whole political future might be for Hungary. The atmosphere was electric. Everyone to whom one spoke was excited and it was an extraordinarily interesting time to be in Hungary. However, I was concerned that there was a kind of feeling that achieving political freedom would somehow equal achieving riches; and that without any real understanding of how democratic institutions were going to work, let alone how the economies were going to be improved. All the right words were used, but the gap between using the words and really understanding what they meant was very great.
I therefore looked with great interest at this report, which goes on to analyse a great many of these problems in some detail. I should like to comment on one or two of the conclusions. The first and most important point is the rather obvious one that time does not stand still. It is very important that we should be constructive and positive in accepting the conclusions of the report and to do so as quickly as we can. If we look at the political problems—and this is the first point that is raised in the issue of the association agreement—a number of suggestions are made about how we can help these democracies. For example, in paragraph 74 the committee suggests that we could help by arranging parliamentary exchanges. I should be interested to know if my noble friend the Minister has any comment to make on that.
What actually has happened and what is proposed? I believe that one of the most valuable experiences is to be able to discuss with other parliamentarians the
494
practical problems of the practice of democracy. For those in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the practical problems of an official opposition seem to me to be quite considerable, particularly when that official opposition could quite well consist very largely of Communists or former members of the Communist Party. They are, after all, the losers in this part of the world in eastern Europe. Nevertheless, it is a powerful group and one that has been used to exercising power and influence.
The new democracies need all the support we can give them, particularly in view of the terrible economic difficulties which all three countries are currently experiencing and will continue to experience—not least a vast increase in unemployment. Coupling that with trying to make democratic institutions work will be very difficult.
There is one point that occurred to me which the committee did not touch upon, but as it is outside the terms of the proposed agreement I can understand why. There is a further problem for these countries in their democratic arrangements, particularly in Czechoslovakia—the ethnic minorities. If what I read in the newspapers is correct there are difficulties between the Czechs and the Slovaks. To add the kind of problems now being faced in Yugoslavia to both the political and economic problems produces yet another dimension. Perhaps my noble friend could comment on that as I should be very interested to know the Government's view. It is an aspect that must be of concern.
I was very interested to read the proposals about the Council of Europe. When I was in the Foreign Office I attended the meetings of the Council of Europe regularly. I am very pleased that the council now has a somewhat higher profile. I am particularly pleased that Hungary and Czechoslovakia have joined and that Poland is to do so shortly. It was the Council of Europe that paved the way for political thinking in Europe after the Second World War, coming long before the European Community was established. It could be very helpful in supporting these newly emergent democracies.
I was particularly pleased to see in paragraph 73 that the new countries are encouraged to become parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and to accept the European Court of Human Rights. That is fundamental to establishing and maintaining a democracy. The fact that they are linked into the Council of Europe, adding this greater opportunity to discuss with other western democracies, should be very helpful. On the political front, Community membership must remain a long term objective. However, the more one reads the report, especially some of the interesting tables of statistics, the more one realises the problems that exist on that front.
I turn to the economic problems. We have only to consider the difficulties that West Germany has had with East Germany to understand the magnitude of the problem confronting the economies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They are concerned that they may not get as much help as they would like either from the European Community or individually

495
from Western countries. Almost every speaker has emphasised the importance of trade. I very much hope that the pressures from the developing economies in Eastern Europe will help to counterbalance those elements within the European Community which would like to see a kind of fortress Europe. That is not in the interests of the European Community, Eastern Europe or the world at large. It is something that we in this country, who have always looked to a large, open and free market in Europe, can encourage. I hope that we shall be able to use our expertise in those areas which the committee pointed out in paragraph 88. I refer in particular to banking, accounting and legal structures. I hope too that our experience of privatisation may be of value.
Finally, I was struck by the part of the report which discussed the whole area of training. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, one of the great problems is that n o one has had any experience of private enterprise. The most difficult task is to change attitudes. It is difficult enough to change attitudes here at home, as so many people have had to change, but to make this enormous change and to face up to a completely different lifestyle and new methods of though is an immense and daunting task. Perhaps some of the know-how funds or other funds can be used on training.
As a subsidiary but very important part of that, I hope that we can use our expertise in teaching English so that those countries will have what has become not only the lingua franca of Europe but of the world. That will be of immense help to people in both their democratic systems and in their economies. We have had a great deal of experience of teaching English as a foreign language. When I was in the Foreign Office I was always struck by the work of the British Council and by how much it was appreciated. We should get on with that immediately because it would be of positive help.
I greatly welcome the report. Like other noble Lords I want to see Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland remain free democratic countries in the sense that we understand that term. I want them to have flourishing economies. They share with us a common European heritage. We have seen a grossly artificial division across Europe over the past 45 years. These countries deserve our help but it will take time. It is always difficult for democracies to understand how long is required before such labours come to fruition. The committee has made a number of useful and positive recommendations which I hope will be acted upon.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I warmly endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness in the latter part of her speech about the fundamental significance of mental attitudes and the great importance of this area being acknowledged and recognised as one in which positive steps must be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred in his introduction to the PHARE and know-how programmes. In my remarks I shall confine myself mainly to that field. Before returning to it I should like to say, not as a ritual but with very great
496
sincerity, how much as a member of the subcommittee I appreciated the noble Lord's leadership, guidance, firmness, wisdom and indeed—what underlies the whole of the report—his enormous hard work. I should also like to endorse his tribute to our two extremely able clerks.
As the noble Baroness said in the part of her speech on political matters, there has been a gap between the original expectations in all of these three countries and the realities of the prospect of their problems being solved quickly. That certainly is the case in the area of training, attitudes and mental skills. A Japanese team recently went to Moscow to have a friendly interchange with top executives and managers in the Soviet Union to try to help them to understand something of Japanese business methods. They reported that the result was not initially one of appreciation and understanding but simply one of shock. The Russian executives could not understand what the Japanese were driving at. That is reflected throughout the command economy of Eastern Europe. They just do not know how far they have to go in changing their mental attitudes and taking on board new skills. One problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and others have pointed out, is the total absence of most of the institutions and agencies in which their mental attitudes have to work. I refer to accountancy, banking, legal frameworks, costing and pricing, a credit system, contract law and professional standards. In those areas there is a vacuum which has to be filled. There is no quick route.
However, in my remarks I should like to suggest that there is a possibility for tackling the problem to which the noble Baroness referred. I suggest that this country can give a lead here, as we have done in the general field of know-how. The scale of the problem was summed up to the committee by a distinguished Polish economist. He stated that for every pound invested in the project, £2 must by spent on the training. When one considers the enormous amount of resources that each of the countries hopes to receive from Western sources, it is daunting, to say the least, to take this distinguished authority's advice that twice that sum will be needed for training. What a problem of absorptive capacity it is.
The area of management and professional training, technical assistance, technological and service skills comprises the whole universe of know-how. It is a different level of difficulty from that presented by the modernisation of plant and buildings. The individual must be matched to the training and the training to the future working and social environment. The first prerequisite is a new cast of mind; that is, new attitudes to free enterprise.
The Community has already devoted quite a considerable amount of effort and resources to the training field, as has been said by several noble Lords. For example, for Poland 14 million ecu has been earmarked for a four-year programme; for Hungary 5 million ecu has been set aside for a similar period; and, for Czechoslovakia, about the same kind of sum has been planned. That is an important, necessary and useful start. However, we must see these efforts in proportion. After all, the East European PHARE

497
programme budgets for 500 million ecus; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, pointed out, the total training budget is of the order of 15 million ecus. But the budget for the Lomé countries—the ACP countries—is 14 billion ecus spread over a period of several years.
We can congratulate ourselves on a useful start; but we must not kid ourselves that we are yet doing anything like that which must be done. Indeed, it is small scale in relation to the huge requirements for creating new mind sets. At that pace we cannot reasonably expect the three countries to qualify for Community membership in anything like the period for which they hope. Moreover, every year that passes increases the risks, to which noble Lord have referred, of political reactions which may make the whole prospect recede.
Is there then any means of shortening the process in relation to the general problem of mind sets; that is, attitudes? That seems to me to be a key question. In other words, can a springboard be created to give the required new mental attitudes upon which any specialised and specific qualifications—namely, professional, technological or whatever—must be based?
I should like to suggest that there is a constructive possibility in the new techniques of accelerated learning. They are a British innovation and are being researched and applied in various contexts. This is being done primarily by the London Business School, which, as noble Lords will know, is acknowledged as being the best and most effective business training establishment in this country. It is also being applied by the universities of Glasgow and St. Andrews and, in a quite different possible application, a very massive programme is under consideration for Africa.
If those accelerated learning methods can be harnessed to the East European task, a core of trainers can rapidly be trained in the new mental attitudes in courses lasting about a month. They can then go back to train others, thus setting in motion a yeast-like process of cell proliferation in each of the countries to implant new mind sets.
The London Business School could, with earmarked funding on not a very large scale, quickly launch a programme. It has excellent credentials for such a role. Not only is the school acknowledged as the leader in the business management and training sphere, but it has also been involved in helping Eastern Europe for five years. For example, in Hungary it was recently selected by the know-how fund for a special linkage with the best university in that country. Moreover, in Poland it is collaborating with the French in programmes for training managers. In the Soviet Union the school has for some years been giving short courses; and countries and governments in Eastern Europe use the consultancy and research services of the LBS.
Therefore, we have here a vehicle. The LBS has developed its own so-called "Learning Centre" which applies these new methods. The strategy can easily be adapted for Eastern European needs in order to train cadres of trainers rapidly, thus giving them new enterprising attitudes and methods. They must
498
underlie the whole Eastern European transformation. By virtue of learning centres set up on this model throughout Eastern Europe, there can be crash training of trainers to set in train a large expansion movement.
I mentioned that possibility in specific terms because it seems to me that only by such an innovative approach can minds frozen by the command economy for so long be thawed out fast enough to meet the political needs. It is not meant to replace normal academic courses and business attachments where there is time and opportunity for them; it is meant to supplement them.
In Eastern Europe there is enthusiasm, high aspiration and the desire to change. The Community has its own agreed policy under the PHARE and know-how programmes for aid. There is a potential match of need and resources. I hope that this country will be able to give a lead in establishing an accelerated learning project that could, by rapidly transforming mental attitudes over a wide field, make a very important and significant contribution to the metamorphosis to which we all look forward.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, as a member of your Lordships' committee, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Aldington for his chairmanship of the committee and for making it great fun. I hope that the expert witnesses found the same situation. My noble friend has fully summarised the report, the committee's opinions and its views. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the six headings of the agreements. Six headings may be thought to be not many, but when we consider that they start with "Political dialogue" and run swiftly through "Free trade", "Co-mingling of laws", and "Economic, cultural and financial co-operation", one then has a feeling for the enormity of the task facing the Community and the three countries the committee considered. If one then adds the problems caused by the debt that has been run up, especially in Poland, and adds 40 to 45 years of communism and retrogressive economic systems, those difficulties can be further multiplied. The committee reported, made recommendations and expressed opinions upon those six headings.
I should like to concentrate upon one issue: Community membership. I do so for two reasons. The first—I had not realised that my noble friend would be saying this—is a controversial opinion. The second may be more cowardly on my part, but I recognise that other noble Lords with greater expertise than I have covered subjects such as trade, economic issues and training. I have mentioned that the issue is controversial. All three of the countries that the committee considered see full membership of the Community as their goal.
Interestingly enough, the Commission was reluctant, in these agreements at any rate, to make a formal commitment to that extent. Those of your Lordships who have read or will read our opinion will see that the committee suggested that the preamble to the agreements should state that the Community and the

