Sitting of 13 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Liverpool, Walton, in the room of Eric Samuel Heller, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 20 June.

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 June at Seven o'clock.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 20 June.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 20 June.
  Mr. Speaker: The remaining Bills have blocking motions. With the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Bangor Hospital
    Mr. Kilfedder: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that Bangor hospital will be granted sufficient funds to enable it to provide acute services and other facilities for its catchment area.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): As I explained to the hon. Gentleman during last night's Adjournment
    1024
    debate, acute services for the Bangor area are provided mainly by the Ulster hospital, some 10 miles distant, and by Ards hospital, which is only some five miles away. I am satisfied that they have sufficient funds to maintain their services. I am informed by the Eastern health and social services board that it has no proposals before it at present to alter the services currently provided by Bangor hospital.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that the people of Bangor will regard his answer as unsatisfactory? A person in Bangor who has a heart attack or is involved in a serious accident cannot be admitted to Bangor hospital, because no accident or emergency facilities are provided there. It is no use saying that it is only 10 miles to the Ulster hospital in Dundonald, because an ambulance or other transport may not be available and serious consequences may result from the delay. I therefore implore the Minister to change his mind.
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right —there may be areas where people will have to travel two, three, four or five miles to get emergency treatment, but we are kitting out ambulances with defibrillators. The services at Ards and Ulster are perfectly adequate. I have had no reports that anyone has been put at risk because there is no acute hospital on their doorstep. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the services provided by the management at that hospital unit for people in Bangor are excellent, and I hope that that will continue.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that some 40 per cent. of the population covered by the Eastern health and social services board live in the North Down and Ards area? Does he recognise that there is growing irritation among people living there at the fact that only 15 per cent. of the funds are spent in their area? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the ever-increasing population in that area—especially in Ards, which is the fastest growing area in Northern Ireland—that Ards hospital will be retained and that there will be further investment in and expansion of services at that hospital?
    Mr. Hanley: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the population of North Down. The population of Bangor has increased in recent years from 25,000 to 50,000. It is wrong to say that the money spent within the Ulster, North Down and Ards hospital unit is not in line with population growth. Most of the money spent in that area is for regional services in Belfast. As I said, the people who are provided with services by the Ulster, North Down and Ards hospital unit are well served.
    In Northern Ireland as a whole, expenditure this year on health and social services is £1,166 million, an increase of £115 million—that is not cut. The Eastern board will receive £430 million this year—an increase of £40 million —which is well ahead of inflation. The Ulster, North Down and Ards hospitals unit will receive an increase of £4 million, which brings it up to million. I should be grateful, therefore, if there could be no more talk of cuts in that area.

    Education and Training
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Government are considering how the principles set out in the White Paper, which relates only to England and Wales, may be applied in a way which takes account of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. An announcement about the future of further education in Northern Ireland was made recently by my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General. This set out the Government's aims and the means proposed to give effect to them. In particular, it proposed new arrangements designed to bring about a better planned and co-ordinated system of further education in the Province.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is it intended to introduce training credit schemes in Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, as they have an important contribution to make to the training of young people due to their flexibility. Does he agree that such schemes are a good example of the necessary partnership between business and education?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree that the concept of training credits is excellent because it puts purchasing power into the hands of prospective trainees. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a pilot scheme to develop a training credit scheme is to be introduced in Northern Ireland in 1992.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the report published today by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which states that in the past few years funding for the maintained school sector has been 20 or 30 per cent. below that for the state sector? Does he realise that that also has an impact on the prospect of employment for people coming through the voluntary education system? Will he take immediate and urgent action to remedy and redress that position?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, I must say that I have not read the report, probably because it was published only today.I am aware that for historic reasons there was some differential between the funding of schools in the two sectors to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that some years ago the Department of Education started to reverse that trend for precisely the reasons that he outlined. He will also know that the introduction of formula funding in schools in Northern Ireland will continue and perhaps even accelerate that process in order to achieve the end that he desires.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when he will give some moneys to independent Christian schools in the Province which receive nothing?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, that is a matter which I should be most happy to discuss with him, as would my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General, should the hon. Gentleman care to pursue the matter with us.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that a well-educated community with academic and, indeed, national vocational qualifications will help those endeavouring to attract new industry into Northern Ireland? Does he also agree, however, that those promoting the extremely republican MacBride principles in their campaign could damage the very prospects that his proposals seek in raising the level of education throughout
    1026
    Northern Ireland? If implemented and applied to Northern Ireland, such proposals could damage the prospects of young, well-educated Roman Catholics in areas of high unemployment ever finding employment.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I regret that some people are promoting that campaign in various parts of the United States. If that campaign is designed to achieve fair employment in Northern Ireland, it is unnecessary because there is already strong legislation available to achieve that and also a Government commitment to that end. I record my appreciation of those people in all the political parties in Northern Ireland who have given their time and energy to help boost investment in the Province because Northern Ireland needs jobs, not further restrictions to jobs.

    Political Parties (Meetings)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the future government of the Province.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his latest talks with the constitutional political parties in the Province.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I plan to meet the four constitutional political parties taking part in the current talks next Monday when, as they indicated last week, they believe that plenary sessions should begin.
    In the past few weeks a number of sensitive procedural questions have been resolved and we hope, in conjunction with the Irish Government and in consultation with the other participating parties, to reach agreement before long on the appointment of an independent chairman for the second strand of the talks.
    Mr. Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the delicate and skilful way in which he has achieved this stage of the peace negotiations and discussions. Does he believe that the goodwill that has been established in the first stage will be enhanced in the next critical stage if the Irish Government reveal that they are flexible and can increase their flexibility on articles 2 and 3 of their constitution?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, but I must advise him that we still have a long way to go. In answer to his second question, the Irish Government have repeatedly made it clear that they will be willing to discuss the matter that he has raised once strand 2 of the current process has been launched.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is terrific respect in virtually all parts of the House for his patience in bringing together the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland, and that there is equal respect for right hon. and hon. Members from different parts of the House who have not been prepared to bow to terrorist threats and who have continued to attend the talks? Are the Government sufficiently flexible to consider re-arrangements or changes to the agreement in due course, provided that they are agreed by all the parties involved in the talks?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, and not least for the tribute that he paid to other right hon. and hon. Members for their contribution to the process so far. In answer to his question about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the two signatories to the agreement—the British and Irish Governments—have made it clear that they would be prepared to consider a new or more broadly based agreement if such an agreement could be arrived at through direct discussion and negotiation between all the participants in the talks.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the agreement made by the three Ulster party leaders about the first plenary session next Monday will be honoured, and that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the meeting to be frustrated in any way by the difficulties that he is encountering in his dealings with another Government about finding an independent chairman to replace him at a later stage of the talks?
    Mr. Brooke: The announcement on Wednesday last week was made by the leaders of the four parties in Northern Ireland, who stated that they had decided that the plenary talks would commence on Monday 17 June.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that before hon. Members advise the Secretary of State about the constitutions of other countries it might be wise for them to take a look at their own? Given that it might be regarded as offensive if the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh were the only person who could be President of Ireland, and if the Catholic archbishops of Ireland had seats as of right in the Irish senate, should we not also consider the fact that the only person who can be head of state in this country is the head of a particular church and that the archbishops of a particular church have seats as of right in the House of Lords?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will recall with the same pleasure as I do that when the Catholic emancipation legislation was going through this Parliament, the then Prime Minister—the Duke of Wellington—was about to propose the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh as Archbishop of Canterbury without realising that there were two.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: While I recognise the need for the talks to make progress, will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in view of the time lost in seeking an impartial chairman for the second stage, flexibility could be shown about the date on which the first stage of the talks is to conclude?
    Mr. Brooke: The time allocated for the talks was decided between the parties and announced in my statement of 26 March. Any discussion of what we might do after 16 July when we have the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference should take place when we approach that date.
    Mr. McNamara: The House will welcome the statement made by the four party leaders last week, because there was considerable disappointment in Northern Ireland and elsewhere about the difficulties that arose. The statement is therefore welcome and the leaders are to be congratulated on it. Can the Secretary of State inform the House whether
    1028
    in Monday's discussions he hopes to say something about the possibilities of a chairman for the second strand of talks?
    Mr. Brooke: It may be helpful if I say a word about 1 he actions taken by the two Governments. Both before and since the four party leaders announced on 5 June the decision to start plenaries next Monday, the two Governments have continued to work actively for the appointment of a chairman. We have been assisted in that respect by names being put forward to us from several quarters, including some of the Northern Ireland parties. I shall meet the Irish Foreign Minister tomorrow to consider the matter, so, although we are not yet in a position to announce a name, the matter is very much in hand.
    Mr. Budgen: Since the early 1970s there have been four or five initiatives of this sort, all of which failed. Will my right hon. Friend explain what special circumstances attach to these talks which enable him to believe that they will succeed where others have failed?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has always brought an agreeably sceptical attitude to these matters, but I remind him that one encouragement to all of those taking part in the talks is that we have been engaged in the process in one way or another for 17 months and we have managed to keep everyone involved and concerned that we continue to make progress. Until that ceases to be the case, I for one do not intend to speak in terms of failure.

    Sea Communications
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what review he has undertaken of the existing sea communication between Northern Ireland a nd Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): None, Sir.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that while the advantages of shorter sea crossings are self-evident, there is a strong case to be made, particularly for passenger services, for crossings between ports that are close to the main centres of population? Does he further agree that it would be in the interests of the Northern Ireland economy as well as of my constituency to restore the traditional link between Belfast and Ardrossan? May we have an assurance in principle that if proposals to restore such a service, which I believe may be in the offing, come to the Northern Ireland Office, they will receive a positive response?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: What steps has the Minister taken to investigate the fare structure and cost of travel between Northern Ireland and Scotland, especially in view of the Northern Ireland Consumer Council's complaints about it?
    Mr. Needham: I understand the problem to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. Certainly, if it seems that the matter should be looked into, and if there is a restraint of trade we shall consider referring it to the Office of Fair Trading. There are about 100 crossings per week between

    1029
    the north of Ireland and the mainland, and the north is benefiting most from the economic upturn in trade between the two islands.

    Teachers (Redundancies)
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers he expects to be made redundant in Northern Ireland at the end of the 1991–92 school year.
    Dr. Mawhinney: There are no forecasts for redundancies at the end of the 1991–92 school year.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister accept that I find that comment surprising, because we seem to have redundancies every year and there seems to be a surplus of teachers at present? In the light of the apparent surplus, will he give careful consideration to making additional funds available so that teachers approaching retirement age can retire early, thus making space at the bottom of the scale for enthusiastic young teachers who have not had to go through the turmoil of endless revisions and reforms during the past two years? That enthusiasm would certainly be welcome in many schools.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The amount of money made available for the teaching profession in terms of its numbers, the pupil-teacher ratio and the creation of new teacher posts has been admirable in the past few years. This very year, 100 new primary posts were added to the teaching complement. The pupil-teacher ratio is at an all-time high in Northern Ireland. Although I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, his remarks must be put in a wider context.

    General Practitioners
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been received for general practitioner fund-holding practices.
    Mr. Hanley: None, Sir. Applications have not yet been invited, but we are intending to do so by the end of this year.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister kindly tell us the reason for the delay as the management plan said that applications should be in by 1 July? Is that a reflection of the fact that many GPs in Northern Ireland oppose fund-holding status?
    Mr. Hanley: Fund-holding status has been well received within Great Britain and the Government remain fully committed to its implementation in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, fund-holding will commence a year later than originally planned. The reason for the postponement is to allow the Department and the boards more time to undertake the detailed work involved in the implementation of fund-holding. To be frank, I believe that we can benefit from the opportunity to learn from the experience in Great Britain.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 2 May, 13 people have been killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. Six were civilians, which number includes three suspected terrorists; three were members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, three were members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and one was a regular soldier.
    Those stark figures demonstrate the grim reality of the terrorist threat. What they cannot show is the human heartbreak and misery caused by terrorism—or, indeed, the dedication and sacrifice of members of the security forces in protecting the community.
    The Government will not be deflected one iota from our commitment to the maintenance of the rule of law and defence of the democratic process.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the predicted and predictable increase in violence which has attended all initiatives in the past 20 years, will the Secretary of State take back to Cabinet the request of the two security chiefs for additional resources to be made available while the initiative completes its run?
    Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of what underlies the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is a matter of satisfaction to the House that those taking part in the talks have adopted so robust an attitude to the level of terrorist violence during the process of the talks.
    My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General made clear on Tuesday, when speaking to the Police Federation, the process and status involved in the request from the Chief Constable for further additions to the RUC and the reserves—but, given the speculation in the press about other applications, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that such matters are kept under permanent review.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that my constituency has suffered in the past few weeks, as other constituencies have done previously? Bearing in mind the mass murder bid in Cookstown in a Protestant housing estate where more than 100 houses were seriously damaged and the serious bid by terrorists in the Coagh district to remove more innocent civilians of my area, will he accept that the House and the entire community owe a great debt of gratitude to members of the security forces for the manner in which they have helped to preserve life in Northern Ireland? Will he also accept that the people of my area, although relieved at the removal of dangerous terrorists, are rather anxious and apprehensive about the onslaught which we know that the IRA will make on our district?
    Mr. Brooke: The whole House will join me in sympathising with the hon. Gentleman for what terrorism has meant in his constituency. It is occasionally worth remembering what it means. It means a man gunned down in front of his wife while working on their new home; a father shot in front of his two young sons not even in their teens while a third child, a baby, slept; and a son left to call his grandmother for help. I could go on with a litany of brutal, senseless violence, but that is what terrorism is all about. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the threat to a whole community constituted by the bomb which went off recently in a housing estate. I join him in his tribute to the security forces.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that the violence of terrorists is anything but senseless? It is quite deliberate and has been well orchestrated over the last five and a half years. I remind him that 346 people have died as a result of violence since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the annual murder rate has risen on average by 34 per cent. during that time. Would he think it unfair of me to observe that Ministers speak about terrorism as though it began a fortnight ago and will all be settled during the next fortnight? Does he realise that 20 years of suffering by the people of Northern Ireland deserves a better response when senior military and police officers in Northern Ireland ask for two extra battalions at this particularly sensitive time? Will he guarantee that those battalions will be provided to meet the request of senior officers?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not want in any sense to be combative in my approach to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that he serves the interests of democracy and everything that we in this House hold good by suggesting that the violence of the terrorists is anything other than senseless, for he and I know that the terrorists are not going to win, and in that sense the violence is senseless.
    As for the statistics that he quoted in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I remember intervening in a speech that he was making to ask him to comment, also in terms of the years concerned, on the assistance by way of massive armament resources that the IRA had received from Libya during the same period. He did not return to that matter in that speech.
    No one can be more sure than I of what the 20 years have meant. In the context of the hon. Gentleman's question about force reinforcements, he will know as well as I that reinforcements are the more effective when they come as a surprise, as has happened in the past year.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received a report from the Chief Constable of the RUC arising from the investigation into irregularities in the investigation that led to prosecutions for the murder of Adrian Carroll? If he has received such a report, is he in a position to send the matter for retrial? If not, will he urge the Chief Constable to produce it expeditiously?
    Mr. Brooke: The report from the RUC was delivered to my office in Belfast today. It is a large report and I cannot give a guarantee about the time it will take me to embrace it. Having assured the hon. Gentleman that it has reached me, I confirm, as I have said on previous occasions, that we shall deal as expeditiously as possible with the evidence presented to us.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition support him in his statement about the timing and arrival of force reinforcements in Northern Ireland? That matter must be left to the discretion of the security chiefs and is not an issue which must be booted about abroad. Has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence about the implications of the Army cuts in Northern Ireland? Because it is of special interest to a particularly sensitive area, will he consider issuing a statement on the matter to clarify the possible options for security policy for Northern Ireland resulting from the cuts?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have reasonably regular bilateral
    1032
    meetings to discuss security in Northern Ireland and the part that the armed forces play in it. When my right hon. Friend made his initial statement on the programme "Options for Change" in relation to cuts in the armed forces, he made clear in answer to an Opposition question that there would be no implications for the provision of the security forces in Northern Ireland and that they would be maintained at their previous level.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the process of the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.
    Mr. Needham: Work is progressing to implement the proposals set out in the White Paper.
    Mr. Dickens: Since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—an important part—are not the people and industry of Northern Ireland entitled to cheaper electricity? Would not the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity provide an opportuntity for a link between Northern Ireland and Scotland, plus an entry into the national grid, so that competition could bring to the people of Northern Ireland and their industry cheap electricity, which has been lacking for years?
    Mr. Needham: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that an interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland would be of immense benefit to Northern Ireland consumers, both commercial and domestic. It would connect Northern Ireland to the Scottish system; through Scotland, it would be connected to the English system and, through England, to the French system. Therefore, we shall do everything we can to try to promote an interconnector.
    Mr. Alton: In answering the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), the Minister did not say whether electricity in Northern Ireland would be cheaper. Will not electricity in Northern Ireland become more expensive as a result of the proposals? Having united every party in Northern Ireland in opposition to his plans, does the Minister accept that it would have been far better to introduce a Bill, which could have been amended and debated in the normal way? The democratic process could then have reflected the views of those who live in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: Electricity in Northern Ireland costs, on average, some 30 per cent. more than in the rest of the country, so it is very expensive. One of the reasons is decisions made in the past. The system is not competitive in generation or in any other aspect. The introduction of competition is crucial to ensuring that prices in Northern Ireland are kept as low and as competitive as possible. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's remark that the Government's proposal will raise electricity prices, because the introduction of competition will keep them lower than they would otherwise have been.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will there be a possibility, in the medium to long term, of members of the public owning shares in that company?
    Mr. Needham: The Government have proposed a transmission, distribution and supply company, which we

    1033
    hope to be able to float. Most important, we want the people of Northern Ireland to be able to purchase shares in a utility in Northern Ireland, rather than having to participate in share schemes in Scotland or elsewhere in the country.
    Mr. Beggs: Has the Minister had an opportunity to refer to column 418 of Hansard on 16 May 1991, when the Treasury Minister replied to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)? He said that it was inconceivable that the employees of Northern Ireland Electricity and the citizens of Northern Ireland would not have an opportunity to buy shares in their own industry. Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend or is the splitting up of Northern Ireland Electricity causing a split in the Conservative party?
    Mr. Needham: So far as the transmission, distribution and supply company is concerned, of course I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that at its meeting on 3 May, the board of Northern Ireland Electricity decided to sack its chief executive? Why did the Government think it necessary to seek a reversal of that decision?
    Mr. Needham: The Government did not seek any reversal. The Government do not interfere in Northern Ireland Electricity. The first that I knew of this was an article that I read in the Belfast Telegraph, suggesting that the information had been received by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Perhaps they can explain where they got this information and why they are interfering in the affairs of Northern Ireland Electricity.

    Political Talks
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the Conservative party in Northern Ireland regarding the talks on the future of the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: Since my statement to the House on 26 March 1991, I have received one letter from the Northern Ireland Conservative area council regarding the current talks process. I am grateful for the message of support which it contained.
    I have also received three letters from individuals living in Northern Ireland who identified themselves as members of the Conservative party.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend be adopting, as I am sure that he will with his ministerial colleagues, the role of honest, and therefore neutral, broker at the talks? Will he assure Conservatives in Northern Ireland that the Government's view include those expressed recently by our party chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath and Wells, who said that the best way for the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland Ministers in a Conservative Government reflect their views is for the Northern Ireland electorate to elect them themselves? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he would welcome the election of Conservatives from Northern Ireland to the House to join their colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know the context in which the chairman of the Conservative party was speaking. In
    1034
    passing, I should perhaps point out that we have a bishop of Bath and Wells and a Member of Parliament for Bath and a Member of Parliament for Wells. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and chairman of the Conservative party were to say that he thought that it would be best if every constituency in the kingdom were represented by a Conservative, how could a former chairman possibly disagree?
    Mr. William Ross: Since the East Londonderry Conservative Association has sacked its candidate because he agreed with Government policy, would the Secretary of State advise that constitutency association to pick a candidate who agreed with the opinions of the local party or someone who agreed with him?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in the 650 constituencies that make up this nation, odd things occasionally happen.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear to those attending the talks at Stormont that every bit of representation made will be tabled at the talks and that if delegates want to discuss what is tabled, they can, will he see to it that this large number of letters from the vast amount of support that the Conservative party has in Northern Ireland will be available to us all, so that we can read this interesting information?
    Mr. Brooke: The fact that there were only three letters means that the exercise for me in verifying whether they were confidential and for the hon. Gentleman in reading them will not be a major matter for either of us.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that any signs of unity among political parties in Northern Ireland should be nurtured? Therefore, should not the Conservative party remove its support for electricity privatisation?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is taking us slightly outside the original question. He draws attention to the fact that political parties in Northern Ireland, other than the Conservative party, have opposed Northern Ireland Electricity privatisation, just as they opposed privatisation of Short Brothers. Given what has happened since that privatisation, they might conceivably regret that they originally opposed it.

    Economic Output
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the trends in economic output in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Northern Ireland's contribution to United Kingdom gross domestic product has remained broadly stable at just over 2·1 per cent. in the past 10 years, showing that the Province has shared in the United Kingdom's economic growth in the 1980s.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not it a most remarkable achievement that, in spite of all the difficulties over the past 10 years, the growth in output in Northern Ireland has kept in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tribute to the management and workers of the Province that it has done so.

    Political Situation
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement regarding the political situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that in the course of the past five or six Parliaments, there has been at least one initiative by Labour and by Conservatives when they have been in government? All of them have failed yet, surprisingly, throughout the whole of those 20-odd years, nearly every single opinion poll and survey has shown that the British people want to see the troops out of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Why is it that among all those political initiatives—most of which have failed—troops out has never been on the agenda?
    Mr. Brooke: In answering the hon. Gentleman, I referred him to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. I now refer him to my answer a moment or two ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). On his point about troops out, the response that he got from the House on this occasion is the answer that he deserves.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree with many of my constituents in Basildon that although the Labour party talked about European reform when it was in power, it achieved nothing? Will my right hon. Friend continue to negotiate in the interests of this country within the European Community, as we have done so successfully in the past?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The budget rebate negotiated by the present Government was very welcome. Nothing whatever in terms of budget rebates was negotiated by the predecessor Government. I believe strongly that it is in our national interest to negotiate within Europe and to reach a conclusion that will enable the whole Community to go forward together. That clearly is the best prize for us and for the Community, and it is what we will seek to achieve.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not it now clear that rising unemployment and deep recession provide the most accurate definition of Majorism?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am as concerned about getting unemployment down as anyone else in the House. The way in which to get unemployment down is to ensure that we get on top of inflation, as we are, and that wage demands and
    1036
    settlements begin to come down, as they are, so that the economy can yet again begin to grow. In the period of Conservative Government, there has been a great increase in the number of people in work and increasingly, as inflation falls, that will return to being the case.
    Mr. Kinnock: Today's figures are the worst May unemployment figures on record and they are the direct result of the Prime Minister's policies. Faced with that, is he still willing to say to the 2·25 million people who are now without jobs that their unemployment is a price worth paying?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should stop using the unemployed as political pawns—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: He does so not only in the way in which he conducts his politics, but in the way in which he frames his policies. He knows that Labour's job tax would cost more jobs, he knows that the social action programme that Labour supports would cost more jobs, he knows that Labour's strikers' charter would cost more jobs and he knows that Labour's minimum wage would cost more jobs. He is the last person in the House to lecture about unemployment.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment—[Interruption.] I know that the Government do not want to hear about unemployment, but in the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment in the United Kingdom has gone up by half a million. Is it not obvious that that is the true price of Majorism? It is a price not worth paying.
    The Prime Minister: In the six months since I became Prime Minister, the inflation rate has fallen from 10·9 to 6·4 per cent., interest rates have fallen from 15 to 11·5 per cent. and, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, unemployment in his constituency is 38 per cent. lower than it was at the last election.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his leadership, the London economic summit will be an excellent opportunity to give impetus to the political and economic reforms of the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with that proposition. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the reforms in the Soviet Union with the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and an extremely useful and worthwhile discussion it was. He brought with him a message from President Gorbachev reaffirming his commitment to political and economic reform. I am pleased to be able to say that, after consulting the leaders of the other countries in the Group of Seven, I today invited President Gorbachev to London for discussions with the Group of Seven immediately following the London summit. I also invited him to stay on at the end of the London summit for bilateral discussions. I regret—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter.
    The Prime Minister: Most people would have thought it important, but apparently not Opposition Members.
    I propose to take the opportunity of discussing with President Gorbachev when he is here, all matters, including those of bilateral interest and the changes in the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall telling us on Tuesday that he would speak his mind in future? Will he speak his mind today and tell us plainly, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury says that the Prime Minister is opposed—[Interruption.] When the right hon. Member for Cirencester—Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It was an understandable mistake.
    Mr. Ashdown: When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) says that the Prime Minister is opposed not only to the imposition of a single European currency, but to the principle of a single European currency, is he correct?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can speak for himself; I have spoken for myself repeatedly on the subject. I have made it crystal clear to the House on a number of occasions that there is no question whatsoever of the imposition of a single currency on the House without the agreement of the House. That is, and remains, the position.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: As we move towards closer European co-operation, does my right hon. Friend agree that we all need to improve our skills in languages, perhaps even in double Dutch, so that we can translate the gibberish spoken on Europe by the Leader of the Opposition?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not heard any double Dutch—let us deal with the first part of the question.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that it would be advisable to improve skills in languages, which is something that I very much hope will happen among our young people. As to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, even if they were translated, I am not sure that they would be worth reading.
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Since the other major parties seem to agree that the United Kingdom ought to have a single currency and that there should be a federal Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility to inform the citizens of this country of the consequences that would flow from that? Will the Government fulfil that responsibility and ensure that those issues form a major part of their manifesto—and of any referendum that might have to follow?
    The Prime Minister: I have spoken precisely about the impact of a single currency on this country on a number of occasions—not least when I set out our own plans for the hard ecu some months ago.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State,
    1038
    Department of Education and Science, on his statement yesterday guaranteeing the rights of parents to see their children's schools' examination results? Does not that extend choice—which is at the heart of the Government's reforms, but which is still hotly opposed by Labour?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly welcome that announcement, for parents have a right to know that information. In future, they will know it.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: Since the Audit Commission reported this week that it costs the public purse £15 a time to collect an average amount of just £6 from those persons who are liable to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax, does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as oppressing the poor, the 20 per cent. rule is a waste of scarce public resources? Will he announce this afternoon that he intends to follow the commission's advice and abolish the 20 per cent. contribution?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman produces only a partial comment from the Audit Commission. He neglects to mention that it supports strongly the Government's aim of implementing the new council tax, which meets many of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's compulsory competitive tendering legislation is being completely ignored in Liverpool? Is he further aware that the council has admitted to lying about the figures, spending £1 million more on one contract alone than was necessary? That is not the work of Militant Tendency, but of the so-called moderate Labour party.
    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure where the so-called moderate Labour party might be these days. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Councils should use competitive tendering to improve efficiency and to provide the best service to their council taxpayers. As Councillor Keva Coombs said, to some effect:
    "The council's problems are not down to resources. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas."
    That is Labour government in practice at local level.
    Mr. Insley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment statistics released this morning include a number of pub licensees who have been forced out of their public houses, and possibly on to the dole, because they cannot afford the massive rent increases imposed on them by the brewing industry? Will the Prime Minister re-examine the Government's policy towards the brewing industry and the sale of beer, to prevent the wholesale eviction of pub tenants?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know of the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: It is six years since the coal industry dispute ended. Over that period, the miners of this country have broken their productivity record no fewer than 50 times, and their pay has increased 68 per cent.—making the miners of this country, as defined by the Labour party, super-rich. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British miners on those achievements, and confirm that he will never, ever, tax their earnings at the rate of 59 per cent. as Labour proposes to do?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point to my hon. Friend. I can also confirm for him that we do not regard the super-rich as starting on an income of around £20,000 per year as the Opposition do.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that 1 gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware of the case that I took up two and a half months ago with the Secretary of State for Health of the death of Dr. Robin Senior who started work at Epsom district hospital on I February, worked 110 out of the next 138 hours and died on Thursday 7 February? Will the Prime Minister confirm that today's wholly inadequate agreement on a 72-hour working week for junior doctors will not come in until 1997? How many more junior doctors have to die or suffer stress-related illnesses before that is brought down to a sane level?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman's party is pledged to spend no more money on the health service, he is in no position to criticise what is in fact a considerable improvement both for patients and for doctors. As soon as practicable, junior doctors' hours will be reduced to an average of 83 a week, or fewer by the end of 1994. Those working in the busiest areas will have a maximum on-call average of 72 hours a week. That is not the time that they actually work; it is the time that they are on call. It is a substantial reduction and if the hon. Gentleman were not so mealy-mouthed he would welcome it.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
TUESDAY 18 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Priorities of the Water Industry".
Motion on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 20 JUNE—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
FRIDAY 21 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 24 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats described as "The damaging consequences caused to British interests as a result of Government policy in relation to European monetary union and a single currency".
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Dr. Cunningham: The Leader of the House made some delphic comments in the debate on the timetable motion on Monday about the Government's decision on the summer recess. Is it possible for the Leader of the House to be more specific about when the House might rise for the summer? I am sure that it would be a great comfort to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if that happened sooner rather than later, as well as being a great convenience to many hon. Members, especially those from Scotland where the school holidays come earlier than in England and Wales.
Today again we have, regrettably, seen a record-breaking rise in unemployment, the worst May rise in unemployment since records have been kept. May we have an assurance that soon, preferably before the summer recess, we shall have a debate in Government time on the Government's disastrous unemployment record?
May we be assured by the Leader of the House—if not by the Prime Minister, who, not surprisingly, ducked the question since he used the memorable phrase, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."—that the Government dissociate themselves from the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a price well worth paying? For
1042
people losing their jobs, is not the only price worth paying when the Government lose their jobs and are thrown out of office?
Last week, the Leader of the House promised us an early debate on developments in the European Community and he assured us that that would take place before the imminent European Community summit in Luxembourg. It is a disappointment that that debate will not take place next week. May we have a guarantee today that we will have a debate on those important issues the week after next? May we have an assurance that we will not have to wait for the Prime Minister to re-establish diplomatic relations with the Bruges group, since clearly that is going to take a very long time? Also, may we be assured that, when that debate takes place, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will speak from the Government Front Bench and that we will be able to debate a motion that covers all aspects of developments in European Community affairs?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first question, I should like to be more specific because I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all parts of the United Kingdom would find it helpful to have an early indication of when the House will rise for the summer recess. However, I am afraid that it is not possible to give a specific date at the moment. We have a heavy programme of work to do—we are undertaking a very heavy programme indeed—and the date of rising will be dependent upon our progress. I try to be as helpful as possible, and I will say that I hope that it will not be necessary to sit beyond the week ending 26 July; but I cannot give any undertaking that that will be so.
On the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on unemployment, he will know that that matter can be raised in the debate later today and that there are many occasions on which it can be raised. He will also know that there has been an increase in employment since 1983, and that unemployment is 21 per cent. lower than it was at the time of the last general election. If he is concerned about levels of unemployment and the unemployed, I hope that he will consider dissociating himself from Labour policies, especially that of a national minimum wage, which would undoubtedly greatly increase unemployment. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall be happy to explain when I have the opportunity to do so in a debate and that is certainly something that we shall continue to do, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment did earlier this week during Employment questions.
I entirely understand the hon. Member for Copeland's argument about a debate on Europe, and I assure him that I hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to open that debate, on the basis that he described —a wide-ranging debate on developments in the European Community. That is part of the point about exact timing, because I am anxious that my right hon. Friend should be able to open the debate. I can confirm that it is the intention to have the debate in the week after next, if that is at all possible. I said that we would wish to have it before the European Council meeting. We are anxious to have a debate, because it would help to expose the many divisions among the Opposition.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, this is an Opposition Day and there is to be a statement after

1043
business questions, so I may have to curtail business questions. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.10 pm and then we shall move on to the next statement. Will hon. Members ask single questions about business next week? I hope that in that way all hon. Members who rise will be called.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend find time for us to debate the fact that the European Commission is trying to make us ban the advertising of cigarettes to reduce consumption, yet is also trying to make us reduce the tax on cigarettes, which would increase consumption? Can he confirm that that is the kind of matter that ought to be decided here at Westminster? Should not the country and the whole House unite around that?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made a very good point about the inconsistency of the policy. He will know that the levels of excise duty that the Commission is suggesting are well below those in this country, and, as he points out, that that arrangement is hostile to our health aims.
My hon. Friend will know the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at ECOFIN. I assure him that his point about the levels of excise duty on tobacco has also been made by my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Following the publication of the report of the Royal Navy board of inquiry investigating the tragic loss of the fishing vessel Antares, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on its findings and, indeed, on the general question of the safety of fishing vessels at sea?
May I crave your indulgence on this one occasion, Mr. Speaker? A month ago, the Leader of the House promised me that he would consider and reflect on my request for a debate on the beleaguered fish farming industry in Scotland. I wonder whether he has done so.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on either matter. As I said a few moments ago, we have a heavy programme of work to undertake before the House rises for the summer recess. I fully recognise, however, that both matters are important, and there are other ways in which the hon. Lady can raise them in the House.
Mr. Michael Latham: In the business statement, my right hon. Friend announced three occasions next week on which the House will be discussing private legislation. How much longer are we to proceed with this farcical, obsolete Victorian system?
Mr. MacGregor: Actually, I think that it was two occasions.
My hon. Friend knows that I entirely sympathise with the point that he has made. We are taking action on the matter, as fast as is possible within the rules of the House. In recent weeks, we have already passed Standing Orders that will accelerate the passage of private Bill business next Session.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given his response to the report that deals with the implementation of the various road, rail and other undertakings that form so much of private Bill procedure. As I have told the House before, we intend to
1044
introduce the legislation as soon as we can. That will make a considerable difference to the problem that my hon. Friend has very fairly raised.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Foreign Secretary be ready next week to make a full statement on the position in the middle east? We have not had a debate on the Gulf since before the bombing began in January. Since then, reports from the United States suggest that as many as 200,000 civilians may have been killed. According to the Harvard medical report, 170,000 babies' lives will be at risk from cholera and dysentery over the next 12 months. The Palestinians have achieved no satisfactory solution to their demands; the Kurds are insecure; Saddam is still there—and there is to be a victory parade this week. Meanwhile, the House has not assessed the ghastly ecological and human damage done by the conflict. When may we do so?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to comment on all the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. That would be inappropriate during business questions. I can tell him, however, that I hope to find an opportunity to arrange a debate on the Kurds before long. I shall report what the right hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but Government time will be very limited in the next few weeks.
Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 776, which has been signed by more than 200 hon. Members on a cross-party basis?
[That this House, conscious of the fact that real care for the men and women of our armed forces has enabled oar country to rely, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice, upon their loyalty, steadfastness and efficiency in times of grave national threat, is astounded to note that, when digging a trench during an official Army exercise in Canada in July 1989, three men of the Grenadier Guards (Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey) detonated a six year old unexploded shell which not only rendered them limbless but caused them such grievous wounds that Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey are still, after almost two years, in receipt of hospital treatment; notes that the Ministry of Defence find themselves unable, on the grounds of unattributable negligence, to pay compensation; and calls upon the Prime Minister to review this case personally and to ensure that, regardless of the possible legal responsibility of some unknown nation who failed to "clear" the shell some six years previously, Her Majesty's Government is seen to follow truly a policy that shows an appreciation of human understanding, human dignity and the value of a human file on earth by awarding generous compensation and a return the accumulated legal costs to these youthful British Grenadiers.]
Last week, there were no fewer than three requests for a debate on this matter, but my right hon. Friend has not announced one today. I remind him that the motion refers to three Grenadier guardsmen who were ordered to dig a trench in a live firing exercise area in Canada in 1989. As a result of their striking an unexploded shell, the legs of all three were blown off. The board of inquiry report has not been made available to anyone except the Government.
How can a Minister blandly say that no one is to blame, when those guardsmen as yet have had no chance of