499
three countries concerned should state that they could join, if they so wished, when their political and economic situation allowed.
I had no difficulty with that statement. It is a general statement and has no time limit on it. Whether general or not, and whether it is a long time in the future, it is something that we should consider and explore carefully before we take it to its conclusion. In addition, we should consider whether the agreements form part of the stepping stones towards full membership. My view is close to the comments made in evidence by the MEP, Mr. James Elles. He said —I agree with the view—that no one within the Community had yet given serious thought to how a Community of 20 states would work. Discussion is continuing as to whether the Community should consider its widening before having completed what has been described as a deepening of the level of integration, or perhaps, vice versa, consider its deepening of the level of integration before its widening.
The process of deepening the Community has to proceed towards a greater level of completion before the membership is widened. As we have already heard tonight and in previous debates, membership of the Comm unity is widening with the Scandinavian countries in advance of Poland, Hungary and Czechcslovakia. Whether or not there is a discussion on the deepening question as against the widening one, the committee's view in a previous report was that the deepening of the Community was important. Mr. Leith Walesa of Poland said that they do not wish to see a slowing down of the integration of the Community. Mr. Antal of Hungary echoed that view. The noble Lord, Lord Roll, made the point strongly that the three countries welcome the thought of a stronger Community because, far from being a bar to them joining—a point which has been raised—they see it as an advantage to them, especially in terms of trade.
It goes almost without saying that the three countries have experienced great change in the past three years. That change has not been without pain or without causing stress within their communities. It is difficult for us to understand the extent of those changes and what they mean in those countries. One needs only to look at Poland which, since 1989, has sufferec a 40 per cent. reduction in real wages and a 30 per cent. reduction in industrial output (leading automatically to an unemployment rate of 30 per cent.) to grasp the potential for great stress and instability in those countries. If we link that to the fact that expectations have to be diminished—no one likes that —it all adds up to greater stress and instability.
Those countries face many difficulties. We in the West have to be positive in our assistance, not necessarily by writing-off off debt, by giving injudicious loans, but by enabling those countries to take advantage of the help we can give, to allow self help to become a reality. Those are easy words to say. It is mt.ch more difficult to resolve. My noble friend Lord Boardman has referred to the sensitivities of trade. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked rhetorically whether we in the West are prepared to make sacrifices to promote future stability. We can see
500
those sacrifices being made in Germany as West Germany assists with the modernisation of East Germany. If we take that further, we have no alternative but to continue to support the economies of the three countries as they strive to make the advances that we in the West have made since the last war. The agreements form part of that process.
I return to a point I made earlier. They are a stepping stone towards assisting those countries. The EC and the United States must ensure that the graffiti seen on the wall in Poland in 1981:
"The winter is yours—the spring will be ours",
come to fruition in Eastern Europe. I hope that I have so covered the subject at least to give an indication of the concerns that we in the Community must face when talking about full Community membership. In closing, I commend the report to the House.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, following the trip that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, made to Hungary about 12 months ago, a company of which I am chairman—Marlow Wade—was invited to make a presentation to a seminar by the rector of Gödöllo University in Budapest on the marketing of food. It was explained that there was no money, but many people in the food industry were interested. They wished to know a great deal more about how to market food products. As a result, we asked the know-how fund to provide money for them and, as many noble Lords said, their people were extremely helpful. We were able to raise sufficient money to help Gödöllo University to invite 300 people, of whom 250 turned up, from a whole range of food industries throughout Hungary to listen to us speaking on how to market goods. I was able to take eight people from various countries in Western Europe who I knew were experts in the marketing of various varieties of food. We then held a three day seminar.
Following that first trip we received a tremendous response from many of the people there and I received letters from people in Hungary asking whether we could take the matter further. They wanted us to find people who would invest in businesses or form closer co-operation and turn our advice into practical effect. As a result, I went again to Budapest for a week in March. I met our ambassador and various ministers and was able to organise a further trip, again with the help of the know-how fund.
During the Recess I spent a week in Hungary with six businessmen from the UK—they were not all from the food trade—who were prepared to form business relationships with companies in Hungary. I shall restrict my remarks to my experiences in Hungary over the three visits and how we might learn about what is likely to happen in the future.
On the first trip many young people were present who were starting businesses and were involved in state organisations. As many noble Lords said, it was quite clear that they had no knowledge of business structures. Most of the questions were, for example, "What is a share?"—not PHARE. "What is a limited company?" "How do we get rid of a bureaucrat?" I

501
was asked that question many times and I replied that we had been looking for an answer but had not yet found one.
The questions were simple and basic and it amazed us how ignorant people were. The managing director, chairman or general manager of the largest state farm had no knowledge at all of his profitability, of the income of his various enterprises or what his total wages bill was. He was running an organisation that farmed 20,000 acres, with many thousands of cattle, with pig units and so on. They had no record of what they did.
On my second trip, the most interesting man whom I met had recently been appointed to sell all the food industry businesses. I spent some time with him and asked him questions such as, "How many businesses have you to sell?" He replied, "I have no idea". I asked what kind of businesses they were and he had no idea. I asked, "Who owns them? How do you sell them?" He said, "We've not decided that yet. But this I can tell you: if somebody comes along and tells me what he wants we shall sell it to him". That is the view they all now have.
When I returned last week and met people in a whole range of companies, the dramatic change that had taken place even in the past six months was noticeable. They have now made a clear decision in government that they want to privatise everything. They are anxious that privatisations should take place with the use of Western money. The British are far behind any other country in Europe in regard to the potential and what is now happening in Hungary. There is a tendency for the British people who have gone there to get a deal rather than looking at the long-term prospects. There is a tendency to be approached by somebody who says, "I have a lot of pork or meat to sell". Last week we were approached by three people from a little village near Lake Balaton. One was the leader or mayor of the village, another two ladies were prominent in the running of the activities. They had 4,000 acres in the village and were desperate to find a buyer for their surplus products. Producers are being ripped off by the main wholesale, retail and transport trades in Hungary and all have surplus products to sell.
When one sees them, one realises that they have no idea what the marketplace is in the West as we know it, and that there is competition in choice among customers. They will not sell anything in the West unless it is of high quality, well packed and well presented. They have no concept of that; they expect that a wagon will collect a load of cucumbers, none of which is fit to eat. They are proud of their jams —some noble Lords may have eaten Hungarian jams. They said to me, "Isn't this wonderful jam?" One cannot tell the difference between one variety and another. They all look the same, taste the same and are packaged the same. For people who do not speak Hungarian, the names sound the same. People expect us to buy the products and they ask why we do not sell them in our supermarkets. There is a long way to go.
My noble friend Lord Boardman, and the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Roll, emphasised the
502
role of agriculture. I cannot see how the Hungarian economy can grow at all unless the Hungarians find markets for their agricultural products. It is the key to the whole economic development of Hungary and other countries as well. For them to have any wealth creating activity they must buy in the basic raw materials from other countries but they do not have the hard currency for it. All they have is wonderful land which will grow an enormous quantity of food. Hungary and all similar countries are already net exporters of food. We cannot imagine how we can help them unless we resolve our own CAP problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, aptly pointed out.
What is happening at the moment is that prices of foodstuffs are falling rapidly. In addition, the Government are having to take strong steps to stop production. We talk about quota restrictions on milk in the UK but only two months ago they were told that they must drop their production by 15 per cent. To deal with the problem, the milk is not collected by the dairies. For two or three weeks, the farmer is left with it and has to pour it away. The same is happening with other products; prices are falling fast.
On the other hand, one could describe Hungary as the Klondike of the 1990s. The opportunity to create wealth by reducing the cost of existing levels of production is enormous. There is not a factory or enterprise where one could not reduce the labour force by 50 per cent. I have never seen so many so-called employed people who do nothing. There is a famous cake shop which some noble Lords may have visited in the middle of Budapest. It is the only shop that I have ever been in where there are always twice as many waitresses as there are customers. That does not mean that any of the waitresses are working; most of them stand around and watch the odd one who does work. That applies to every possible enterprise. I visited a dairy that makes approximately four tonnes of cheese a day. Such an enterprise here would employ about 10 to 12 people; it employed 90. But the interesting point is that it was making a slight profit, as the difference between the buying-in price of the products and the price the goods were sold at in the Hungarian market was such as to give them a much higher margin than enterprises in the West would expect to receive. If we in the West will pour products into Hungary and reduce prices, the dairies will go bankrupt, or else the price of milk in Hungary will have to come tumbling down. The only other alternative is that Hungary must find much more efficient methods of manufacture.
There are great opportunities in Hungary, particularly for young, active people who are flocking back there after years of absence. However, on the other hand, the vast number of people who work on the land and perform more menial tasks will lose their jobs or their wages will fall. There is a great danger of a two-tier society developing in Hungary that will be more akin to the societies that exist in South America than to those in Western Europe.
There is the matter of making funds available to those who will form the new privatised companies. I gained the impression that many people who now work in the state bureaucracy or in the state-owned