1045
proving negligence? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister, when he investigates the case, to view it with common sense, common decency and compassion?
Mr. MacGregor: As I said last week in response to my hon. Friend when he raised this point, the House sympathises fully with the three young men involved. At this stage, however, I can add nothing to what I said last week on the background to this unfortunate case.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that those who have heard about the case—my constituent, Sean Povey, who is only 21, was one of those injured—cannot understand why no compensation has been given? Obviously, there has been much publicity about this matter in the west midlands. The three soldiers were carrying out their duties on a training exercise in Canada. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has confirmed that they were not to blame. No one can understand how those soldiers can be crippled for life, yet the Ministry of Defence will not pay a penny of compensation.
I asked the Prime Minister whether he would receive a deputation of hon. Members. Like the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), I ask for some understanding, sympathy and compassion for the three young men. They were proud to join the Army and to serve their country, but, they were seriously injured for life through no fault of theirs and are being treated in a disgraceful way.
Mr. MacGregor: I am answering business questions about when statements can be made and debates can be held in the House. I have already given in previous weeks the Government's position on payments to those unfortunate gentlemen. I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is well aware of the concern in the House about this matter. However, I have nothing to add.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate as soon as possible on sartorial standards in the House so that we can discuss recent revelations in The Independent that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are going through a process known as "folletting" to smarten them up? There are reports that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has refused to be folletted on the ground that he cannot be improved any further.
Although the hon. Gentleman may have a point, in that it would be difficult to know what could be done to help him, surely we need to discuss the fact that no amount of folletting, no amount of flashy suits and no amount of tacky plastic red roses can disguise the truth—that the Labour party is still wedded to policies of higher taxes, nationalisation, caving in to public sector unions, led by a——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That point could well be made in a debate, but I think that that is enough, during business questions.
Mr. Oppenheim: The Labour party is led by a wittering Welsh windbag who recently took 220 words to describe the fact that Labour has no policy on Europe.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member early, but he has taken up time available to his colleagues. Those are the sorts of points which, if they need to be made at all, should be made in a debate.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to comment on image questions—my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has made his points on that. There will be many opportunities in the House in future, including today, to expose the dangers and damage of the Labour party's policies which lie beneath the glossy image.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the position of ex-service men who are disabled by alleged negligence is far worse than was described earlier? Hundreds of ex-service men campaigned for the abolition of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which prevented them from suing for negligence, but, when the law was changed, they were denied the right to sue because the Government would not allow them to do so and would not give them compensation. May we have a statement next week to correct this terrible injustice?
Mr. MacGregor: I believe that I am right in saying that that matter has been dealt with often in the House, so I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a statement on it next week.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May we have an early debate on the interesting answer given by the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of European monetary union, not on the difficult question, which was extremely embarrassing for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), as to whether the House agreed with it, but on the slightly less difficult although still complex issue of whether the House understood it?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I expect that there will be a debate on European issues. There is also a Supply day in the name of the Liberal Democrats a week on Monday when, I have no doubt, that the issue can be raised. The Leader of the Opposition never knowingly under-phases, and his answer on that particular occasion must be a candidate for the longest and emptiest sentence of the decade. I believe that it covered up the enormous divisions within the Opposition on these issues.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House will no doubt recall that during business questions last week he told my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that he would consider the possibility of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh at least once during its current series of debates. What investigations has the right hon. Gentleman conducted into the matter, with whom has he discussed it, and what conclusion has he reached?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not completed my investigations, but I shall write to the hon. Lady when I have done so.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency contains one of the major Royal Ordnance factory units and that, tragically for the families involved, about 500 people are being made redundant. The unit makes guns of all types, especially for British tanks. If my right hon.

1047
Friend cannot allow a debate specifically on the effect of defence procurement on the defence industry, will he advise whether it will be possible to raise that issue in next Monday's debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He will recognise that what is happening is part of the changing scene in defence generally, which has many positive aspects as well as the difficulty that he mentioned. I do not think that it would be appropriate for that issue to be raised during the debate on the Bill on Monday, but I hope that before the House rises for the recess it will be possible to have further debates on defence matters when that issue could be raised.
Mr. James Lamond: Will the Leader of the House alert the Secretary of State for Employment to the fact that he might have to make a statement to the House very soon—perhaps next week—about an impending strike at Heathrow by employees of American Airlines, which intends to begin operating from Heathrow with the permission of the Government? American Airlines is insisting that employees give up their membership of various trade unions. Will the Secretary of State for Employment reaffirm his belief that whether workers are members of a trade union is a decision that should be left to them, and not forced upon them by a reactionary employer such as American Airlines?
Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing of the case in point, but I do not think that it is likely to be suitable for a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, I shall draw the matter to his attention.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Following the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about teaching standards, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in the House on the teaching and use of the English language? I am sure that he will agree that the Government would not want to give the message that a good example to follow would be that of the Leader of the Opposition and the use of 100 or 200-word sentences, one after the other, which can hardly be described as good style.
Mr. MacGregor: As I said earlier, that especially long sentence was absolutely incomprehensible and perhaps deliberately so, either to confuse everyone about the Labour party's policy or because the Leader of the Opposition did not understand the issue. However, I do not think that it would be an appropriate issue for discussion in an education debate—for example, that due to be held on the order next Tuesday. I share my hon. Friend's view about teaching standards, and I think that it would be more appropriate for discussion during a debate on education rather than during a debate on European monetary union.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement about why television detector vans visited a hospital in my constituency and about why, on the following day, its long-term patients were advised that they would have to pay £77 for a television licence? Surely the Leader of the House can
1048
arrange for a statement on such a despicable act, which is immoral and a crime against long-term patients in the national health service?
Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing about the incident that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but there are other ways in which he can raise the matter in the House instead of by way of a statement from the Home Secretary.
Mr. Richard Holt: May I remind my right hon. Friend that four weeks ago today at business questions I raised with him the fact that the parents and children who were the innocent victims of the Cleveland child sex abuse case have not received a penny piece in compensation? Then, it was over six months since the incident; now it is over seven months. During those four weeks, absolutely nothing has happened; no money has changed hands, and the people concerned have been left as they were. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is sympathetic and would, I believe, be prepared to make a statement. I hope, however, that that will not be necessary and that compensation will be paid straight away.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall raise that point again with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Although, of course, the Gulf war was a great American military victory, albeit against somewhat minimal opposition, it has since become quite clear that, politically, it was an unmitigated and unnecessary disaster in view of the fact that Saddam Hussein is still safely ensconced and that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kurds and Shias have been killed, the latter in response to a call to revolt by President Bush. In view of the immense ecological damage that has been caused and the fact that the war has led and will lead to a growth in Islamic fundamentalism, may we have a chance to debate this issue in the House shortly to cover the whole range of disasters that arose from that appalling political misjudgment?
Mr. MacGregor: The vast majority of hon. Members take the view that the consequences of not repelling the forces of Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the invasion would have been infinitely greater than some of the problems that have arisen from doing so. I am sure that that is the view of the vast majority of hon. Members and of people throughout the country.
Mr. James Hill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has observed the success of early-day motion 667, entitled, "Disclosure of criminal convictions for new applicants for taxi driver's licences".
[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in a 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new

1049
applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist; and calls for a similar system to be introduced to all district councils in the United Kingdom as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applications for Hackney carriage drivers' licences.]
My right hon. Friend will not be aware, however, that practically every local authority in this country is demanding action on this emotive issue, which arouses fear about the dangers of such licensing. Knowing that I have received full support for my early-day motion, which has received more than 160 signatures, will my right hon. Friend make a genuine attempt to provide time, perhaps next week, for us to discuss this emotive issue, with the introduction of legislation in the not-too-distant future?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will recognise, I cannot comment on legislation for future legislative programmes. That is done in the Queen's Speech. My hon. Friend knows that it is not possible to introduce such legislation in this Session, given that we already have a crowded programme and that the Session does not have long to run.
On the subject raised in early-day motion 667, the Home Office has recently discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether the police could take on that task. The question will be reconsidered in the light of the forthcoming report from the Home Office on the scrutiny of criminal records.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The people of Northern Ireland and its politicians have been remarkably patient and have been waiting for many weeks for a statement to be made in the House on the Larry Goodman fiasco, which has affected the people of Northern Ireland, its farming community and its banks. When will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a statement—or is he keeping quiet until the investigations in the Republic of Ireland have been concluded?
Mr. MacGregor: I have no information on that matter, but I shall discuss it again with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the need for performance-related pay in the public sector? Such a debate is especially important to the people of Liverpool who are faced with the failure of their council workers to clear litter. There are 12,000 tonnes of litter covering the streets of Liverpool, creating a danger of disease and stench, and there is a danger of rats covering the place. Indeed, those are exactly the criteria that we remember from the last months of the Labour Government.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right in believing that it is clear that the people of Liverpool are suffering in a situation which is rapidly sliding into anarchy and is reminiscent of the 1970s. There will be several opportunities in the coming weeks to draw attention to those matters and to remind people that Liverpool is a good example of a Labour administration in practice.
Mr. David Clelland: The Leader of the House will recall that, during business questions last week the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) requested an early debate on regional government, presumably for the spurious reason that northern Tories feel that there is some electoral advantage in opposing it. If regional government is not the subject of intense debate over northern breakfast tables, it is precisely because there has not been sufficient public airing of the matter. The northern group of Labour Members of Parliament would also welcome a debate. We join the hon. Member for Stockton, South in calling for an early debate on regional government in Government time.
Mr. MacGregor: There will be opportunities to debate many matters which affect the northern region, including one this afternoon. Immediately after business questions there is to be a statement which affects a particular part of the north-west. It is not likely that Government time will be found for a general debate on regional government before the summer recess. Of course, it is always open to other parties to raise the matter if they regard it as a priority.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is showing his deep concern for the health service by attending and addressing the Confederation of Health Service Employees conference in Blackpool? May we have an early opportunity for him to report back to the House on the little deals that he has done with COHSE, and, I expect, some of its friends in the National Union of Public Employees, what strikes he will support and, probably most importantly, the effects of the minimum wage and the £500 million that it will cost the health service? After all, as my right hon. Friend knows, there will be no more money for the health service under Labour. We want to know how many more beds the hon. Member for Livingston would close as a result of deals with trade unionists.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the disparity between some aspects of Labour policy on the health service and the fact that the party is committed not to increase expenditure on it. There will be several opportunities to discuss those matters in the House in the coming months.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the shortage of playing facilities for young children? Is the Leader of the House aware that a petition will be launched in Leicester tomorrow—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that the matter is funny, but the parents of children who do not have playing facilities regard it as very serious indeed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the process of learning starts early and that the Government's education cuts should not affect the education of very young children, as they do now?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there has been a considerable increase in education expenditure in recent years, and that is to the advantage of the people of Leicester as well as of people everywhere else. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to find his own opportunities for a specific debate on the matter that he raises.
Mr. Robin Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several of his colleagues are disappointed that there will not be a debate next week on the subject of Merseyside, because we could bring out some of the good news from that region, such as the much increased productivity on the docks following the abolition of the dock labour scheme? Does he agree that it is sad that, in a forthcoming contest, neither of the socialist candidates is likely to pay any attention to the good stories which are coming from that region?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I only wish that some of the actions taken by the local council which tend to hit the headlines would be reversed so that it was possible to concentrate on the good news. There will be an opportunity in the debate this afternoon and on several other occasions to make such points.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on housing? Why should the tenants of Calderdale subsidise the inefficient and callous Tory Westminster council which is trying to ship homelessness to Calderdale because it has sold almost all its council houses, refuses to build any more and does not recognise that the Government have caused homelessness everywhere in the country? There is no way that Calderdale can take any more homeless. At present it has 35 homeless families and many hundreds of single people waiting to be housed. May we have an urgent debate on the housing crisis that has been caused by the Government?
Mr. MacGregor: In view of the time, I do not believe it would be right for me to consider the substance of the hon. Lady's remarks, but I can tell her that I do not believe that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter in Government time.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there was a city in the United Kingdom where local services had completely broken down due to the inefficiency and incompetence of the so-called moderate Labour council, the people of that city and others would expect the House to debate the matter next week? If so, should we not have a debate on Liverpool and the disgraceful state of affairs in that city?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be extremely enlightening because it would remind people what life is like under a socialist administration. The debate should be not only on Liverpool, but on other places such as Lambeth where the schools are in chaos because of mismanagement. There are opportunities that arise not solely in Government time for a debate, so it may be possible in the near future to discuss such matters.
Mr. John McAllion: As the Leader of the House is the Minister responsible for business in the House, will he find time to make a statement on the serious erosion of parliamentary democracy arising from Ministers' practice of referring parliamentary questions to the chief executives of next steps agencies to be answered? That ensures that the answers do not appear in Hansard and are not available to hon. Members and the public.
Mr. MacGregor: In such cases the letters of response from the chief executives are available in the Library and
1052
are available to the public through the Public Information Office. It is often possible to convey more information in a letter than in a parliamentary answer.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 946 in my name.
[That this House notes that community charge payers in the Borough of Dartford are each having to pay over £14 extra on their current community charge bills, largely as a result of the "can't pay, won't pay" campaign led by the left-wing member of the Dartford Borough Council, Councillor Mike Crosby, of 31 The Grove, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 OAD; notes that the Director of Finance for Dartford Borough Council has estimated the ultimate shortfall as a result of non-payment to be £600,000, which has to be borne by those who paid on time; urges Councillor Crosby to apologise to the people of Dartford and to resign immediately from public life; and further, urgently requests the National Executive of the Labour Party to hold an inquiry into Councillor Crosby's political and public conduct with a view to his expulsion from the Labour Party.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people in Dartford and many millions of people in the country are paying a much higher community charge in the current financial year as a result of the "can't pay, won't pay" campaign that is supported and led by members of the Labour party? Will he arrange for an early debate on this subject so that we can bring to the attention of the British people the fact that a number of Labour Members and many hundreds of Labour councillors and supporters have not paid their community charge and are encouraging many thousands of decent people to break the law?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I do not know whether we can find time to debate this issue next week, but it has been frequently raised in the House. People in authority, such as councillors, should not only meet their payments; it is even worse when they urge others not to do so, particularly when that transfers the cost of the payment to other law-abiding people in their area, many of whom will be earning considerably less money. I am sure that most hon. Members would condemn that practice and hope that councillors would not engage in such disgraceful activities.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: This week, the Leader of the House allowed the proceedings on the Dangerous Dogs Bill to go into the early hours of the morning. During the business statement on Monday, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the Bill back here before we rose for the recess. Will he use his good offices to tell those in the other place that the people are extremely concerned and want the legislation in place now?
Mr. MacGregor: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was assiduous on Monday in making that point. I am sure that he spoke for the vast majority of people.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am determined to do exactly as he asks, and I know that my noble Friend in another place will endeavour to do so as well. That is one of the factors that affect the summer recess date. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to see that the Dangerous Dogs Bill should be on the statute book before the summer recess.
Mr. Bill Walker: When considering the Opposition's request for an early debate on unemployment, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the concern felt in Scotland, particularly by Scots who support Labour—the party of devolution—about decisions made in London at Walworth road that are creating unemployment in Scotland?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend speaks with authority on the decisions that may also be causing unemployment. The decisions made by Labour Members about the kind of policies that they would pursue, if they ever got the chance, would greatly increase the numbers of unemployed people in Scotland.
Mr. Michael Carr: In the light of the Carlton Club education committee finding that there is evidence of a lack of Government policy towards nursery education, and the results of a Liberal Democrat survey showing that 54 per cent. of local authorities wish to expand nursery education but cannot, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to grant time for a debate in Government time on nursery education?
Mr. MacGregor: The number of nursery education places has increased considerably in the past 10 years. It is a matter of priorities and resources. I note that the Liberal Democrats' statement would involve considerable extra expenditure, as would their policies on a whole range of matters. They must make their decisions, as we do, on priorities and the tax burden involved.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call the Opposition Members who are now standing. This is an Opposition Supply day, and if I were to call them all, it would take time out of it.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the next statement first.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point I wish to raise is on this very matter.
Mr. Speaker: It may be. I will take it after the statement.

Cumbria (Special Support)
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about special support measures that the Government propose to make available for Cumbria.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Both hon. Members who are standing know that we take points of order in their proper place, which is after statements.
Mr. Madden: But the Leader of the House is leaving the Chamber, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: He may come back.
Mr. Lilley: Barrow and West Cumbria suffer from a unique combination of geographical isolation and heavy dependence on single employers. Barrow is overwhelmingly dependent on the Vickers shipyard, which has recently announced a further 5,000 to 6,000 job losses over the next three years. The Copeland area is heavily dependent on employment at the major British Nuclear Fuels construction project, which is now nearing completion, bringing an end to about 5,000 local construction jobs over the next two years.
There is therefore an urgent need to help the area both to attract and to generate new jobs. Following consultations locally, my Department, together with a number of the local authorities and regional development agencies, funded a study to assess Cumbria's economic circumstances and prospects.
We received the report yesterday. It concluded that there were great strengths in the area, in particular the highly skilled local work force, but also serious weaknesses, notably in communications and in the availability of modern factory and commercial premises. The Government will, of course, be studying the report in detail, but in the meantime we intend to set in hand immediately many of the report's recommendations.
I am therefore proposing a package of new support measures. First, I am asking English Industrial Estates to undertake a major programme to provide factories and work space in the Barrow and Whitehaven travel-to-work areas. This will make modern premises available to house local firms and to attract new enterprises into the area. It will also make serviced sites available for private developers.
We expect the programme to provide over 300,000 sq ft of floor space and to make available about 30 acres of serviced land, at a cost of up to £15 million over three years.
Secondly, we are setting up a locally based action team to help projects stimuate new business activity in Furness and West Cumbria. The team, which began work on 1 July, will work closely with local agencies to ensure that our action is co-ordinated effectively with other local initiatives and to bring about effective delivery and promotion of Government and European programmes. The action team must be able to act and respond quickly.

1055
We are therefore making available to it funds of up to£1 million to be used to help projects that would not otherwise have gone ahead.
Thirdly, a high-level co-ordinating group is being established at regional level between Government Departments. This group will ensure that all Departments' programmes to tackle the area's problems are coordinated to best effect. It will monitor and evaluate the support programmes available locally and will liaise closely with other agencies. The group will provide further advice on the consultant's report and the Government will then see if other help for the area, within current programmes, is appropriate and feasible.
I have already ensured that details of the skills and technology available in the area, as well as the new factory building programme, are passed on to the Invest in Britain Bureau. It, in turn, will pass this information on to potential inward investors.
In addition to help from DTI, a number of Government initiatives are planned. The Department of Transport has a £32 million programme of works for the strategically important A590 in south Cumbria. Of more specific relevance to Barrow is the £12·5 million A590 Dalton bypass, which will be a key element in improving communications between Barrow and the M6. It is also proposed to improve the trunk road that will link Barrow to the bypass.
As for derelict land, the Department of the Environment is discussing with local councils further opportunities for land reclamation and noise and environmental improvements, with a view to improving the area's attractiveness to inward investors. The Rural Development Commission is also giving priority under its programmes and has invested over £1·25 million in Westlake science park and Moresby industrial park. To help the local work force acquire skills for future employment, the Cumbria TEC has been allocated an extra £1 million this year.
I am glad to say that the European Commission has recognised the difficulties facing west Cumbria, which is now eligible for European regional funds. We have recently submitted an application for Barrow to receive £2 million funding from the EC's PERIFRA programme. I am seeking clearance from the Commission for both the English Industrial Estates programme and the action team expenditure that I described earlier.
Cumbria faces severe industrial and employment difficulties over the next few years. The Government recognise that and are not prepared to let the region fall into decline. We shall consider further action in the light of the consultants' report but, in the meantime, the measures that I have announced today will provide an immediate response to the area's needs. They demonstrate the Government's faith in the local community and amount to a unique package of support to combat a unique combination of problems. They will provide support fast and effectively, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Gordon Brown: We welcome the Government's recognition of the severe problems faced by Barrow and the whole of Cumbria. We also welcome the statement about the need for special measures and the Government's new view that what the Minister calls "special and support measures" are needed in areas of economic change and difficulty.
1056
The Minister said that the programme by English Industrial Estates will cost £15 million over three years. Is that new money for regional policy from the contingency fund, meaning that his Department's budget is now increased by £15 million over three years, or has the money simply been taken from the Department's other budgets? Will he confirm that his contribution to the second central proposal—a locally based action team—is, as I have been told this afternoon, composed of two civil servants? If so, that is a generous definition of the term "team". Will the Minister confirm that his third central proposal, a high-level interdepartmental team, has already been set up and has been working for some weeks? As for the other measures from other parts of Government, will the Secretary of State confirm that each of them, including the transport programmes, have already been announced by other Departments, in some cases, many months ago?
The Secretary of State spoke of more help for Cumbria TEC, but will he confirm that, contrary to the impression he gave, Cumbria TEC is losing 6,000 training weeks this year, even as unemployment in the north-west worsens by 1,000 a week? Furthermore, its budget is to be cut from £18 million to just over £16 million—a 9 per cent. cut even after taking into account the £1 million that the Secretary of State mentioned, which was given in March.
If the Secretary of State wants to help Copeland, why are the Government delaying application for European regional development fund funding that has already been approved by the regional commissioner?
What does the statement mean for regional policy in the north and the rest of the country? Does it mean that the Secretary of State now believes in regional policy? Does it mean that he dissociates himself from the remarks in the pamphlet from the Minister responsible for regional policy and the No Turning Back group, of which he is a member, in which it is said that regional policy is a phoney activity for Government? If the Minister now recognises the problems for Cumbria, is he prepared to recognise the problems of other parts of the country facing the worst recession anywhere in Europe?
Is it not the case that, having cut regional aid in the north-west by 67 per cent. over the past 12 years, the Secretary of State is planning to cut it this year, next year and the year after in all parts of the country? Is he prepared to reverse that policy and consider the creation of regional development agencies, as advocated by the House of Lords Committee? Is he aware that, if he is to deal with the problems of the country county by county or region by region in announcements to the House, as he has set a precedent for doing today, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be expecting further statements on the problems of the midlands, of the rest of the north, of the south-east, of the south-west and of other areas? They will all want more commitment to genuine new measures and to new funds than we have seen today.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful that the 'hon. Gentleman welcomed the statement, albeit rather grudgingly. He asked about the English Industrial Estates money. That money comes from its budget—that is what the budget is for. As to the action team, the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be joined by another from the local TEC, and they will be working with all the local agencies. Their function is to mobilise those local agencies, co-ordinate their initiative and make sure that the combined effect is greater than the sum of the parts.

1057
The hon. Gentleman claimed that all the measures in my statement have been announced before, but that is not the case. The Dalton bypass announcement has not yet been made.
As to Cumbria TEC, it is clearly up to the TEC itself to decide how its money is to be deployed. We believe in devolving responsibility as far as possible to such local initiatives.
The hon. Gentleman said that the European regional development fund application had been delayed, but it has now gone ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked, in rather a party political way, whether we believe in regional policy. Yes, we do, but we believe in focused, targeted regional policy, not the indiscriminate, wasteful and ineffective policies pursued to so little effect by the last Labour Government. There is no question of making statements about every region, county or city. The hon. Gentleman should surely be able to recognise the unique problems of the area, such as isolation and the dependency on two employers. They call forward this response, which is an appropriate one.
Mr. Cecil Franks: It is sad that the Labour Opposition have neither the grace nor the stature to recognise and accept good news when they hear it. On behalf of my constituents, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the measures that he has announced. They are good news for Barrow, and his statement is an excellent example of how the machinery of government can work quickly and effectively. The job losses in the shipyards in Barrow were announced on 20 March. On 25 March, the Under-Secretary visited my constituency. A report was commissioned, and a little over two months later, we have this statement.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify several points. First, will he ensure that the action team to be based in Barrow has seconded to it someone with experience of planning procedures and of the compass of machinery of local government? Secondly, can he at this stage give some apportionment of the 15 million allocated to English Industrial Estates as it relates to Barrow and to Whitehaven? Thirdly, will he confirm that Barrow's application to the European Commission for the PERIFRA programme is ranked No. 1 in the Government's submission?
Fourthly, will my right hon. Friend recognise that inward investment, if it is to be successful, requires good communications, especially roads? Is he aware that the A590, the only trunk road linking Barrow with the M6 over one hour's drive away, at one stage literally goes through a farmyard? Can he elaborate on the proposals to improve the A590? Can he also clarify his reference to the Dalton bypass, which was first requested by the then local council 54 years ago, in 1937?
Finally, may I place on record my deep appreciation of my right hon. Friend's role in co-ordinating the initiative and especially of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Consumer Affairs in his role as regional Minister? I am especially grateful to him.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks and for his especially well deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and
1058
Furness (Mr. Franks) for his diligence and persistence on behalf of his constituents and those in neighbouring areas. He has persisted with great effect and he has left no stone unturned. I hope that he and his constituents recognise that the Government, as he said, have endeavoured to respond as speedily as possible.
My hon. Friend asked whether someone with experience of planning and all the problems that that poses locally would be in the team. I can assure him that a senior official with at least 10 years' experience of those problems will be in the team. I agree that that is extremely important in getting things moving.
My hon. Friend asked about the apportionment of the £15 million English Industrial Estates money between his constituency and neighbouring areas. We expect that the apportionment will be roughly 50:50, although that will depend very much on the final judgment of English Industrial Estates. My hon. Friend also asked about the ranking of PERIFRA applications. There are a number of applications and we will pursue them all as hard as we can —not least that in his constituency. There is no specific ranking.
My hon. Friend was right to say that good communications are the key to an area that is geographically so isolated. We have recognised that. The Dalton bypass will go out to tender in August and I hope that construction can begin this September. I know that there are other improvements to be made of the roads in the area. That is catered for in part by the measures that I mentioned in my statement.
My hon. Friend knows that his constituents largely depend for their livelihood on constructing nuclear submarines. He is aware, as I am, that the problems would be manifoldly worse if we had a Labour Government who cancelled the fourth Trident submarine. It was significant that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), did not mention that. I call on him to clarify whether Labour would—as I believe it would—cancel the fourth Trident submarine.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the Secretary of State realise that Carlisle is in Cumbria? He has not mentioned my constituency, and there will be a great disappointment among the 3,500 people on the dole there. Will he join me in congratulating Barrow council and Cumbria county council on their efforts in lobbying him? May I congratulate the Secretary of State personally on the massive U-turn that he has made? He used to be known as a dry Minister; he is now obviously very wet. Many of us suspect that this is all to do with saving the job of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and not with helping the unemployed in the county.
The Minister must be aware that the new money announced today is old money and Cumbria TEC is abandoning its employment training schemes since the money is not available because the Minister cut it. It is obvious that the Minister has been on the road to Damascus, but has he been on the road to Barrow lately? We have had a Conservative Government for 12 years, but they have done nothing about the Dalton bypass. Now that it looks as though we are coming up to a general election, they talk about getting the work started, but it is too little, too late, not only for Barrow, but for Cumbria. How many jobs does the Minister plan to create through the plans announced today?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of his constituency. If it were appropriate, I would echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), to whom the primary congratulations are due.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made some strange remarks about this being a wet or interventionist measure. There is no question of us going into the business of picking winners. We shall not establish a quango such as the defence diversification agency which the Labour party proposes, but of which it is so ashamed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) did not mention it.
An extra £1 million has been allocated to TECs. That is a substantial sum for the district and meets the criticism of the hon. Member for Carlisle. The hon. Gentleman said that the action was too little, too late; I received the report from the consultants yesterday, and I am acting today.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is most welcome? He deserves the warmest congratulations for what he has done so quickly and should not be subject to carping criticism from the Labour party.
Will my right hon. Friend look again at the communication problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) referred? Will he consider what he can do to press for improvements to the A590, particularly at High Newton, because that bit of the road is likely to become a major bottleneck? Will he arrange meetings with British Rail to see what can be done to improve the abysmal connections with the main line from Barrow? Finally, will my right hon. Friend make some positive assessment of how much greater the problems of Barrow and west Cumbria would be if the Labour party, with its policies of curtailing the overall nuclear programme in relation to nuclear power and the fourth submarine, were ever to come to power? Would not that be totally disastrous for that part of the world?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely right to focus on the communications issue, which is the key. I shall certainly press his point about the High Newton bypass, which has yet to go through planning procedure. The necessary criteria will have to be met, and it is important that they are met as rapidly as possible. The consultants' report mentions a number of measures relating to communications that are not included in their list for short-term, immediate action. We shall study those measures and consider them for additional action later. I shall take up with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport my right hon. Friend's point about improving the quality and calibre of the service provided to the district by British Rail.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the impact on employment in the district which the Labour party's defence proposals would have on the district were they to be implemented. Those proposals would have absolutely terrifying and disastrous results for the district. A single, nuclear submarine takes 16 million man hours of work to produce at Barrow. The cancellation of the fourth submarine by the Labour party would be a disaster. I do not think that it is honest of the Labour party to ignore that question and fail to say anything. The last Labour party conference passed a resolution which would have the
1060
effect of cutting defence spending in this country by about £9 billion. One can be certain that the impact of that on Barrow, and on many other parts of the country, would be devastating.
Mr. Alex Carlile: While the Secretary of State's announcement is welcome, will he be more specific and tell the House how many of the 11,000 or so lost jobs he expects to be replaced as a result of his proposals? Will he confirm that emphasis and priority will be given to creating jobs in the manufacturing sector, of a kind that people who have worked in the construction and shipbuilding industries will feel that they can fill? Will the Secretary of State say whether Cumbria's former coalfield community is due for any help under the European Community's RECHAR programme? If so, when will the Government stop blocking those funds by refusing to comply with the conditions that the Community lays down?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for welcoming my statement. We cannot estimate how many jobs will be created by such a measure. It is designed to create the conditions that will attract business and create opportunities for local businesses to establish themselves and to expand. The outcome will depend very much on the response of business locally, from the rest of the United Kingdom, and worldwide—because we will be advertising the facilities and the high skills offered by the labour force through the Invest in Britain Bureau to potential inward investors overseas.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the effort will be primarily or specifically aimed at manufacturing jobs. Yes, it will. The factory building is obviously of that nature, and is geared to take up the slack and to use the skills of the people who live in Barrow and the surrounding constituencies.
As to the RECHAR programme, the hon. and learned Gentleman may know that I had a useful meeting with Commissioner Millan on that subject, and I am pressing him to be more flexible and to remove the objections that he operated until recently.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept a small reminder from me that the policy that he announced today is not a precedent or anything new? It is not dissimilar to that which was operated in Corby and Consett after the steel shutdowns. Teesside has seen regeneration as a consequence of Conservative policies under the development corporation, and the work and investment that has been brought to the area are all the result of the Government's specific and directed regional policy. However, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he pays some attention to the situation in respect of ICI.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend never misses a chance. He is right to remind the House of the successful precedents of Corby and Consett. We have worked on the basis that targeted and focused support is much better than general, across-the-board subsidies that largely go on dead weight cost. Recently, I visited Teeesside and saw some of the fruits and results of the regeneration to which my hon. Friend referred.
As a Government, we can create the infrastructure and framework within which the economy can respond. It is because we have followed overall policies that are

1061
attractive to business, and which have, among other things, attracted more inward investment to this country than any other in western Europe, that we have been successful in tackling many of the problems that previous Governments found intractable.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Although such statements are always welcome to the areas concerned, does the Secretary of State have any early plans to treat other regions in a similar way. I refer to the north Yorkshire region and to its mining communities, which have been completely wiped out. My own area has lost 20,000 jobs since 1986 and has not received one penny of Government assistance.
Mr. Liffey: As my statement mentioned, the area in question is unique in two respects—its geographical isolation, and the fact that such a high proportion of its population is dependent on only two employers. For example, 45 per cent. of the population in Barrow are dependent on Vickers.
Mr. Michael Brown; Does my right hon. Friend recall that 12 years ago, when I represented Scunthorpe, I was confronted by a situation very similar to that faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks)—a single-industry town that was over-dependent on a particular industry? Does my right hon. Friend recall also that his predecessor took exactly the same decision that he has, particularly with regard to English Industrial Estates? My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the representations made to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness regarding English Industrial Estates because I predict that in 12 years' time, as a result of my right hon. Friend's statement, my hon. Friend's constituency will find that it has a massively diversified and successful industrial base. A close parallel can be drawn between the situation there and Scunthorpe.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Diversification is the key. The concentration exclusively on nuclear work followed nationalisation of the shipyard by the Labour Government. It is a problem that they created which we are having to solve.
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge): Is the Secretary of State aware that many Opposition Members find it bizarre that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) can talk about good news when 11,000 people are to lose their jobs? Is he further aware that it is now some four months since I and two other officers of the northern group of Labour Members of Parliament met the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, when we drew attention to the fact that the problem was arising and it was many months previous to that that the matter was drawn to his attention by the Northern Development Company? Will he confirm that, despite his announcement today, many thousands of people in the area will lose their jobs and may never work again because of the Government's neglect of the area during the past 12 years?
Mr. Lilley: That is rather a carping response to an effective and generous set of measures. The hon. Gentleman significantly does not mention the
1062
Opposition's policies on civil nuclear energy and what effect they would have in aggravating the problems in the areas which he affects to wish to help.
Mr. Richard Page: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have in the past had the privilege to represent a constituency in Cumbria and am therefore aware of the difficult industrial structures that pertain to the area. I therefore welcome the sensitive Government package to help deal with the problems, in particular the £15 million to be spent on industrial buildings through English Industrial Estates. However, when English Industrial Estates comes to construct those buildings, I hope that it provides a wide range of building sizes, particularly for small businesses and the smaller units, because in the past the mistake has been made of building far too large units and there has not been the start-up and growth of small businesses in the area available to fill them. That is a valuable point to take on board.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. English Industrial Estates has learnt that there is often demand for small businesses and start-up units, and I hope that it will include them in the range of building programmes up there. I shall take that point up with it and confirm that that is the case.
Mr. Bob Cryer: But is not the Secretary of State's statement a complete admission of the failure of the Government's policy of relying on market forces without any intervention? Are not the Minister and his two right-wing cronies here today collaborating in a complete U-turn on Government policy? Is he really trying to tell the House that the only way that the Government can keep jobs is to spend massive sums of money on nuclear submarines for nuclear weapons? Does not he know that the Government are, by treaty obligation—the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—committed to reducing dependence on nuclear weapons? Why did not they look ahead and plan to secure some of the jobs? Lastly, did not the right hon. Gentleman hear the Secretary of State for Transport only last week talk about shifting goods from road to rail? What will he do about that? There is not even a mention of railways in his statement. It is a complete negation of everything that the Secretary of State for Transport said.
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the application of these long-standing measures, in accord with our long-standing philosophy of tailoring, focusing and targeting our aims, represents a change, he is severely mistaken. If he thinks that it is a change to the Labour party's policies, he does not understand his own party's policies. It proposes all sorts of intervention measures which would waste a lot of money and which would not work and I am certainly not going down that route.
Mr. Churchill: I thank my right hon. Friend most warmly for his statement today. It will be very much welcomed in the north-west of England. Is he aware that the cause of the difficulty at the heart of the problem is the 40 per cent. cut in the United Kingdom submarine fleet, a situation which would be made infinitely worse if ever the Labour party were elected, given its commitment to scrap the fourth Trident submarine, its commitment to

1063
large-scale defence cuts and its commitment to destroy jobs in the civil nuclear industry on which the north-west of England is so enormously dependent?
Will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that he does everything in his power to ensure that the Labour party never has a chance of gaining control of the levers of power once again? Will he also have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and point out to him that if the Ministry of Defence were to place an order for a new category of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine, for which there is a requirement, that would also be a great help to the people of Barrow?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his analysis of the origins of the problem in Barrow and of the consequences that would flow from the cancellation of the fourth Trident submarine. Had the Leader of the Opposition had his way—still a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and elected in 1983 on a programme to get rid of the whole of the Trident fleet—there would not be a single job in Barrow-in-Furness in the shipyards.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, for the past 12 years, the Government have been ripping the guts out of manufacturing and industrial capacity throughout Britain, including Cumbria, and the Secretary for State in particular has been one of those little snobs who has believed that market forces and the philosophy of monetarism can solve everything? Now that the Government's policy is in ruins and the Minister has that pained look on his face as he tries to twist and turn and juggle a £1 million, not new money but of old money. Why does not he do something for the Sunderland shipyards, for every coalfield in Britain and for those areas where the textile and steel industries have been hammered by the Government? If he cannot do any of that, he should get out of the way and let someone else do the job.
Mr. Lilley: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: As someone with long-time family connections with Cumbria, I give more than a grudging welcome to the concentration of measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today. I am sure that they will he welcomed in Cumbria and in west Cumbria in particular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention and recruitment of able people to revive the economy of west Cumbria depends on communications? Will he not forget that the A66 could also do with some improvement if west Cumbria is to be connected to the east coast ports and the EC?
Mr. Lilley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's points. The consultants reports contains proposals for additional measures beyond those which I mentioned in my statement. We will be looking at them seriously in the light of the consultants' reports and possibly taking matters further in future.