503
businesses are looking for an opportunity to obtain a share in newly privatised businesses at very little cost with the aid of Western money. Those people will do well and will make a lot of money, but many others will lose out.
I agree with all those who have said that we must support Hungary. However, we must ensure that the money we provide helps in the production of goods. We must use the money to show manufacturers how to add value to their products. It is only through adding value to their products that they can market those products worldwide. We must be careful to promote those businessmen and entrepreneurs who want to make an impact in Hungary and to add value to their agricultural products.
There is considerable concern among many people in Hungary that the leadership of the country has not changed. Exactly the same people now run the country who ran it when it was a communist state. Those people have built up contacts and looked after their contacts. Many people in Hungary consider that that situation has not changed a great deal. The average Hungarian still feels ruled by a relatively small clique. Although there is now a democratic system in Hungary, there is no indication yet that new leaders who are motivated to create a truly democratic society have emerged. Hungary is still dominated by people who rather liked the former system but who feel that, at least on the surface, they must show signs of initiating a change.
I hope the Minister can comment on my next point. We need to invite more people from Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland to Britain so that they can understand what a market economy consists of. We must make funds available to invite to Britain the potential managers and the people who will become the leaders of those countries. I do not mean that we should invite the people who are now in charge of those countries but those whom we can identify as potential leaders. Let us open our doors to them and teach them what a market economy involves in terms of cho ce and opportunity.
Every time that I have been to Hungary I have found it an emotional experience. By nature I am rather an emotional person and Hungarians are also rather emotional. By the time we have drunk a few glasses of the excellent palinka that is produced there we become very emotional. We all cry and laugh together and agree that it must be right for us to draw closer:ogether. The Hungarians look to the British particularly for help in this matter. The Hungarians have a great sense of history and culture. I hope that we can provide the services and help that are needed to bring that country into Europe. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee for producing this excellent report, which I fully endorse.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships' House will pardon the late insertion of my name on the Speakers' List. It was due to my delayed arrival back in the country. I must begin by declaring an interest, as for some 30 years I have been involved in trade between the UK and the three countries we
504
are discussing. I have been involved particularly with Poland and I shall address most of my remarks to the situation there.
I add my welcome to the report. It is a workmanlike document and a most valuable aid in understanding the situation. I also welcome that wonderful event—the application of these three countries of Central Europe to become associates of the Common Market. That is a dramatic revolutionary turn in European history and something that future generations will look back on in wonder. The collapse of communism has, I hope, removed some terrible dangers which overhung the whole of Europe. However, ironically, the collapse of the system has also released certain dangers which were previously suppressed such as narrow nationalisms, ethnic differences and religious antagonisms. Those phenomena had been suppressed but are now coming to the fore. If the countries of central Europe are left floating loose, pursuing their own narrow nationalistic ends, that situation will be dangerous for the whole of Europe.
The conclusion of a successful series of agreements with the three countries in question is very much in the interests of Britain and of the whole of Europe. Polish ministers have been calling for a firm declaration from the Common Market that Poland will be accepted as a member when certain specified targets are achieved. It seems doubtful whether the Common Market can do that legally, but at the very least Her Majesty's Government and the governments of all the member states of the Common Market should make it clear that they welcome the approach that has been made and look forward to the full membership of those countries in the Common Market in due course. We must leave no doubt in the minds of those governments that we welcome their applications.
The report states that progress towards membership will depend on the continuing democratisation of the countries of Eastern Europe. That is understandable, but we must not forget that the converse is also true and that progress towards democratisation in Eastern Europe depends also on the development of a stable economy and the success of the applications of Eastern European countries to join the Common Market.
It was Bismarck who said that the big questions are settled relatively easily but the devil lies in the detail. There are plenty of devils to be found in the details we have to settle. One of the biggest is the Polish debt of 44 billion dollars. The decision of the Paris Club to recommend halving the debt is extremely welcome. Indeed we must face the fact that it is utterly impossible for the debt of 44 billion dollars to be repaid. The Polish economy is probably capable of servicing 8 billion or 10 billion dollars of debt. That is the limit. Therefore if we are to see any chance of success in negotiations the debt must be drastically reduced. The Paris Club has made a dramatic start in this matter but further measures must be taken.
We should remember that there are certain precedents. At the end of the last war America made a most generous and dramatic gesture to Europe in the form of the Marshall Plan. In particular, Germany was treated differently from the way it had been

505
treated at the end of the First World War. What a great success that was. Seventy per cent. of Germany's pre-war debts were remitted. If we translate the amount of Marshall aid that was given to Germany into today's prices it comes to some 70 billion dollars. So Germany received a great deal of aid, and it was well worth it. European stability today is a great credit to the generosity of the Americans at that time. It is time that we adopted the same generous, long-sighted attitude to the countries of central Europe. The prizes will be as great.
The Poles are also looking at unorthodox methods that may be of use in reducing their debt, and in particular the exchange of industrial equity in return for debt. That was suggested in the British economic press about a year ago and was rather cold-shouldered by the Polish Government of Mr. Mazowiecki. The present Polish Government, however, takes a more hopeful view. I recommend to Her Majesty's Government that they take serious note of that possibility. It may be of use in reducing the debt to manageable proportions. It will also give our companies something for the money. It is also a means of introducing a considerable amount of know-how into Eastern Europe, as has been pointed out by many speakers.
In relation to UK direct aid a number of noble Lords have referred to the know-how fund. I must congratulate the Government on their wisdom and generosity in introducing that fund. It has been a great success and is money well spent. The scheme should be expanded. Apart from bringing Poles to Britain to study, we should also take the opportunity to send many British experts to work on short-term contracts in Poland. That is another great way of spreading our expertise and increasing Poland's know-how.
I suggest that non-governmental organisations have a part to play. I was surprised that I could not see in the report any mention of the role of NGOs. It may be there but I did not see it. The associations of engineers, accountants, bankers and other professionals and trade unions have a part to play. While it is tremendously important, government is only a small part of our society. The majority of our society ticks along very happily keeping as far away from government as possible. That is how the countries of central Europe will have to work in the future. Let us use the resources of our own non-governmental organisations as well as the facilities of government.
Turning to the trade pattern, the collapse of Comecon is exceedingly dangerous for the three applicant countries, and in particular for Poland because many of its factories worked solely on exports for the Soviet Union. That market has now disappeared. It was suggested recently in the European Parliament that it might be sensible to make an ecu credit available to the Soviet Union specifically for purchases from the countries of central Europe to tide them over this dangerous period. The Commission brushed the suggestion aside. I think that it was a little too hasty. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government would like to give a little more thought to that suggestion of the European Parliament.
506
It is a time of a certain amount of danger but also of tremendous opportunity. It is a time for high statesmanship and a time to reach out in generosity to welcome those countries of central Europe into association with the Common Market.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I join with everyone else who has spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee on their report. My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter was a member of the committee and would have spoken this evening but, sadly, at present he is unwell.
Over the years, from the very beginning of British membership of the Community, the reports from your Lordships' Select Committee on European matters have earned a high reputation as guides to the complexities of United Kingdom membership of the European Community. Through their detached and authoritative approach they have made a significant contribution to creating an informed climate of opinion in the country on issues which have often been divisive and emotional.
The subject matter of this report—the Community's agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—is not itself divisive on the domestic front, but it is of immense importance, as all those who have spoken have emphasised, to our hopes for a stable and prosperous Europe. The historic collapse of the economic and political system of the Soviet bloc raised high hopes of progress to mixed economies and political liberty at the time when the revolutions took place but equally it has produced huge problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, has just given us a racy, vivid and down-to-earth account of the situation on the ground in the Hungarian economy. I cannot begin to match him. I ought perhaps to make a declaration of an interest of a kind as a former director of ICI. My experience of Eastern Europe is through ICI. I was therefore rather struck by the written evidence from Mr. John Mitchell, ICI's specialist in the region. He described how, even in East Germany, which was generally regarded in the past as the most efficient and modern of the communist economies, the chemical industry is being largely wiped out in the switch to a market economy. Over two-thirds of the GDR's chemical industry is expected to disappear and what is left will become subsidiaries of major Western companies.
If that is the position in East Germany, with West Germany in a position to bail out its Eastern citizens, how much more difficult will the process be in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Mr. Mitchell points out that the only production sector in which those countries have a real competitive advantage is food and agriculture. There they come up against the most protectionist aspect of the European Community, the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said in his opening remarks that trade will be the key to tackling those problems. My only mild criticism of the committee's report is that it is a pity that the committee was not a little more forthright. The report contains the rather anodyne sentence that:

507
"Some provision for imports of agricultural products from the throe countries needs to be considered within the proposed reform of the CAP".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roll, that anything that promotes the reform of the CAP would be of great benefit to those of us who believe in the importance of building an effective European Community.
On the political front and the creation of multi-party democracies in those countries, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the problems are gigantic. Even before 45 years of communism in Poland and Hungary there was not a strong parliamentary tradition. In Czechoslovakia there are deep problems between the Czech and Slovak republics. Indeed, as I found out when I took part in a British-Hungarian round table a while ago, in all three countries the minorities which were once contained arid suppressed by either the Habsburg empire or successive Russian empires are now vociferous and stirring. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew attention to that. It is a difficult dimension of the emerging problem.
The report rightly emphasises the gap between, on the one hand, national liberation movements, such as the trade union, Church-based Solidarity in Poland and President Havel's revolt of the intellectuals and, on the other hand, the creation of a multi-party system. There is a large gap between those two stages. After all, the parliamentary democracies of the West carried through the painful changes of their agricultural and industrial revolutions over a pretty long period of time and, for much of it, on the basis of a pretty limited parliamentary franchise. The committee pointed out that the shorter the economic transit on, the less will be the political strain. We all say "Amen" to that, but I suspect that, however well and wisely the West gives its assistance to East and Central Europe and to the Soviet Union, both the economic and political processes will take a good deal longer than we wish and will be fraught with many dangers.
As many noble Lords said, the report makes wise, realistic and above all practical comments on how the Community's European agreements can most effectively be implemented. As the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Boardman, said, from the point of view of the United Kingdom national interest we should like to see British enterprise earn a significant share cif the opportunities for trade and investment. The know-how funds are of great importance and the Government have been praised by a number of participants in the debate for pioneering the know-how fund in Poland and extending such funds to other countries. I was about to say that we might be able to earn some international dividends out of our own domestic traumas over privatisation by offering some expert advice on this matter until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Roll, explain the difficulties of putting a price on Skoda. Nevertheless, we have a good that of experience in this country that could be highly relevant to the problems of transition in those countries and know-how funds are important in that respect
508
One particularly important point that has been emphasised by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is the tremendous asset that we have in the United Kingdom in the fact that English is in effect the world business language. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, mentioned the useful role of Voluntary Service Overseas volunteers in Hungary. As a trustee of the foundation set up by the late Roy Thomson to train journalists in developing countries, I might perhaps mention the good work that the know-how fund has done by introducing East European journalists to the workings of a free and independent press. The British Council and the various specialist business language schools in some of our universities and colleges have an invaluable role to play in teaching English, provided that they are given adequate resources to do so by the Government.
The language advantage should help to compensate a little for the historically dominant position of West Germany in the trade of East and Central Europe. The figures in the report are striking. In Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom's 5.9 per cent. share compares with West Germany's 40 per cent. share; in Poland, our 5.2 per cent. share compares with West Germany's 38 per cent. share; and in Hungary our 4 per cent. share compares with West Germany's 41 per cent. share. Perhaps more worrying is the fact that Italy and France have also done a good deal better than the United Kingdom. The Government must address themselves seriously to the reasons for that situation.
I content myself by making a rather different remark; namely, that the economic domination of West Germany in East-West trade makes it all the more important that Germany, now united, should be so committed to progress with the economic and political integration of the European Community. That raises the question of Community membership for those countries in Eastern Europe on which a number of your Lordships commented. In my judgment, the report recommends a realistic time-scale of at least 10 years for the three countries with which we are dealing in this debate to become ready to complete a free trade relationship with the Community, which is a considerable way short of full membership. The three countries dealt with in the report, still less countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, will simply not be ready for full Community membership for a long time yet. The report makes the useful and ingenious suggestion that the preamble to the agreements—the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, mentioned this point a few moments ago—should include a statement of intent about ultimate accession to the Community. That seems a useful thing to do, but in the meantime I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the Council of Europe seems the more appropriate, wider and looser framework for encouraging political reform and progress in human rights in those countries. We welcome the fact that they are to become members of the Council of Europe.
As regards East Europe, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, who appeared to argue —I put words into his mouth; these are my words, not

509
his—that the so called dilemma between deepening or widening the Community seems unreal in relation to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. The noble Lord, Lord Roll, said that there was no evidence that the countries concerned wished the Community to halt its progress in order to make it easier for them to become members. In one of his wisest remarks towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, emphasised that it was a major interest of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to see the European Economic Community succeed.
In conclusion, our view from these Benches is that the countries of the EC will best equip themselves to promote prosperity and stability in Central and East Europe if they keep on course with their present plans to strengthen the economic and political cohesion of the Community.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his subcommittee on producing this report. I am also delighted to see my noble friend Lady Serota in her place because it is perhaps time that greater public recognition was given not only to this sub-committee's reports but to the reports which come from the select committee as a whole. I can only say that during my period in Brussels they were studied in the Commission which, in a sense, is where they are meant to be studied. What was said in the reports was read, marked, learned, inwardly digested and occasionally even acted upon. I gather that the position is still the same. Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on this report which is timely, important, and encapsulates the issues with skill and a great deal of thoroughness. I read it with interest and found myself in agreement with a great deal—indeed, almost all—of its conclusions.
As a result of the fundamental political changes in Eastern Europe, it was inevitable that the countries in the region turned to the European Community for financial and technical aid to assist in their huge task of development and reconstruction. Following the series of trade and co-operation agreements already implemented, the association agreements now being discussed are rightly viewed as the second stage of a process which could eventually lead to full Community membership for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and, I suppose, for other countries of Eastern Europe when they reach comparable stages of appropriate development.
The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, made an interesting speech about membership of the Community for these three countries. When I consider that question I find myself faced with two perhaps conflicting opinions. When they are ready, clearly they should become members and there is not a great deal of harm in putting it in the preamble of the agreements that that would be our eventual intention. On the other hand, I should be very reluctant indeed to see a situation in which the Community in its present form went on with its political and economic development
510
to such an extent that it created barriers for the newly emergent countries of Eastern Europe to becoming more closely associated with the Community itself.
If we end up with another divided Europe in which the division is perhaps different but which is nevertheless economically and perhaps politically real, I should regard that as a betrayal of the ideals which animated the founding fathers of the Community and the drafters of the Treaty of Rome itself. I accept, therefore, that we have to approach this matter with caution. On the other hand, the institutions are made for Europe and Europe is not necessarily easily adapted to the institutions.
When the Commission was authorised to begin exploratory discussions with these three countries it produced its own proposals identifying a number of areas for association agreements. They are formidable: political dialogue, free trade, the approximation of laws, economic co-operation building on the areas already covered by the trade and co-operation agreements, cultural co-operation and financial co-operation to facilitate structural reform.
The association agreements—or European agreements as they are now called—based on Article 238 of the treaty will have to be negotiated individually with each country. It is important to make that point. It seems to me quite impossible not to take full account of the level of political and economic reform which has been achieved in each country separately. This again is one of the major problems in the whole diplomatic exercise. The levels of reform reached in the three countries are by no means identical. Once again one is faced with the difficult problem of managing change in an orderly way. But here one is faced with the problem of managing change in an orderly way against a background which is indeed still distinctly uncertain.
It cannot be denied that the three countries are now in the process of fundamental transition. They are formerly communist states with command economies which are now attempting to develop democratic political structures and free market economies. As the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said when he introduced this debate, it is a daunting task, particularly given the depths of the socio-economic and environmental problems facing each country. It is a daunting task too, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, said, given the degree of perception in those three countries —he spoke only of Hungary but it is true certainly of Poland and probably parts of Czechoslovakia as well —of how to run a market economy and indeed how to understand even the most basic concepts involved. In my view, therefore, they require massive foreign aid and assistance to help facilitate the transition to free market economies and to the concomitant development of stable democratic political systems.
The countries differ, as I said earlier, so perhaps I might briefly examine how they differ and suggest what our approach should therefore be. Poland is the first European country to cast off communism and implement political and economic reforms. The Polish government's moves toward a free market economy have taken place against a background of severe and successive economic crises. Its efforts to control inflation have resulted in rising unemployment, lower

511
output and lower living standards. It is hardly an advertisement for the free market system and the delights of our western democratic systems at this stage so far as the Polish people are concerned. What they seem to have seen is a diminution in their standard of living compared with that which they enjoyed under a command economy. It seems to be proving a traumatic experience for the Polish people. President Walesa has come under increasing pressure as a direct result of the reform programme. On top of that, Poland has to try to implement it with a huge external debt of around 45 billion dollars. The burden, if not in fact insupportable, is indeed extremely heavy.
Hungary, on the other hand, one of the leaders among former Warsaw Pact members, is attempting to reform its socio-economic and political systems. On the political side, parliamentary elections were held in May 1990 and a stable coalition government with a mandate for reform was returned. According to reports, the reforms have made modest progress. However, it is expected that the economic fall-out of the Gulf war, the move to hard currency pricing in CMEA trade and the escalating debt crises—per capita the debt seems larger than the debt of Poland —are all bound to retard further progress. Indeed, it is novi being predicted that unless the Hungarian Government undertake urgent deflationary steps, the economic situation will deteriorate rapidly.
However, on the positive side Hungary is a longstanding member of GATT, the World Bank and the IMF. It signed a co-operation agreement with EFTA in June 1990 and it has joined the Cairns agricu tural group. We shall have to see what that says for its agricultural relations with the CAP but the Cairns Group does not view the common agricultural policy with a degree of warmth. Significantly, however, some foreign investment has at last begun to flow into the country. General Electric has bought a controlling interest in the Tungsram light bulb company and General Motors has signed an agreement with the Raba truck company.
The Financial Times of 21st May carried an interesting article—very much along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, had to say—about the difficulties of privatisation. It said that:
"Hungary, which has gone farthest in dismantling state control of industry, is therefore finding out first that the transformation is easier said than done. Transactions have to pass through the confusing legal, financial and administrative tangle left by 40 years of communist state control.
One temptation is to cut straight through the knot, by distributing property for free, and without discrimination, to the entire population or to former owners. But Hungary…has opted for the deliberate way: genuinely selling state property rather than just spreading it around".
The article then says that the decision has its costs.
It the quotes that are interesting. The article adds:
Mr. Karoly Szabo, deputy managing director of the State Property Agency, the privatisation agency which bears the brunt of people's impatience [says] 'The process is far more complicated than we ever thought"".
The article quotes Mr. Lajos Bokros the president of the Budapest Stock Exchange and board member of the SPA as saying, again somewhat despairingly:
"'People think that privatisation is just a matter of making an advert: this is for sale"".
512
The article states:
"In fact, every state company needs extensive legal, financial and organisational restructuring to prepare it for sale, Mr. Bokros says. 'Very few people know what is involved"".
So the problems of transition from a state controlled economy to a market economy even in a country as westernised in its history, traditions and outlook as is Hungary are frankly immense.
Czechoslovakia, which I suppose is the country with the most advanced industrial sector in comparison with the other central European countries, has a low foreign debt of 6.9 billion dollars and a per capita debt of 431 dollars—nearly a quarter that of Hungary and less than half that of Poland.
Perhaps I may say that one figure that I heard tonight gave me considerable pleasure; namely, that there are now 20,000 redundant Russian teachers in Czechoslovakia. I am sorry for anyone who is made redundant. When I visited the country the Russians were still there. One could not help occasionally feeling sympathy for them as an occupying force, an alien intrusion, into a country which fundamentally did not want them. One heard the story of the little boy who came home from school one day. His father asked, "What did you do at school today, my boy?" He answered, "I came top in Latin, father." The father said, "Well done, my son. And what else?" The boy replied, "I came second in maths." The father said, "Well done my son. What else?" The son said, "I came second in music." The father said, "Well done, my son". "And, father" said the boy, "I came bottom in Russian". "Well done, my son!". A country with a fundamentally western orientation appears to have been distorted away from that basic orientation over 40 years.
If that is so, we have to ask ourselves what we can do in relation to these three countries. The report asks pertinent questions and answers them comprehensively. The PHARE programme—which is desirable, having been established to facilitate reform and to develop the private sector—now extends to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Its total budget was only 498.I million ecu last year. I believe that that may be increased a little this year. The draft Community budget for 1991 provided for 820 million ecu in direct aid. It would be instructive if the Minister will tell the House the Government's approach to the PHARE programme. Do they propose to put more money into it? Do they approve of an increase in the Community budget to that effect? Indeed, what contribution will Her Majesty's Government make to it?
I believe that the United Kingdom is entitled to credit for being the first country to establish the know-how fund to provide bilateral aid in this way. However, the amount of money involved is extraordinarily small. In 1989–90 £2.3 million was spent on know-how aid to Poland. About £15 million was spent on Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1990–91. I am sure that the Minister will have anticipated from the course of the debate that he will be asked what Her Majesty's Government's attitude will be towards an increase in the money being devoted to the know-how fund. I am encouraged to