Points of Order
4.47 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to detain you and the House, but this is an important matter.
You will recall that during business questions the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) referred to early-day motion 946, which he has sponsored. You will see that that motion gives the home address of a councillor. I am sure that you can imagine, as I and I am sure other hon. Members can, the obvious and unacceptable repercussions that could occur from the mentioning of a home address in such a motion. It is extremely irresponsible for any hon. Member, particularly an ex-Minister, to cite an individual's home address in a motion. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will deprecate that action and ensure that in future the Table Office does not allow home addresses to be shown in motions.
Mr. Speaker: All hon. Members must take responsibility for motions that they put on the Order Paper and for what they say in this place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have freedom of speech here. I hope that he gave notice of his point of order to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman left before I could do so.
Mr. Speaker: It is a convention that we should try to uphold.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement, the weather changed from bright sunshine to pouring rain, yet, despite the spaces in the Gallery, people queuing up outside to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are being denied entry by the security people. In future, can we come to a more sensible arrangement? After all, we are paid for in this place by the public. I do not think, and nor do many of my colleagues, that they should have to stand in the rain when the Chamber is almost empty inside.
Mr. Speaker: We do not recognise the Strangers' Gallery, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I sense that it is not all that empty. Of course, security has to be taken into consideration these days. I am sure that those people who wish to get in will probably be able to do so later in the debate.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that the Leader of the House would have heard me raise this matter, but I am sure that he will read about it.
Mr. Speaker: Come off it; sit down. It must be a point of order to me and not to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Nellist: I still have to refer to him in my point of order to you, Mr. Speaker. You have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about a convention of the House, which I was trying to obey. I tried to give notice that I wished to raise a point of order when the hon. Member that I wanted to mention

1065
was present. You will realise that that was not possible because you are taking points of order some time after the time at which the matter arose.
On 12 occasions today, and on many hundreds of occasions previously, the Leader of the House has, quite rightly, said that he would refer to his right hon. Friends inquiries from hon. Members on both sides of the House about specific subjects. He did so in reply to me a couple of months ago, when I mentioned to him the need for medical help for children in the Ukraine following the Chernobyl accident five years ago. I know that he does so; I have seen the letter.
When an hon. Member asks a question or tables a petition, he receives a reply from the Department concerned. I have just done a straw poll and I have not been able to find an hon. Member who, subsequent to that referral, has had the courtesy of a letter from the Department to which the Leader of the House has referred the matter. Will you consider at your leisure whether it should be a rule of the House that if the Leader of the House gives such a reply hon. Members will receive a letter from the Department concerned saying why a debate cannot take place or a statement be made?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's request will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. The contents of an answer are not a matter for me. The object of business questions is to ask about the business for next week. The trouble with business questions these days is that they refer to a wide range of subjects, which by any stretch of the imagination could not possibly all be dealt with next week.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will appreciate that all Back Benchers greatly value business questions and appreciate the fact that in most weeks you allow all hon. Members who are standing to ask questions. Will you examine the record of today's proceedings? If you do, you will see that many hon. Members used business questions to make contrived political jibes that had nothing to do with business? I realise that you do not know in advance what hon. Members are about to ask, but will you ensure in future that those hon. Members who continually abuse the privilege are those who are left with their questions unasked?
Mr. Speaker: That was what I was trying to tell the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) whose question I have just answered. Of course business questions should be directed to business for next week. I said that at the beginning of questions about business today. However, I notice that politics tends to creep into business questions at a time when a general election surely cannot be far off.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Continuance of section 41) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Opposition Day
  13TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Business (Government Policies)
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move.
    That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for creating and then compounding a recession which has led to large falls in manufacturing output and investment, rapidly rising closures and bankruptcies and the fastest growing unemployment in Western Europe, now hitting all professions, occupations and trades; deplores the problems all businesses, especially small businesses, are facing over high interest rates; regrets, especially in the run-up to 1992, the current contraction of industrial strength in all regions and nations of the country; and calls for an interest rate cut and policies for technology skills and the regions that will build a stronger industrial base throughout the country.
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start to the debate, it will be necessary to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
    Mr. Brown: This motion draws attention to the urgent need for measures to deal with unemployment, with the crisis in investment, and with the problems of training and skills in our economy.
    Today unemployment is nearly 2·25 million men and women, 70,000 higher than last month. That is the biggest May rise since 1945—a higher rise than the previous highest in the United Kingdom, during the last Tory recession in the 1980s. Unemployment is now 600,000 men and women higher than it was at this time last year, having risen relentlessly for 14 months in a row. It is rising faster than in any other country in western Europe; it is rising not merely in the south and the north but in every region of the United Kingdom. It is rising not merely in areas of traditional blue-collar employment but among every profession, trade and occupation, with 80,000 managers now out of work.
    Unemployment, the biggest destroyer of opportunity, is now half a million higher than when the current Prime Minister came to power, pledged to a classless society and the hollow promise of opportunity for all. It is half a million higher than when the Prime Minister, when Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told us that families and people in work could plan ahead on the basis of there being an economic miracle.
    There has been as fast a rise in the numbers unemployed in a shorter time as under any Prime Minister since the 1930s. The recession is reaching parts of the economy that previous recessions did not reach.
    Mr. Michael Brown rose—
    Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute.
    For a year, the Government have boasted that unemployment is below the European average; now, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, unemployment is higher than the European average and is rising faster than anywhere else. By the end of the year, according to the most recent

    1067
    estimates, unemployment will be higher in Britain than in any other European country with the exceptions of Ireland and Greece. What of the human consequences?
    Mr. Michael Brown: It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to mention unemployment in the context of this debate, but I wonder whether he recalls that when challenged by Conservative Members during a previous debate on the Labour party's minimum wage policy, he said that if that policy were implemented unemployment would increase a little additionally. Would he care to say by how much unemployment might rise if his minimum wages policy were introduced?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should do his research before he comes to the debate. I have never had any statement of the sort attributed to me. It is absolutely clear from looking around Europe, where they all have minimum wages, that that has not affected employment and there is no reason to believe that it would affect it here.
    The Secretary of State for Employment has made the issue of the next election very clear. In contrast to Labour's minimum wage proposals, he has said that he wants to abolish wages councils in their entirety. I ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and his colleagues to defend the existence of more poverty pay in our economy.
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: If the hon. Gentleman is not willing to face head on the reality that statutory minimum wage policies will cause increased unemployment, does he share with Gavin Laird the concern that that policy will erode skill differentials and discourage training?
    Mr. Brown: No, I do not and I believe that a minimum wage is not only socially just, but makes for economic efficiency. I quote the words of Sir Winston Churchill, when he introduced the first minimum wage proposals into this House in 1908 and said that he wanted to end a situation where the good employer was undercut by the bad and the bad employer undercut by the worst. That is precisely what our minimum wage proposal will do—[Interruption.] That shows that Conservative Members want to return to the position before 1908.
    What of the human consequences of unemployment, about which Ministers say so little when talking emptily about opportunity for all? Perhaps the Secretary of State will be more influenced by listening to a manager from a Tory constituency, a Tory voter who was quoted in The Times on 4 June as saying of the Tories:
    "they have devalued my house. They have lost me my job. They have pushed up inflation. They have made unemployment start rising and they do not seem to be taking any notice. They do not realise the resentment there is pent up. It is not the people who make noises, it is the silent voter who is frustrated by what he sees is happening, the mismanagement of the country".
    It is not merely managers; skilled, conscientious and reliable men in their 50s, who have worked every day for nearly 40 years, are now being made redundant, and are gradually beginning to realise that they will never work again. Their suffering is no doubt part of the price that the Chancellor thinks is well worth paying. Widows, the only breadwinners for their families, are condemned to an indefinite future of unrelieved poverty on the basic dole of£40 a week, or just a little more. No doubt the Chancellor regards their unemployment as a price well worth paying.
    Young people are denied the opportunity of doing a first-class job. They have never experienced the self-esteem
    1068
    that can follow a good day's work. No doubt that colossal waste of human potential is also part of the price that the Chancellor considers well worth paying. Then there is the family man with a mortgage who goes home to tell his children that, now that he has lost his job, they will shortly have to lose their home. No doubt that family's suffering is all part of the price that the Chancellor considers well worth paying.
    The lives of all those people—if I may use the agonised phrase of the former Prime Minister—have been shattered like patterned glass smashed on the ground. No doubt, however, it is all part of the price that the Chancellor thinks well worth paying. The truth is that the only price in unemployment that the country thinks worth paying is the unemployment of the Chancellor himself.
    Mr. Churchill: How does the hon. Gentleman imagine that Labour's policies of giving more power back to the union bosses and increasing taxation levels will contribute to the solving of such problems?
    Mr. Brown: It is amazing that, on a day when we have heard that unemployment has risen by 70,000, the hon. Gentleman cannot think about the problems of people in his constituency who are losing their jobs, and that he should suggest that the Government's policies are working. The fact is that they are not.
    Today, Ministers should tear down the offensive advertisements, mounted at the taxpayer's expense, which read: "I will work, I must work, I can work." Those advertisements attempt to show that it is not the Government but the unemployed who have failed. The Government should erect, at their own expense, a billboard addressing the truth—that Conservative government is not working. It is the Government who have let down the unemployed.
    A memorandum from the Department of Employment itself makes it very clear what is happening, and what will happen in the next few months. According to the document, which was produced on 2 May,
    "the forecast for the period October 1990 to October 1991 was for a 50 per cent. rise in the levels of unemployment"—
    that is, an increase of 850,000 in the number of unemployed men and women in a year. Since October 1990 half a million have become unemployed, and the Government and the Training Agency predict that 350,000 more will do so in the next few months. The memorandum goes on:
    "Any arguments that the Treasury therefore have for a reduction in funding for training are now completely eroded. There is a demonstrable justification for further funds."
    Ministers should act today, even if they do so not because they fear the unemployment of others as a result of the recession, but because they fear their own unemployment following a general election. Every day on which they delay the training and employment programmes that we propose for the unemployed represents a further betrayal of those whom they have pushed out of work.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech makes it plain that he is concerned about the performance of British business. Will he cast his mind back to an era when British Airways was rated below Aeroflot, British Leyland was the butt of international jokes and British Steel was the world's largest loss-maker? A Labour Government were in power

    1069
    then. How can the hon. Gentleman, who has never manufactured anything except dodgy policies, expect to do any better?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman delivers his continual lectures from the Back Benches, he should remember that the growth rate under the last Labour Government was higher than it has been under the present Government. Despite what he says, our share of world trade has fallen under this Government, and fallen severely.
    The hon. Gentleman should cast his own mind back —to the manifesto that he wrote in 1987. Unemployment in his constituency is now 61 per cent. higher than it was last year. In 1987, he wrote:
    "The battle for jobs is finally being won."
    It is not only the old, obsolete, traditional companies that are going under; it is also the new, high-technology companies which were told by the Government that they represented the country's future, but which in recent months have needlessly become part of our industrial past. The Government cannot dismiss the 500,000 unemployed, the 40,000 bankruptcies in a year, the 5 per cent. fall in output and the 20 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment as the froth on the economy or a simple loss of fat from industry. They must admit that those losses go far beyond the natural resilience of the economic cycle, and represent not just a tragedy for individuals and families, but the attrition of our industrial base. They have eroded a critical mass of skills and expertise, and a culture of technology that, once lost, cannot easily—if ever—be restored.
    Where is the recovery promised by the Chancellor and others? Last November, in the autumn statement, we were told to trust the Government, because the economy was about to turn the corner. A few months later, we were again urged to trust them, because the economy was about to turn the corner. In November 1990, the Prime Minister told us that the recovery would come "early next year", but the unemployed are still waiting. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor told us that the recession was "largely behind us", and that the recovery would begin
    "around the middle of this year".—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 165.]
    Under pressure, the Chancellor told us a week later that the recovery would begin towards the middle of the year. If recovery were indeed beginning towards the middle of the year, would we not be experiencing it now? The unemployed are still waiting.
    In April, in a speech to the Institute of Directors, the Chancellor said:
    "we are close to a turning point"—
    but the unemployed are still waiting. The right hon. Gentleman continued, in even more fevered language, "victory is in sight." A few days ago, when he realised that developments could not be timed as precisely as he had thought, the Chancellor said: "It's not like arriving at Waterloo station. You cannot tell when it will happen"—a remark which betrays a sad lack of familiarity with the realities of life for London commuters.
    The Government told us three years ago that a miracle had happened, when it had not. A year ago, they told us that there was no recession, when there was. Can we now believe anything that they say about a recovery? In his last survey, Mr. Banham, from the CBI, said that things were
    1070
    bad and getting worse. The Engineering Employers Federation's last survey told us that prospects would not improve in the short term. According to the motor manufacturers, the recession would continue until the end of the year. Ian Valiance of British Telecom, one of the Government's supporters, has said:
    "there is no sign of an upturn"—
    except for him, that is—
    "and we do not know when it will come".
    Mr. Graham Mackenzie, of United Engineering Steels Ltd., said:
    "we were pessimistic six months ago but we never expected anything as bad as this".
    On Monday, Goldman Sachs said that it was hard to find any company in any part of the economy that was reporting clear signs of improvement in activity. Kleinwort Benson has referred to
    "the almost complete evaporation of confidence over the last few weeks".
    What are we to make of all the Government's claims about the promised recovery? All that the Chancellor has been able to say, in an extended interview on these matters, is what he said to David Frost a few days ago—that he could detect "vague stirrings" in the economy.
    A transcript has now become available. The Chancellor said:
    "There are vague stirrings at the moment, but the signs are there. Business men say 'We cannot see it'"—
    but the Government, of course, can see around the corner.
    David Frost said:
    "But the vague stirrings you are saying you have seen—you say you have seen vague stirrings."
    The Chancellor replied,
    "Faint stirrings, yes."
    There are those who claim to see visions; there are those who claim to hear voices; yet others claim to have second sight. Now the Chancellor seeks to persuade us that he can hear, see, feel or otherwise detect "faint stirrings". I am advised by those who know about these matters that, if the symptoms were merely those of seeing things that the rest of us could see and misrepresenting them, the Chancellor would be deemed to be suffering from delusions. Alas, his predicament is more serious: he is seeing things that he knows others cannot see, and living his whole life as if they were there. This is a textbook case of an otherwise sane man hallucinating a whole economic recovery—just as three years ago he hallucinated an economic miracle.
    What is to blame for what has gone wrong? Is it consumer spending? Is it the stock exchange crash? Is it inefficient management? Is it the wage rises? Is it the banks? Is it the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who is often blamed for creating this mess single-handedly? It is interesting that the answer came to us in an interview not in Vanity Fair or in "Bark", the Japanese journal which enjoys the confidence of at least one faction of the Conservative party.
    In a revealing interview nearer home, hidden away in the privately circulated House Magazine, which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, presumably hoped few would take the trouble to read, the right hon. Gentleman was asked, "Why the recession? Why inflation?" He said:
    "It rose because of mistakes which were made during the period I was at the Treasury".
    Mistakes at the Treasury—a significant confession. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
    "so I can't, and wouldn't wish to, escape my share of the blame."

    1071
    There it is—a confession, a complete admission of guilt.
    The Minister who is to stand before us today has given us a full and frank account of his part in the affair. He has made a clean breast of it and has avoided the necessity of a prolonged cross-examination during his speech. It is a recession which, we now know, cannot be blamed on the Gulf war, America, the EC, the unions or managers but which, by the right hon. Gentleman's admission, is due to mistakes which were made at the Treasury.
    Far more significant than the admirable personal confession of guilt by the Secretary of State—in effect, the right hon. Gentleman turning Queen's evidence; I remind the House that he was only a junior Minister during those events, probably keeping bad company at the time—is his statement of the part played by others. As he puts it, the blame attached to those at the Treasury.
    Who are these men whose careers have gone unchecked, who have never been forced by The House Magazine into a confession of guilt and who have inveigled themselves into more senior positions? I refer, of course, to the former Chief Secretary, now Prime Minister, and to the Financial Secretary, now Chancellor, who were jointly and severally responsible. They were to blame, not the managers of our companies, not trade unions, not businesses and not primarily bankers, either. On the admission of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, mistakes were made by people at the Treasury—the senior ones now at Downing street.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the mistake of cutting interest rates excessively after the crash of October 1987 was endorsed by the shadow Chancellor? Unlike me, the right hon. and learned Gentleman still believes that it would have been right to have interest rates even lower then, while I have recognised that that was not right and that we erred in the direction of resisting a slump. The consequence was greater inflation.
    Mr. Brown: That was an interesting statement. The right hon. Gentleman now seeks to tell us that it was a "mistake" and not "mistakes" that were made during the period he was at the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Of course we supported the reduction in interest rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We did not make a mistake. Of course we supported the reduction in interest rates. We did not support the £6 billion in tax cuts, mainly to the very rich, which was the primary reason why things moved ahead after March and caused the problems.
    Mr. Lilley: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is saying that I was not mistaken.
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman was certainly mistaken. Talking about mistakes, the biggest mistake made in that three months was the 1988 Budget, which caused many of the problems with which we must now deal. I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time how he could defend that Budget, on the grounds not only of social justice but of economic efficiency, when the Government pumped £6 billion into the economy and then cut interest rates again. That is why we have all the problems now, and everyone knows it. They are the men who are guilty of creating the recession they once claimed never existed, guilty of compounding it
    1072
    by further actions and, even now, guilty of failing to correct the recession without rapidly rising unemployment and cutting at the heart of our industrial capacity.
    What does the Prime Minister now say after all that? The classless society now looks like a hollow promise; opportunities for all look, with rising unemployment, like a sick joke; a nation "at ease with itself"—the comment he took from President Bush and said was applicable to Britain—now looks like a contradiction in terms. What are we now told? At the start of the week, we were told that we would have a keynote speech defining Majorism. The Prime Minister appears to have changed his mind—that in itself is a definition of Majorism. We have had Thatcherism, but of course we never had Churchillism, Macmillanism or Gladstoneism. Apparently, after six months of these achievements, and after all that new thinking, we are to have Majorism. I believe that the nation would excuse the lack of Majorism as a philosophy if we at least had policies to deal with one problem—rising unemployment.
    Ten years ago, we were told that the Prime Minister was not for turning but that the economy would turn. Now it seems that things have changed. We have a Prime Minister who does nothing but turn and an economy that will not. What is to happen in this recovery which we were promised? The Government's case is that, after this unfortunate recession, will come sustainable recovery and all our worries will cease—exactly what they told us after the first Tory recession. It is even less credible when we have entered a second Tory recession with unemployment higher than it was in 1979 and industrial capacity smaller.
    The real question is, what kind of recovery can we expect? Will it be investment-led growth? Will it he industry-led? Will it be likely to ensure sustainable growth? The Chancellor has already begun to answer the question. When pressed by David Frost, the only stirrings the right hon. Gentleman could detect were not stirrings in industry or manufacturing, not even signs of new investment in industry as a whole, but stirrings in the property or the housing market. Those are precisely the sectors whose expansion without investment-led growth led to the recession in the first place. Indeed, the very sectors in manufacturing industry upon which the country's future most depend for sustainable growth will, by the Chancellor's own admission, be the last to recover.
    Is it not the case that the Government recognise that fact and will not tell the nation the full truth? Despite all pleas to the contrary, Britain will do badly in 1991; it will also do badly in 1992, according to the Government's own figures. As we leave the recession, if interest rates arid inflation fall, the real questions will be: how much capacity will have been lost? How much unemployment will there be? How much investment will there be? The question that dominates our future as well as our present deliberations is: how can we have steady, sustainable, long-term growth for Britain without the capacity, particularly the skills, and the strength to sustain it?
    Anyone looking at the forecasts that are made in Europe, with the Government's help, will know that investment prospects in Britain are believed to be about the lowest in Europe, not just in 1991 but in 1992. Investment is expected to rise by 4 per cent. in Germany, 6 per cent. in Spain and 4 per cent. in Italy but only just over 2 per cent. in Britain. Having had a worse record for output this year than any other country except Greece, next year Britain will fall to the bottom of the European

    1073
    investment league as well. According to the forecasts, employment is expected to fall in 1991 and 1992. Not only will Britain's export performance be the worst of any EC country this year but, according to the EC's forecasts, the same will happen next year as well.
    What will happen to our balance of payments next year? We will have all the elements in 1992 or 1993 of the problems that caused the present recession, including the pressures from imports and the balance of payments which brought rising interest rates and rising inflation. The answer is to be found in the Government's own publication, the Red Book of the Budget. According to the Government's figures, next year imports will rise by 4·5 per cent. The balance of payments, which is in a parlous state this year during a recession, will worsen yet again by £2 billion, according to the Government's estimates, and will have to be financed from abroad through higher interest rates.
    Built into the Government's forecasts and into what they are saying in their official publications and buried away in the Red Book are all the elements of future grief in rising imports and a worsening balance of payments deficit. Let us be absolutely clear: there is no long-term strategy from the Government to bring Britain sustainable growth—only a short-term tactic to get them through an election. Even the Government, with their own figures, cannot claim to offer sustainable recovery.
    If they do not believe me, will they listen to what industry is saying? The president of the Engineering Employers Federation said:
    "My contention is that the United Kingdom manufacturing sector will simply not be big enough to support the kind of expanding economy that we need in the 1990s"
    Martin Jacomb of Barclays de Zoete Wedd said:
    "It is amazing how long it has taken people to realise the competitive weakness of our economic performance. Even today, our political leaders do not acknowledge it. You still hear them talking as if we were economically successful."
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brown: No, I shall not give way. I have already done so many times.
    If anyone is in any doubt about the gap that must be bridged in the run-up to 1992 and beyond, let him consider the problems that we face not only in training, technology, output and investment as a whole, but in manufacturing investment for the future.
    A survey that the Confederation of British Industry gave its members only a few days ago said that manufacturing investment per worker in the United Kingdom is only £2,800; in Germany, it is £4,000; in France, £4,300—60 per cent. higher; in Japan it is more than twice as much—£6,000. Those are the 1989 figures. Investment in other countries has risen and is still rising in most cases, but in Britain it is down to what we estimate to be £2,400 per manufacturing worker. It is falling this year and slipping behind all our competitors as we move forward.
    The tragedy is that the loss of investment power for manufacturing workers is not a one-off occurrence that can be dismissed as a freak or a blip—it is a recurring and lasting feature of the past 12 years. Over the past 12 years, the British worker has had only £18,000 invested in him in real terms. The figure for the German worker was nearly
    1074
    30 per cent. higher, for the French it was 60 per cent. higher and even for the Irish worker it was 50 per cent. higher. In the Netherlands, the figure was 250 per cent. more, and in Canada and America it was 100 per cent. more. No other country invested less in manufacturing per worker except Greece. If the Government will not listen to us, will they listen to the voices from industry?
    Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brown: No.
    Under this Government, the whole country now sees 1992 not as the opportunity that it should have been, but as the threat that it has now become.
    What of the role of the Department of Trade and Industry? For 12 years, the DTI has done next to nothing. Only a few weeks ago—this is important, because the Secretary of State thought it so in the speeches that he made—after 12 years of doing nothing, the Secretary of State acted and made a few speeches on DTI policy. What was the purpose of those speeches? It was to explain the philosophy behind doing absolutely nothing. I suppose that, having acted and made so many mistakes at the Treasury, by his own acknowledgment, he is playing safe by doing nothing at the DTI.
    Under the new Prime Minister, the Department of the Environment is at least getting rid of the poll tax, if not until 1993 or 1994. At least the Department of Health is setting itself new targets even if, it says, they will not make any difference until 1995 or beyond. At least the Department of Transport is talking about investing to get trains to run on time at some as yet unspecified time in the future.
    What has happened at the DTI? What does it do when its sphere of responsibility includes dealing with the rundown of research, the failure of investment, the weakening of many of our exports and needs for innovation and the problems of the regions? What is the most important and interesting single initiative of the DTI over the past few weeks? It is not a new policy initiative or programme, but a video. The Sunday Times states:
    "Plummeting morale at the DTI has persuaded the bosses to commission a video to remind staff how vital their work is. The low-key image of Peter Lilley has led some officials to look back with rose tinted spectacles on the reign of Lord Young whose campaigns made DTI staff feel important. The grumblers doubt that the new video will make much difference. Mr. Lilley will star in it himself."
    Presumably the video will begin, "You may not of heard of me, but I am in charge here."
    When industry needs research and development support; when it needs a Department to speak up for them in government and imaginative thinking of public and private partnership to develop the infrastructure; at a time when we need to modernise—as the Labour party proposes—rather than abolish regional policy if we are not to slip back in the run-up to 1992, the best that we have is a video featuring the Secretary of State. The problems of this country are too important to be left to a Government who have failed.
    When the House of Lords recommended improved capital allowances to boost investment in manufacturing—as the Labour party has also recommended—and when it recommended in its report tax credits for additional research and development such as those in America—a similar proposal to that advanced by the Labour party —the Government chose to do absolutely nothing. The

    1075
    House of Lords proposed regional development agencies, but we see absolutely no action except cuts in regional incentives, cuts in regional innovation and cuts in the regional technology transfer budget.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House what the commitments to tax-free credits for research and development amount to in total. The House would like to know precisely what figures the Labour party has in mind to bolster industry. While he is at it, will he kindly explain why Japanese and American companies prefer to invest more in this country than in the whole of the European Community?
    Mr. Brown: That investment will not continue unless we have a decent research and development policy and a decent regional policy. The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) is a well-known attender of Budget debates. He knows that we set out our proposals clearly during the previous Budget debate. They were set out in the document "Modern Manufacturing Strength" and during every debate that we have had since.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Brown: I could take one, two, three or four people, but I do not know which faction of the Conservative party to favour.
    When the House of Lords proposed regional development agencies, no action was taken by the do-nothing Department other than to cut regional grants. It is also important that when the Government holds guarantees over British Steel and a golden share, and even after one of the most critical reports by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the DTI's response is again to do absolutely nothing. It even refused to debate the issue or to meet me and the shadow Scottish Secretary to discuss it. When the Department was criticised over Rover and British Aerospace and misleading the House and the country by a Select Committee with a Conservative majority, the response was wholly complacent and did not even begin to answer the central charge of deception. Once again, there was nothing from the DTI.
    When criticised over secret deals on shipbuilding which prevented investment in profitable capacity in the north-east, the DTI said nothing and refused even to answer the charge. The House of Lords argued that the high incidence of takeovers is damaging to manufacturing industry—as Labour has argued in its policy for stricter takeover laws—but Government policy has been merely to enunciate what is called the Lilley doctrine to prevent state takeovers from abroad and then to water it down almost out of existence in a speech that he made yesterday.
    When the most serious takeover threat to British manufacturing in modern history is deemed to be possible, the Government do absolutely nothing and refuse to make clear their views. Would the Government of any other country in western Europe do nothing, if its largest manufacturer and its second largest exporter were at risk? Would it ever come to that in another country, if such a takeover were even contemplated? Why will the Conservative party not make clear its views about the importance of ICI to research and development and to the regions of this country?
    If the Government were serious about the needs of industry, about competition policy or about the regions, they would tell us now that they will introduce legislation
    1076
    In the next Session of Parliament—if they go beyond October—to deal with cartels, to set up the regional development agencies that the country needs and that, instead of the privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the British Technology Group, we shall have policies for training, technology and innovation.
    What about small businesses? Is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry aware that business debts, small and large, ran at £30 billion last year and that interest repayments were four times higher than in 1979? Is he also aware that £30 billion went in interest payments because of high interest rates, but that only £14 billion was spent on manufacturing investment? Is he aware that interest payments are now a far greater share of companies' out lay than their total investment? Is he aware that because of that and because of the margins charged by the banks, there were 10,000 small business failures in 1980, which was bad enough, but that there were 25,000 last year—500 a week. In 1991, they are now estimated to be anything between 40,000 and 50,000, yet on this, as on every other issue, the Secretary of State does absolutely nothing.
    The Government cannot act on Europe because they are divided. They cannot act on training, unemployment, the public services or industry because they are caught between the Thatcherite ideology that they all support and the reality that the public will not go along with it. They are frozen into inaction and scared of further divisions within the party.
    The result is that, while the French Prime Minister, who took office only a few days ago, could say that, starting on her first day in office, her biggest priority was to build and to prepare French industry properly for 1992, when our Prime Minister took office on the steps of Downing street in November, he did not say that his aim was to rebuild British industry or the British economy, but merely to reunite a divided Conservative party.
    There is urgency in the measures that we are proposing today for investment, training and employment because the summer and autumn will be make or break months for decisions which, if avoided or badly made, will blight our economy for a decade. Having dithered over our preparations for 1992; having drifted into recession and failed to prevent the calamitous collapse of industrial investment; having failed to act decisively over the skills programme, over training for the unemployed, over the industrial investment incentive and over the technology trusts, all of which we have proposed; having failed to act decisively over the regional development agencies that we believe are necessary, not just in the regional interest but in the national interest; and having been caught unawares as our industrial capacity has shrunk, while our competitors have moved ahead, there is little time left for Britain in the run-up to 1992.
    Faced with the deadline of 1992, any other Government—
    Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever the impression he is trying to give, he cannot offer or commit himself to a single extra penny of expenditure because industry does not feature as one of the Labour party's two top priorities, and that any extra expenditure, at which he might be hinting in the remarks that he has finally got round to making, can therefore be made only when growth provides the money?
    Mr. Brown: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has to intervene on this point, but he should have listened to the Budget debates and to the Labour party's own debate during Budget week, when I set out the Labour party's proposals on training, investment, skills and action on unemployment. We made our spending commitments absolutely clear in that Budget statement, just as we made them clear with the publication of "Modern Manufacturing Strength".
    Any other Government, faced with the deadline of 1992 and pressed for decisions, would do more than adopt the "nothing" approach of the Department of Trade and Industry. Having created a recession, compounded it by further mistakes and having failed to correct it without a cut in industrial capacity, Ministers have failed, failed and failed again. They have nothing to offer the country except their resignations.
    5.32 pm
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its determination to defeat inflation and on the increasing success of that policy; recognises that industry's first priority is the defeat of inflation so that growth can be resumed; welcomes the transformation of the British economy over the last 12 years; rejects the pro-inflationary policies of the Opposition who would increase public spending and borrowing, provoke a pay explosion and take risks with the exchange rate; and condemns their anti-industry policies of nationalisation, intervention and punitive taxation which would threaten the Government's remarkable achievement.'.
    Listening to that customary gloom-laden speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), I could not help recalling that splendid old radio programme "Take It From Here", which featured a family called "The Glums". If the BBC ever revive that programme—I hope that it will—the hon. Gentleman is a shoe-in for the part of Ron Glum. He is not merely glum; he is mired in gloom; he positively radiates gloom. He can brighten a room just by leaving it. His speech was long on gloom, but short on policies. He spoke for 30 minutes before even mentioning any Labour party policies. There is a simple reason for that—it is because the Labour party has no strategy on inflation, no strategy for the recession and no strategy on unemployment.
    Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
    Mr. Lilley: The Labour party keeps its policies out of sight because it is ashamed of them and because it knows that those policies would make every one of those problems worse.
    Mr. Brown rose—
    Mr. Lilley: Labour's policies would raise inflation, deepen recession, and increase unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will be able to intervene in a moment. he spoke for 35 minutes without telling us about any of his policies.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way.
    Is not the right hon. Gentleman gloomy about unemployment at the moment? Can he tell us whether his Government now irrevocably rule out Labour's proposed
    1078
    training and employment programme that is designed to reduce unemployment? If he is doing that, he is abandoning and betraying the unemployed.
    Mr. Lilley: What a pathetic intervention. The hon. Gentleman knows that that point, which he did not raise in his speech, was dealt with adequately last night by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: The House deserves a direct answer to a question which, incidentally, I asked in my speech, although the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to hear it. Are the Government now ruling out a training and employment programme to reduce the rate of unemployment? Are they ruling out an emergency programme, which we believe to be in the national interest and an essential matter of policy?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman knows that that point was dealt with perfectly well last night by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The hon. Gentleman wants to conceal the fact that, as I have said, the Labour party does not have any policies on the recession, inflation or unemployment.
    The Labour party does not have a strategy for inflation, because it does not recognise its importance; it does not have the faintest understanding of its cause and does not have a clue about how to cure it. Conservative Members know that success in dealing with inflation is a precondition for everything else. That is why getting inflation down is our top priority. Even businesses that are experiencing the pain of recession agree with us about that. The good news is that inflation is coming down—we are winning that battle. Inflation is already down 4·5 per cent. from its peak and is below the lowest level that was ever achieved by the last Labour Government. Inflation is on track for 4 per cent. by the end of the year, which is half the lowest level that was ever achieved by the Labour Government.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: What about the underlying rate?
    Mr. Lilley: The underlying rate of inflation, about which the hon. Lady is asking, is also heading downwards, as yesterday's producer prices index of 6 per cent. confirms. What is more, both the Confederation of British Industry and the journal of the Bank of England think that that index is too pessimistic about our success in reducing the underlying rate of inflation, because many firms seem to report their list prices—[Interruption.]—without taking into full account the discounts that they are giving, as they are requested to do. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State, but our debate is not helped by excessive sedentary shouting from both sides of the House. I hope that we can have some self-restraint.
    Mr. Lilley: Conservative Members understand that Labour Members do not want to hear their lack of policies being exposed.
    As well as believing that the rate of underlying inflation is declining more rapidly than the official index suggests, the CBI also states that 19 per cent. of the firms in its survey have reduced their net prices over the past four months. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline,

    1079
    East would prefer those figures to be more pessimistic but, alas for him, there is more good news. Pay costs are also slowing down. That process is best encouraged where top management sets an example. Throughout industry as a whole, pay settlements are 2·25 percentage points below their peak. The CBI's figures show that one in five companies is deferring any pay increase for the time being. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East could pay some attention to the debate, perhaps he will tell the House whether he is prepared to welcome that moderation in pay settlements—I shall give way to him if he wishes me to do so—or is he so afraid of his trade union masters that he will not welcome pay moderation?
    The fact is that the Labour party does not have any policies to bring inflation down, but it has plenty that would put it up. A Labour Government would increase public borrowing, as they always do, which would raise inflation—
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Lilley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
    A Labour Government would increase public spending, as they always do, which would raise inflation. They would spark off a public-sector pay explosion, as they always do, which would increase inflation. They would push up wages everywhere through their statutory minimum wage. That would certainly increase inflation. They would cut interest rates prematurely. That would increase inflation. Let us face it, they would devalue the pound. All Labour Governments have devalued the pound. The Labour party is the party of devaluation, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) advocates that course.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Secretary of State is telling us all about inflation. Any fool can bring down inflation and this Government almost certainly will, because it is always slow in graveyards. However, when the Government have brought inflation down to the lowest possible figure and they have a graveyard, where will the locomotive for growth come from? What will produce the return to growth?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman simply does not realise that bringing inflation down is the precondition for a return to growth. As we bring inflation down and interest rates fall, lower inflation itself gives a stimulus to the economy and both together cause a resumption of growth.
    One City firm recently said that because everyone recognises that the Labour party is prone to devalue, a Labour Government would have to keep interest rates at anything up to 30 per cent. to hold the pound within its exchange rate mechanism limits. All these Labour policies would take us back to the funny money of the 1970s in fairly short order.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: The point that my right hon. Friend has omitted so far and of which all the country is aware is that a Labour Government would increase taxation. Will my right hon. Friend speculate? The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said that one in 20 people would pay more in tax. The Leader of the Opposition has said that one in 18 people would pay more in tax. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said that one in eight
    1080
    people would pay more in tax. Which one does my right hon. Friend think is telling the truth? Or are they incapable of doing so?
    Mr. Lilley: Frankly, I do not believe any of them. If one looks at their voting record, one finds that those hon. Members voted against every cut in the basic rate of taxation which brought the rate down from 33p to 25p in the pound. I judge them by their voting record, not by their attempts to excuse and argue their way out of the consequences of their high-spending policies.
    It is extraordinary that, having chosen to debate the recession, the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East has as yet offered us no insight into how the Labour party would deal with it. He described it, revelled in it and gloated over it, yet we heard not one whit about what he would do about it. It is his politics of gloom once again, without a single ray of policy to illuminate us.
    The hon. Gentleman's calls for further interest rate cuts, when he makes them, are totally discredited by the admission of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, throughout his entire time as Shadow Chancellor, he has advocated a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates. He maintained that call even when interest rates were at their lowest point in 1988. As the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East pointed out, I and the Government as a whole have acknowledged, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was not necessary to cut interest rates following the October 1987 crash. But the shadow Chancellor still says that we cut them too little. He demonstrates his unworthiness to be Shadow Chancellor because he does not understand the connection between interest rates and the economy. If we had followed his advice, then or ever since, inflation would have gone higher and the recession would have been more severe.
    There is no doubt on the Government side of the House that Labour's policies would aggravate even further the problems that we face. A recent range of stockbrokers' analyses of the likely impact of Labour's policies agreed that a Labour Government would mean a loss of confidence, higher interest rates, more inflation and an increase in the cost of equity capital for investment.
    Mr. Giles Radice: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the best way out of the recession is by way of expanding the property market, as the Chancellor seems to suggest.
    Mr. Lilley: That is a facile and silly point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said no such thing. The economy will resume growth in the second half of this year as a result of our success in getting inflation down.
    Labour's whole growth strategy—if the phrase is not a self-contradiction—has a fatal flaw right at its heart. All its policies to boost growth require a great deal of extra public spending. They require more spending on training, more on science, more on innovation and more on the regions. But their own rule—Beckett's law—tells us that, apart from pensions and child benefits, everything must wait "until resources allow". Note the logic—the Labour party will boost growth by spending more, but the spending must wait until growth has been boosted. The argument deserves to be more famous than it is, but in a sense it is pretty famous already. In every textbook of logic, it is called circulus in probando.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend not forget to make the point that, if the Labour party was allowed to spend the £30 billion of additional money that it wants to spend, there would be an increase in income tax of 15p in the pound?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Labour party tries desperately to cover over the consequences of its spending plans for its tax obligations and why Labour Members gave the confused, misleading and self-contradictory answers to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) referred.
    Perhaps I have been a little harsh on the Labour party so far. I believe half of its argument. I believe the part about spending. I believe that it would spend more on the multitude of priorities which its Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury denies. I believe that it would spend more even on industry because it would spend more on subsidies. It would spend more on quangos. None of that is hard to believe, because it has done it all before. The part that I do not believe about the Labour party's strategy is the growth.
    Far from generating growth, the Labour party's spending would cripple the economy. That spending could come only from higher taxation, to which it is already committed, and higher borrowing, at which it hints. In both cases the increase to which it admits is but a fraction, a small fraction, of what its announced promises add up to.
    The hon. Member for Great Grimsby wrote in April's New Statesman and Society—it does not have a large Tory readership:
    "To fulfil Labour's proposals we would now need substantially higher borrowing and bigger tax increases."
    Absolutely right. In the "On the Record" programme last month, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
    "In an ideal world we would like to say, yes … we'd increase taxation."
    When interpreted that means, "We know that tax increases are unpopular, so we will not admit to them until after the election".
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the Secretary of State is in the process of quoting lots of radio programmes, would he like to confirm his complete agreement with the Leader of the House who, in a recent radio programme, pointed out that taxation had clearly risen for the average family under this Government?
    Mr. Lilley: It is strange then, that the hon. Gentleman voted against every reduction in tax rates that we made.
    The part of Labour's policies in which I believe is that there would be some sort of growth as a result of its policies. It would be a growth in taxes and in borrowing. That would consume the resources that industry needs in order to expand and prosper. One thing that I would have thought that the Labour party might have learnt from the 1980s is that, when income and corporation tax rates are reduced, one is more likely to see growth than when they are increased.
    We reduced tax rates in the 1980s and saw growth in Britain, for the first peacetime decade this century, exceed that in Germany or France. That was the same decade which saw not only lower tax rates but privatisation, huge reductions in subsidies, less intervention and a pruning of quangos. My colleagues will understand my lack of
    1082
    optimism about Labour's formula: higher taxes, nationalism, increases in subsidies, more intervention and a record number of quangos.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East asked me again today to comment upon the Hanson-ICI issue, but he should know better than that. There has been no bid and no Secretary of State could conceivably comment on a hypothetical merger. If I did, and a bid subsequently emerged that called for action by the United Kingdom authorities, the courts might rule that I had "fettered my discretion". In any case, like it or not, any bid where the combined turnover exceeds 5 billion ecu is outside British jurisdiction. It would fall to be considered by the European Commission.
    It is hypocritical of a party that is now committed to giving away our power to govern ourselves in monetary, economic and social matters to get hot under the collar about our loss of sovereignty on merger policy. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has made a lot of noise recently about the threatened possible takeover of ICI, but he has said nothing about the biggest takeover threat facing British industry—the takeover threatened by Labour's renationalisation plans.
    Nationalisation is the N-word which the Labour party dare not mention. It is the policy that dare not speak its name. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and his colleagues are reluctant to speak about it, I shall speak about it for them. The hon. Gentleman's specific documented pledges would involve the Labour party taking over companies worth three times as much as ICI, which invest four times as much a year and which employ five times as many people. Now that is some takeover threat.
    Today the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East sneered at our policy of referring to the Mergers and Monopolies Commission where foreign state companies try to take over British firms. It seems that the Labour party is still so obsessed by nationalisation that it would prefer British companies to be owned by foreign Governments than to be owned by British private enterprise.
    Mr. Frank Cook: On foreign state companies, would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the arrangement between ICI and Kemira, a state-owned Finnish company? That arrangement would not only have transferred ownership of the fertiliser section of ICI to Kemira, but would have preserved many hundreds of jobs in my constituency and those of Cleveland, Bristol and Edinburgh, Leith. The preoccupation with nationalisation and national ownership is an obsession in the mind of the Secretary of State rather than in that of anyone else. Was not that the reason for blocking that arrangement which had already been agreed upon?
    Mr. Lilley: The MMC recommended that the deal be forbidden and I accepted its advice as has been the practice of every Secretary of State since time immemorial. No guarantee was given that jobs would be preserved had the MMC recommendation not been accepted.
    Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my concern that Britain's only potash mine has been put at risk as a consequence of his decision on the Kemira deal with ICI. At some stage or other, Ministers should stop hiding behind the fact that civil servants, quangos or anyone else make the recommendation. They are in the job to make such a decision, and there

    1083
    are occasions—even if it means that foreign firms have an interest in a British Company—when British national interest should be uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind.
    Mr. Lilley: All those points were taken into consideration by the MMC report that I considered. I accepted its judgment that the arrangement was against overall British national interest. Such acceptance has been the practice of Secretaries of State for at least a decade.
    From time to time, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East criticises the Government for what he calls their "hands-off" attitude to industry. By contrast, he would operate a hands-on policy, but so did the Boston strangler —by and large Labour Government policies have had rather similar effects, as they have throttled industry. That desire to intervene is not just a passion of the hon. Gentleman as the shadow Chancellor—normally a hands-offish type—recently declared his belief that
    "Intervention by Government can make a significant contribution to improved efficiency and productivity"
    Yet look at the shadow team who want to get their hands on British industry. They are not all here today, but there are seven of them to match four of us—quantity against quality. Not one of them has ever sullied his hands with a day's work in British industry during their adult lives. If I am wrong, I shall happily give way to any of the Opposition Front-Bench team who want to tell the House of their experience, which will enable them to improve, as the shadow Chancellor said, the efficiency and productivity of industry through intervention. Can any of them tell us what experience they have gained in industry which will enable them to do that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Normally the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box. Normally he is hyperactive. There must be some truth in what a journalist told me—he works only when he is plugged into a fax machine.
    Mr. David Clelland: I have had some experience in industry. Is the Secretary of State aware that the machine tool industry is the barometer of the manufacturing industry, if not the economy? A few hours ago, a number of my hon. Friends and I met senior directors of the Machine Tool Industry Association. They are extremely concerned about the present recession and the state of the manufacturing industry. They say that, if present policies continue—we must assume that they would if the country were unfortunate enough to be inflicted once again with a Conservative Government—the deficit in manufacturing investment would be £15 billion a year by the year 2000. They believe that, if the current recession continued for more than six months we should have no machine tool industry in the country.
    Mr. Lilley: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman articulates. His experience gives him much more right to be on the Opposition Front Bench than that of its present incumbents. It is not just I who think that, because, last week, The Sunday Times hit the nail on the head in its leader:
    "If Mr. Brown was at the industry department we would be back to the days when politicians thought they knew more about the running of business than managers or shareholders, even though most politicians have never run anything (in Mr. Brown's case the most he seems to have run is Edinburgh students' council)."
    1084
    The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen's ignorance of business means that they just do not understand what makes industry tick. If they had any understanding of business they certainly would not be proposing to create a multitude of new quangos and regulations. The one lesson they have learnt is not to talk too often in public about their policies. If they will not, I will.
    Just from reading "Modern Manufacturing Strength". Labour's latest policy document on industry, I have found seven new varieties of quango. We have the national investment bank—in other words, a state-run bank—regional development agencies in England, British Technology Enterprise, a defence diversification agency, a new national training agency, technology trusts and, the final irony,
    "a new network of small business advice services"
    to help firms with the
    "bewildering multiplicity of overlapping openings"
    The majority of those quangos will have to borrow on the credit of the British Government and spend what is, in effect, our money.
    Quangos are not the only extra burdens that the Labour party is planning to impose on business which were not mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. It will introduce a new jobs tax of 0·5 per cent. on the payroll of companies whose training effort does not meet the Labour party's approval. That will kill off another 50,000 jobs. The Labour party plans to implement in its entirety the European Commission's social action programme, which has been condemned by every major employers organisation in Britain. That would add £3·5 billion to industry's costs and destroy another 100,000 jobs. In addition, there will be thousands, more forms for businesses to fill in because Labour is proposing "social audits" for firms to ensure that
    "social as well as economic costs of decisions … are properly identified".
    The Labour party also intends to introduce a new sex equality Act that will require businesses to produce an annual company equalities report. New obligations will be put on companies to make them give employees time off to engage in trade union activity. As well as that, the Labour party will introduce a new entitlement to 10 days paternity leave. One thing is certain. Under Labour, hundreds of thousands more people will be taking time off, and permanently. The truth is that Labour's industrial policies are a job destruction programme on a mammoth scale.
    The hon. Gentleman wept salt tears over today's unemployment figures, but he gave no policies for reducing unemployment, and small wonder. His party's main policy plank—the statutory minimum wage—is about the most effective way imaginable to destroy jobs. That is not just my view. The only evidence that the hon. Gentleman could find in its favour came from 1908, from a person who was not even an economist, distinguished though he was as a Liberal of those days. Not only is it not just my view: it was the view of the last but one Labour Government, who published a report entitled "A National Minimum Wage," which concluded:
    "the greater the cost of the national minimum, the greater the consequent adjustment in the level of employment is likely to be."
    If the House wants something more up to date—though still from the same party—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said:
    "The employment consequences of a minimum wage would be little short of disastrous."
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman is indulging in the most abominable kind of nit-picking, at a time when unemployment has risen by 3,200 people per working day since the present Prime Minister took office. We are losing 4,000 jobs a week in manufacturing industry and it is forecast that 40,000 firms will go bust this year, yet all the Minister can do is nitpick. When do the Government intend to bring unemployment down?
    Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about unemployment, why does he give his allegiance to a policy which, in the view of even his hon. Friends, will increase unemployment by hundreds of thousands? For example, the Fabian Society, part of his party, recently provided the helpful estimate that up to 880,000 jobs could be destroyed by Labour's minimum wage plan.
    Even the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—not normally well disposed to the present Government—estimated recently that a statutory minimum wage could raise the price level by 3·5 per cent. at the end of three years, while reducing the level of GDP by 0·5 per cent., with all the employment consequences that would follow.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in addition to a minimum wage causing such additional unemployment, it would hit hardest those with most difficulty in the job market, namely, the disabled, ethnic minorities and women?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would, at the same time, destroy the incentives of people to improve their skills. Opposition Members seem to be getting rattled by criticism coming from within their own ranks on this subject. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition attempted to refute them by claiming that the OECD had concluded that the effect of the minimum wage in France had been
    "in plain language, no job losses."
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) wrote to the Financial Times yesterday in similar vein, claiming:
    "The most recent study by the OECD into France found no unemployment impact through introducing a minimum wage."
    The OECD actually said:
    "indications are that the increase in the relative value of the SMIC"—
    the French minimum wage—
    "in the 1980s is likely to have reduced employment levels, especially for youths and the unskilled."
    The language of the Leader of the Opposition may be plain, but in this case he is plain wrong.
    This week, the Leader of the Opposition, who has been very active, relaunched Labour's science and innovation policy for the umpteenth time. It appeared in a document entitled "Pushing Back the Frontiers"—an apt title. It pushes them all the way back to Harold Wilson and the white heat of technology.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Harold Wilson promised the nation the white heat of technology and we ended up with the selective employment tax, which put thousands out of work?
    Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. He applied all the policies to which the Labour party is now reverting, although the
    1086
    document that Labour published this week is almost devoid of concrete policies. Instead, Labour sets a target, and the document says:
    "Labour believes a reasonable target is to increase civil research and development from the present 1·8 per cent. of GDP to 2·5 per cent."
    Table 2 of the document says that that would involve increasing spending on research and development by £5·8 billion. That is some target. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said recently, unhelpfully from Labour's point of view:
    "Anyone can invent targets, but targets won't hit themselves. The challenge is what action the Government will take to meet those targets."
    Unfortunately, the document does not spell out what action a Labour Government would take to meet the target. If Labour proposes to do so by increased Government spending on research and development, that will represent a massive breach of Beckett's law. If not, it must be relying entirely on the only specific proposal in the document, and that is Labour's discredited idea of tax credits for incremental research and development.
    I am amazed that Labour Members are still plugging that idea. All the international studies of such tax incentives show how ineffective and wasteful they are. An Inland Revenue study carried out with the help of the OECD reached three conclusions. The first was that countries which operated the biggest tax incentives for research and development had the lowest level of industry-financed research and development. The second was:
    "the best evidence available suggests that special fiscal incentives only increase industrial research and development by an amount that is roughly half of the revenue forgone by the government: the remainder goes to swell companies' cashflow and post-tax profits."
    The third was that much of the consequence of such incentives was simply to enable accountants to reclassify expenditure that was going on anyway as research and development. The study concluded:
    "in some instances, evidence of abuse (amounting to criminal fraud) has led to the discontinuation … of fiscal incentive measures."
    So if Labour is relying on tax credits to reach its extra £5·8 billion target, it must be willing to forgo, say, double that in tax revenues, while giving accountants and fraudsters a field day.
    Of course, what really makes companies invest in research and development is the spur of competition and the lure of profit. In the last six years, when profits increased substantially, industry raised its spending on research and development by about 50 per cent. in real terms.
    On Monday of this week we published—or The Independent newspaper published on our behalf—a research and development scoreboard. That was widely welcomed, and I hope that it will give industry more of a stimulus and the financial world more of an understanding of the importance of research and development.
    I have today drawn up another scoreboard. This one compares the performance of the Conservatives with that of the Socialists over our entire periods in office. We are proud of our record, even if Labour Members are ashamed of theirs, and if they insist on going back to the policies that they practised during the last Labour Government, it is legitimate for us to compare the performance of that Labour Government with our performance.

    1087
    I concede that Labour wins in some categories. I start with inflation, and I must admit that on that one they are high scorers. Prices rose more than twice as fast under Labour as they have risen under Conservative rule. Labour also comes out top in days lost through strikes. They averaged 14·6 million a year between 1974 and 1979, twice the average over our period in office, and in the last 12 months, the number of days lost has fallen to just 0·8 million. That makes Labour's grand total so far two. Travaillistes: deux points.
    I come to our achievements, and I begin with growth. Excluding North sea oil, the economy has grown by 1·9 per cent. a year under Conservative rule. It grew by 1·2 per cent. under Labour. In manufacturing productivity, throughout our term in office it has grown by 3·6 per cent. a year, three times as fast as under Labour. The number of new businesses trading, after all mergers and closures, has increased by 41,000 a year under us, twice the rate that they grew under Labour. The disparity in the case of self-employment is even greater. The ranks of the self-employed have risen by 126,000 every year since 1979. Under Labour they fell by 23,000 a year.
    Under the Government, the average increase in real take-home pay for a man on average earnings with two children has been 2·4 per cent. a year. Under the last Labour Government, it was just 0·1 per cent a year. That means that, since 1979, the standard of living of the average man has gone up 37 per cent. but under Labour it rose by less than 1 per cent. That is the price that ordinary people pay when all the growth of the economy is channelled into increased public spending. That is the policy that Labour pursued between 1974 and 1979, and that is what it threatens us with again.
    Let me recap on my scoreboard: Labour—two; Conservative—5. Labour easily beat us on inflation and strikes, but we beat Labour on growth, manufacturing productivity, business start ups, self-employment, and standard of living.
    The Government have delivered not just for one year but over a period of 12 years. We have delivered a stronger economy, a massive increase in the number of firms, and a substantially higher standard of living. That is a record to be proud of. It is based on sound policies that will ensure growth in the 1990s. Our record will deliver a fourth election victory to our party, and socialism will never begin to challenge it.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. Stanley Orme: No one would believe from the Secretary of State's speech that the Government have been in office for 12 years—and are presiding over massive unemployment and a huge reduction in manufacturing. The Secretary of State has no policy to deal with those problems. He analyses what he assumes to be Labour's policy. We shall tell him what our policy is when we start to implement it under the next Labour Government.
    The Secretary of State's speech was outrageous. Faced with the largest increase in unemployment, the decline in manufacturing industry, and the closures that are taking place, he has a duty to the country to say in straightforward language what the Government intend to do and to explain their policy. However, he did nothing of the sort. Rather, his speech contained only bluff and schoolboy politics.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Orme: No, I shall not. I have just started. I will give way later.
    Many years ago, Salford was a large engineering city, but it has experienced an unbelievable decline in manufacturing. Only 10 days ago, a firm told me that it employed more than 100 people in my constituency. Its work force was highly skilled and the company had overseas orders that it wanted to develop. Its employees had agreed not to take a wage increase, unlike some directors of large companies. Well over 100 jobs are at stake in that firm. If it closes because of a cash flow problem, with the banks calling in their money—some £100,000—about 140 workers will be thrown on the dole and will never work in industry again, despite the first-class product manufactured by that company. What will that cost the nation?
    The events taking place within that firm are a mirror image of what is now taking place throughout our society. I wrote to the Chancellor about the issue. I saw the interview of the Chancellor on the David Frost programme, when he said that he would talk to the chairmen of the banks. The Barclays bank advertisement says that it is in favour of helping small businesses. I want to see some evidence of that. I want the banks to take action in favour of the firm to which I referred and many other firms in constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Conservative Members know the reality of the situation.
    In north-west England there has been a 34·5 per cent. decline in manufacturing industry since 1979—the largest percentage fall experienced by any region in the United Kingdom. The number of male employees alone fell by 274,000. Where are we to get the manufacturing sector that will create the wealth to give our 60 million people the standard of living that they demand?
    Mr. Alex Salmond: On the question of replacing manufacturing jobs, has the right hon. Gentleman heard about the remark of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), today? She said that jobs in manufacturing can be replaced by jobs in gardening. What price does the right hon. Gentleman think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the current Prime Minister would pay to keep the former Prime Minister quiet?
    Mr. Orme: I am not surprised to hear what the previous Prime Minister said.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is seeking assistance from the Minister's aide from the Box. I do not think that that is in order. If it is, I assume that we can all go to the Box for information on any matter that arises in the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know nothing about the Box to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It does not exist as far as the Chair is concerned.
    Mr. Orme: When the Chancellor was asked, on the David Frost programme, where the recovery might come from, he referred to the building industry and other areas, but not to manufacturing.

    1089
    Many of my hon. Friends will be aware of what is happening in the north-west. As the recession worsens, companies are cutting jobs or even closing down. Job losses announced in the past few months include those at British Aerospace, which is to close its military aircraft plants at Preston and at Kingston, Surrey, with a loss of 5,000 jobs. At the manufacturing facility at Lostock, Lancashire, 620 jobs are to go, and 370 jobs are being axed at Woodford, near Manchester. Cammell Laird cut 115 jobs on Merseyside. Reports predict that up to 1,000 production jobs will go at Ford's Halewood site on Merseyside over the next few months.
    Following the closure of the Bass brewery at Preston Brook, near Runcorn, Cheshire, 430 people are to be made redundant. Rolls-Royce motors is to cut its Crewe work force by 340. The Tootal textile group is closing its factory in Farnworth, Lancashire, with a loss of 148 jobs. At Manchester airport, 300 to 400 jobs are threatened at Dan Air. ICI is threatened with takeover by Hanson. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be concerned that one of the major manufacturing units of the United Kingdom, or even of the world, could be emasculated and put out of action by the asset stripping of Hanson. The problem is that yet worse figures will follow the job losses that have been announced today.
    It is no good the Barclays bank chairman saying, in the famous advertisment that is in the press today, that the major banks are in favour of assisting small businesses. Evidence shows that this is not so. This would not happen in Japan, Germany or the United States, but it happens in the United Kingdom because there is no concern for the manufacturing industry. I have spent a lifetime working in manufacturing industry and I know that it has always been seen as a poor relation, although it created the wealth that made Britain a leading country.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Is he aware that that is compounded by the fact that the Japanese, American and German Governments support their major corporations far more vigorously than we do? Here, we spend so much time thinking about small businesses that we tend to forget the important interests of our major companies.
    Mr. Orme: I take that point, but we should be concerned about all industry. We need small and medium-sized industries as well as large industries, and large industries have been diminished as well.
    People in the machine tool industry have told me that orders for the industry are down by 46 per cent. and that overall investment is down by 22 per cent. in the first quarter. That tells it all. The machine tool industry led the world. I have worked in it, and I know what it is like. It no longer leads the world because it has been overtaken by the Japanese, the French, the Americans, the Germans and many others. If ever there was a time when the industry needed support, it is now. The industry is made of medium and small firms, many of which are high-tech.
    To illustrate the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), I shall use the example of British Aerospace. It is the largest industrial manufacturing employer in the United Kingdom, employing about 130,000 people directly, and tens of hundreds of thousands
    1090
    indirectly. The Government have no policy on British Aerospace. On Tuesday 11 June, a survey on British Aerospace in the Financial Times said:
    "the industry is having to adjust to a slump in both its commercial and defence sectors."
    I know that things are changing, not least in the defence world, and that there is recession in the commercial world. I have spoken to both workers and management, and they are crying out for a more positive Government policy to assist them, but the Secretary of State has turned away. He has said that this is a matter for market forces. If market forces were allowed to run riot, we would have no aircraft manufacturing industry left. We have seen television, car manufacturing and other industries go. The British aircraft building industry is next unless the Government are prepared to support it.
    Mr. James Cran: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to convey the impression that British Aerospace, Britain's largest manufacturing company, is clapped out. If that is the case, why did British Aerospace have record profits last year, and why is it that this year it has its most valuable ever order book, at £11.8 billion?
    Mr. Orme: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to what I am saying. I did not say that the industry was clapped out. I said that it was one of our major high-tech industries.
    British Aerospace recently announced large planned reductions in its work force, both in the military and civil divisions, some of which will result in redundancies in the north-west and in the south of England. These include reductions of 675 workers at Chadderton works, 375 at Woodford, 1,470 at Hatfield, 60 in Bristol, 2,200 at British Aerospace (Dynamics), the missile production division, 620 at the Lostock factory in Lancashire, 500 at Stevenage in Hertfordshire and 1,300 at Bristol. About 5,000 will be lost in the next three years, following cuts in both Preston and Kingston-upon-Thames.
    This is a major industry. I know that we need to take the peace dividend into account, but both the workers and the management want to co-operate with this or any Government to ensure that the industry has a basis from which it can survive and expand. Instead, it gets no support from the Government. If we sit back and watch the industry disintegrate, it will be a disaster for the country. If that happens, we shall not have the manufacturing capacity to challenge our main competitors. We shall then become a second-rate country.
    Mr. Ken Eastham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in a recent meeting, Mr. Roland Smith expressed concern about the future of British Aerospace? He told us that the nation must make up its mind whether it wants to continue to have an aircraft industry, or whether the business should go to Germany instead.
    Mr. Orme: The airbus is about to come on stream. Important decisions must be made both in the commercial and the defence sectors. I recognise that they will be difficult decisions, and I am not trying to gloss over that fact. However, we should be looking at the problem as a nation. The Government should be involved both in measures to overcome it and in the necessary planning.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made constructive proposals. Whether I believed in them or not, I wish that the Secretary of State

    1091
    had at least made some proposals. We have nothing from him. We need a fresh approach. High interest rates, training and investment, the exchange rate and the lack of a national policy are all important factors. We are debating the future of the United Kingdom in the 1990s and beyond. We must resolve the problem and ensure that the nation prospers, with all the necessary growth and expenditure. If we do not do something about it, whatever party is in power, we shall not have the capacity to produce the standard of living that people demand. The Government's policy is unbelievable. I hope that the British people will listen to this important debate so that they know what the answers are.
    6.29 pm
    Sir William Clark: I followed the speech by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) with great interest. He was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) that British Aerospace has a record order book. We do industry no good by trying to talk down a successful company.
    All that one can say about the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is that it was a good knockabout speech. He spent most of the time in knockabout and it was only as a postscript that he mentioned one or two points such as more training, and more research and development. Not once would he answer the question of where the money would come from. We can all have targets and ideas, but, in the last resort, the question is where the cash will come from. As hon. Members know, the Labour party's top priority seems to be to increase pensions and child benefit. It is all very well for them to talk about targets, but we and the country are entitled to know where the cash will come from.
    As we entered the 1990s, the supply side of the economy was good and in far better shape than it was in 1980. Today we compare with the best. I accept that there is a drop in investment. We start from a high level of investment. Investment will come from industry when it feels that there is a product that it can make—with new machinery or whatever—which is competitive.
    We have been debating business and the help that we can give to the general economy. We should remember that inflation has come down from well over 10 per cent. to 6·4 per cent. and I am confident that when the figures come out tomorrow, we shall see that inflation has come down to under 6 per cent. Inflation will continue to come down, which will assist not only business, but everyone in the community. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, with inflation coming down, interest rates will follow. We have already seen the base rate come down from 15 to 11·5 per cent. and we all hope that it will continue to come down with inflation.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, East that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the base rate by 3·5 per cent., the reduction should be passed on to the local business man, whether big or small. The Chancellor has not reduced interest rates to increase the banks' profits. He has reduced interest rates following the reduction in inflation to help business and to help us become increasingly competitive. We must find a solution to the problem for the sake of the small business man and the large business man. I have raised the matter with the Governor of the Bank of England and I am waiting for his reply.
    1092
    The small business man also suffers from some of the charges that banks impose when a loan is being renegotiated or when an overdraft is increased. Business men are suffering from a cash flow problem. We must soon consider the problem of payment of debt, especially from large companies to small companies. We should consider whether it should be mandatory for interest to be paid by the person who owes the money after a stated period, whether 28 days, 40 days or whatever. Some large companies are late in paying.
    We must take the question of bank interest out of the political arena. My right hon. Friend would be well advised to get the British Bankers Association, which covers all the clearing banks and all the merchant banks, to exercise influence on the banks.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said nothing about the good things in our economy and about our achievements. In the short term, there are temporary difficulties—nobody could deny that—but we must look at the economic long term. In the 1950s and even in the 1960s, we were the poor relation in Europe and we were bottom of every economic league. Now we are not—
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: At least we paid our way in the world.
    Sir William Clark: I must remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that it was because of socialist policies that we were bottom of the league in Europe. One needs only to look around the world. The world is rejecting left-wing policies. Socialism ruined Africa, Russia, the Baltic and all the other iron curtain countries. Those countries are now in a desperate state, yet the Labour party advocates similar policies for us.
    Mr. Den Dover: My right hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) did not mention any good news. He mentioned one point which his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) also mentioned. They pooh-poohed the fact that there has been an uplift in the amount of housing development started recently. Labour Members complain about a lack of manufacturing and a lack of investment. Does my right hon. Friend accept that investment in housing is investment? Does he also accept that housing requires a lot of manufacturing—the manufacture of machinery, of timber frames, of bricks, of pipes and of all the parts that go into a dwelling including carpeting and finishing?
    Sir William Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is no doubt that if the building industry improves, so will all the other industries associated with building.
    We must look at the Government's record. There are well over 400,000 more firms today than there were in 1979. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the number of self-employed is over 3·25 million, up by 70 per cent. compared with 1979. That must be good.
    The small firms have created well over 1 million jobs and that is an achievement.
    Hon. Members have talked about helping business. We need only look at the actions of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. In 1979, corporation tax was 52 per cent.; today for large companies it is only 42 per cent. In 1979, corporation tax for small companies was 42 per cent.; today it is 25 per cent. That is a great help for small businesses. Small businesses invariably grow into big