513
believe by the smile on the Minister's face that he is looking forward to announcing a major increase in resources available.
On these Benches we welcome closer co-operation and relations with the countries of Eastern Europe. We accept that reconstruction and development in Eastern Europe requires massive aid from the West. We are committed to ensuring that Britain plays a full and effective role in the process of helping those countries to develop stable democracies and free market economies.
There are many issues in the report to which one could refer. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred to the disturbing pattern of British trade with the three countries named in the Motion. I ask one question. The report highlighted the fact that ECGD cover so far as concerns Britain was not wholly comparable with that provided by our major trading competitors. The ECGD is to be privatised in this country. Even with all our experience of privatisation in this country—it is greater than that in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia—can the Minister assure us that privatisation of ECGD will not be to the detriment of British exporters to the three countries named in the Motion?
Changes in Eastern Europe over the past few years have been phenomenal in pace and scope. It is perhaps the greatest shake-up in Europe since Versailles. Some would say that it is perhaps the greatest since the Congress of Vienna. Therefore, we should approach what is happening in Eastern Europe with sympathy and encouragement, recognising the extraordinary efforts that have yet to be made. But the prize of a free and democratic Europe extending from the Atlantic to the Polish border with the Soviet Union is so great that our policy, and that of our allies and partners, should be generous, co-ordinated and open-hearted. This may be one of those seminal moments in history which, if rightly handled, could bring a degree of peace and stability which our old and somewhat battered continent has rarely known. However, it demands a response which is positive and encouraging. Festina lente may be a good motto. I would only say: do not forget the festina when one is concentrating on the lente.
8.35 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, like all noble Lords, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aldington for giving the House the opportunity to debate the European Community's relations with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I pay tribute to the Select Committee on the European Communities for its sustained effort to produce once again such an authoritative and comprehensive review of a subject.
The committee's report is noteworthy for covering the wide scope of developments in the whole of Eastern Europe since 1989. I shall also range more widely than the three countries named in the Motion. We have come a long way in the past two years. Since then all East European countries have rejected the Communist model and are now implementing democratic and market based reforms. The Warsaw
514
Pact is an empty shell, and COMECON has held its last meeting. Czechoslovakia and Hungary are both members of the Council of Europe and all Eastern European countries except Albania have joined the IMF.
The success of the European Community was, in large part, the stimulus for these changes, and the Community has led the West's response. There have been three stages in the development of Community relations with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. First, we negotiated trade and co-operation agreements with all East European countries except Albania. These agreements seek to improve trade relations and facilitate the exchange of economic expertise.
Secondly, we developed the Community's aid programme. The centrepiece is the PHARE programme of project aid in the key areas of agriculture, environment, energy and economic and industrial restructuring. However, there is one other important area that my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned; namely, training, which is also covered by the PHARE programme. We share with them the importance that they placed on this subject. Some £350 million were committed in 1990. That is expected to grow to some £600 million in 1991 and over £700 million in 1992.
In addition, the Community has provided extensive food aid to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria and financial assistance to support economic restructuring and currency reform in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria. Czechoslovakia and Romania.
The third strand of Community relations with Eastern Europe is the association, or European agreements as they are now called, which the United Kingdom first proposed in November 1989. The committee rightly described the objective of these agreements as,
"The creation of a climate of confidence and stability, the encouragement of political and economic reform, the transition to market economies, and the encouragement of trade and investment".
Those aims are explicitly political as well as economic. Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia see membership of the Community as their long-term goal, and association agreements are indeed a milestone along that road.
The association agreements build directly on the provisions of the earlier trade and co-operation Agreements. In trade terms, the earlier agreements provided for the elimination of quantitative restrictions on those countries' exports. In association agreements we have the ultimate goal of free trade. I shall return to that important area later.
The areas of economic co-operation outlined in association agreements are extensive and provide for the transfer of expertise in areas such as industrial co-operation, industrial standards, agricultural cooperation, energy, environment, health and safety at work, tourism and customs co-operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned the third most important element of the association agreements which is the help that the Community can give in bringing Polish, Hungarian and Czechoslovak laws into line with those in the Community. I reassure the

515
committee that there is no compulsion for the three countries to approximate their laws to those of the Community. But as new laws are put into place it clearly makes sense for them to be based as closely as possible on Community laws if these countries want a closer relationship with the Community.
Finally, the agreements will provide for a political dialogue. I reassure my noble friend Lady Young that we take parliamentary exchanges as seriously as she does. We have organised, sponsored or paid for a wide range of visits to this country by Eastern European parliamentarians and visits by British parliamentary officials. I share my noble friend's concern that nationalist rivalry and economic austerity are dangerous bedfellows. That is why we attach such importance to the protection of minorities to be discussed at the CSCE ministerial meeting in Berlin on 17th and 18th June.
The committee notes in its report that for association agreements to be successful political reform and democracy are essential preconditions. That is absolutely right. That conditionality has underpinned the Community's approach to Eastern Europe. If democracy and free market economies are successfully established in these three countries, as we fully expect, the results of association agreements will be an important contribution to the new Europe. Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia have made clear I hat membership is their long-term objective. The British Government share that objective and look forward to the day when these countries can sustain all the obligations of membership. That point was stressed by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire.
I reassure my noble friend Lord Aldington that the objective will be acknowledged in the preamble to the association agreements. Thus, as the committee rightly identified, it will provide additional encouragement to the three countries to pursue their reforms. But the Community cannot prejudge what Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia may decide in their best interests at a further date. It will be for them to decide whether and when to make a formal application. But as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, our attitude is equally crucial. It would be quite wrong for any country in the Community to slam the door on them now.
The European Community's association agreements are only one means of assisting Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to reach their objective of full integration into the European mainstream. One of the new tools at our disposal is the Group of 24. The G24 exercise was launched following the request made:o the Commission by the Paris Economic Summit in July 1989 to co-ordinate the West's help to Poland and Hungary. This effort has now been extended to cover Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. I am pleased to say that the UK plays a very full role in discussions in Brussels and has taken part in fact finding visits made by G24 missions to Eastern Europe.
My noble friends Lord Bessborough and Lord Aldington reminded the House that the donor's role is but on' side of the coin. Increasingly the recipient governments are able to co-ordinate the various offers
516
of aid. Thus, like my noble friends, we welcome the appointment of aid co-ordinators in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. It is right that as new governments in these countries grow in stature the focus for co-ordination will shift further towards the recipient countries. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Boardman, with his experience, raised the question of debt and some of the difficulties which each country has as a result of the different debt structures.
I noted that in paragraph 89 the committee welcomed the discussion at the Paris Club of the debt owed by the Eastern European countries. I am happy to report to your Lordships that the Paris Club has agreed to reduce the value of Poland's debt owed to bilateral official creditors by 50 per cent. This agreement reflects not only Poland's heavy indebtedness but is in recognition of its radical reform efforts.
My noble friend Lord Aldington picked up the point that the committee made in paragraph 91. It identified trade as an important element in improving economic activity. Improvements to these countries' trade access provide a more lasting and more effective source of support and growth in their economies than aid. Improved trade access is a vital component of the proposed association agreement and is particularly urgent now that trade within COMECON is contracting so sharply. The example of Poland's exports in 1990 is a case in point. Exports to the COMECON countries fell by 10 per cent. but that was offset by a rapid rise in hard currency exports. Polish and Hungarian firms are quickly developing the capacity to compete fairly in Western markets. In 1990 Polish and Hungarian exports to the Community grew by about 40 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. The British Government regard that as an opportunity rather than as a threat. The level of East European exports to the United Kingdom is still very low and totalled only £460 million last year.
There are areas in which East European exports are more competitive and could displace other exporters or even British producers. The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, was not alone in mentioning one sensitive area; that of agriculture. He said that the ability to export in this field was crucial. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton gave an example of some of the basic difficulties that first need to be overcome. We agree that the Community should be open to third country exports. But the Government will ensure that the opening of Community markets is done in a way which shares the burden equally between all member states.
As the report underlines, overall British interests are best served by Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia growing in economic strength and becoming bigger markets for UK exports. They can develop that strength only by trading in areas where they enjoy comparative advantage. We hope that the association agreements will achieve the delicate balance between allowing greater trade and providing the safeguards to avoid any one industry or member state suffering disproportionately.
In that connection several noble Lords mentioned the ECGD cover. As a result of those comments it

517
sounded as though the ECGD requests were considerably in excess of the money available. That is not so. The demand for medium-term cover in Czechoslovakia and Hungary is low and well within the cover currently available. The availability of ECGD cover should not therefore be a reason for lack of success by British exporters. I shall return to that subject later in order to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. No ECGD cover has been made available for Poland because it has been unable to service its existing debts.
It is probably true to say, however, that ECGD terms for medium-term cover are more restrictive than some other export credit agencies. It may be that other governments are not as prudent with taxpayers' money as we are. However, steps are being taken by ECGD and the Government to encourage other governments to ensure that risks are properly assessed, premium is charged at a realistic rate and interest subsidies are minimised. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that it is in no one's interest to repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and allow another unsustainable build-up of debt.
The committee referred to the help given by the East European Trade Council and British embassies to British exports overseas. I accept with gratitude the compliments paid to British embassies worldwide. However, it is true that those in Eastern Europe have witnessed the biggest changes in the past two years. More generally, the diplomatic service has moved quickly to re-order its priorities and to direct more staff resources towards Eastern Europe. In the period since 1989, 49 UK based members of staff have been redirected to work on Eastern European and Soviet matters.
So far I have concentrated on the help that governments and governmental organisations can provide for Eastern Europe. However, investment is a matter for the private sector. The committee was right to recognise that responsibility for attracting private investment falls to the governments in question. The key lies in their strength of purpose and determined implementation of reforms in face of economic difficulties. We hope that the recently established London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development with its private sector focus will be able to play an important role in creating the confidence required.
My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton was right to point out that there is more to it than making funds available. British investors must persevere like many of our competitors and look beyond just doing a deal. That is true for all markets throughout the world. Therefore, it did not surprise me that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked what the Government are going to do. Surely with his experience in ICI a more pertinent question is: what is industry going to do? In its widest sense industry must respond to that challenge worldwide.
I was surprised that not even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised the matter of human rights, which is mentioned in the report. As no noble Lord did that, I shall do it. The British Government welcome the
518
recent accession of Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the Council of Europe and their signature to the European Convention on Human Rights. Poland is expected to sign the convention later this year when it becomes eligible to join the Council of Europe after its general election. As regards accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, we hope that all three countries will agree to be bound by the court's rulings, as we are in the United Kingdom.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, my noble friend said that nobody had mentioned human rights. He has largely repeated the words which I used. Perhaps he lost me in the middle of my speech. If he reads Hansard he will see that he and I agree 100 per cent., as does the committee.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. Perhaps I was writing down an answer to one of his questions at the time. I know that my noble friend raised a point as regards ethnic minorities which I answered earlier.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, welcomed the fact, as did the Select Committee, that the British Government have already made a significant contribution through the know-how fund. That now covers Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. The fund has now been running for almost two years and over 200 projects have been financed to date. The fund fully spent its allocation of £15 million in the past financial year and I am pleased to inform the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the House, that the budget has been doubled to £30 million for this financial year.
The fund places particular emphasis on the financial services sector, management training—which will please my noble friend Lady Young—the development of small businesses and advice for dealing with unemployment. I was pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Boardman agrees that those are the important objectives for the know-how fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, drew attention to how the fund had provided critical help in the important process of privatisation in central and eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will be pleased to know that we have put our expertise to good use. The know-how fund financed the restructuring of the first four enterprises to be privatised in Poland, and advice is now being provided to the Polish Government on their mass privatisation programme. Advice is also being given to Czechoslovakian authorities on their proposed privatisation programme.
Finally, the committee referred to the importance of proper evaluation of assistance projects agreed under the EC PHARE programme. I am happy to tell your Lordships that as a result of consistent pressure by the United Kingdom the European Commission has agreed to include provisions for full and independent monitoring of all future PHARE projects and to earmark part of the budget for that purpose.
In conclusion, I thank all your Lordships who have taken part in this very important debate. It will provide a stimulus for the Government in the coming months and years as we continue to work for an open,

519
democratic and free market based Europe. As all your Lordships have stressed in this debate, it is not an easy road, but the report is an important marker on the way.
8.54 p m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, at the end of this fascinating debate, I thank the Minister for a carefully reasoned speech carrying his authority and showing the care with which he studied the report and with which he has listened to the debate. We are used to that from him. Perhaps I may say on behalf of the Select Committee that his speech to us was a reward for the report which we have commended to the House and we thank him for that.
Also, I thank all noble Lords who have studied the report and who have given the House the benefit of their views. I said that I was looking forward to the debate and to learning much from it. Indeed, that has been so right from the start when the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, gave us the benefit of his experience which, happily, some of us are able to obtain also outside this House. He put the report in context against its proper background.
I am obliged to all your Lordships. The two former commissioners who preceded the Minister made pungent speeches. I accept the chastisement of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, with whom I work very closely outside the House, that the report used words about agriculture which appeared to him to be too anodyne. I remind the noble Lord and the House that Select Committee reports are only as good as they are and only have the authority which they have if they remain based on evidence and not on the passions of the moment. With those wise words, I repeat my thanks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.56 p. m

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is with some sense of deja vu that I rise to move the Second Reading on this Bill, since a little less than one year ago—1,4th June 1990—I was speaking to a very similar measure which had been introduced in another place by the Member for Nottingham South, Mr. Brandon-Bravo. I must therefore explain to your Lordships' House that that Bill, which was subsequently considered by your Lordships' House in Committee to meet anxieties expressed by the ramblers, and received a Third Reading on 2nd July last, failed to make it onto the statute book, having encountered procedural difficulties on its return to the other place. Happily, the Member for Stafford, Mr. William Cash, was successful in the ballot this Session, and adopted the Bill which is before us today.
The Bill is substantially the same measure as the one which I was privileged to move last Session. Its main provisions are designed to enhance highway authori ties' powers in the area of temporary traffic
520
regulation; to relax existing consent requirements on local authorities; and to secure uniformity of approach among all authorities in Great Britain.
The Bill reflects provisions which have emerged from discussions between the local authorities, the Department of Transport and representative bodies. It is uncontroversial. In view of its history and the late hour, I hope I may be permitted to concentrate my remarks this evening on the main changes in the Bill this Session.
First, the Bill has been amended to take account of provisions enacted in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act contains provisions enabling local authorities to apply, as appropriate, to the highway authority—or in Scotland, the roads authority—for that authority to exercise its powers under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict traffic temporarily for the purposes of litter clearing and street cleaning. The new Section 14—set out in Schedule 1 to this Bill—has therefore been redrafted to subsume appropriate references. A consequential appeal has been added to Schedule 2 to this Bill.
Secondly, the Bill has been modified to take account of the Government's New Roads and Street Works Bill. Your Lordships are already well aware of the provisions of the Government's Bill, which has been fully considered in this House and by another place. We are now waiting to consider amendments made by another place. I remind your Lordships that, where it is necessary to restrict or prohibit road traffic on account of temporary road works, local authorities rely on the powers in Sections 14 to 16 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Those are the powers which this Bill seeks to strengthen and improve. So it is all the more apt, now that the Government have brought forward their proposals for reforming the street works code, that this particular Bill should be proceeded with. It will help to streamline administrative procedures and enable local authorities to take more effective action.
The main change as a result of the Government's New Roads and Street Works Bill is to introduce into the Bill the expression "traffic authority" in Clause 2(5). This is because Schedule 8 to the New Roads and Street Works Bill itself introduces that expression throughout the 1984 Act. This is merely a drafting convenience; it does not convey any change of substance. It is simply shorthand for the previous references to highway authorities (in England and Wales) and roads authorities (in Scotland). Once again, there are consequential repeals in Schedule 2. It is expected that the New Roads and Street Works Bill will receive Royal Assent and come into force before this Bill. The repeals will simply remove references which will be redundant once this Bill is enacted.
Thirdly, my Lords, the Bill omits a provision which was included in its predecessor; namely, that breach of a temporary speed restriction imposed under Section 14 of the 1984 Act should be liable to obligatory endorsement and discretionary disqualification. The omission does not come about by reason of any change of mind about the merits of such a provision. It arises simply because the matter has already been

521
taken care of in Schedule 2 to the Government's Road Traffic Bill which is currently before your Lordships' House. So it has been omitted from this Bill.
I think I need not say a great deal more. The Minister for Roads and Traffic, in speaking to the Bill on Third Reading in the other place, commented on the continuing growth of vehicle traffic and the pressures that that brings on road space. This makes it all the more necessary to ensure that obstructions to traffic flow are kept to a minimum. When there is a legitimate need to restrict traffic—whether in the interests of safety, to prevent damage, or to avoid conflict with works in the road—it is important that the traffic authority should be able to act swiftly and efficiently. The Bill seeks to provide for that, while at the same time maintaining adequate safeguards so that access to premises is maintained, appropriate traffic signing erected, and suitable provision made so as to bring the arrangements to the attention of the public.
With those few remarks, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
9.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, and also to Mr. William Cash in another place for introducing the Bill, albeit technical. We certainly welcome it.
I have only one question to put to the Minister. I find it rather surprising that we have had two comprehensive Bills —the Road Traffic Bill and the New Roads and Street Works Bill—before the House, and the issues set out in this measure were not picked up in those specific pieces of legislation. I do not wish to carp about the matter; the House is indebted to those who sponsored the Bill privately. Private Members' Bills, particularly those the Government want, is a dangerous route because they may be subject to capricious activities, particularly in another place, over which governments frequently have no control. It is therefore a risky business. Having said that, I welcome the Bill.
9.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am pleased to be able to express the Government's full support for this Bill. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux has undertaken to carry it through this House for a second time. We understand it is no reflection at all on him that the Bill failed to reach the statute book last year. Indeed, the Bill was actually improved, under his pilotage, during its passage through Committee in your Lordships' House and was in a form which met with widespread approval when it returned to the other place last July. As my noble friend explained, its downfall was due to procedural difficulties rather than any objections of substance. The passage of time since then has necessitated a number of minor and consequential
522
amendments, which my noble friend helpfully explained. Otherwise, as he says, the Bill is unchanged from the measure which the House has seen and agreed before.
The Government welcome the reappearance of the Bill this Session. It is a small and admittedly rather technical measure. Its main benefits lie in the improved powers and greater flexibility which it offers traffic authorities in managing traffic for temporary periods. All who have an interest in minimising congestion and disruption to road users will particularly welcome its provisions.
In our debates on the measure last year, several of your Lordships regretted the fact that the Government had not—at that stage—been able to bring forward measures to reform the Public Utilities Street Works code. Happily, a year later, we have now done so, in the form of the New Roads and Street Works Bill, which will shortly be returning to this House after completing its stages in the other place. We believe that the provisions in that Bill will go a long way to improving the present arrangements.
Action is already being taken in advance of those changes. For example, the Department of Transport recently published the new Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual, entitled "Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations". That provides a national standard of good practice for the signing and marking of obstructions, as well as for temporary traffic control. A booklet is also available offering advice to road workers and supervisors to ensure safe practice at road works on all-purpose roads. The New Roads and Street Works Bill will require public utilities and others to guard, light and sign their street works in accordance with the new standards.
The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill has a complementary role to play. It will help to ensure that traffic authorities can respond quickly and effectively to short-term needs for traffic restriction. As my noble friend has said, the Bill will play a small but significant part in providing a streamlined and more effective code of powers for use when authorities need to restrict traffic temporarily on roads or other highways. It will greatly reduce the number of occasions when authorities have to seek consent for temporary traffic orders. It will enhance the powers to introduce temporary regulation on alternative roads where traffic is diverted; and it will remove unnecessary bureaucracy, for example by allowing a single comprehensive order to be made when both local roads and trunk roads are affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why it was not possible to have incorporated these provisions in Government Bills during this Session. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that there is always more demand for legislative space than there is ever capacity to meet it. Decisions have to be taken about priorities, and inevitably there are constraints on what can be included. In bringing forward both the Road Traffic Bill and the New Roads and Street Works Bill, the Government took the view that both Bills should be restricted to the specific and substantive measures with which they were respectively concerned. I must say