    1093
    businesses and one must start small if one is going into high technology and innovation, especially in communications.
    Income tax has come down. The standard rate has fallen from 33 to 25 per cent. and the top rate from 83 to 40 per cent. The tax on investment income has come down from 98 to 40 per cent. The welcome increase in the threshold for VAT has also helped business men. However, I sound a note of caution. Some of the fines imposed for genuine mistakes, whether in VAT or in pay-as-you-earn, are draconian and that point should be examined. However, we all welcome the quarterly payment by small businesses of PAYE and national insurance contributions. The Government have also helped to cut form filling. Many thousands of different forms are no longer needed.
    The Labour party will not tell us where the money is to come from. There are only three ways in which we can get the money: first, by increasing taxation; secondly, by borrowing it; and thirdly, by printing it. During the past three years, the Government have repaid the national debt to the tune of £26 billion. That is quite a good achievement and saves a servicing charge of about £2 billion to £3 billion a year, which is now available for extra spending in the public sector.
    We know that, under a Labour Government, income tax would go up to at least 59 per cent. One of the other proposals that the Labour party has slipped in is that investments worth more than £3,000 would cost the investor an extra 9 per cent. on top of the normal tax. The Labour party also intends to reform the trade unions, so that we would be back in the bad old days when the trade union bosses ran the economy.
    The Labour party would cut interest rates. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East that, during the 1987–88 crash, when we now know, with hindsight, that interest rates were reduced too rapidly, the Labour party was asking for extra cuts. Such cuts would have compounded the problems for which it now criticises us. If we took the advice of the shadow Chancellor and the Labour party and cut interest rates by a substantial amount tomorrow, there might be a run on sterling, which would be catastrophic. If the Labour party ever became the Government and cut interest rates, the resulting collapse of sterling would be serious for this country.
    It has been said that the Labour party intends to bring in a job tax. How would that help the economy or reduce unemployment? The Labour party says that it will generate £20 billion more in revenue, but the Leader of the Opposition seems confused about how that will happen. He has overlooked the fact that, in the next three years, the forecast for this Government's spending is about £38 billion. Is the £20 billion to be on top of the £38 billion? I was delighted that, on the "Today" programme on 13 May, the shadow Chancellor said that the £20 billion would not be an addition—presumably, it would be a substitute. I should not have thought that all those irresponsible, bogus promises from the Opposition could hoodwink the general public. The Labour party talks about a minimum wage, which in itself would create more and more unemployment.
    1094
    There are signs that the recession is coming to an end. I do not know whether hon. Members have read the words of Christopher Johnson, the chief economic adviser to Lloyd's. He reckons that the recovery has already started. David Kern, the chief economic adviser to the National Westminster bank, wrote in April that the recession was at its lowest point. If that were so, from then on, the recession must have been coming to an end. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East that the recession was not caused by the Gulf war—everyone accepts that. But it has to be admitted that the Gulf war contributed towards it, particularly as it affected our tourist industry and consequently our balance of payments and our overseas deficit.
    The economy is soundly based—
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Ah!
    Sir William Clark: The hon. Gentleman is good at intervening from a sedentary position and more or less, to use the jargon, barracking, but, as the right hon. Member for Salford, East said, this is an important debate and should not be treated lightly, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby appears to be doing.
    There has been a complete transformation of the economy since 1979. We have only to look at the number of shareholders and home owners, and the level of real wages. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the real wages of the average family—a married man, the sole earner, in a family with two children. In real terms, his earnings have risen by 37 per cent.
    As so many party poltical points are being made, we are in danger of talking too much doom and gloom. I am absolutely convinced that the constant talk of doom and gloom, and repetition that this country is flat broke do us no good. My view is shared in many parts of the City and industry. Our economy is extremely sound and we should be shouting about our achievements, not running ourselves down
    Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir William Clark: No, I am just finishing.
    I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to resist the siren calls for a rapid cut in interest rates. Inflation is coming down and I think that tomorrow's figures will be extremely encouraging. We should not take panic measures, but should stay on our present course. We have control of public expenditure and are getting inflation under control—a recipe for future prosperity.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and I agree that it would be wrong to peddle doom and gloom, and create pessimism about the prospects of British industry. However, if the Right hon. Gentleman believes that his optimism, which is shared in some parts of the City, is filtering its way through to people working in factories around the country, and to those in commerce and industry outside the City of London, he is making a fundamental mistake. That mistake is also being made by many others in the Conservative party who believe that their policies are credible to the public at large.
    I shall open my argument with some evidence from a source that has already been mentioned: the machine tool

    1095
    industry. The evidence has been provided by the Machine Tools Technologies Association and puts the Government's policies into their proper context. The machine tool industry is at the centre of manufacturing industry, no part of which operates without its innovations. The machine tool industry is made up largely of small to medium-sized enterprises, the sort of businesses which are the blueprint of the philosophy of Conservative economic strategy—at least, as we used to hear it from the previous Prime Minister.
    The machine tool industry has been innovative and has provided vital overseas earnings. The economic growth in the 1980s, for which the Government claim sole credit, is very much based on the achievements of the machine tool industry. It is precisely companies such as those in that industry that are bearing the brunt of the Government's current policy. The recently issued three-month and 12-month sales and order figures for the industry show a desperate decline in orders for advanced technology made by that industry. The overall trend is disastrous. We have already heard that, according to the Central Statistical Office, orders for the first quarter of this year were down 46 per cent. on the first quarter of last year. There has been a decline in sales from £30·5 million a year ago to £23 million in March 1991—a fall in sales of more than 23 per cent. in less than a year.
    There was also a decline in investment in plant and machinery of 22 per cent. in the first quarter of 1991. What better measure of confidence or lack of confidence within the industry is there than the measure of its investment? When we hear that the investment in plant and machinery made by a vital industry such as the machine tool manufacturing industry has declined by nearly a quarter in the first quarter of this year, we have something to worry about.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I just wanted to add to the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, with which I absolutely agree. When a number of Labour Members met the association this lunchtime, its president said that if things continued at their present rate, in six to nine months there would not be a machine tool industry.
    Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point.
    That industry's figures tell the story of what has happened recently under the present Government. One sees the symptoms reflected dramatically throughout the United Kingdom. Only 20 years ago, my own country of Wales was a major producer of coal, steel, and food. Two of those industries—coal and steel—are virtually redundant, and agriculture daily faces the threat of a similar decline. Every day, some of my farming constituents go out of business.
    Where, 20 years ago, men produced steel plate and fuel for heavy industry, in a nation famed for its design and innovative skills, today their children assemble typewriters and televisions designed on the other side of the world. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), apparently believes that the future lies in gardening. While there is no doubt that the United Kingdom leads the world in gardening, it is not enough to build an economy on.
    Wales welcomes the new industries that have come there—often from abroad—but they are evidence of the failure of successive Government policies for indigenous manufacturing industry. We now have to buy the design,
    1096
    components, manufacturing techniques, and even the industrial practices from the other side of the world, to provide jobs for people in this country's industrial areas.
    The whole culture and ethical framework within which business operates has changed since 1979. To be fair, the Government have encouraged new business, but their efforts have not borne much fruit in terms of long-term employment or security. For every Body Shop, there are hundreds of bankruptcies. I was shocked to see for the first time last week, while travelling by Underground, an advertisement in a carriage for a firm of liquidators, inviting people in real trouble with their businesses to use that firm's skills. It is extraordinary that we should now find advertisements on the tube for liquidation experts. One of the best careers that right hon. and hon. Members can recommend to young people looking for lucrative employment—
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is the legal profession, as a barrister.
    Mr. Carlile: —is liquidation, sadly. It is much more profitable than being a barrister.
    Liquidations and bankruptcies are at shocking, record levels, and every one of them means bad debts for innocent and hard-working people. They often drag suppliers themselves into liquidation or bankruptcy. There are also huge losses to the Inland Revenue. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell the House how much money has been lost to the Inland Revenue and to Customs and Excise as a result of liquidations and bankruptcies, with tax remaining unpaid, since the present Government have been in office.
    Many believe that an atmosphere of greed has led to increasing fraud, which has besmirched the reputation of business, from the highest to the lowest levels. The City of London used to be a byword for integrity, which was taken for granted. Sadly, that is no longer so. The phoenix syndrome of here today, gone tomorrow, businesses has spread. For many people who deal with companies, the term "Limited" should not be a sign of commercial credibility but a clear warning that they may not get paid.
    More bills remain unpaid by companies today than ever before. Despite the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Croydon, South, who puts the case very clearly, the Government refuse to introduce statutory interest for late payment of bills. Many other countries in western Europe have such legislation, and it works. Perhaps it would embarrass the Government. It is the experience of those in the professions who undertake work for the Government—including my own, the legal profession—that the Government are a very slow payer of bills. They often pay late, and they almost always pay reluctantly. I invite the Government clearly to state that they will set an example in future, by paying their creditors quickly, and will create an atmosphere in which bills paid late carry interest, to encourage settlement on time.
    We heard something of an argument between members of the Government and Labour Front Benchers as to who takes a hands-on and who takes a hands-off approach. Under the present Secretary of State and the other Ministers in the very dry Department that he runs, it has been customary to say that it is right to keep one's hands off business and to leave things to the market. However,

    1097
    the Department of Trade and Industry's attitude is even more distant than that. In truth, it has been a case of, "Look, no hands—and the devil take the hindmost."
    The Government seem to be avoiding dealing with the problems of industry while beating their breast and looking for a conscience in respect of what to do about Europe. One is tempted to take the view of this Government that, if one gives them enough Europe, they will hang themselves. While having that inner conflict, the Government have allowed business confidence to fall dismally and daily. Nowhere is that more evident than among small businesses.
    If small businesses—the seeds from which big manufacturing plants grow—do not have the confidence to go to their bankers and to borrow, to be innovative and imaginative, there is no hope for our manufacturing industry. In my constituency and throughout rural Wales, many small businesses have been assisted by organisations such as the Development Board for Rural Wales. Personal taxes have declined, and the Government lay great store by that. However, the claim that the Government's fiscal policies have eased the burden of small businesses is laughable. Value added tax is up. Business rates are up through the roof. Interest rates are up. The tax on company cars, which is essential for any business in a rural area, is also up. That is all part of a package of increased costs to industry that small businesses are finding it extremely difficult to bear.
    Instead of merely worrying about paying their taxes, as they used to do, many small businesses live in terror of the bank manager because of high interest rates. Today's press release and advertisement from the chairman of Barclays Bank is welcome, but we wait to see their content put into practice. The Government must also help. It is not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call in bank chairmen and give them a dressing down.
    The Government have elevated non-intervention to a shibboleth, while ignoring evidence from France and elsewhere that central Government can give considerable assistance to industry without interfering in its management. The Government should serve as an agent, consultant and potentiator, in informing industry of new markets and opportunities, which they should cajole and entice industry to seize—but they do not. The Government appear to be determined not to assist industry even in respect of some exports, as we can see from their action in respect of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    The future of British industry, small and large, is surely in Europe. We serve ourselves ill by cribbing about a single currency. Business and the City clearly want one. The public do not feel strongly, although some members of the Conservative party clearly do. What does it matter if a new unit of currency is devised? Why cannot it be called the pound, franc, or lira, according to the country in which it is spent? Why do the Government want to continue filling the coffers of currency dealers with commission that has no logical justification in what is supposed to be an economic community?
    Why is it that, if one sets off round the Community with £100 and simply changes it without spending it, one comes back to Britain at the end of the tour with about £70, £30 simply having gone to the money changers? That makes no sense at all. The Government strongly underestimated the
    1098
    confidence that the creation of an independent central bank would engender alongside the acceptance of a common currency for Europe.
    The Government must act. The explosion of pessimism in manufacturing industry was fuelled today by the prediction of a 70 per cent. increase in long-term unemployment within the next year or so. For the Government to proclaim success for their economic and employment policies, as they have done today, is surprising.
    It is time to recognise that good industrial policy starts in the schools, in the education and training of young people in the skills that are needed in manufacturing industry. It starts by creating an atmosphere in which careers teachers would not tell the brightest and best to go into accountancy, law, politics or merchant banking but one in which careers teachers would, as happens in France, tell such people to go into manufacturing industry where they will have a chance as an engineer, scientist or a manager to rise to the top in industry and in the nation.
    We need to commit ourselves to 1992 in a way which will ensure that our manufacturing industry is in the lead in Europe, not simply apologising, as the Government appear to do, for being in Europe.
    We cannot glean much confidence from the Labour party's attitude to Europe. I shall not read the Leader of the Opposition's 228-word sentence of yesterday, which was described as a "huge octopus squirting ink" by one language expert. An Oxford professor said:
    "It needs translating into English".
    I hope that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) will tell us in a few short words, with an occasional subject, verb and object, what all that means. I invite her to tell us what the Labour party's policy is on Europe. In the light of what the Leader of the Opposition said Britain, and particularly manufacturing industry, can have no real confidence that the Labour party has any policy on the EC upon which it is united. There are policies within the Labour party, but as far as I can see there are many more than two.
    British manufacturing industry has a great deal to worry about, because the Conservative and Labour parties are afraid of Europe. It is time that we stopped being afraid of Europe. It is time that we started to play a positive role in shaping what promises to be the greatest ever market known for manufacturing industry.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the House that, between now and 10 minutes to 9 o'clock, speeches should last no longer than 10 minutes.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has considered the Government's and the Opposition's policies towards Europe and commended the policies adhered to by his party.
    The Government will be negotiating on behalf of Britain against a single currency at the intergovernmental conferences taking place during the next few months, not because they see a problem with the changing of money into different currencies—last year, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the possibility of a common

    1099
    currency, the possibility of the hard ecu, which would enable the hon. and learned Gentleman to have his way on such transactions—but because they will not allow sovereignty and the management of the economy and our currency to pass to Europe. That is what the debate is about, and that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to understand.
    However, to be fair to his party, it has made it clear that it wants to see and does not fear the transfer of power from an elected body, the national Parliament, to officials in Europe. However, Conservative Members are clear. We want to make sure that, while taking advantage of that vast free common market, with all the advantages of 1992, there must nevertheless be democracy and accountability to the House of Commons.
    But the hon. and learned Gentleman was right to challenge the Labour party in the way that he did and the Leader of the Opposition's use of such an extraordinary number of words. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) had little to say about Europe, but he ought to get to grips with it for the simple reason that the Labour party's policies include a national investment bank, financial support for nationalised industries and a greater emphasis on public subsidy through regional policy. The hon. Gentleman should turn up article 92(1) of the treaty of Rome because he will find that, as a general rule, all Government aid to business is forbidden. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say whether, in his view, Labour's industrial programme would be permitted by the EC. Labour's industrial policies have been criticised on many counts.
    Ms. Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a moment, because I have a question for the hon. Lady which she can answer, and after the next sentence or two, it will be most appropriate for me to give way.
    "Most of the weapons used in the past by Labour and advocated in the first part of the policy review are ruled out by the EC. Direct aid to, or support for, industry or investment; a regional policy, which finances jobs; public support on research and development; financial support for nationalised industries; public purchasing policies designed to encourage industry and modernisation; a National Investment Bank providing long-term, low-cost finance for industries which compete with Europe's; all these are ruled out."
    If the hon. Lady is not prepared to take that from me, she had better take it from her hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), because he used those words on 6 October 1989 in Tribune. I give way to the hon. Lady to ask her to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Ms. Quin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given way, presumably in response to my earlier request for him to do so. I refer him to the European Commission's publication on the amount of state aid given by different countries in the EC which is deemed to be compatible in article 92 of the treaty. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not read the treaty very carefully, nor has he looked at the statistics in the European Commission's publication. It is clear that a variety of state and regional aids are authorised by the European Commission as long as they meet the European criteria.
    Mr. Brown: It sounds to me as though the hon. Lady had better take that matter up with the hon. Member for
    1100
    Great Grimsby, whose views on the EC I respect. He has been consistent ever since he came to the House of Commons. She may accuse me of not understanding the treaty of Rome, but the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has understood it ever since he came to the House in 1975. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at what he said in Tribune and has a little debate with him.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East referred to the hypothetical question of ICI and Hanson. The Labour party seems to be making a great meal of this, which I cannot understand. There is no bid to take over ICI and, in any event, such a takeover would be a matter for the EC, not my right hon. Friend Secretary of State. I am not the Secretary State, and I do not have to concern myself with fettering any decisions on the matter—
    Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Brown: No. The 10-minute rule is in operation, and I do not have much time.
    Some Opposition Members seem to think that ICI is good and Hanson is bad.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Hear, hear!
    Mr. Brown: I caution the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have a lot in common. I suggest that he looks at my constituency, which adjoins his. Many of the work force in Brigg and Cleethorpes work in his constituency and vice versa. I remind him that, when I first became the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Brigg and Scunthorpe, it contained a chemical concern called Albright and Wilson, which was taken over by ICI and became Britag, which was wholly owned by ICI and employed many people. It was the largest employer in the town of Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency.
    A few miles down the road in my new constituency, which came into being after the 1983 boundary changes, was the old Laporte company, which was taken over by SCM Chemicals, which was in turn taken over by Hanson. I am able to say that I have had experience of two chemical factories—the largest employer of labour in the Cleethorpes area of my constituency, SCM, which is owned by Hanson, and the other factory which is owned by ICI.
    I have to report that the ICI factory no longer exists; it has been razed to the ground, there have been redundancies, and there was no investment. The whole thing was a flop and a failure, whereas SCM, which manufactures titanium dioxide, competes alongside the ICI-run dioxide factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. There has been massive investment in SCM in the past few years, and it is a very successful company.
    I shall shed no tears if the business disciplines of the Hanson group of companies should be extended into this country's chemical industry, and I make no apology for saying so.
    I want to nail this business about the minimum wage, which the Opposition constantly fudge. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East pulled me up and told me that he had not said that the imposition of a minimum wage would cause any more unemployment. Today he is saying that the imposition of a minimum wage will result in no unemployment. Surely he cannot ignore the Fabian Society document. I was pulled up on a point of order for consulting my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Private

    1101
    Secretary, who went to the Box on my behalf to find out whether they had a copy of the Fabian Society document. I had forgotten that I am no longer a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, so I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member who raised the point of order. Unfortunately, they do not have a copy of the document. However, it is quite clear that in the society's view there is the possibility of up to 880,000 jobs being lost by the imposition of the minimum wage.
    If the Labour shadow Front-Bench spokesman will not take that from the Fabian Society or from me, I suggest that he consults the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). In 1984 he clearly said, along with Gavin Laird, that the minimum wage would cost jobs.
    Only the Conservative Government have a coherent industrial policy.
    7.13 pm
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) used some interesting words—
    "The economy is soundly based."
    In that case, what on earth are the Government doing by delaying the election? Why are they so hesitant? If the economy is soundly based what other factor is deterring them from facing the electorate? The answer is quite simple —the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
    For some months, the Government have been in a state of panic. Any Government who get rid of a Prime Minister who has served them for so many years and gets 204 votes and is replaced by a Prime Minister with 185 votes are obviously a Government in panic. They would not have done it had they thought that they could have won a general election with her. Fear of the general election is perpetually in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members. That is a hard fact.
    The public's impact upon the Government, not merely in terms of opinion polls, but in the recent by-election in Monmouth and the views expressed in the responsible press are all factors which have put the Government in a state of fear—a state which they have not experienced for years.
    The election has only one significance, no matter how the figures are juggled or how many party political points are made; the general public only want to read and hear one thing and that is the facts of the matter at the moment. The public are not interested in history tutorials; they are not interested in the conjectures of the Conservative party about what a Labour Government might do because the Conservatives have no original arguments of their own. The electorate are concerned with how they are affected at the moment.
    Let us consider some of the present warning signals. In another place, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has a majority of Conservative members, said in its report a few weeks ago:
    "If the present policies persist we will risk not having anymore a British owned manufacturing industry."
    Then it added the fatal words:
    "This Government have no strategy for industry, no policy for industry and none in the national interest."
    I should have thought that that opinion is worth considering, bearing in mind the fact that there are people
    1102
    with experience in the other place and that the preponderance of the membership are influential Conservatives.
    Have the Government not listened to the present warnings by the Confederation of British Industry? I choose those authorities with a degree of selectivity that is not unreasonable. As recently as today, my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) reported that the machine tool industry—once the pride of British industry and the feedstock of our manufacturing —is virtually crippled. A responsible chairman says that, unless something is done, the position will be desperate in a few months' time.
    Is the Conservative party not prepared to listen at all? Are they going to sit there like glorified Walter Mittys hoping that something will turn up?
    The gentlest words that I can find to describe the situation—although I would like to use stronger words —are political criminality. Consider the Sunderland ship-building yard. The present Secretary of State for Social Services—a much nicer chap than the present Secretary of State for Education and Science—was kept in the dark about what Lord Young, who was once at the Department of Trade and Industry, and his underling, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, had contrived. That great ambassador for the United Kingdom, Commissioner Leon Brittan—one of the holy trinity of conspirators—devised, virtually by fraudulent action, that men working in the Sunderland shipyard were not going to be allowed to work and everyone knew it. Remarkably, the Prime Minister, who served the Conservative party so well, has spoken in favour of the Sunderland shipyard—the most modern in Europe. The Government said that one could do anything with it except build ships there. How crazy.
    We have some other little industries to think about: the steel industry, for example. Once upon a time, it was responsible for 20 per cent. of steel making in Europe; since then, it has been continually whittled down, and has become almost insignificant. If a balance sheet is in the black, we call that success. If the Government had gone much further, we would have no steel industry at all—just a balance sheet showing no liabilities and no revenue.
    The coal industry is another example. It is calculated that, four or five years from now, about 15 pits will be left. The motion, however, refers to manufacturing industry. Let me give Conservative Members some figures whose significance they may then wish to ponder.
    In 1979, 410,000 people were employed in manufacturing industries in the northern region. By December last year, the number had fallen to 270,000—a loss of 140,000 jobs in a decade, or a 34 per cent. cut. In 1979, a total of 7,115,000 people were employed in manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom as a whole; now the number is only 4 million. That is a shortfall of 29 per cent. The number of people employed in the northern region in 1979 has now been cut by one third. The north has experienced the largest loss of employment in the country.
    Let us now compare the number of manufacturing employees, in the northern region and nationally, with the total number of employees in the region and the country as a whole. Manufacturing employment has fallen by more than 25 per cent; in one instance, the figure is 30 per cent.
    That is a dramatic development. Manufacturing industry is sliding into oblivion. Conservative Members

    1103
    say that everything is all right, and that the economy is soundly based. How can that be so? Manufacturing industry is the lifeblood of the nation. At one time, we used to say, "Export or die."
    People talk fiddlesticks about Europe in the House. I wish that the term "common market" had never been coined. We have no common market; it is a political conspiracy. "Common trading market" would make sense. Let us not be diverted from the terms of the notion, however. Manufacturing industry has been sliding into a state of remarkable weakness. Anyone could tell the House that, when a manufacturing base has been cut by 30 per cent. in 10 years, the country is experiencing a crisis.
    The House knows full well—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
    7.23 pm
    Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) harked back to the old days of labour-intensive manufacturing industry. I fear that those days will never come back, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken to imagine that they ever could or should. The world has moved on with the introduction of new technology; in Scotland, for instance, more people are now employed in the electronic industries than in the traditional coal, steel and shipbuilding industries. I do not regret that: it is important for Britain to be at the forefront of modern industrial technology.
    Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Churchill: I am sorry, but I cannot do so, given the time limitation.
    As one who has the privilege to represent Trafford Park—still the biggest industrial complex in the United Kingdom—I can only tell the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that, under Labour, the devastation of jobs there was colossal.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: That is not true.
    Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but in the late 1960s, under a Labour Government, more than 15,000 jobs were lost in Trafford Park in the five years before I was elected to represent Stretford in 1970.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, says that he would like an industrial strategy to be developed for this country. Let me tell him that Trafford Park and other established industrial areas suffered bitterly from his party's so-called industrial strategy. Labour's gerrymandering of industrial development certificates—which no doubt a new Labour Government would try to bring back—was positively ruthless, and caused thousands upon thousands of job losses in the traditional industrial manufacturing areas.
    Let me give just one example. When Kelloggs, a major employer in Trafford Park, wanted to expand under the Wilson Government, it was told that it could not do so in Trafford Park. When the company asked where it could expand, the answer that came back from Whitehall was "Huyton". I wonder whose constituency that was. Thank goodness the United Kingdom does not have an industrial strategy like that today.
    The opening speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was long on bombast and short on
    1104
    policy. He was full of rhetoric, but empty of cash or, indeed, any concrete measure to help the unemployed. By contrast, the present Government have been the friend of industry and small businesses, which have been relieved of vast numbers of unnecessary Government controls and a crippling tax burden.
    This Government have rolled back the frontiers of state socialism and slashed taxation. They have been the friend of both the taxpayer and the consumer, transforming loss-making nationalised industries into profitable companies that can stand on their own feet. We do not need lectures from the Labour party—the party which brought Britain to economic disaster in the 1960s, and again in the 1970s; a party whose central philosophy of socialism, centralised planning and state control has repeatedly proved disastrous not only in this country but in every one of the eastern and central European nations, which have recently been privileged to have an opportunity to throw that policy, bag and baggage, on to the scrap heap of history where it belongs. Yet Labour now wants to bring back many of those same failed policies. The party seems to have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing.
    Labour's most recent policy document, entitled "Modern Manufacturing Strength", promises a "rapid increase in investment". What a hollow sham that is revealed to be when we examine the record of previous Labour Governments who drove investment out of the country. The document speaks of a "national investment bank" to be
    "run on strictly commercial lines"
    If it is to be run on strictly commercial lines, what service can it provide that today's banks do not provide already?
    The reality is this: Labour has no credible anti-inflation policy. A Labour Government would bring higher spending, which in turn would bring higher inflation. Labour government would mean higher borrowing—which would drive up interest rates—and higher taxes, which would put more firms out of business and drive away foreign investors. It will give power back to the union bosses, leading to more strikes and industrial disruption. Above all, the sword of Damocles will hang over vast sectors of industry—the threat of renationalisation.
    The Labour policy review "Social Justice and Efficiency" states that local authorities will have a role to play in local industry under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Lewis: I hope so.
    Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman says that he hopes so. The possibility of loony left Labour councils being involved in the running of industry and commerce would be the ultimate nightmare. If it happened, it would cause disinvestment and would drive the likes of Nissan and Sony back to where they came from or, more likely, into the arms of one of our competitors in the European Community.
    Labour's determination to introduce a national minimum wage would throw tens of thousands of low-paid people out of work, especially the disabled, the elderly, women and ethnic minorities. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has returned to his place. He advanced the absurd and false suggestion that Mr. Winston Churchill, when President of the Board of Trade in the Liberal Administration in 1908, favoured or introduced a national minimum wage. He did nothing of the sort. He was determined, rightly, to attack the problem

    1105
    of sweated labour. His Bill covered only 200,000 jobs, 140,000 of them for women and young girls. It had the support of the entire House of Commons—Conservative and Liberal Members.
    With inflation falling fast and interest rates set to follow, it will not be long before the British economy moves into a new phase of expansion. When that happens, we will resume—as we did in the second half of the 1980s—our position as the leaders in job creation in the European Community. Until that happens, the Government must maintain their commitment to guarantee every school leaver a job or a training place, and I should welcome an assurance on that point.
    The future under a Labour Government would mean economic catastrophe and disaster for this country. Under a Conservative Government—I have every confidence that a Conservative Government will be returned after the next election—we can resume the economic growth that occurred throughout the 1990s and there will be a rise to unprecedented living standards.
    7.32 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not sure who wrote the speech of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman give it back. I do not think that it could have been written by one of his friends.
    I thought that this was a serious debate. Only a short time is needed to highlight the problems in my constituency to see what we are really talking about. This highly successful, brilliant, economy-based Government who have produced this miracle of rejuvenation have rapidly changed my constituency. When the Conservative party came to power, Rolls-Royce provided consistent employment and produced high-quality cars. British Rail Engineering Ltd. made high-quality engines, carried out repairs on rolling stock from all over the world as well as Britain and employed large numbers of engineers. Other smaller engineering firms produced and supplied larger firms with high-quality parts. Many were involved in machine tools. Many of the women in my constituency were fully employed in the rag trade. The high-quality clothing they produced contributed large sums to this country's export earnings.
    Today, far from a continuing pattern of employment, many people are on short-time working, or have lost their jobs or are likely to lose their jobs in the coming 12 months. Rolls-Royce has had to lay off people for weeks. Through one of its subsidiaries, it has had to close foundries and there is the considerable risk that it will lose more than the 340 jobs to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred. British Rail Engineering Ltd. has been sold off, as has the Royal Ordnance factory just outside my constituency.
    The pattern for all privatised industries has been closely followed. First, an industry is sold. Then there are immediate job losses. After that, there is a change in the terms and conditions of the work force, sometimes brought about by unilateral changes in their contracts. Then there is a consistent pattern of increased wages for the directors and worse terms and conditions and redundancies for the people who have given many years of experience.
    1106
    The Government have developed an even more interesting technique with the Royal Ordnance factory near my constituency. I believe that nearly 900 jobs have gone from the Royal Ordnance factory at Alsager near Radway Green. When I asked the Department of Employment to confirm that, I was told that it was a matter not for the House of Commons but for the director of the agency, who would write to me. In other words, in Crewe and Nantwich and in the areas that have always provided employment for it, not only are jobs consistently lost but they are hidden from sight. We have already lost many of the clothing factories, and we are losing many of the very small businesses.
    During the past four months, small business men in my constituency who have not been able to deal with the increased demands made upon them by banks have been called in and, even though they have full order books and are providing high-quality produce, they have been told, "You will go into liquidation in some form or another." Many have come to me knowing that not only are their businesses at risk but their homes and families may be destroyed. It is extremely hypocritical of the clearing banks to take space in national newspapers to tell us that they care about British industry. They have one thing in common with the Government—as small business men know, their businesses are the subject of total lack of interest among Conservative politicians and those who serve them in the City of London.
    There has been one guiding light in my constituency —the use of money provided by British Rail, not BREL, to create a development agency. The local authority has made a positive attempt to create new jobs and has spent considerable sums on building a new infrastructure.
    For the Conservative Government, the privatisation programme has been almost entirely a matter of looking at factories as if they were a series of sites. If there is one claim that I would make for the Government, it is that they are an estate agents Government. Of course, they concern themselves not with homes but with selling off as many of our manufacturing factories as possible.
    Crewe was built to be a home for manufacturing industry. No one could have demonstrated greater flexibility, greater imagination or greater commitment to work than the people of Crewe. Over many years, they have taken lower wages to achieve security, and to ensure that their jobs are safe. The payments that they have received from a Conservative Government are unemployment and disgraceful neglect. In the future, changes will occur, making Crewe virtually a dormitory area for many of the more affluent surrounding constituencies.
    The fact that the Secretary of State was today unable to make a serious or considered speech in defence of British industry is a condemnation of the contempt with which the Conservative party treats the people of this country. The sooner the Conservative party is given the opportunity to consider its sins from the Opposition Benches, the happier the future of the nation will be.
    7.40 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that neither of the Front Bench spokesmen made a particularly serious or considered speech about British industry. It is to the regret of the House that they both took so long to do it.