523
that it is a refreshing change to hear from the Benches opposite a call for longer rather than shorter Government Bills.
This short Bill, having already been passed through most of its stages last year, was available for adoption by Members successful in the Private Members' ballot and was accordingly taken up by my honourable friend the Member for Stafford. As your Lordships may be aware, it has enjoyed a very swift passage through the other place and there is no reason, if your Lordships' House agrees, why it should not proceed speedily through its stages in this Chamber as well. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his welcome for this small technical measure. I think that my noble friend has dealt with the reasons why it was not incorporated in one of the other Bills, and so I will not gc into that at this hour of the night. I should also like to thank my noble friend and all his colleagues in the department for their help, which has been most valuable. I would once again thank all noble Lords for the su sport that they have given. I trust that we shall not be having a Committee stage or Report stage. With those few words, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Pathological Services
9.10 p m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Audit Commission concerning the pathological services, they are in favour of the transfer of pathological testing from hospital laboratories to general practice.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think that everyone would accept this philosophy as their objective in relation to the National Health Service, that working for patients and minimising costs while maintaining standards is a key to this situation. It is also true that more testing and diagnosing accurately near the patient is a major objective rather than just sending them to hospital. One s perhaps disturbed somewhat by the Government's plan, whereby the basic assumption seems to be that for many things patients will continue to go to the hospital and doctors will make financial arrangements with these hospitals.
However, there are a number of revolutions going on which are of the greatest importance. The most import ant factor, as I have said, is the trend towards more testing and investigation near the patients. This, and population screening, is likely to revolutionise the whole situation within a decade. I believe that a paper about this is being published tomorrow.
Of the many factors, dry chemistry is undoubtedly the leading change and the one with the greatest potential. Under many conditions it can provide all that is required quickly, conveniently, inexpensively
524
and accurately. There are sometimes problems with pathological investigations which are carried on outside hospitals. There is a worry that clinicians and nurses taking over near-patient testing have insufficient knowledge, and local testing is carried out without a proper strategy or policy. The hospital laboratory must surely assume an important advisory and supervisory role in this situation, and the National Health Service organisation must facilitate this.
The technological key to stick testing is dry chemistry. This typically comprises thin pads or films containing all the reagents required for performing an assay. The number of substances of clinical importance that can be measured by dry chemistry technology, in blood as well as in urine, has grown enormously and continues to do so. Tests available in stick format are biochemical, microbiological and hematological. Even allergy testing is possible with a sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of traditional methods.
The greatest fillip to the expansion of stick tests for use with blood outside the laboratory was the introduction of the Reflotron blood analysis system. This enables a variety of the most commonly requested tests, such as urea, creatinine, uric acid and cholesterol to be measured on a whole blood sample collected from a single finger prick. The tests can be performed within three minutes by a person with minimal training, yet provide an accuracy and precision comparable with that obtainable in a quality controlled laboratory. More recently, multiple tests for blood analogues have become capable of giving liver, cardiac or kidney profiles. There is no limit to the number of conditions for which stick tests can be developed. They are already used for detecting toxins in foods and water and they have important applications in veterinary medicine.
We come now to the question of cost and patient convenience. Many of the single stick tests are competitive with similar tests performed in a central laboratory and have the added advantage of timeliness and convenience. Vitally important, however, is the maintenance of analytical standards, because despite their apparent simplicity stick tests are sophisticated systems and need efficient quality control.
Is it not urgent that studies be done to find out the most convenient way of providing these facilities in large group practices and to determine their relationship with central pathology laboratories? Many can be carried out by trained practice nurses. If this proves to be true then an enormous step forward has been taken in the diagnosis of diseases and the results of an accuracy which is undoubtedly greater than that of clinical judgment.
However, do these proposals clash in any way with the basic assumption in the Government's new plan recently introduced that patients should be referred to hospital and doctors will make financial arrangements with these hospitals? The audit report suggests something else; a further development —the introduction of consortia where existing laboratories pool their resources and effectively operate as one

525
inter-hospital service. Staff could work for the consortium and not for individual hospitals. The Audit Commission draws an interesting parallel between the growth of patient testing and the introduction of desk-top computers. In many organisations central computer departments try to limit and control the use of micro-computers in order to maintain their position. As a result, many are reduced to running the payroll while the computing services in their organisations evolve in a haphazard and uncoordinated way. Others have taken a more positive line, maintaining an advisory service helping with the purchase of equipment and software. It would seem that pathologists too should carefully note this experience and be actively discussing user needs directly with the users and advising them on cheaper and better methods.
In December 1990 the Secretary of State announced the first 56 trusts. He said:
"1 believe that the scale of the response to the trust initiative shows the very real enthusiasm from those working in the National Health Service to take advantage of the benefits of trust status".
He went on to say:
"Over time I expect to see trust status becoming the natural model for all units providing patient care".
Will the Minister please explain what has been achieved so far and whether the Government's view remains that all units involved in patient care in the future should have trust status?
9.18 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I apologise for not having my name on the list of speakers and for intervening briefly in this manner. I am a practitioner of medicine in general practice within the National Health Service and I thought it appropriate that I should say a few words. I did not realise at first that it would be possible for me to be here tonight. I thought I would be away.
I have read the Audit Commission's report and it is quite properly very much based on the advice of the Royal College of Pathologists. The report and the college are concerned to preserve and extend quality as well as to provide good value for money. Very useful suggestions are made towards that end and some examples are given where good practice already occurs. This is particularly so when near patient testing is discussed. I should have liked the report to have discussed that a little more. I entirely agree with the line of thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who has taken this a little further than the report. I also share his concern now that budget holding practices may be encouraged to do their own testing and so save the cost to them of purchasing the pathology service provided by the district or trust pathology laboratory.
I am particularly fortunate in that my non-budget holding group practice is able to obtain a very efficient and helpful service from the pathology department of UCH Middlesex. We have the added convenience of a twice daily pick-up service to transport samples to the laboratory and a computer link with the laboratory so that we get results as soon as they are ready. We have very few complaints, although there are occasional
526
hiccups. I can see, however, that there are many advantages to be gained from the new methods which the noble Lord described—the stick or dry chemistry results. This will be particularly so for smaller GP units or those which are some distance away from a laboratory.
I agree with the noble Lord that if there is to be more on-site or near-patient testing it should be monitored and carefully supervised, with a continued link with the local pathology laboratory. This is particularly so as a result of the development to which the noble Lord referred of the increasingly reliable screening tests and analyses which are available on these simple dry chemistry strips.
Therefore I fully support the noble Lord's call for an organisational framework which will allow the continued link of practices with laboratories to be maintained so that standards can be kept up and the service to patients improved.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I do not know how many times in the past 18 months we have debated the National Health Service—I have lost count—but on no occasion can I remember us discussing the pathology services in the health service. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for bringing to our notice the review by the Audit Commission of the pathology services.
The Audit Commission's report on pathology services makes interesting reading. It is a clear analysis of the problems facing the service, but in many ways it raises more questions than it answers. I am particularly interested in the financial aspects of the pathology services. I was therefore more than interested in reading the comments in the report. On the question of costs, the report points out that for years pathology has relied on incremental budgeting, with very small adjustments for additional activities or improved efficiency. That was also true for years for a large part of the National Health Service, but it has obviously carried on in the pathology services. As a result, any increase in efficiency leads to resources being taken away from that department.
There has also been poor financial control of budgets. Present accounting procedures are designed to control the cost of inputs such as staff, reagents, telephone calls—all the costs that go with running a pathology laboratory—but not to control the cost of activities. The problem is not improved by the allocation of resources to at least three separate budget holders: to capital, to medical pay, to non-medical pay, consumables and overheads. There may also be additional funding from universities for teaching and research and some capital equipment may be funded from research grants. This can on occasion—it says so in the report—result in staff salaried by the pathology laboratory service working in a university building on NHS work using equipment funded by research grants. That does not make for good accountancy and good control.
Secondly, pathology, in common with other branches of medicine, has also become divided into a large number of specialties, all of which, on the whole,

527
are covered in most hospital laboratories. Moreover, productivity varies considerably between sections. Therefore, I should like to ask whether it would be possible for laboratories to become specialist laboratories, providing services for a number of hospitals on a cross-boundary basis. That should be more than possible at present as we have created within the health service the principle of provider and purchaser.
If such a system were to be introduced, it would necessitate the complete mobility of students between various units for the purpose of adequate teaching. It seems to me that there is merit in concentrating some services in certain laboratories. I say that because in many laboratories some tests are carried out so rarely that the. of expertise does not remain as high as it would be if the throughput were higher.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunter of Newington and Lord Rea, dealt at length with developments in what I am told is called—although I may be using the wrong term, as I am not a pathologist—"dry-stick testing". They mentioned the problems that this may create for the pathological services. There is no doubt in my mind that, from the patient's point of view, to be able to have a test carried out in the doctor's surgery and receive the answer in minutes—or at the most, perhaps, within an hour—is preferable to having to wait for three to five days for the results to be received from the hospital laboratory.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out that he has a wonderful back-and-forth service with University College Hospital, Middlesex. However, that does not apply to all practices, and certainly it does not apply if you ate living in a slightly rural area. Incidentally, in such cases, near patient testing in the doctor's surgery would Jso save a lot of money in transport costs. Above all, I believe that it is in the interests of the patient to be able to obtain the result quickly.
However, the overriding problem which has to be addressed is the question of quality control and the training of staff in near patient testing. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Hunter, said that such control would have to be exercised by pathology consultants working in the community. They would also have to be consulted on the purchase of equipment and be required to give advice on its use and its maintenance.
It seems to me that the report opens the way for us to think seriously whether we should move towards an increase in the use of stick testing in the doctor's surgery and concentrate the expertise in specialist laboratories. By doing so, I believe that we would probably save money, make the patient happier and, perhaps, in the end create greater expertise.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, not only for introducing us to the subject but also for persuading us to read the report. Indeed, it is perfectly possible that I would not have read it if he had not tabled this Question. It is a fascinating document. It shows the changes which are taking place in modern pathology.
The report states that the pathologists and
528
pathology laboratory services carry out a wide range of investigations. They include: the examination of cervical smears; biopsies for cancer; blood group tests and cross-matching for transfusions; the investigation of patients infected with bacteria such as listeria and salmonella; the identification of viruses such as HIV; and biochemical tests for the diagnosis of a host of different conditions.
As the report says:
"The service is at the heart of the development of modern scientific medicine".
It also points out that the practice of pathology has become steadily more diverse and complex over the years. The range of investigations available and the number of requests for them have grown steadily. The technology available has been increasing in sophistication and cost, with significant advantages in automation, mainly in clinical chemistry and hematology, with the introduction of test kits for many investigations.
There has been a report of the steady increase in the requests for laboratory investigations. Page 16 states:
"The number of requests from doctors has been growing in all branches of pathology in recent years".
Exhibit 6 shows that in 1987–88 and 1988–89 there was a modest fall down to the levels of 1982 and 1983. I could not understand from the report why that was so and why there had been a fall. It was not clear whether there was a different method of accounting. As I understand it, changes in the method of calculation in histopathology do not explain the fall.
There are many other interesting aspects in connection with the report that one could raise, but I must turn to the essentials of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the attractions of on-site or near patient testing. I understand the attraction. My reading of the report is that the arguments against GPs taking on the responsibility from the laboratories is overwhelming. In paragraph 43 on page 31 we see some of the arguments set out against the process. On quality, it says:
"There is a growing worry, both in the laboratory and among users, that clinicians and nurses are taking over near-patient testing with insufficient knowledge about the equipment to buy, its use and maintenance, the provision of adequate quality control, and how to interpret results".
The commission considered safety, and it states:
"There is concern about the safety of staff working without correct training with samples which could be potentially hazardous".
On economics, it says:
"There is concern that near-patient testing is more expensive and duplicates work being done in the laboratory".
On strategy:
"Local testing is carried out on a piecemeal basis with no coherent strategy or policy to minimise costs and ensure quality".
It continues:
"Near-patient testing could affect the pattern of work requested from laboratories…Near-patient testing could equally lead to increases in workload, with abnormal results being referred to the laboratory".
I could not match the arguments against with the arguments in favour. I shall look with great interest at what the Minister says. As I understood it, the report did not argue the case for such a significant change, attractive though the prospect may be.