    1107
    It is extraordinary that we can debate such an issue without any mention of the financial services sector, which makes such a major contribution to our economy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs will say a few words about that.
    It is impossible to deny the real achievements and success of the Government's policies, which have led to an extraordinary and fundamental change in the structure of the British economy over the past 10 years, much of it for the better. None of us seeks to deny that at present we are going through a very rough patch. The reasons why the changes have occurred are clear, and the Government deserve considerable credit for pushing through such important strategic changes.
    British industry and commerce throughout the country are without doubt now far fitter and leaner and more capable of competing in both good and bad times. That is indubitably true. The public, too, thank goodness, have a far healthier attitude towards the creation of wealth and the accumulation of profit. That in itself is important for the country's future success. However, there remains the rather sad socialist-inspired envy and jealousy of the salaries necessarily paid to the high-class and successful men and women who run our most successful corporations and professions.
    I wish to give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what I hope will be constructive suggestions which I hope he will consider. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises—one would be hard pushed to know it—that not one of the brilliant economic successes in this country was created by a Minister or civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry; they were created by forceful, vigorous and sometimes visionary entrepreneurs and managers operating in highly competitive markets, in many cases on a global basis.
    There is no doubt that vigorous domestic rivalry is the key to economic success. In my constituency especially, there has been an enormous amount of that in the past 10 years and the creation of wealth has proved a powerful and beneficial force in our community. However, the Government are still far too involved in interfering with the marketplace. The Department of Transport's recent activities on route licensing are a case in point, and there remains an enormous amount to be done on deregulation and on the removal of vast amounts of red tape which still clog and bind the everyday life of business men.
    The Government must not pretend—I do not think that they do—that the United Kingdom economy does not still have some fundamental, deep-seated problems. It is a great sadness to me to see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is a good man, make such a poor, knock-about speech on matters that are so important to the interests of this country.
    Many of our problems are deep seated and go back many years. The socialist-inspired anti-industry climate and culture has not yet been properly extirpated from this country. There is still little real appreciation of industry's role as the primary generator of wealth for the country as a whole. There is no doubt about that in Japan or the United States of America. Although I do not expect the Opposition to begin to understand it, it is simple.
    The generation of wealth in international and domestic trading by manufacturing and service industry is fundamental to the provision of a higher standard of living for everyone. It is the most basic social service of all. Therefore, it must be a top priority because everything else
    1108
    that the Government do depends upon their being able to provide it and pay for it using money earned by the creators of wealth. Let us be under no illusions: our European partners benefit from a far more appreciative understanding of industry and from a much stronger consensus about economic nationalism throughout their society.
    So we return to the inevitable debate on education. As a country, we have much to do in terms of education. As an early step, I congratulate the Government on the brilliant success of the technical and vocational education initiative, which, by any standards, is one of the most radical innovations in the history of British education. Many other important steps have been taken, such as the introduction of the national curriculum. However, we still have to mount a further deliberate and sustained campaign to train ourselves to be a great industrial state. Ministers and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East are right to emphasise that national education and training, coupled with research and development innovation and marketing, are key instruments to our future success. We must teach our people to acquire the mental equipment and ability and the habits of mind to embrace chance and to continue to search for new and better competing technologies.
    The United Kingdom still has substantially lower levels of educational attainments than Germany, France and Japan. Forty-two per cent. of the British work force have no skill qualifications whatsoever, whereas all school leavers in Germany go into training or into further education. In Japan and the United States, the figure is more than 90 per cent.
    No real efforts are made to encourage students—especially very good students—to pursue a career in industry. Fisons, when submitting evidence to the Lords Select Committee on industry, stated:
    "Good calibre students … particularly at the secondary level, are discouraged still from thinking of industry as a career."
    In its evidence, ICI claimed:
    "The sciences and engineering … are not widely or well enough taught in British schools".
    The source of Japan's technological strength is not its Ministry of International Trade and Industry, or intervention, but education. Universities and colleges are geared towards economic progress, and there is a profound understanding of the relationships that are required between industry and Government and between education and the educators.
    As a result, Japan and Germany have a far higher proportion of engineers in their work forces. In France, engineers are the most represented group in management. In Britain, a lot of miserable accountants dominate. In this country the word "engineer" is, in Correlli Barnett's words,
    "synonymous with the chap who fixes the washing machine."
    In France, the grandes ecoles, the ecole polytechnique and other schools of higher professional and executive training have long enjoyed parity of esteem with the Ecole Normale Superieure.
    I shall say a few words about the relationship between business and Government. It is lamentable and unforgivable that so few civil servants have had proper attachments in the private sector, and vice versa. It is a national disgrace which would not be accepted in any other sophisticated industrial country. The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, should put in hand at once a programme

    1109
    that will forthwith set out to achieve that. For 40 years, the civil service and the Government have prevaricated, but they must now do something about it.
    Equally important, there must be a change in the Government's attitude towards industry. We must establish a fuller and more open working partnership between Government and industry. Such relationships have existed to enormous mutual benefit in France, Germany and Japan, which are light years ahead of us in that respect. The Government should be aware that to this day many senior and important business men in this country believe that industrial success is still assigned a low place in the official order of things and, even with the change of the Government's attitude towards business, there is scope for much improvement.
    One of the most irritating things for British commerce is the Government's apparent obsession with small firms. I am a keen supporter of small business and will do whatever I can to encourage it and to advance its claims, because such firms are excellent for morale and need vigorous encouragement, but they will never have a major impact on Britain's world ranking as an industrial power. The Government need to do more, and to have more regard, for the interests of major corporations.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will read with great care the remarks that were made by many senior industrialists in another place the day before yesterday on the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill. Not one of their Lordships spoke in favour of it. The Government must support the efforts of our major industries to win greater market share, especially in export markets. There is substantial evidence that they have failed to do so. The major corporations insist that the Government should deal as effectively with other Governments as businesses are required to deal with other companies.
    Her Majesty's Government have an enormous amount still to do for the advancement of industry and commerce in this country. As a Government, naturally we are not without blame, and I and many others look to my right hon. Friend to pursue with vigour, courage and imagination the interests of all this country's wealth creators and to advance the interests of the United Kingdom.
    7.50 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: During the last election, the subject facing the voters was the British economy. I am sure that the same will be true at the next election. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members talk now about the economy, because I remember sitting in the Chamber a couple of years ago to hear those same Conservative Members telling us that we were having "an economic miracle" that would change this country into the economic super-state of Europe.
    As always in debates on the economy, we must examine the figures both for this country and for our competitors in Europe. This country's gross domestic product fell by 1·3 per cent. in 1989, while Germany's GDP grew by 4·5 per cent.; France's GDP grew by 1·8 per cent. and Japan's grew by 4·7 per cent. This country's manufacturing output fell by 5 per cent. in the first quarter of 1990, and our productivity is no higher now than at the time of the last
    1110
    general election. About 62 per cent. of our industrial work force are unskilled, compared with 38 per cent. in Germany, 21 per cent. in Italy and 20 per cent. in France. Those are just a few of the examples of how this country is being outstripped by our European competitors.
    Training has been an issue in this debate. Since the Conservative Government came to power, there has been a cut of £245 million in the resources devoted to industrial training.
    Let us consider what has happened to trade since the so-called "economic miracle". Our trade deficit for 1990 was £12 billion, which is our worst ever balance of payments record. Our manufacturing deficit is now £10 billion. Conservative Members may well say nice things about manufacturing industry, but in the past 10 years the Tory Government have presided over a £10 billion reduction in the trade of our manufacturing industries. When the Labour Government left office, there was a balance of payments surplus of £2·7 billion. That is never mentioned in the House when the Labour party is criticised, but I put that fact on the record now.
    In 1989, under this Conservative Government, investment was down by 8·7 per cent.—again, in the period of the so-called "economic miracle". Manufacturing investment fell by 20 per cent. in 1990 yet the Government have had the benefit of £98 billion-worth of North sea oil revenues since 1979. That is the money that the Government have had in their hands for the past 10 years and which they have squandered as the party that reduced taxes and increased unemployment.
    In the past 13 consecutive months, unemployment has risen by 568,000. That is an indictment of a Government who are in their death throes. There have, however, been 30 changes to the unemployment figures since the Government came to power as they have tried to fiddle the figures. There is no doubt that we are heading for an unemployment total of 3 million by 1991 or 1992, when I hope that this Conservative Government's period in office will end. Furthermore, in the second half of last year, 27,000 houses were repossessed by the building societies. That means that 27,000 people—both young and old—have lost their homes during the so-called "economic miracle".
    I turn now to the figures for Government assistance to industry in the north to show the House what the Government have done for the north. The figures show why there are not many Tory Members in the north—[Interruption.] Well, there may be one or two, or three at the most, but the mind boggles. In 1979, under the Labour Administration, the north received £349 million-worth of Government assistance to industry. By 1989–90 that figure had decreased to £190 million—another indictment of the Government and their so-called "economic miracle". In 1979, the Labour Government gave £1,344 million in assistance to industry, but by 1989 the Conservative Government were giving only £505 million.
    Business failures in the north-east soared by 109 per cent. between 1989 and 1990. In Britain as a whole, they rose by 77 per cent. Unemployment in the north has increased by 51 per cent. and is 10 per cent. higher than in any other region in Britain. In my constituency of Blyth Valley, the number of unemployed people has increased by 640—an increase of 25 per cent. in the past few months, 41 per cent. of whom have been out of work for six months or more; 48 per cent. of whom are aged under 30 and 76 per cent. of whom are male.

    1111
    The recession in the north-east has begun to bite, especially in my constituency where two companies, which had shown great promise, have gone into receivership. The Burberry clothing factory has closed, with the loss of 340 jobs. Last week, another 240 or 250 job losses were announced at the Blyth power station. The town's larger companies have been laying off at least 5 per cent. of the men and women employed in their factories. Nothing like that has been seen in Blyth Valley since the closure of Bates colliery after the miners' strike, when we lost more than 1,000 jobs.
    Those figures are an indictment of the Government. As I have said, the No. 1 issue at the next election will be the economy—it will be the number one issue for the Labour party—and because of it we shall see the end of this Conservative Government once and for all.
    7.59 pm
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: We have heard much from Opposition Members about the Government's record. However, they did not mention that there are more jobs in Britain now than there were in 1979. They did not say that, during the 1980s, productivity in British manufacturing industry rose faster than in any other major industrial economy in the world. They did not say that manufacturing output is significantly higher than it was in 1979. Indeed, during the 1980s Britain's manufacturing output rose faster than that of any other major European economy.
    I remind Opposition Members, because they attach a great deal of importance to manufacturing industry, that when the Labour party was last in power manufacturing output fell. So much for the supposed devastation of Britain's manufacturing industry under this Government.
    Let us examine Labour's policies. We have heard a great deal about the minimum wage. Even the Fabian Society, an in-house Labour group, says that 880,000 jobs would be lost if a minimum wage was imposed. What do Opposition Members' hon. Friends say? The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), a Labour Member and, as we all know, a greatly respected one, has said that the employment consequences of a minimum wage would be nothing short of disastrous.
    What about the Opposition's friends in the trade unions? Gavin Laird, a respected trade unionist in the Amalgamated Engineering Union recently said that a minimum wage was nonsense in the private sector.
    "It has never worked in the past. There is no logic for it. It doesn't work in any other country and it certainly will not work in Great Britain."
    I know what Opposition Members are thinking. They are thinking, "What about Germany?" I have some bad news for them. Germay does not have a statutory minimum wage. However, there is a country in Europe which has a statutory minimum wage. It is France. And France has some of the highest unemployment in the European Community. It is higher than ours.
    A recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report pinpointed the statutory minimum wage in France as one of the major causes of high unemployment there. Only yesterday the French equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, the Patronat, said that the statutory minimum wage should be abandoned in France precisely because it led to high unemployment. Few things show the fundamental dishonesty at the centre of Labour policies more than their
    1112
    policy of a statutory minimum wage. Labour Members pretend to the public that some sort of free ride is available, but unless pay rises match productivity, those pay rises will equal unemployment.
    But there are even more dangerous policies on industry on Labour's menu. First, it says that it would set up a British investment bank. How would it be funded? Would it be funded through pensions? In one of its policy documents, the Labour party says that pension funds will
    "be encouraged to take the status of their regional economy into account."
    No Opposition spokesman has made it clear exactly what the role of the pension funds will be. What does that statement mean? Or would a Labour Government fund the National investment bank through taxation? If so, will it be a priority for funding?
    The Labour party also proposes to establish British Technology Enterprise which apparently will buy equity in high-tech ventures. How will that be funded? Will it be funded by taxation? Labour also proposes tax credits for companies that increase their research and development. Apparently the cost of that would be almost £200 million. What priority will be accorded to that? Will it be accorded "top priority" or "absolute priority"? Have the Labour Front-Bench spokemen consulted the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? She has said clearly on the record many times that the only priorities of a future Labour Government would be pensions and child benefit.
    The Labour party is trying to be all things to all men. It pretends to the City that it is now a responsible party which will not indulge in an orgy of public spending. But to its friends in the public sector trade unions and high-spending areas, it promises to shower them with a cascade of spending.
    Opposition Members should anyway consider whether research and development is really our problem in Britain. I know that it is fashionable to say that all we need to do is to increase our research and development, but the history of Britain is more that we have lost the ability to exploit the many inventions that we have made, rather than that we do not make inventions. We also have a history of putting huge state subsidies into uncommercial high-tech projects such as Concorde and Blue Streak. Certainly the precedents of Government funding of research and development in Britain are not happy.
    Of course we must try to improve the way in which we exploit technology in Britain. That does not necessarily involve simply doing research and development. It can just as easily involve buying in patents and licences from other countries. After all, for many years the Japanese did well by buying in patents and technology from other countries and improving on them. If we want to get to grips with the problem of exploiting technology, above all we must, improve our education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said in his superb speech. That is far more important than Government-directed research and development subsidies.
    Opposition Members pay lip service to the need to improve our education, but the record in areas where the Labour party runs the local education authority is poor. LEAs in all those areas have in common that they spend great sums of money—far more than they did in 1979 on a per pupil basis—but have standards that are far below the national average and certainly far below the standard achieved by many of our competitors. Every time that we have attempted to improve education in Britain—by

    1113
    introducing the national curriculum and testing and through the devolution of power and authority to the schools—we have been opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition.
    Underlying many of the Opposition's policies is a belief that Government intervention in the economy is the saviour of manufacturing industry. But their policies on interventionism are based to a large extent on a misreading of Japan. It is easy for politicians and business men to use the Ministry of International Trade and Industry—MITI—as an excuse for Japan's success, rather than admit that the company has not produced competitive products or taken the long-term marketing decisions necessary to beat the Japanese.
    The success of many of Japan's most successful industries such as manufacturing tractors, personal computers, photocopiers, motor-bikes and cars has had nothing to do with MITI. Indeed, many have refused MITI's meddling, including the car industry which in the 1950s refused MITI attempts to consolidate the industry and push it into developing a people's car along Volkswagen beetle lines. Even in industries such as computers and semiconductors, which have received help from MITI, that help has been a tiny proportion of the investment that the companies have made. Most sensible surveys of those industries show that MITI had little to do with the success of those industries.
    Certainly, OECD figures show that Japanese state subsidies for research and development are way below those that prevail in both Europe and the United States. Subsidies for research and development are anyway too often snapped up by large companies for work which they would do anyway.
    The real reasons for Japanese success have nothing to do with MITI and offer little comfort to Labour. Japan has had low public spending, high levels of saving, low taxation, pro-business attitudes and, above all, an excellent, rigorous, vocationally oriented education system. I sometimes wonder why Opposition Members do not look to countries such as India and Brazil, where highly interventionist industrial policies have been abject failures.
    The problem with intervention is that too often it promotes inappropriate development, such as computers in Brazil, rockets in India and steel in Nigeria. Too often decisions made by politicians are based on political rather than commercial considerations. Too often the money goes to those with the most lobbying power, and resources are diverted from industries that could use the funds more efficiently.
    We have had it all before, not just under Labour. The Macmillan Government forced a private steel company not only to invest in one big integrated plant in Wales, but to split the plant between a site in Wales and an unsuitable site in Scotland. The last time that we had a Labour industrial strategy, it gave us a British Airways which was rated below Aeroflot by its customers, a British Leyland which was an international joke and a British Steel that was the biggest loss maker in the world. How can we expect the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has never manufactured anything except dodgy policies, to do any better?
    1114
    I am sometimes amazed at the arrogance of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. None of them has even worked in industry, yet they believe that they can make better decisions than business men themselves. Opposition Members have the cheek to sneer at Hanson, yet it is a successful United Kingdom business which offers good employment to many people, including my constituents in a plant which certainly would not exist if it were not for the huge investment put in by Hanson.
    All the Opposition's policies would harm industry. Nothing they would do would help. They would clobber savers with an investment-income surcharge, they would push up taxes and their minimum wage policy would costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. They would meddle with industry and encourage anti-business attitudes by equating enterprise with greed, as they habitually do. The Opposition would renationalise various industries when countries all over the world have been falling over themselves to denationalise. Above all, the Opposition would ensure that our education system did not improve.
    The Labour party's policies demonstrate that no amount of flashy, sharp suits or tacky, red plastic roses can hide how little that party has changed its policies from those that proved so disastrous in the 1970s.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I will not follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) in his grovelling sycophancy towards Japan. Obviously he is too thin to be a sumo wrestler and not quite smart enough to be a sophisticated apologist for the system.
    It is interesting that we have heard two arguments only from the Conservative Benches. The first is that things got better when the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was Chancellor. The second is that the country is too poor to afford a minimum wage. That has been the essence of the Conservative argument.
    Labour Members have brought home the depth and extent of the depression, which is horrendous. This recession is damaging the industrial base on which everything in this country rests—the standard of living of an advanced society, jobs and growth. Everything that our economy needs rests on that industrial base, but it is being irreparably damaged by what is happening now. That damage will make it much more difficult for the country to expand and grow in the future. Every job lost and every factory closed means that imports will be sucked in by any expansion in the future. That expansion will be strangled because of a balance of payments constraint. That balance of payments is already horrendous.
    Deflation is a ruinous policy. I am afraid that the present recession is not an aberration. It is a logical consequence of Government policy and it will be extremely difficult to break out of it.
    The Lawson revival was an aberration, not today's recession. That recovery was caused by a number of one-off factors. It was caused by an asset-price inflation, which the Government dare not let loose again. The oil was there to pay for the imports, but supplies are now dwindling. That revival was also caused by a 30 per cent. devaluation in real terms against the deutschmark. This from the Government who claim never to devalue. They won two elections following devaluation. In 1986, there was a 30 per cent. devaluation against the deutschmark. We cannot repeat that now. That revival was also aided by

    1115
    the financial liberalisation that boosted the City. Those were the one-off factors that produced the recovery. Those factors cannot be repeated and now we are locked into deflation.
    The tragedy is that what turns the key and nails the lid on deflation is membership of the exchange rate mechanism. We have bound ourselves to tie our exchange rate to that of west Germany. It will be kept within a 6 per cent. band. An essential of the system is to get our inflation down to Germany's abnormal low rate of inflation. However, we have entered the ERM at an overvalued rate, which is more than 20 per cent. higher in real terms than the exchange rate at the end of 1986. We warned about the danger of entering at an overvalued rate.
    If every factory held wage increases or gave zero wage increases and if it cut the wage paid to its work force it could still not return to the competitive level vis-a-vis West Germany that existed at the end of 1986. Even then we were not particularly competitive. The Government have followed a ruinous policy that installs permanent deflation.
    Where is the locomotive of growth? What will pull us out of the recession? The Minister made a pathetic speech. In answer to my intervention he said that once one got inflation down, interest rates could come down. However, the ERM precludes that because those interest rates support the exchange rate. If that is the central object of policy we are doomed to high interest rates. It means that we cannot reduce those rates by more than half a per cent.—and only occasionally. They are bound to remain high because the pound is overvalued and to keep it in its band in the ERM we must keep interest rates high.
    Effectively, the country is no longer run by the Government. They cannot take decisions on interest rates. The country is now run by Robin Leigh-Pemberton—to name but three. The Governor of the Bank of England will decide when interest rate cuts can be made, but they cannot be substantial, and that is the trap. The country and industry are crying out for interest rate cuts, but the Government cannot make them. In that policy lies permanent deflation.
    We shall be faced with a sustained diet of what France had to endure during the 1980s. Let us consider the damning OECD report on French competitiveness. That country has come through damaging inflation, but that has not made it any more competitive than Britain. We are now entering the same deflationary period, which will be hard, long and permanent. That way lies disaster for manufacturing. A Government who fight inflation with such techniques ruin manufacturing.
    It is easy to bring down inflation, any fool can do it. All one has to do is to deflate the economy so massively that inflationary pressures end. The Government are pursuing that policy, but by doing so they are destroying our manufacturing base, our front line in international competition.
    Manufacturing has not caused inflation. Manufacturing wages went up 14 per cent. only, in real terms, during the 1980s, but the wages in non-manufacturing went up by 42 per cent. The non-manufacturing sector has caused the inflationary pressures, but manufacturing has suffered the consequences of high interest rates and an overvalued exchange rate. The manufacturing industry has suffered the closures, but
    1116
    it is supposed to be our front line in the international market. It is supposed to face the trade sectors of other countries.
    We are fighting inflation by taking resources out of production and keeping them out permanently. If they are reintroduced inflation must resume because they are the cause of it. All the Government can do is under-run the economy and let unemployment rise. In that policy lies a future of remorselessly rising unemployment. It will go beyond 3 million because there is nothing to stop it. In that policy lies a future of more closures. It is forecast that between 40,000 and 50,000 firms will close this year alone. We are already losing 4,000 manufacturing jobs a week.
    We shall have an increasing Government deficit. Government finances have already turned from a surplus of £14 billion to a deficit of about £8·5 billion. That is equivalent to a turnaround of £23 billion. The Government will have to increase taxes next year because corporation tax receipts will go down because profits will be in such a mess because firms are going bust. Expenditure on social security and unemployment will increase because unemployment is rising so rapidly. We shall be faced with a deficit that will rise continuously. There is no way out, because the Government are under-running the economy—that is their only policy.
    Such deflationary economics are disastrous. The Government claim that industries and firms are closing because they are not price competitive. They argue that they could improve their price competitiveness by cutting labour costs. However, there is another way, which is to cut the exchange rate which is forcing that deflation upon us.
    To make ourselves competitive in overseas trade we should reduce the exchange rate. It is too high and it must come down. The dollar came down to cope with the United States deficit—after 1985 the dollar fell by 50 per cent. That reduction in the exchange rate has been an enormous benefit to the United States balance of trade and its manufacturing sector. The pound must do the same. There is nothing else for it. That is what markets are about. To try to dam up the pound forces deflation on the country.
    We should not cut demand, as the Government have done, but expand it and see that it is channelled by the price mechanism to production in this country. We should make it competitive for British industry to produce, to export and to make profits. We should increase the price of imports through the price mechanism to give British industry the advantage that it now lacks. We should give British industry that advantage and stimulate it. If that happened interest rates would come down. Unit costs would also come down because production would increase. The whole economy would pick up as a result and the costs of unemployment would fall. All the burdens facing British industry would fall and we would return to the path of growth. That is the only way out.
    The Government will be driven to it sooner or later. It should be sooner because if they allow what is happening to go on, they will be doing irreparable and irreversible damage to the manufacturing base. There is no way that their present policies can improve competitiveness, revive industry and stimulate manufacturing on which we depend. The Government are following a phoenix policy. Phoenixes arise from ashes. The more ashes that are

    1117
    produced, the more phoenixes we shall get, and that is all that the Government can expect to come out of their present policies.
    It is essential to expand the economy, to allow industry to generate a profit and to expand as a result of investing that profit. That is the only way forward. The Government are sealing their own fate, but unfortunately they are sealing the fate of the country in a trap of orthodoxy.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. James Cran: Having taken part in a number of like debates since coming to this place, I have concluded that they are becoming progressively drearier. That is happening because Opposition Members use these occasions simply to have a go at British industry and run down British companies and the economy. They also try to give the impression that British companies have the one aim of using downturns in the economy to winkle money out of the Government, which of course is not the case.
    I admit that we are in a downturn. None of my hon. Friends has denied that. I, too, have seen CBI surveys. Indeed, I have participated in conducting a few of them in my time. I know, if Opposition Members do not, that British managers are adept at using such surveys to put pressure on the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, and that is happening now.
    Whatever else those surveys show, beneath them lies the fact that British manufacturing and other companies are now immeasurably more resilient than at any time in the past 20 years. So I start from the premise that British businesses are among the best in Europe, and I am a bit tired of sitting here listening to a litany of defeatism from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Chris Butler: This morning I received a letter from a north-west inward investment agency saying that, in 1990–91, it achieved the greatest number of inward investment jobs in the whole of its existence. That proves that overseas investors have more confidence in the future of our economy than have Opposition Members.
    Mr. Cran: There is no doubt about that; my hon. Friend makes an eloquent point.
    I was saying that British business was among the best in Europe. Those with knowledge of the subject know that we have some of the best companies on the globe. To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that we had none. Of the top 500 companies in the European Community, 138 are British and only 92 are German. One would have thought, from the remarks of Labour Members, that the Germans would be ahead of us in that regard.
    The wording of the Opposition motion is an utter disgrace. One would think that we were experiencing the collapse of manufacturing industry in Britain. I am a northern Member and am interested in manufacturing, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) that the service sector is also important. I have an interest in manufacturing, and apart from this it is clear that all sectors of the economy are interested in having a strong manufacturing base. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on that, yet it is extraordinary that Opposition Members have not
    1118
    conceded what has happened over the years. For example, manufacturing output in the 1970s went down in absolute terms. Under Conservative rule, from 1982 to 1989, it increased in absolute terms. We have heard not a word of that from the Opposition. I was particularly disappointed that my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), should have given an impression contrary to the facts.
    I have examined a number of company results in the United Kingdom to get to the true position. Consider, for example, the company to which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred, British Aerospace, Britain's biggest manufacturing company. In his annual statement, dated 25 February 1991, the chairman of that company said:
    "We are pleased to announce record results in this tenth anniversary year of British Aerospace as a public company."
    That meant pre-tax profits of £376 million, which was a record. If we are to believe the silly motion tabled by Opposition Members, there should have been a turndown in profits. Sales for that year were also a record, at £10·5 billion. Orders for this year stand at a record £11·8 billion—I attempted to explain that to the right hon. Member for Salford, East. In addition, British Aerospace has had a number of orders recently for aircraft, making that figure even greater. Again, that makes nonsense of the Opposition's silly motion.
    It may be said that I have been lucky in choosing a company that suits my argument. I will therefore take another, Lucas Industries. Anybody with experience of British business and manufacturing knows that Lucas was an ailing giant when the lot on the Opposition Benches left office in 1979, and many people in the midlands thought that it would close down. The 1990 annual report and accounts for Lucas Industries show that group sales are at the highest level ever and that the same applies to the group operating profits, earnings per share and dividends per share. Perhaps more important, sales per employee are at the highest level ever.
    Moreover, I did not know the figures, I would expect that there had been a downturn at Lucas in research and development expenditure. Instead, last year the company spent £99 million on research and development and with the addition of capital expenditure of £136 million. The combined figure is £325 million, 25 per cent. higher than in the previous year.
    Those are two significant manufacturing companies at the sharp end of competition worldwide, and they are doing a great deal better than Opposition Members suggest.
    While the business sector in Britain has occasionally faced difficulties, under Conservative rule it has managed to achieve levels of profitability never dreamt of when Labour Members had an opportunity to produce results. Business is also concerned about inflation, and it is therefore not accidental that the CBI has put at the top of its "Business Agenda for the 1990's" the question of the control of inflation. Yet the motion does not contain the word "inflation." That is because Labour Members do not understand that inflation kills the prospects of companies, because it erodes their international competitiveness.
    We have not done as well as we might in controlling inflation. While I am the first to admit that, the facts show that, whereas our lowest rate of inflation was 2·9 per cent., the lowest inflation rate achieved by the last Labour Government was 7·4 per cent. Inflation is important

    1119
    because, if we could get it down to the German level, business would pay far less in interest—in fact, by about £8 billion a year. British business would also pay far less in corporation tax because with high inflation inflated profits are made.
    I am bullish about British business and the industrial sector, especially manufacturing. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler): if the Opposition are correct in saying that the Government do not look after the interests of business, why does this country attract more foreign investment than any country in the European Community? There are more Japanese and American companies in this country than in any other simply because we look after industry.
    When the Labour party had an opportunity to do so, it destroyed British business and undermined morale. That is no longer the case, and I expect much from British business in the next few years.
    8.32 pm
    Mrs. Irene Adams: I was elected to this House in November, just two days after the Prime Minister came to power. Throughout that election campaign people told me, "One thing is sure, Mrs. Adams. Things can't get much worse." At that time I probably agreed with them. How wrong we all were. Six or seven months later, a further 500,000 people are unemployed —people who thought that they had a future.
    I listened to the Secretary of State telling us that the standard of living has increased. I wish that he would tell that to the 11 million people who are on the bread-line. The report by the National Children's Home last week said that many children in this country were going hungry. They were malnourished not because their parents were ignorant but because they did not have enough to eat. Their parents knew the right type of food that was required but they simply could not afford to buy it. That is the increase in the standard of living to which the Secretary of State referred.
    Scotland has suffered particularly badly in this recession. It is the second round for Scotland, as it is for the rest of the country. When the Government came to power in 1979, my constituency was somewhat different. The town of Paisley was a single constituency. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) asked the Scottish Office what was the net increase in manufacturing jobs in Paisley since 1979. The reply was that the net loss of manufacturing jobs was 14,500—in a town of 85,000 people. That probably means that not a single family in that town has not been hit by the loss of a manufacturing job. Those jobs had existed for over a century. They were jobs in cotton—most hon. Members probably had their buttons sewn on with cotton manufactured in Paisley by Coats and Clarkes. We now have two skeleton buildings standing in the middle of our town.
    Coats and Clarkes was not the only company to go to the wall. At the end of last year, just as I came to the House, one of those centres of engineering excellence—Howden and Renfrew—disappeared, having been in existence for 120 years. Howden's work force were highly skilled in engineering. It was involved in research and development of renewable energy and was a world leader in that market. It was also involved in the manufacture of tunnelling equipment. I sat on the Committee that
    1120
    examined the Bill to introduce a link from Heathrow airport to central London. Only one company in Britain could manufacture the necessary tunnelling equipment to build that link—Howden and Renfrew. When the Bill's proceedings finished, Howden and Renfrew sold off all its plant and machinery to a company abroad, which will make the same tunnelling equipment for Heathrow. Howden's no longer exists.
    Conservative Members asked about skilled engineering. If they would care to come to my constituency tomorrow, I shall show them 400 highly skilled engineers who no longer have a job because Howden's no longer exists. They lost their jobs because of the Government's short-term policies and lack of foresight, and the fact that they are locked into a dogma of the past that would not permit them to enter into a partnership with that industry to help it over a hurdle. The company was asking not for nationalisation but for a partnership to help it when it was experiencing a short-term blip. It had millions of pounds, worth of orders on its books and simply needed a little assistance for a short time. The Government could not and would not give that assistance then, and nor would it now. If we pass a man with a broken leg in the street, do we refuse to send for an ambulance because that is intervention? That is the kind of intervention that was needed at Howden's to help it to pass that stage.
    The same happened in construction. Construction of private housing in Scotland has increased by 20 per cent. Unfortunately, construction in public sector housing has decreased by 78 per cent. The same people who have been put on the dole by high interest rates—a policy of this Government—are losing their houses. Because of those high interest rates, they cannot pay their mortgages. They then find that there are no public sector houses for them to move into.
    The Government have continued with those policies and appear to have no intention of changing that path. They ask us continually about a standard minimum wage. Are they seriously telling us that they expect people to work for a pittance for ever? They seem to think that it is all right for people, such as those who work in hamburger restaurants or as security guards, to work for £1 an hour. The Government say that a standard minimum wage would create unemployment but 2·5 million people are already on the dole.
    When will the Government's policies, about which we so often hear, put people back to work? That has not happened so far, especially in my constituency. We are losing jobs at a record rate, to the extent that I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to visit my constituency. There is now almost a haemorrhage. In one area, 40 per cent. of males are unemployed and there is no sign of improvement. By the day, we are losing solid, long-term jobs that have existed for centuries and there is nothing to replace them. There has been a net loss of 14,500 jobs. When will the Government finally realise that they are in the death throes and that there is no future for them? When will they move over and let someone else do the job?
    8.39 pm
    Mr. David Shaw: The House should reject the Opposition's motion, which is ill conceived and shows no understanding of the needs of industry, and which fails to mention profits. It is an airy-fairy motion from academics, not from business practitioners. The Opposition have

    1121
    failed to acknowledge Government successes. The car industry, for example, has been turned round from the devastation that it suffered under Labour. The deficit in that industry was growing when Labour left office, but now it is moving towards a surplus in the trade in motor cars and accessories.
    The international competitiveness of our industry is growing as never before. We have been immensely successful in aerospace and pharmaceuticals. The Opposition constantly fail to acknowledge the impact of inflation on industry. Perhaps they do so because it hit 27 per cent. under Labour—a subject on which the Opposition engage in a conspiracy of silence. I invite Opposition academics to spend more time studying industry. I recommend that they look at the review by the National Westminster bank of February 1991, which carries an article entitled "How Inflation Undermines Industrial Success". It might as well have been entitled "How Labour's Policies Would Undermine Industrial Success". Labour needs a training seminar on how inflation costs industry so dearly.
    Inflation causes higher costs for plant and machinery, and leads to higher working capital costs for financing industrial stocks and debtors. It reduces cash flows and damages industry, so why did the Opposition not mention it in their motion? Why do they ignore the effects of inflation on industry? Why do only the Government recognise how damaging inflation can be to industry? Perhaps it is because Labour's policy of higher public expenditure and a minimum wage would add to inflation. Labour has nothing but inflationary policies that would damage British industry.
    The Opposition have missed an opportunity. Their motion could have complained about higher taxes on British business, but that would have drawn attention to the Labour Government's higher tax rates. Some may think it strange that I am drawing attention to taxes on business, but even under this Government, while tax rates have been reduced, our tax allowances are no longer as competitive as they used to be. Tax relief for depreciation must be reduced further.
    The Federal Reserve bank of New York published a research paper, No. 8193, which I commend to the House and to Ministers. It has an international study on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom tax allowances and other matters compared with the United States, Japan and Germany. It shows that this country is good on inflation because it is low and that internationally we have low real interest rates. However, it also shows that, on capital allowances, we have some way to go. I hope that the Minister and other Ministers in the Treasury will look at table 1 of that study. It shows that we need to reduce taxation further.
    There is no comfort for businesses in the Labour party's policies. Not only would taxation be higher if Labour were in office, but a Labour Government would subsidise industry by attempting to pick winners. I wonder why the Labour party thinks that it can pick winners. Gamblers at the gambling table cannot do it, so what is so special about Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen? They have failed before and they would fail again if they were in office.
    The Labour party's ideas on training would also fail. They want to train people for yesterday's jobs, but only
    1122
    business men know what the jobs of the future will be. No Labour politician will have any idea about that. The Government are introducing training and enterprise councils, which will be run by business men who are aware of what the jobs of the future will be. TECs will work and train people for the future.
    The Labour party has crazy ideas on research and development. Its policy harks back to Harold Wilson's white heat of technology—the biggest failure the country ever had. Harold Wilson's policies for industry, for selective employment tax and for higher national insurance were failures. The Labour party should be looking forward to the year 2000, rather than back at the 1960s, for its industrial policies.
    I was an accountant when investment grants were given for research and development projects. Companies would arrange their accounts so that overheads were included in such projects. Management time and overtime were added to inflate the investment grant.
    Mr. Whitney: The Opposition do not understand.
    Mr. Shaw: No, they do not understand, because they do not have any experience to give them the understanding. Tax credits given in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) would cause problems. I wish that he were here to listen to the reality. He proposed tax credits, but he knows that they are wrong and will not work. Furthermore, he knows that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow him the money anyway.
    Labour still has a policy of nationalisation. For example, it wants to renationalise British Telecom, the one company that has increased its efficiency massively, along with improving its services to industry. It is becoming more efficient each year under the Conservative Government and the policy of privatisation. Privatisation has improved efficiency.
    I commend the Government's policies to the House. They are helping industry. We shall overcome any problems that have resulted from the recession. Our industry will come out of the recession strongr and more solid than every before. It will be a world-beating industry, which will not suffer from the negative attitude of the Labour party. The Labour party will never have the chance to run British industry because it will be run by business men, helped and assisted by a Conservative Government.
    8.46 pm
    Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) should come to my constituency and explain to the 300 workers at Bridon Fibres, the hundreds of workers at De La Rue on the Team Valley trading estate and the hundreds in the royal ordnance factory in Birtley who have just lost their jobs, that their sacrifice on the altar of Tory economic policy is worth paying.
    Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) is not in his place. He quoted, ad nauseam, the Confederation of British Industry, but one has to remember that he was once the chairman of the northern region of the CBI. We all know that the CBI is nothing but an apologist for the Tory Government. Increasingly, we

    1123
    have to look to the chambers of commerce and the industry associations to get the true picture of the state of British industry under a Tory Government.
    The northern region was once one of the cornerstones of manufacturing industry, but under this Government it has become a poor relation to Taiwan and South Korea as our manufacturing industries have been run down and closed while theirs have grown and thrived. The industries that have suffered are not, as too often we are told by the estate agents and second-hand care salesmen on the Government Benches, outdated smokestack industries that have outlived their time. All too often they have been industries at the forefront of technology—industries such as Marconi and Plessey. Too often they have been closed not because their products have become extinct but because of the economic policies of remote headquarters and the British Government. This has sometimes been caused by the Government's inaction and sometimes by the direct application of blinkered dogma.
    An example of the former was the closure of the Caterpillar tractor factory in Birtley some years ago, when 1,500 workers were thrown out of work as a result of a decision taken in the United States, and one taken purely for the economic convenience of the parent company. That it was not the result of a lack of demand for the earth-moving vehicles that the plant produced is shown by the fact that the plant was bought by the Japanese company Komatsu, which immediately began to produce the same product and thankfully mopped up some of the unemployment caused by the closure. That achievement was down to the Labour-controlled metropolitan county council of Tyne and Wear and the Labour-controlled metropolitan borough of Gateshead. The Government's non-interventionist, hands-off approach did nothing to prevent the closure or to bring about the rescue.
    Another example of the Government's contribution to the fate of manufacturing industry in the north is the disgraceful set of circumstances surrounding the close of North-East Shipbuilders on the River Wear. Hundreds of skilled workers were thrown out of work, many having given their lifetimes to the industry. An acknowledged highly technologically advanced and modern facility was closed as a direct result of and for no other reason than the Government's determination to pursue their dogmatic privatisation policies. That happened to such a degree that the wheeling and dealing that went on behind the scenes at the Department of Trade and Industry and among private interests resulted in the yard being forced to close even though other private interests were willing and able to take over the yard and to maintain its shipbuilding tradition on an unsubsidised basis.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) observed earlier, the workers were told that they could do anything in the yard except build ships. Anyone who saw the recent "Panorama" programme called "Scuttling British Shipbuilding" will acknowledge that the performance of the Department in this example was as near to corruption as makes no difference. The conspiracy acted out by Ministers in collusion with the deputy chairman of British Shipbuilders, behind the back of his chairman, was a disgraceful episode in our industrial history.
    We heard from the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) that living standards have improved over the past 12 years. That is not true of everyone. The gap between rich and poor has undoubtedly grown. Even
    1124
    though it can be argued that, on average, people are better off, that has been the case under every Government since the second world war, so there is no economic miracle in that.
    The problem, and the point of the debate, is that the erosion of our manufacturing base means that living standards today are built on shifting sands. Stability and security of employment are less reliable. The reason is that, over the past 12 years, the Government have shown scant regard for manufacturing industry. Ministers have often shown contempt for the manufacturing sector as they have pursued and promoted the interests of the City and of financial and other service industries.
    What are the answers? We must organise our fiscal and taxation policies so that they encourage investment in manufacturing rather than in property development and the like. We must produce educational and training policies which are suited to the 21st century and which recognise the importance of vocational as well as academic subjects and qualifications.
    It would also help if the Government supported British industry in their own procurement policies. The prevarication over the order for the Challenger 2 tank is a typical example of how the Government play fast and loose with the well-being of British manufacturing and of how they are willing to risk the loss of British tank-making and, far more importantly, the loss of the skills and experience of thousands of qualified engineers.
    The motion refers to policies for the regions. That is a vital area in which our industries and communities must develop. Britain has become one of the most centralised and bureaucratic countries in the western world. The Government have no policy for the regions; instead, they have merely extended the tentacles of Ministers into the regions. We in the northern region of England have long recognised that the way out of our problems—short of a change of Government, which is what the country really needs—is to take matters into our own hands.
    The local authorities in the region got together and formed the Northern Region Councils Association. That organisation came together with the regional Trades Union Congress and the regional Confederation of British Industry to form a tripartite body which gave birth to the Northern Development Company. That is the embryo of a fully fledged regional development agency, which the next Labour Government will create. That will lead to the creation of a regional assembly for the region which, far from adding to bureaucracy, will draw together, thin out and co-ordinate the myriad ad hoc bodies and quangos set up by the Government over the past 12 years. It will be an assembly under the control and direction of the people who live in and represent the region. It will be formed of people who are elected by the regional electorate and who are not appointed by Ministers.
    That system will allow the British people to set their own agenda and to pursue their own priorities. Just as local authorities in the north have been responsible for investment by Nissan, Komatsu and others, for modern transport systems and for quality services, so the regional assembly will be able to begin to build in accordance with the aspirations of its own people the kind of economy and infrastructure that they need. That system works well in other European countries. Incidentally, it gives them greater and more direct access to European funds than our

    1125
    own communities have. It is a more efficient and more democratic system, and it is the way forward in a modern democracy.
    8.54 pm
    Mr. Ray Whitney: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), like his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), displays—yet again—the same negative attitude to the achievements of British industry which we have come to expect not only from the Labour party but, sadly, from the Liberal Democrats, if we are to judge by the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) who seemed to misunderstand or deliberately ignore what has been achieved since 1979.
    We must question whether those parties have the slightest interest in the success of British business, because one of the main points about business is to create a climate of confidence. One understands the motivation of the political climate and of the atmosphere that we generate in the House, but one must realise that confidence and a positive attitude are crucial to the success of business. We have had no glimmer of that from the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge. As always, the quintessential example was the contribution by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East.
    Of course there are problems; everyone understands that. We understand that at present, British business is encountering difficulties, but it is important to see the matter in the perspective of the achievements since 1979. Those achievements include an eight-year cycle of growth which is quite outstanding over a decade. No one could get that message from what the Opposition have said. In the decade of the 1980s, output in Britain grew faster than the output of France, of Germany and of Italy. Allowing for closures and mergers, the net increase in the number of businesses has been 375,000 since 1980. The standard of living of our people has increased by about one third. Everyone except the Opposition understands that.
    The recession is serious and it is not confined to this country. It affects Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. We all have problems, including the problem of inflation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained—I am not sure that he was understood by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East —the mistakes that were made in 1988. However, the mistakes made by this Government were as nothing compared with the mistakes made by the Labour party in 1988 about the need to maintain a sensible level of interest rates.
    The interest rate problem is serious, although, as someone with experience of business, I believe that it is possible to exaggerate it. What is important for business is not only whether the interest rate is 1 per cent. up or 0.5 per cent. down, but whether there is general confidence in the conduct of the economy by the Government of the day. No sensible business could possibly have any confidence in either the Labour party or—after the contribution tonight of one of its members—the Liberal Democrat party. Certainly, interest rates are important and I endorse what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of the banks' contribution.
    1126
    A disturbing letter was sent to one of my constituents by one of the leading clearing banks to advise him of a forthcoming change in the bank's policy involving the recovery of the interest and service costs on his account. It stated that it did not involve a change in my constituent's business, but that the bank was making a change which
    "hopefully will enable you"—
    my constituent—
    "to even up some of the peaks when carrying out your cash flow planning."
    The letter said that my constituent would in future be charged interest at the bank's current preferential business overdraft rate of 1·4 per cent. a month, equivalent to an effective annual rate of 18·1 per cent. My constituent had previously been paying 2·5 per cent. over base rate—14 per cent. As interest rates have come down 3 per cent. in recent months, the bank is doing a so-called generous deal with him. In fact, it was ordering him to pay 18·1 per cent., which is completely unacceptable.
    I hope that the banks will listen to the message strongly put to them by the Government. I hope that they will understand the message; the Leader of the Opposition does not. He gave an extraordinary performance the other day, when he said:
    "Small businesses which used to have arrangements to pay 3 per cent. above basic rate on their overdraft facilities are now paying as much as 17 per cent."—[Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 403.]
    The Leader of the Opposition either cannot use English properly—the way that he talked about a single European currency and the 228 words he used to say nothing show that that is a possible explanation—or he may not be good at arithmetic. He appears not to understand the difference between 3 per cent. over base rate and 17 per cent. over base rate. Whatever the explanation, it is worrying to think that the right hon. Gentleman would presume to move into No. 10, and lead the economy and business of this country. He is the leader of a party which has the effrontery to table today's motion. That demonstrates clearly the Opposition's total failure to comprehend what makes markets work.
    The same is true of all the Opposition contributions today and is always true of their spokesmen. The shadow Chancellor visits businesses, utters platitudes and comes away saying that the businesses have understood him. If he were present now I would say to him that a number of business men have come to me and said, in the old American cliche, that they have heard what the shadow Chancellor says but, deep down, he is shallow and has nothing to say. That is absolutely true of the policies of the Labour party, which suggests that we do not know how to help businesses, but that it would.
    The Labour party has offered many pledges, in addition to which we now have the Beckett formula. None of us knows how to work out the conundrum to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred—we cannot have additional spending without growth, but we cannot have additional growth without spending. How would the Labour party square that circle? We then have to compare the various pledges made which, it has been estimated, could cost possibly £20 billion or possibly £50 billion a year.
    We all know what the impact on business would be of the Labour party's continuing, extraordinary, sad relationship with the trade unions. Many important industries have been increasingly captured by left wingers

    1127
    within the trade union movement. If the Labour party were to come to power, we should be back in the old period of militancy and restrictive practices.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said, with great pride, that he would introduce a national minimum wage, as advocated by Winston Churchill in 1908. We are to go forward with the Labour party to 1908. Even the Fabian Society has suggested that the national minimum wage would result in the loss of 880,000 jobs.
    I could say much more, but given the lateness of the hour and the desire of my hon. Friends to make their own contributions, I will bring my remarks to a close. I cannot do so, however, without referring again to the sheer effrontery of the Labour party and of the so-called Liberal Democrats, who demonstrated tonight no comprehension or understanding of business. Labour is unwilling to suggest what its policies will cost. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East spoke for 39 minutes, and only in the final minute did he refer to his own policies. Did he tell us what their cost would be? No, because the Opposition are scared to give the House and the country that information. The businesses of this country can be safe only in the hands of the Conservative party and of a Conservative Government.
    9.5 pm
    Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was cheered by Conservative Members when he stressed the importance of the contribution by engineers and scientists to high-tech industries. In the aerospace and defence industries today, those very workers are being made unemployed because of the Government's strategy, and they are forced to join the dole queues because no alternative employment is available to them. That is a criminal waste of the very skills that the Government claim with such determination they want to encourage.
    South-west England's aerospace industry is being devastated by Britain's changing defence needs and by the general rundown of the country's manufacturing capacity as a result of the Government's economic policies and the recession. Aerospace has been a distinctive feature of the south-west's economy since the beginning of the 20th century. The region accounts for more than 10 per cent. of all aerospace employment and for more than one third of the industry's manufacturing capacity.
    In the south-west, the defence sector employs directly or supports 155,000 jobs, which represents the highest degree of job dependency of any region in the United Kingdom. When one speaks of manufacturing industry in the south-west, one is talking about high-tech industries involved in aerospace and defence work—but they are suffering unguided and unplanned changes as a consequence of the Government's economic policies.
    A recent report conservatively estimated that 60,000 direct jobs and 12,000 support jobs will be lost in the aerospace and defence industries. That would have a devastating effect on the south-west. Earlier, the Secretary of State made a statement on Cumbria, and spoke of the importance of not allowing a region to decline. The south-west is on the verge of just such a decline.
    The south-west has 49 aerospace establishments employing 32,000 workers, scientists, and engineers. They are in the forefront of a technology that is vital to the future and security of our manufacturing base. The names
    1128
    of the companies involved are world famous. They include British Aerospace—the biggest manufacturing employer. Ten years ago, it employed 10,000 people, but now has a work force of only a few thousand. It has made particularly dramatic cuts in its dynamics sector in Bristol. There is no long-term security for British Aerospace in Plymouth.
    Rolls-Royce, another giant manufacturer, has consistently shed jobs over the past 10 years. Dowty Fuel Systems, Aerospace, Normal Air Garrett, Westland Helicopters—the list goes on. Thousands of jobs are being lost now in our region, and thousands more will follow. If we add to that the fate of Plymouth dockyards, Devonport, and the dramatic reduction in the work force there, we can see the Government's criminal waste of the most highly skilled members of our industrial manufacturing companies.
    But there are alternatives to such comprehensive cuts in the south-west economy. It is important that aerospace and civil aerospace are strengthened and that we find ways of using the skills of the workers who will undoubtedly become unemployed, and rightly so, as we shift and reduce our defence expenditure so that they are no longer needed to produce the weapons of destruction. But do not believe that those skills are not needed in our economy, because they are—desperately.
    All those problems are caused by interest rates, the exchange rate and the fact that the Government have done nothing to stop the growth in international subcontracting whereby British companies which have the contracts give the work to workers in other countries—contracts subsidised by British taxpayers, who are giving work to people in Texas instead of in Bristol, Hatfield or anywhere else in Britain.
    If we reduce our defence expenditure, something to which I am passionately committed, billions of pounds will become available for a range of alternative spending. But part of it must go on retraining and the encouragement of alternative sectors.
    Let us consider what the workers are capable of doing. Environmental technologies are so desperately needed now as we face the problems of our environment. Those people have the skills to respond in those industries. Space and telecommunications research and development need those workers. We need efficient, effective, cheap and environmentally friendly transport systems. Those workers have the skills to produce them. We talk about high tech and we emulate and praise the Japanese and the Germans. We have the skills and the workers, but we refuse to invest in their talents and abilities to build a strong manufacturing base for the future which will produce the value-added goods that we so desperately need.
    Let nobody say that it is up to the companies only. The Government, through their various policies, can have a dramatic effect on the future of those high-tech workers. First, they should make up their mind on their defence policy and stop the indecision in their procurement policies, which is making the future of those companies so insecure. They should decide on our defence needs and what we need to produce, and then transfer the workers to diversification to ensure that we use their skills. The Government should do something about interest rates and exhange rates and ensure that, instead of allowing

    1129
    companies to have money from British taxpayers to employ people in Texas, it is a condition that they employ people here in Britain.
    Those people have enormous skills and talents. That the south-west can benefit from and contribute to the future of a strong, vibrant high-technology base is indisputable. If the Government do not respond to the crisis that the companies face, they will be wasting skills. Their talk of education and high skills will be nothing but rhetoric and they will deserve the contempt in which many of the electorate in the south-west hold the Government.
    9.13 pm
    Mr. John Marshall: The Opposition's motion is one of sheer effrontery. The most brazen piece of effrontery was when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) talked about the need for unity in respect of Europe. He should have seen the look on the face of his right hon. the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and he should have listened to the pregnant silence of the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    It is also an act of sheer effrontery for the Labour party to pose as the friend of industry. It is as hypocritical for it to do that as it would have been for King Herod to join the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
    The Labour party does not understand the role of profit in the economy. It does not understand that prosperity comes only by industry producing the right goods of the right quality at the right price. Labour fails to recognise that the only way to secure prosperity in an economy is to have economic change.
    This evening, the Opposition have come here hankering after the sunset industries and the past. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said that the Government do not have a policy for the north. Little do he and the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) realise that the hundreds of millions of pounds poured in to British Shipbuilders by the last Labour Government was money wasted. Little do they recognise that attracting Nissan to Sunderland has done more for the prosperity of the north of England and for the motor car industry than anything that the last Labour Government did.
    We have listened to the Labour party talking about the need to produce the conditions for greater prosperity. Yet Labour Members opposed the Education Reform Act 1988. At a time when people are worried about technological education, what is Labour's reaction? It is to promise to get rid of city technology colleges—to return to the past.
    At a time when people thought that industrial relations could not be reformed, the Labour party opposed every change that was made to improve industrial relations in our country. The Labour party supported the bully boy and the thug—it supported Scargill rather than the right of individuals to work.
    The part of British industry that is thriving today, that is enjoying massive increases in productivity and investment and is meeting the needs of consumers is the sector of industry that was privatised by the Government. There is as much as 60 per cent. growth in productivity in privatised industries and increases in investment of up to
    1130
    50 per cent., but Labour opposed every step that produced those circumstances. The Labour party is the natural party of unemployment.
    Mr. Frank Dobson rose—
    Mr. Marshall: No, I shall not give way because there are only a few minutes left and the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the debate. I will give him a lift home tonight, but I will not let him interrupt my speech.
    The Labour party is the natural party of unemployment. All Labour Governments have left office with unemployment higher than when they entered office. The Labour party is committed to a minimum national wage. It says that that will not create another two million unemployed—only another I million or 1·5 million. Whatever the figure, it is a national scandal that any Member of Parliament should seek to legislate another person into unemployment. How can any member of the Labour party go to the country and say that he or she has a social conscience when Labour Members are condemning some of their constituents to the dole queue? That is an act of gross inhumanity and deserves the condemnation of all hon. Members.
    We heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East quote City circulars, like some third-rate secondary banker. He forgot to tell us that Goldman Sachs has said that a Labour Government would lead to a 3 per cent. increase in interest rates. One cannot borrow or spend on the scale that he proposes without raising interest rates, and higher interest rates would lead to lower and not higher investment.
    The Labour party is committed to policies which would ruin British industry. The prosperity of this country will come not through socialism but through the social market economy.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. Dennis Turner: I commend the Opposition motion, which speaks up for the thousands of businesses, large and small, that have been driven to the wall by the damaging effects of this Government's economic policies.
    The motion also acknowledges the shock waves of deep recession that have reverberated throughout every region of our country, not least the west midlands, which has once again been ravaged by the slump. The motion recognises the real personal casualties of this crisis—hundreds of thousands of men and women. Many of them have been cast on the scrap heap of unemployment for the second time in the past 13 years of this wasted Government, with the financial and psychological damage attendant on the loss of a job, the loss of dignity and the loss of the pay packet, which is the only real sense of independence that is worth having for people in this society. When I read the Government's amendment, I was stunned by its deceptively self-congratulatory tone, which insults the business men and women who are now desperately trying to save bankruptcies and closures.
    Hon. Members may know the old saying "Some chicken! Some neck!" What a nerve the Government have —telling us in their amendment that they welcome
    "the transformation of the British economy over the last 12 years".
    The past 12 years of this Administration, in the so-called "enterprise culture", would be more accurately described as 12 years of candy floss culture. No better example of the

    1131
    Government's economic policies, and the failure of those policies, can be provided than the decline of manufacturing in the west midlands over the past 12 years. The Government's bequest to the people of Britain has been the experience of two major slumps and a mad inflationary rush to win the 1987 general election, along with a deteriorating share of world trade and world economic influence.
    In the past year, the economy of the west midlands has become considerably poorer. Both the west midlands CBI and the chambers of commerce paint a depressing picture: They show the region to be in a deepening recession, with 15 per cent. of firms saying that they expect demand to fall in the next four months. None of them expects it to rise. Only in Wales were business men more pessimistic about the level of business confidence; it is not surprising that it
    is lower in the west midlands than in any other English region.
    Investment is also suffering as a result of the Government's economic policies. The west midlands chambers of commerce said recently that the deepest recession was being felt there, and that home manufacturing orders were at their lowest, with 58 per cent. of companies reporting a fall. The quarterly economic survey shows that manufacturing companies of all sizes expect domestic and export orders to fall by a large percentage.
    The latest quarterly economic figures of the chamber of commerce in my own town, Wolverhampton, lists some depressing trade and industry statistics. Only 3 per cent. of companies report any improvement in home deliveries, while 54 per cent. report a decline; 11 per cent. report a rise in home orders, while 54 per cent. report a fall. As for productivity in manufacturing—there are 12,000 jobs in engineering—only 3 per cent. of companies say that they are working to full capacity. Eleven per cent. are working to 80 per cent. of full capacity, while 64 per cent. are working to below 60 per cent. capacity; 22 per cent are in such a state that they will not survive, and will be forced to go bankrupt.
    Only 3 per cent. of companies have increased staff numbers, while 61 per cent. have reduced them and 36 per cent. say that they intend to lose more workers in the next few months. Those are the grim realities in Wolverhampton, and in many other towns.
    I should have liked to say more about the complacent attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry, and the role that Ministers have played in this sorry tale. Companies in my constituency that turned to the DTI for help were turned away as though they did not exist. They have not received the help that they should have been given.
    I wish to finish on what, for us, may be a happier note and quote the words of Omar Khayyam:
    "Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
    To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
    Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
    Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"
    The heart's desire of the people is to start again and to have a new Government and new policies. We shall receive their support and there will be a new Labour Government in the next 12 months.
    9.25 pm
    Ms. Joyce Quin: This has been a timely debate on a vital subject and there were some powerful contributions to it. There were also, however,
    1132
    some somewhat strange speeches, given the economic situation, particularly by Conservative Members, not least the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I was certainly alarmed that he did not seem to recognise the escalation in unemployment and the misery that that represents, and there was no real recognition of the depth of the recession which is affecting people in Britain much more dramatically than people elsewhere.
    There were, of course, the usual cheap jibes about my hon. Friends and I on the Labour Trade and Industry Front-Bench team. I am happy to let industry judge at the next election which policies it prefers—the choice will be clear, and I think I know which choice it will make.
    Not surprisingly, all my right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the steep rise in unemployment. There is obviously great concern about it in each of their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) listed redundancies in the north-west. My hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—I apologise if I have missed anyone—gave vivid examples from their areas.
    Among the features of the debate were the contributions by hon. Members from different regions, all of them worried about the effects of the recession. Last time we had a severe recession, in the early 1980s, it particularly affected certain regions, including mine. I derive no satisfaction, however, from the fact that the current recession affects Britain as a whole. All regions are affected. Manufacturing and service sectors and traditional and modern industries are affected. It is clear that the recession is affecting the heartlands of Conservative Members. For that reason, at the next election it will not be possible for the Conservative party to try to make some exclusive appeal to areas that are not suffering. The effects of the Government's policies will be clear, even to their supporters.
    Unemployment will be a big issue until the election. Even according to the Government's fiddled figures, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley referred, the level is appallingly high and there are worries that it will top 3 million before long. Allied to that is the concern over the number of business bankruptcies in recent months. Many examples were quoted during the debate. In addition, once again, there is a worsening trade balance. The figures this week were twice as bad as expected, with both visibles and invisibles doing badly.
    In this distressing picture, it appears that accountancy is the only growth profession. This week, I read that in 1990 Britain's eight big accountancy firms earned fees totalling £226·4 million from receiverships, liquidations and administrations—an increase of 63 per cent. on what they had made from insolvencies the previous year.
    I was interested also to read in the press this week that the Government were thinking of linking in some way to performance the salary of the next head of the Central Statistical Office. I am sure that Employment or Trade and Industry Ministers would not like to be subject to performance-related pay at present. They would find that, with industry in recession and unemployment rising, their pay would be dropping dramatically.

    1133
    In one of my local newspapers—the Newcastle Journal —I read a brief description of the Government's economic record, written by one of the paper's economic commentators:
    "My recollection of the 10 years is of two recessions and a middle bit of rampaging borrowing and rampaging prices which led to rampaging inflation and rampaging interest rates. A fair summary?
    The middle bit boom—nobody seems to call it 'the miracle' any more—was consumer-led as booms tend to be, and consumers were borrowing like mad, and companies were borrowing like mad to keep up with them, and we all wound up the creek."
    It is clear that the recession in Britain is deeper than that elsewhere. This week we also heard the predictions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that Britain under its present Administration would be the slowest to recover from it.
    It was clear from the debate that wide-ranging criticisms of the Government's general economic policies are being voiced by those who were once thought to be the Government's friends and by groups in industry at the sharp end trying to produce, sell and export in today's recessionary circumstances.
    The Engineering Employers Federation has reported a dramatic fall in engineering orders, with the slide expected to last well into next year. The construction sector also experienced a sharp fall in output in the first quarter, compared with the last quarter of 1990. Eighty per cent. of construction firms expect lower output during the next 12 months.
    The balance of payments deficit in specific sectors is very great. In electronics, it now runs to billions of pounds, having increased from the small deficit that existed when the Conservatives came into office. It is not surprising that many of my hon. Friends also mentioned the machine tools sector, as it is vital to a manufacturing economy. However, that sector is in considerable difficulty.
    Many more examples could be quoted. For example, I noticed this week that shoe imports now represent 72 per cent. of the market, which is another alarming figure.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood)rose—
    Ms. Quin: In that picture of gloom, neither the Department of Trade and Industry nor the Treasury seem to have any idea what to do about it. The Chancellor had his one weapon of interest rates, but I think that he will be dubbed—
    Mr. Redwood: Nearly all Labour's policy prescriptions involve the expenditure of more public money. Will the hon. Lady tell the House how much extra money above our spending levels she can pledge for the DTI's budget?
    Ms. Quin: Perhaps the Minister should wait for the first Budget of a Labour Government. Indeed, I do not know of any Government who have made the detailed prediction for which he asks.
    Neither the DTI nor the Treasury seem to have any idea what to do in the circumstances. I believe that the Chancellor will be dubbed the Mr. Micawber Chancellor who is waiting for something—anything—to turn up. The faintest stirrings seem enough to give him hope that something will turn up.
    1134
    During the debate there have been criticisms of specific policies. Several hon. Members mentioned especially the weakening of our export services and the Bill that is currently going through the House to privatise the Export Credits Guarantee Department or, at least, its short-term division. It is not only the privatisation that is causing concern in industry, but the fact that we charge higher premiums than our competitors.
    I should like to point out the irony of the fact that the Government are rightly under pressure because of the effect of bank charges on small businesses. However, the Government's own financial arm—the ECGD—charges much higher premiums to industry than do most of its competitors in Europe. Unfortunately, the ECGD seems to be able to cover fewer and fewer markets, even though, at a time of great trade deficit, one would think that we would want to encourage access to more markets for the future. That loss of markets at a crucial time is grave, and perhaps the Government should read the swingeing criticisms in the report of the export group for the construction industries, which is entitled "Farewell to the Third World". It laments the fact that Government support for access to third-world markets is practically non-existent these days.
    The Government have also introduced policies such as the sale of the British Technology Group, which has been described as one of the most successful technology transfer companies in the world but, as we know, the Government do not like to hear about any successes in the public sector. Senior scientists have protested that Britain is falling behind its international competitors in research and have accused Ministers of a lack of encouragement and cash commitment. Labour published its own science programme earlier this week.
    Not surprisingly, several hon. Members, including many of my hon. Friends, have referred to the difficulties that small businesses are experiencing. Small firms are caught deep in the recession, with output during the past four months plunging more quickly than at any time in the past four years. According to the CBI survey, three out of four small firms are now working below capacity. Besides having difficulties with the banks, small firms have also encountered other difficulties, some of which are the result of Government policies.
    Small businesses are worried about the uniform business rate, plus that fact that many small business men, especially those who live in flats above their shop, are also faced with paying expensive poll tax bills, often for inadequate accommodation. There is also the problem of the bad debts that small companies have to face, added to which has been the problem of the over-zealous VAT man, who has pursued small businesses, often causing them considerable difficulties.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: A moment ago, the hon. Lady said that we would have to wait for the first Budget of a Labour Chancellor. However, the Labour party's own document contains one commitment—to a minimum wage. Can the hon. Lady tell all the small business men in my constituency exactly how they would be helped immediately a Labour Government came to power if they had to pay a minimum wage to every single person in their organisation, amounting to £136 per week, which Labour would then raise to a minimum wage of £204 a week to achieve two thirds of the median?
    Ms. Quin: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures hut, given all the discussions about a minimum wage, I am absolutely amazed that no Conservative Member has talked about the problem of low pay in our country today. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the wage differentials in France and in Germany, he will see that they have remained more or less the same during the past decade, whereas in Britain the gap between the well-off and those at the bottom of the scale has widened dramatically. I should like to hear Conservative Members expressing some concern about that fact.
    Small businesses have experienced a great deal of difficulty in recent weeks and months and it is a tragedy that there is no overall Government policy for small businesses. Conservative Members should consider the range of policies that affect small businesses at present. Not content with clobbering small businesses, the Government have been making life difficult for this country's large businesses. Perhaps the Government's only small business creation policy has been to make life so difficult for the large businesses that they are forced to contract.
    Many hon. Members of all parties have referred to ICI and to Hanson's possible acquisition of it. Although Conservative Members who have spoken about that matter this evening have tended to support their Minister's view, there are deep divisions about this issue in the Conservative ranks. It has been reported that the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) are all opposed to Hanson making a take-over bid for ICI, and that they would press for its referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That contrasts with the hands-off or non-interventionist approach of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    It is a tragedy that some of our large businesses and industries have contracted so dramatically during the Tories' term of office. Many hon. Members have mentioned shipbuilding, and I fully share their concerns about the scandal of the closure of the Sunderland shipyard. We are worried about the future of other yards, too.
    The Scottish steel industry has also been forced to contract dramatically. It is a tragedy that the Clyclesdale tube works closed on the day of the ceasefire in the Gulf when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was urging British firms to become involved in opportunities in rebuilding the middle east. The Clydesdale tube works produced a product which no other firm in the United Kingdom produced, so its closure was a blow not only to the Scottish steel industry but to our future balance of payments.
    I realise that I have little time left if I am to keep within the time that I have been allocated. Many criticisms have been made of the Government's policy by not only Opposition Members but by Conservative Members. I suggest that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his colleagues look closely at the House of Lords Hansard for Tuesday of this week. In the debate on the Export Credits Guarantee Bill, 19 Members of the other place spoke. Only one spoke in favour of the Government's proposal and that was the Government's spokesperson. The other 18 spoke against the Bill and they included two former Tory Cabinet Ministers, two former Ministers of State with responsibility for trade and export
    1136
    credit and many senior industrialists from our major industries. All of them opposed what the Government are doing. No wonder that at the end of the debate the Government spokesperson, beleaguered as he was, said that he did not know which was worse, having to face the rifle fire from the Government Benches or having to listen to the menacing rumble of the heavy artillery behind him.
    An ex-Cabinet Minister quoted in The Guardian today —it is a quote taken from the Washington Post, so someone else is going round the world talking about the Government's record—spoke about the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government.
    "We haven't got a team and we haven't got a theme. There is no sense of direction. When you've been in power 12 years there are no alibis. You can't blame Labour or the unions or the bloody foreigners."
    Precisely. There is no scapegoat. It is the Government's responsibility and it is the Government who are to blame.
    I saw a recent headline in a newspaper about the forthcoming speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It said:
    "Lilley sets out to woo industry."
    Some courtship. If the Secretary of State went ahead and booked a table for two with industry he would end up either staring at the candlelight alone or finding himself in an almighty row with his partner. If his recent actions are part of a courtship with industry, how on earth does he behave when the relationship turns sour?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that, if the Government were so proud of their record and so happy about what was happening in industry at present, why did they not call a general election now? The truth is that industry has been dosed with the wrong medicine for far too long. It is not only industry's health which is suffering badly as a result; it is that of the country as a whole. Only a change to Labour would bring us back to health and give hope for the future to industry and those who work in it.
    9.43 pm
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Today we have heard clearly the difference between the two sides of the House. The Opposition have an industry policy that looks back to the 1960s and 1970s, which failed then and would fail again. We have an industry policy which is in line with the best experience around the world and gives British industry the opportunity and the conditions in which it can compete and become world-beating.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) that manufacturing is important. My experience in manufacturing taught me that. It taught me how crucial manufacturing industry is to Britain and its future. That is why I and my hon. Friends welcome the record levels of orders reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) at British Aerospace and why we are proud of many of the successes that British industrial companies are recording day after day. They are doing extremely well in international markets.
    Opposition Members should move that the way to help British industry is to be confident about it and to be proud of its achievements, not to run it down constantly and accentuate the negative and the lousy, which they always have a habit of finding.