529
I shall now mention an anxiety about an issue raised in paragraph 7 on page 13;
"The NHS and Community Care Act (1990) will alter the environment within which pathology services operate in a number of important respects, making it even more necessary to ensure that the service is effectively managed. In future there will be a range of purchasers of services who will contract with providers".
The district health authorities will contract for patient services for their resident populations from directly managed units and/or NHS trusts. There will also be references from GP fund holders and other agencies; for example, the private sector. But what about the GPs who are not budget holders? That was an issue that I thought my noble friend Lord Rea might have raised.
Paragraph 8 is a little confusing in that respect. It states:
"The Department of Health has advised that DHA contracts are not likely to specify levels for laboratory services, except in relation to direct access for GPs who are not fund holders".
In practice, in recent weeks we have seen many examples of the development of a two-tier NHS as a result of the Act. I should like an assurance that this part of the report will not be another example of a two-tier service because of preference being given to the budget holders as opposed to the non-budget holders.
I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue and look forward with interest to the reply from the Minister.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing the debate and other noble Lords for taking part and for reading the document which has well informed the discussion.
I wish to begin my response by looking back at the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. He asks whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Audit Commission, we are in favour of the transfer of pathological testing from hospital laboratories to general practice. This is not, as will be appreciated, a reference to any lock, stock and barrel shift in the way pathology services are provided. But it is a recognition that there have been, and continue to be, technological developments in testing. Those developments enable some tests in some pathology specialties to be done outside the laboratory—for example, at the patient's bedside or in the general practitioner's surgery. Differing terms are used to describe this activity; for example, near patient testing or extra laboratory testing, in the sense of "outside the lab". Stick testing is one form of near patient testing. It was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, sometimes at a technical level slightly beyond my comprehension.
The noble Lord's Question refers to the Audit Commission's recommendations. We welcome the commission's report entitled The Pathology Services —A Management Review. We are in broad agreement with it, as the noble Lord has already been told by my noble friend Lady Hooper. Noble Lords will recall that the Government widened the remit of the Audit
530
Commission to cover the NHS. It is charged with reviewing value for money provided by the health service.
Pathology was one of the first NHS areas to be studied by the commission, which took the starting point that the significant resources available to pathology—over £460 million in 1989–90—should be used to best effect. The report made constructive suggestions on the organisation, staffing and management of pathology services and on quality of service. It looked at the demand for services, and it considered the question of near patient testing. But it did not recommend a lessening of pathology workload by a shift towards testing outside the laboratory. In fact, it pointed to potential problems with near patient testing. I shall focus on three particularly: quality, safety and economics.
First of all quality: I mentioned that near patient testing was a developing area. The Audit Commission report points to the fact that at this stage users may not have enough knowledge about what equipment to buy, how to use and maintain it, how to ensure adequate quality control and how to interpret results.
Secondly, safety: some patient samples could pose a risk to those carrying out the tests, and others handling specimens. Adequate training is needed in aspects of health and safety of all staff involved in those activities.
Thirdly, economics: near patient testing may in fact be more expensive than tests carried out in the laboratory, when the total costs are considered. It may be cheaper to perform tests in large numbers, as is done in laboratories at present. Often the test needs to be repeated later in a laboratory.
Having identified problems, the report suggests ways of addressing them. It envisages that pathology departments could, by virtue of their expertise, provide centralised oversight and advice. In this way, pathology departments would be supporting near patient testing by ensuring that it was used to provide accurate and correctly interpreted results. But a key factor for our debate is that the Audit Commission acknowledges that such support for near patient testing in general practice would present considerably more problems. For near patient tests within the hospital the pathology department could identify the extent of activity, register equipment, advise on purchase and maintenance of equipment, advise on staff training in safety and interpretation of results, monitor the quality of results and identify costs to ensure that the near patient testing that is carried out is cost-effective.
To sum up so far, therefore, the Audit Commission report highlights problems relating to near patient testing and acknowledges that its recommendations for addressing those problems are difficult to apply to general practice. All those points were raised by noble Lords and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Noble Lords may be glad to know that this is not the end of the story however. Near patient testing in general practice is not being neglected. The Royal College of General Practitioners set up a working party last autumn. It will oversee the growing use of near patient tests and it plans to issue a series of papers

531
advising GPs on the appropriateness of various types of tests, how quality of results can be ensured and how to act on those results. The Department of Health is also funding several projects on near patient testing, including a study by St. George's Hospital and Warwick University on the impact of new technology on investigations in general practice.
My broad statement in response to the noble Lord's question about increasing levels of testing in general practice has to be that at this stage we must sound a note of caution. Some forms of near patient testing could be candidates for providing fast results cheaply. If that were so, it could be beneficial to patients. Patients and GPs are sometimes critical of the delay between sending a sample on a patient and receiving a report. Near patient testing means that a result may be available almost immediately and this is one of the major advantages promoted by supporters of near patient testing. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness. It is hoped that with the introduction of medical audit and laboratory accreditation this problem will be addressed and it may well be that with the advent of near patient testing there will be additional encouragement to laboratories to produce results more swiftly. However, if we are thinking in terms of diagnosing a patient's illness, then the terms "fast results" and "cheaply" need closer attention.
I am advised that as current technology stands, it would not be reasonable to accept a diagnosis solely on the results of a near patient test such as a stick test. The results would need confirmation by conventional testing in the laboratory. That detracts both from speed and cost-effectiveness. I am strongly advised that there is some way to go before near patient testing equipment could be used as a reliable, safe and economical total substitute for full diagnostic testing. It is also likely to be the case, as noble Lords will appreciate, that even with advances in technology it is unlikely that near patient testing will ever be appropriate to some fields of pathology. I am thinking, for example, of histopathology, which involves the examination of tissue.
Near patient testing in general practice does, however, have a role in some circumstances. I understand that near patient testing can prove useful in monitoring the progress of disease in people whose disorder has already been diagnosed and is being treated.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, asked what has been achieved so far in this field under the new trusts. That is a little wide of the matter we are discussing, but I know of nothing that is inconsistent with the pathology services. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rea, expressed anxiety about fund-holding GPs who might skimp on pathology tests. Like other GPs, fund-holding GPs are concerned to provide the best possible service for their patients. They have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate diagnostic testing is available for their patients. Regulations require that fund holders produce monthly reports on their activities which are monitored by the family health services authorities and regional health authorities. If the regional health authorities consider
532
that activity patterns are changing without adequate clinical grounds, they are entitled to question the practice and, if necessary, remove fund-holding status.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this late hour and I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to make this intervention. What I said in relation to fund-holding practices was not that they would skimp on the total number of tests but that they would be likely to do more of them as a stick or near patient test and that that may have certain implications. It would be difficult for a laboratory to monitor what was going on if special arrangements were not made. That was the implication of my question and the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. What arrangements would cover that point?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the emphasis of the question. At the moment there is no hard and fast arrangement. What I have said indicates that the situation is evolving. I am speaking against the background of a very strong note of caution on the whole subject of near patient testing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked how testing which was done by GPs would be supervised. The Royal College of General Practitioners has set up a working party which will oversee the use of near patient tests and advise GPs on the appropriateness of various types of tests, how quality of results can be ensured and how to act on those results. Additionally, GPs could participate in quality assessment schemes and seek advice from local pathology laboratories. As in the case of all medical professionals of course, GPs are subject to the overall regulations of the General Medical Council.
The noble Baroness also asked whether it would be possible for some collaborators to become specialists and provide a service to several hospitals on a cross-boundary basis. I agree that the NHS reforms and the separation of purchaser and provider functions should make it easier for that very sensible suggestion from the Audit Commission to come about, but it may be necessary for some pathology functions to remain on each hospital site to deal with urgent "hot tests", as they are known.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why there was an apparent fall in tests in 1987–88. As explained in the caption to the table, the measurement system for counting the number of tests changed at that time. Therefore, it is merely a technical movement.
The noble Lord asked how GPs will compare with fund holders and whether there will be a two-tier system. GPs will continue as they are at the moment and so far as I know that is proving satisfactory.
To conclude, let us now consider the current position. The Audit Commission made some constructive recommendations for the management of pathology services, but not because it saw pathology as a notable problem area. Although it acknowledged the heavy demands on pathology services, it did not point to fundamental inadequacies. Its tone was rather of strengthening what we already have.
General practitioners have direct access to pathology laboratories. Health authorities are asked to consider GPs' wishes when placing contracts for

533
services. Technological developments in near patient testing have not yet come to full maturity. Checking those preliminary results with the pathology laboratory tends to duplicate effort and cost. Cost-effectiveness is in the interests of all patients, who are entitled to expect the highest quality of service. Near patient testing is a developing art and we should
534
continue to be sensitive to its implications for the care of patients. Those are largely implications for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has constructively instigated debate on the subject tonight, for which the House will be grateful.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.

  UN RESOLUTION 681: SECRETARY GENERAL'S NOTE
  UN RESOLUTION 681: SECRETARY GENERAL'S NOTE
  PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: PROTECTION
  PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: PROTECTION
  MERCENARIES: UN CONVENTION
  MERCENARIES: UN CONVENTION
  GUY'S HOSPITAL
  GUY'S HOSPITAL
  STAFFORDSHIRE CHILDREN'S HOMES: COUNSELLING PROVISION
  STAFFORDSHIRE CHILDREN'S HOMES: COUNSELLING PROVISION
  PAYMENTS TO EC INSTITUTIONS
  PAYMENTS TO EC INSTITUTIONS
  MILK PRICES
  MILK PRICES
  MILK PRODUCERS' INCOME
  MILK PRODUCERS' INCOME
  MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS: EUROPEAN IMPORT AND EXPORT DATA
  MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS: EUROPEAN IMPORT AND EXPORT DATA
  CAREERS SERVICE
  CAREERS SERVICE