    1137
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) rightly asked where the money was coming from to pay for the policies that some Opposition Members espouse. Where is the beef in that policy? We heard again from the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), that there is no extra money. She was unable to tell us of a single extra penny over and above the current Department of Trade and Industry budget. We know that the shadow Cabinet will not allow any extra money for industry. The basis of Labour party policy is nonsense. It cannot deliver, and it knows that its policy would not work.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) ran down British design and research. Why did he not tell us of the successes of the pharmaceutical industry? Why did he not tell us that motor industry manufacturers are coming to this country to recruit engineers and designers to plan and make their new models? The car industry is flourishing despite the problems with domestic demand because it is exporting, exporting and exporting again. It is now making models in this country that people want to buy on the world market. They are produced at the right price in the right quantity. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the industry spokesman for the Liberal party, seemed totally unaware of that party's policy on motor cars. It wants to tax them and tax them again to drive them off the road. Some support that would provide to the industry.
    Mr. Leadbitter rose—
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
    Mr. Redwood: I shall take one intervention.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Does the Minister consider that a 51 per cent. increase in unemployment during the years of the Conservative Administration is a successful hallmark of industrial policy?
    Mr. Redwood: Every Labour Administration has raised unemployment. Since 1979, under the policies of the Conservative Government, hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created and many new companies have been established. The hon. Gentleman knows that, but he cannot bear the truth. In many constituencies held by the Opposition, unemployment is lower today than it was at the previous election. They know that, and we know that, and they should be pleased about the way in which industry has developed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) rightly pointed out that many aspects of Labour policy could be a violation of the treaty of Rome. The Labour party, in its new European clothes, should take that matter far more seriously than it seems to be doing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) enriched our debate with his account of the history of Trafford Park under a Labour Administration. He reminded us just how difficult it was in those days for industries to grow and develop because they did not get a fair deal from Government. They get justice and fairness from the Conservative Government in decisions that are made which affect the lives of those industries. I can reassure my hon. Friend about training. There is a
    1138
    guarantee of a training place for all 16 and 17-year-olds not in employment or education. We are rightly proud of that pledge, and we intend to honour it.
    The Opposition should also note that the Department of Employment's expenditure on training, enterprise and vocational training is two and a half times more in real terms than the amount that the Labour Government spent in their last full year of office. There is the policy on training, there is the commitment and there is the money to pay for it. The money is there because we have presided over a successful economy in the past decade, and we have generated the wealth and the tax revenues to provide that money.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell the House where on earth is the economic miracle of the Tory party?
    Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman waits a little, he will hear about the successes we have had in rebuilding the country's economy and developing it in a way in which his party was unable to do.
    Mr. David Ashby: In my constituency there are 1,000 more jobs than there were in 1979. Unemployment was 14 per cent., but it is now 5 per cent. That is the economic miracle.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention, which speaks for itself.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) about the importance of entrepreneurs, deregulation and a competitive market. That is the proper industrial strategy that gives entrepreneurs the ability to compete and do well. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise of the technical and vocational education initiative, TVEI, which has been a successful programme. My hon. Friend is also right to stress the need for interchange between business and the civil service. We have already established the Bridge programme. We have been recruiting experts from the private sector into the Department's insurance division because we believe that such interchange is most useful and that there are things to learn both ways.
    I was sorry to hear of the job losses in Crewe, Paisley North, Wolverhampton and Blyth Valley and of the pain that the downturn in demand has caused—[Interruption.] Of course I am, as are all of my hon. Friends, and it is humbug to suggest otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) put it in context and made it clear that the interventionist policies recommended by Opposition Members would make the position worse rather than better. The policy of trying to back winners would back losers and waste money. The policy of intervening in British industry would mean industry performing less well than it does when left to its own decision-making powers.
    The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) won the prize for the worst joke of the debate with his bad joke about the Governor of the Bank of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley said, Labour Members are always running down industry. He rightly pointed out that we have many fine companies, and he enlivened the debate with some good examples and positive information to show how industry is doing well.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spelled out the great dangers of Labour levels of inflation——
    Mr. Morgan rose——
    Mr. Redwood: I have been given little time in which to reply to a long debate. 1 cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, much as I should like to do so.
    I will make sure that the Treasury is aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about taxation. He is right about inflation. It must be curbed for the benefit of industry and commerce.
    I did not recognise the one-sided picture of Tyneside described by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). He made insufficient mention of the massive new foreign investment that has come into the area. He neglected to talk about the recovery in spending and activity seen on Tyneside in recent years and welcomed by my hon. Friends.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) made an important case about interest rates and banks. 1 will ensure that the Chancellor's attention is drawn to it before the conduct of his review on the important matter of interest to British industry.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is right to take an interest in the switch from military to civil work. She should also take an interest in her party's defence policies, which would mean a massive reduction in demand for defence supplies, far worse than anything envisaged in the review of "Options for Change" that we have carried out.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was right in what he said about Labour and Europe. The Opposition are certainly split on Europe. He was also right about the true origins of prosperity and the need for structural change.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, at the end of an extraordinary bad speech, made six very modest policy recommendations as an afterthought. The six points would, he said, transform British industry. He said that Labour would modernise regional grants, but he did not say that they had any new money with which to modernise them. We are still waiting to hear what a modern regional grant looks like compared with our targeted sensible regional grants, about which we heard earlier in a statement on Barrow and Furness.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the important point was that the Opposition would tell British Steel what to do. In other words, they would replace the successes generated by the management and employees over the past 10 years with the disasters of the 1970s and interventionist policies.[Interruption.] These recommendations were given by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, and I am responding to the pathetic list of things that he said would represent Labour's policy.
    He said that Labour would try to block a takeover bid that has not yet been mounted. He said that we should legislate on cartels. We have been getting on with the work of busting them. We busted eight cartels last year, and we shall bust any others where the evidence becomes available.
    The hon. Gentleman said that Labour would set up regional development agencies. That would be another adventure in quangoland for the Labour party, and most of the money would go on the quangos and not on the people who should benefit from it. He also promised to boost research and development expenditure, at industry's cost, without saying how he would encourage it and without offering a penny of Labour's public money that it
    1140
    does not have. At the same time, industry's profitability would be demolished by all of Labour's other policies of high inflation, high taxation and hostility to profits.
    Every statement coming from the Labour Front Beach these days exudes hatred of profitability. The Opposition still do not understand that profitability is necessary for investment and that, if we want to invest in water, telephones and new utility systems, we need profits to do so.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The motion refers to small firms. I declare an interest as the chairman of a small firm. I would like to take back an answer from the Minister to the young men out of whose efforts, I guarantee, I get nothing. We are not paid by big firms. They are using us as a bank. What does the Department of Trade and Industry intend to do about that?
    Mr. Redwood: I am well aware of the problem of late payment and will deal with it later, if time permits.
    The most heartening aspect of today's debate is that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East should have chosen to discuss the recession. Whenever he has highlighted an issue in the past and said that no solution was in sight under this Government, there have been improvements in the following year. On 24 October 1989, the hon. Gentleman told us that the trade deficit was worsening. He accused the then Chancellor of denying that there was a problem and said that he had no solution to it. In September 1989, the deficit was £1,994 million. Just one year later it had fallen to £88 million. Where is the apology for that howler?
    On 22 November 1989, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East told the House that no problem that Britain and British industry faced was greater than the trade deficit. He again implied that the Government had no answer. A year later, in November 1990, the deficit was £1,349 million lower than when he spoke. Again, the hon. Gentleman did not even say sorry.
    On 6 March 1990, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East criticised me for saying in a speech that his timing OM the trade deficit was all wrong. I had said that it would fall, and he had said that it would not. He became quite dogmatic when challenged on the issue. In March 1990, when I made my speech, the trade deficit was more than £2,000 million. It fell to about £750 million just one year later. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that now? Why should we believe any of his other predictions when he has such a bad forecasting record?
    On 22 March 1990, the deceptive misuse of statistics and forecasts by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East took a decisive turn for the worse. That was just possible, despite the previous record. He said that we had a deficit in invisibles, but in 1990 we recorded a surplus of mere than £4,000 million in invisibles—[HON. MEMBERS: "And now?"] We are still recording a surplus. The hon. Gentleman said that in aviation, shipping, services and consultancies we were running a trade deficit, yet last year all the services yielded a huge suplus of more than £5,000 million. The hon. Gentleman has made blunder after blunder.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is obviously hoping for an opportunity in a leadership election, because the defects of the current Leader of the Opposition are becoming all too clear. That was evident in his most recent

    1141
    statement on European monetary union. I wonder whether, when Opposition Members are given time in another debate, they will be able to explain what the Leader of the Opposition meant by his extraordinary 228 words on the subject of monetary union. No newspaper or independent commentator could understand it, and leading experts gave it marks of 0 out of 10 or 3 out of 10. They all marked it as a failure, and so do we.
    I understand why the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is keen to move on from trade and industry and why he thinks he may soon have a chance, with a possible challenge to the leadership. The Leader of the Opposition is said to have purged his party of Militant and to have put behind him the spectre of division. He will certainly need to do so if the Labour party is ever to be credible to British business. However, that claim appears absurd today because, in Wirral, the hard left faction suffered a reversal through the electorate. In Liverpool's council, a large Militant faction opposes a Labour faction, and in Liverpool, Walton, the new unity of the Labour party is displayed by the fact that two socialist candidates are on offer in the next by-election there.
    The Leader of the Opposition is also said to have united his party on Europe. He has united it behind a seventh change in policy. In 1983, he said that he wanted the country out of the Common Market, but he now poses as a good European. In 1988, he said that Britain's membership of the Common Market had brought few of the benefits anticipated by its advocates. But he now sings vague love songs about a more European policy to benefit the British economy. Are Opposition Members happy with the policy that their leadership is putting forward on that subject? I am sure that they are not. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not happy about transferring more economic powers to Europe.
    I wish that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were in his place. I am sure that he does not want to lobby European Commissioners instead of raising issues on the Floor of the House. Nor do the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and many trade unionists wish to see social policy and trade union matters taken out of their hands, if the Labour party were ever in a position to do that. No wonder that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East senses that his time might be coming.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 277.

    Division No. 174]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Battle, John

    Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley, N.)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Allen, Graham

    Beith, A. J.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bellotti, David

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

    Ashton, Joe

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Boateng, Paul

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Boyes, Roland

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Bradley, Keith

    Barron, Kevin

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    1142

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Lewis, Terry

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Litherland, Robert

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Caborn, Richard

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Callaghan, Jim

    Loyden, Eddie

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    McAllion, John

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cartwright, John

    McFall, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    McKelvey, William

    Clelland, David

    McLeish, Henry

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Corbett, Robin

    McWilliam, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Madden, Max

    Cox, Tom

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cryer, Bob

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cummings, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Martlew, Eric

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Meacher, Michael

    Darling, Alistair

    Meale, Alan

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Michael, Alun

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Dixon, Don

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Dobson, Frank

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Doran, Frank

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Morley, Elliot

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Eastham, Ken

    Mullin, Chris

    Edwards, Huw

    Murphy, Paul

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Nellist, Dave

    Fatchett, Derek

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Faulds, Andrew

    O'Brien, William

    Fearn, Ronald

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Patchett, Terry

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

    Pike, Peter L.

    Flynn, Paul

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Foster, Derek

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Foulkes, George

    Radice, Giles

    Fraser, John

    Randall, Stuart

    Fyfe, Maria

    Redmond, Martin

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Reid, Dr John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Richardson, Jo

    Gordon, Mildred

    Robertson, George

    Gould, Bryan

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Graham, Thomas

    Rooker, Jeff

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hain, Peter

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hardy, Peter

    Short, Clare

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Skinner, Dennis

    Haynes, Frank

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

    Henderson, Doug

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

    Hinchliffe, David

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Snape, Peter

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Soley, Clive

    Home Robertson, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Straw, Jack

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Turner, Dennis

    Ingram, Adam

    Vaz, Keith

    Janner, Greville

    Wallace, James

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Lambie, David

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Lamond, James

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Leighton, Ron

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Winnick, David

    1143

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Allason, Rupert

    Favell, Tony

    Amess, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Amos, Alan

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Ashby, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Atkinson, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Freeman, Roger

    Baldry, Tony

    French, Douglas

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fry, Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gale, Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gill, Christopher

    Benyon, W.

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Body, Sir Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gorst, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Gregory, Conal

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Bowis, John

    Grist, Ian

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Ground, Patrick

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Grylls, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bright, Graham

    Hague, William

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hannam, John

    Buck, Sir Antony

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

    Butcher, John

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Butler, Chris

    Harris, David

    Butterfill, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hayward, Robert

    Carttiss, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cash, William

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Chope, Christopher

    Higglns, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Churchill, Mr

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

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

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Colvin, Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cran, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Curry, David

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

    Irvine, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Janman, Tim

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jessel, Toby

    Dicks, Terry

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dover, Den

    Kilfedder, James

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Brldgwater)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Evennett, David

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    1144

    Knowles, Michael

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knox, David

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Latham, Michael

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rost, Peter

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lord, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Shelton, Sir William

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Shersby, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sims, Roger

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maclean, David

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Speller, Tony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Squire, Robin

    Maples, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Marland, Paul

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marlow, Tony

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stern, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mates, Michael

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Sumberg, David

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Tracey, Richard

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Tredinnick, David

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Trotter, Neville

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Needham, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Walden, George

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Whitney, Ray

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Page, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Paice, James

    Wilshire, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wolfson, Mark

    Pawsey, James

    Wood, Timothy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Portillo, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Price, Sir David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Redwood, John

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Riddick, Graham

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No, 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its determination to defeat inflation and on the increasing success of that policy; recognises that industry's first priority

    1145
    is the defeat of inflation so that growth can be resumed; welcomes the transformation of the British economy over the last 12 years; rejects the pro-inflationary policies of the Opposition who would increase public spending and borrowing, provoke a pay explosion and take risks with the exchange rate; and condemns their anti-industry policies of nationalisation, intervention and punitive taxation which would threaten the Government's remarkable achievement.

Toxic Waste (Wentworth)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
10.14 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate, and to have this opportunity to raise a matter of grave importance to my constituency. I am glad also that it should take place today, as this week marks the second anniversary of the arrival of a consignment of toxic waste that should never have reached South Yorkshire.
The toxic waste to which I refer is in Wath upon Dearne, in the Dearne valley, in the northern part of my constituency. It was once a green, lush meadow valley, with rich wildlife, woods, and rivers.
The latter part of the 19th century saw the rapid pace of deep mining and the industrial revolution, which brought its problems as well as jobs. The coalfield developed rapidly—it has closed at an even faster pace. The pits of Dearne valley have closed, the science laboratories have gone, and the railway marshalling yards—which Lord Haw Haw threatened to destroy on several occasions during the second world war—have gone as well. That was not done by the Luftwaffe but caused by the experience of the last few years.
That railway complex included a locomotive shed, which was obtained by a company named Wath Aluminium. It was succeeded by another company, Wath Recycling. For whatever reason, Wath Recycling received a consignment of waste from the FMC fertiliser factory at Baltimore, in the United States of America.
When that material arrived, it was found to be heavily contaminated by what I have previously described as a cocktail of poisons—a number of dangerous carcinogenic substances. The first batch arrived on 9 June. Local rumour developed in July, when I asked to visit the works. Then a local journalist discovered that secret meetings were being held to consider the grave nature of the substances that had arrived in Wath upon Dearne.
At that time, the substances were stored in an open-fronted shed, partially covered by tarpaulin. As soon as I found out, I asked to see the Minister of State, now the Secretary of State for Wales. He saw me immediately. I demanded that the material be securely contained.
By the end of October, it was contained. During the period of containment, workers wearing protective clothing and masks spent 15 minutes at a time putting the material into drums. However, it had been in the open, quite close to the homes where thousands of people lived, for a long period before then.
At that stage, I brought a deputation from my constituency led by the mayor of Rotherham, Councillor Hughes, who has been a friend of mine since boyhood. We were young councillors together when we agitated for a wide economic base because we knew that the mines would close. We did not anticipate that they would close at the pace that they did. Councillor Hughes and I have long pressed for the Dearne valley to be prepared to be green again.
Councillor Hughes was accompanied by Canon Michael Wright, the vicar of Wath upon Dearne—a man of enormous significance in our community; a local general practitioner, Dr. David Plews; and two local business men, Mr. Bedford and Mr. Binns, representing

1147
various parts of the local community. We saw the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who received us very courteously, and expressed the hope that the material would be gone by Christmas—Christmas 1989. I shall end my relatively short speech by telling the Minister that I hope that the material will be gone by Christmas 1991.
The Americans disputed the responsibility for some of the poisonous material. In March 1990 I went to Washington and met the members of the American company, FMC. They admitted that they were responsible for a number of the chemicals in that cocktail—the benzines, fluorons and PCBs. However, they flatly refused to accept responsibility for some of the heavy metals.
The case was taken to the British courts in February 1990 and they decided that they had no jurisdiction since the contract was signed between FMC and a company associated with Wath Recycling. The case should then have proceeded to the courts in the United States.
In March of this year, Mr. Nicholas Rowe of The Independent, who wrote a splendid article in that newspaper, ascertained on questioning the company that not only had it not embarked on litigation in the United States but that there seemed to be no certainty that it would do so.
Then, with Councillor Sir Jack Layden, leader of Rotherham council, and Councillor Jack Carr, the chairman of the environmental health committee, I saw the Minister for the Environment and Countryside again and asked him to make sure that there was legal action.
At the moment, as the Minister knows, we have welcomed a succession of Ministers from the Department of the Environment. We have shown the Department, and it accepts, that we have superb plans for the future of the Dearne valley. We are being helped by the Department of the Environment. Immediately to the north of the site, work is proceeding on reclaiming a large area of land which, in a short time, will be green. The Government have given us financial support for that.
But we are spending a lot of public money, central and local, to give hope to and to regenerate the Dearne valley, while this satanic mill, this sordid site, remains sticking out like a sore thumb it limits our hope.
Mr. Martin Redmond: My hon. Friend has been patient and tolerant over the lack of progress in shifting the drums of toxic waste. My constituents, who live in the constituency adjacent to that of my hon. Friend, are also extremely concerned not only about the possible effect of wind should deterioration set in or in the event of a fire, but because the longer the toxic drums stand there and rot, the more likely it is that the toxic waste will seep into the water table beneath. It is a twin problem, and my hon. Friend has shown remarkable restraint. Will he consider transporting the toxic drums to the Department of the Environment so that we can see the remarkable progress that there would be in shifting them back. I would gladly assist my hon. Friend in bringing those drums to the Department.
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is risking leading me astray. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that some months ago my hon. Friend, concerned as he is for his constituents, presented a motion to the House calling on me to bring a drum of the material to Westminster, indeed into the House. I would have been willing to do that, but I think that you were not quite so enthusiastic at the
1148
prospect. However, I must admit that many of my constituents would be highly delighted if I did bring a drum here.
I drew up a list of constituencies of Ministers with appropriate responsibility and I suggested that we place a collection of the drums in their constituencies, many but not all of which are in the south, though that of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside certainly is not. Many of my constituents believe that if the waste were in the south of England the Government would have been rather more active in securing a solution. But that would probably be uncharitable, because I know that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has worked hard on the matter.
The difficulty is that the Government take the view that recycling is an important industry, that it is profitable and it can bring a lot of overseas earnings to Britain. It is important that we have a recycling industry. There is a limit to the amount of materials in the world that the industry handles and we must recycle. But recycling industries should be substantial. The company in this case at the time of importation had 100 £1 issued shares and I believe that the principal shareholder is a Dutch metal trader and company director called Mr. Weinstock with a residence in Hertfordshire, certainly not in Wath upon Dearne.
If we are to have a vigorous recycling industry, it must be conducted by substantial businesses which are governed by adequate legislation. This case does not give grounds for comfort about the nature and quality of legislation in force in Britain.
Our area has been economically devastated in recent years, and if it is to see the economic advances that it desperately needs they must be accompanied—indeed preceded—by the environmental recovery which is essential.
I am grateful for the consideration that the Government have given to the matter and to Ministers for their visits. However, that money has to be accompanied by common sense in our arrangements. This is a serious matter because there are more than 2,700 drums of poisons there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has said, the prevailing wind would take any fumes or noxious airborne substances to affect his constituents.
There is justified anxiety throughout the area. For example, two or three months ago there was a fire at the works. I congratulated the South Yorkshire fire service on the speed with which it responded and I was told that the fire was not very significant and that there was no public risk because the fire had not got nearer than 18 feet to the drums. Those 2,700 drums could well be a time bomb. I do not want to use emotive language and to rouse anxiety, because there is enough of that, but we must have action.
I have a number of questions for the Minister and I hope that I have given him sufficient notice of them. I accept that I did not give him long. Given our dreadful experience, are the Government giving any thought to the need to revise national regulations? Are they prepared to amend the law to prevent such cases or to make their occurrence less likely? Could steps be taken to protect our areas, in the way that the United States and other countries have protected themselves? As the Minister is aware, under American law such material can be exported, but it cannot be taken back into the country.

1149
Does the Minister consider that an intense problem could remain at Wath, no matter what decision is taken by the American courts, partly because of American law and partly because the company may not have the resources to deal with the problem and to respond to it in the proper manner? Would the Department prepare to take immediate action if the decision of the American court relieves the American company of responsibility? The material would still be in Wath upon Dearne and we want it away, and quickly.
If the American company is found to be largely or wholly responsible, can we expect action? Could that include ensuring that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acts with whatever vigour is required in the pursuit of British interests? I have said before that, if the boot were on the other foot, I think that the American official response would have been more strident and more positive than ours has been.
Given the delay in moving towards court action in America, which is so desperately needed—it has been delayed since February 1990—will the Government maintain sufficient interest to ensure that the case proceeds and that there is no withdrawal from it and no protracted delay? Will the Minister give assistance and approval to enable Rotherham council to take whatever steps are needed to remove the waste as soon as possible after the court case?
The Minister is aware that his hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government—another of his colleagues who has taken a detailed interest in the matter and has visited the locality—is visiting the area next week. If the Minister is not able to give a full response to those serious questions tonight, I hope that he will ensure that his hon. Friend does so when he is in South Yorkshire.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, there is an enormous amount at stake. The future of the area is far too important to allow the interests of a very small company to prejudice the prospects that we are seeking to develop. The area can be made decent. It is in the process of being turned green. If we do not make it decent and green, economic prospects for the area will remain benighted. Therefore it is of considerable importance at local level. The Minister will be aware that the implications of the case are of national gravity, and I look forward with great interest to hear what he has to say.
10.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has raised an important issue. Let me first explain what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, has explained to the hon. Gentleman and other interested parties on numerous occasions—either at meetings or in correspondence—as the saga has developed.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the matter is subject to litigation—indeed, litigation has been started. I shall say more about that shortly. We were advised by the proper regulatory authorities—the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—that the
1150
material in question was at present safely stored. I shall deal with that later as well, as it relates to one of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.
The problem of Wath began with a recycling contract that went wrong. Amlon Metals/Wath Recycling imported about 450 tonnes of copper waste for recycling from an American firm called FMC. The movement of the waste was notified as required in the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, and it appears to have arrived in good faith in June 1989; 280 tonnes of the waste went to Wath and became partly mixed with other copper waste, and 170 tonnes were stopped at Leeds rail terminal.
Some of the waste differed from the sample specification, containing some difficult pesticide intermediates. The contract papers did not include clauses for the return of the material should the consignment be rejected.
Wath Recycling called in the relevant waste disposal authorities, West and South Yorkshire. The authorities called in HMIP and HSE to advise. Since then, HMIP has made two visits and the Health and Safety Executive 20. Both bodies advised about safety precautions and supervised the drumming of the material: in their judgment, that at Wath is now safe in 2,700 drums, and that at Leeds is also safe in seven guarded containers.
Mr. Hardy: I have noted the visits that have been made and the care that has been taken. South Yorkshire must, of course, undertake careful monitoring. I understand that the cost of that monitoring since June 1989 is now approaching six figures: obviously, a substantial burden has been imposed as a result of the importation of the waste, whoever is responsible.
Mr. Baldry: I have no reason to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's figures. Clearly the regulatory authorities have had to be careful to ensure that the consignment is safe, and have wanted—quite properly—to respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Wentworth and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and others.
The problem now is that mixed wastes cannot be recycled at Wath. Wath wants FMC to pay damages, and to contribute to disposal costs. Both officials and Ministers have been trying to resolve the matter from an early stage. Indeed, shortly after HMIP had been brought in to help—as the hon. Member for Wentworth said—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then responsible for these matters, saw a delegation led by the hon. Gentleman. There has been a series of such meetings. On reflection, the hon. Member for Don Valley will probably decide, in view of the number of meetings and Ministers involved, that his criticisms were less than fair. If I were a constituency Member in his position, however, I too would urge Ministers to take further and faster action.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and other Ministers have been anxious to help to resolve the situation and get the material returned to the United States—if possible—in the spirit of the Basel convention and the transfrontier regulations. On 5 February last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside discussed with Ron Woods, the United States deputy chief of mission, his concern over the continued presence of the waste at Wath. The latter intended to raise the matter with the appropriate

1151
United States authorities. My hon. Friend also met the United States Environmental Protection Agency's administrator, Bill Reilly, who agreed to take a personal interest in the matter and to make direct approaches to the FMC corporation.
My Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have mediated in negotiations with the parties concerned in an effort to find a long-term solution which avoided lengthy litigation. Much ministerial and official time has been expended on trying to reach a workable solution to the problems at Wath.
Negotiations have broken down because the mixed wastes cannot be recycled at Wath and Wath Recycling wants FMC to pay damages and to contribute to disposal costs. Although FMC has offered to pay half the incineration costs of the material that went to Wath and negotiate further with British Rail about sharing the costs of the waste held at Leeds rail terminal, Wath Recycling has declined to respond to that offer.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside met representatives of Wath Recycling in September last year in another attempt to reach a positive solution and to persuade them to reopen negotiations with FMC. They were unwilling to do so.
The Department of the Environment has probably gone as far as it can in this matter, in that the next stage depends on litigation. Wath Recycling has been considering the scope for litigation, but, as the hon. Member for Wentworth made clear, the United Kingdom courts have not accepted jurisdiction. On 7 June this year, Wath Recycling filed an action in the United States for damages, loss of profit and return of the material. We understand that its case will revolve around breach of contract and offences of disposing of toxic wastes contrary to United States requirements.
The hon. Member for Wentworth asked about the future. In this issue, as in everything, we must act in accordance with the law. We have made a rigorous examination of this matter, but there are no breaches of United Kingdom consents or regulations which might require local authority consideration or action. My Department has no statutory role, except as approving authority for the export of any waste back to the United States under the transfrontier regulations.
The logical conclusion is that the disposal licence at Wath permits indefinite storage of the 2,700 drums which are not contravening any HSE requirements and the containers at Leeds rail terminal are also protected in accordance with HSE requirements. The waste materials are therefore stored safely, and Wath Recycling is keeping the condition of the drums under review.
On an earlier occasion, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the licensing conditions at that site. Wath Recycling is licensed to treat a long list of materials, including those that it thought it was obtaining from FMC, and to store waste. The licence condition is, in the view of the regulatory authority, adequate to cover the new safely drummed waste which Wath Recycling has and which it has mixed with other material.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, local authority inspectors monitor the Wath site regularly under air pollution, waste treatment licensing and environmental responsibilities. Wath Recycling is able to provide them with lists of material on site. We are aware of the furnace
1152
fire in April 1991, but we were assured by HMIP that there was no danger to the drums of waste stored outside the furnace building.
Mr. Hardy: I am not denying the various points that the hon. Gentleman made, but if he had money to invest and he were looking for a place in which to invest it, would he go to the Dearne valley and invest there while that squalid and horrible dangerous mess existed?
Mr. Baldry: I was going to deal with the Dearne valley and the question whether we foresaw any changes in the law. As the hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the Dearne valley, I shall deal with that now.
I accept that the presence of the Wath Recycling site might, in his judgment, have an impact on the Dearne valley regeneration scheme, but I suspect that that impact will not be as great as he believes. I understand that the scheme includes an area known as Wath-Manvers. It comprises about 1,800 acres, including 887 acres of derelict land. Most of the land has been used by industry associated with coal mining.
Rotherham metropolitan borough council and British Coal are working together to carry forward the regeneration of the area. They engaged consultants who prepared a feasibility study and the final report of that study was made in July 1990. The regional office of the Department of the Environment has been kept fully involved in discussions on the proposals.
I accept and appreciate that the overriding aim of the strategy is to create a new image for the area through large-scale environmental improvements and through the creation of green facilities such as nature reserves, golf courses and water-related leisure facilities.
Total reclamation costs have been estimated to be about £12 million, with infrastructure costs of about £18 million. The strategy envisages a five-to-10 year development programme, with the majority of public funds being called on for the reclamation work and the infrastructure provision in the first five years.
Rotherham metropolitan borough council bid for derelict land grant funds for 1991–92 of £4·2 million for Wath-Manvers as part of the existing Dearne valley rolling programme. That includes £1·8 million of infrastructure. The council received £2·3 million. The relationship between the waste at Wath to progress on the Wath-Manvers strategy is a matter for local authority consideration in the first instance. However, I understand that it is not considered an immediate obstacle to progress on the scheme and substantial sums of money—millions of pounds—are being invested in the Dearne valley regeneration scheme. Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, I do not think that that difficulty jeopardises the scheme because a considerable amount of money is being invested in it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about changes in the law. Because of general concerns about transboundary waste, Britain has taken the lead in the European Community and in the OECD in calling for all developed countries to become self-sufficient in disposing of their own waste. We have been successful in that the principle of self-sufficiency has been incorporated in European Community legislation in the recently adopted revised framework directive. The principle is also an important part of the OECD's recommendation on the reduction of transfrontier movement of waste.

1153
Another key aspect of our policy is the ratification of the United Nations environment programme's Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal. The essence of the convention is the reduction of transboundary movements to the minimum consistent with the environmentally sound and efficient management of hazardous and domestic waste. The Government are helping to finance the convention's interim secretariat, which is developing further controls and compiling information for developing countries on waste management. We are also pressing the European Commission to bring to a successful conclusion its draft regulation, which will enable the Community and member states to ratify the convention.
The problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn to the House's attention involve a case in which a
1154
recycling contract went wrong. The material concerned is not abandoned and is, according to every regulatory authority involved, safely stored. Wath Recycling made a speedy response to the problem as soon as it became aware of it, and local authorities and Government inspectorates have worked together to ensure local safeguards.
Ministerial colleagues and others have made strenuous efforts to try to resolve the problem by negotiation and by whatever means they had at their disposal as soon as it came to light. Ultimately, we must act in accordance with the law, and I think that the future of the case depends on litigation. My Department has done what it can at this stage to ensure that that is embarked upon quickly——
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Court Appeals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what arrangements are available to review convictions which have been upheld on appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown Court, but in relation to which new evidence has come to light after the Crown Court appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no statutory power to enable such convictions to be reviewed or appealed against although the Divisional Court has held that it has, in its supervisory jurisdiction, power to quash the conviction of a defendant who pleaded 'guilty on the basis of flawed evidence unwittingly relied on by the prosecution or whose conviction was obtained by fraud, collusion, perjury or other like matter. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the judgment in R.v. Bolton Justices Ex Parte Scally which is reported at [1991] 2All ER 619 and at [1991] 1 QB 537.

  Legislation Texts
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the arrangements for enabling the public to have access to the texts of legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor recognises that he has a responsibility, on behalf of the Government, to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the publication of the statute book, in order that the citizen may know by what laws he is bound. Since 1868, the Statute Law Committee, established by Lord Chancellor Cairns, has met periodically to consider issues relating to the publication of the statute book. In recent times it has been assisted by an editorial board to supervise the publication of statutes in force and by a secretariat. The Lord Chancellor has come to the conclusion that these somewhat complex arrangements are not best suited, under modern conditions, for the effective discharge of this responsibility. He has, therefore, decided to replace the committee, and its subordinate bodies, with a single body to be known as the Advisory Committee on Statute Law. This body will advise him as and when required on all matters relating to the publication of the statute book, including the availability of up-to-date texts in both printed and electronic form. It will meet under his chairmanship or that of his Permanent Secretary, and its membership will comprise the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Chairman of the Law Commission, the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, First Parliamentary Counsel, the legal secretary to the Lord Advocate and First Scottish Parliamentary Counsel, First Legislative Counsel for Northern Ireland, the Treasury Solicitor, the Solicitor to 614
  the Scottish Office, and representatives from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. In addition, it will be able to involve user and consumer groups as necessary, either by way of consultation or by invitation to attend meetings of the Committee.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his office was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Renton
  In the past five years, my office has been responsible for a number of appointments to the Civil Service Appeal Board. The appointments are fee-paid. Chairmen are normally appointed for three years and deputy chairmen and members for two years. Further details may be found in "Public Bodies" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the expenditure covered by his office's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Tim Renton
  Expenditure by my office, excluding No. 10 Downing street and my executive agencies, on hospitality, is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  6,702

  1990–91

  4,393

  1 1991–92

  1,422

  1 To date.

THE ARTS

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his office was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual publication "Public Bodies" and to the Women's National Commission's "Handbook for Women's Organisations" published in July, 1990. My office is the sponsor department for a large number of public bodies. The verification and provision of the termination date of each board or council member's appointment would, I regret, involve disproportionate costs.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the expenditure covered by his office's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.
  615
  Mr. Tim Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries has spent £5,741 on official hospitality in 1989–90, £2,890 in 1990–91, and £1,262 in 1991–92 to date.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his office during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Renton
  "The Cook Report: Raiders of the Lost Art"—ITV, 29 April 1991. No purchases were made in 1990–91.

  Electricity

  Gas

  Liquid fuel

  Cash £

  1990–91 prices £

  '000 kilowatt hours

  Cash £

  1990–91 prices £

  '000 therms

  Cash £

  1990–91 prices £

  'ooo litres

  1987–88

  5,069

  6,241

  n/a

  1,349

  1,661

  n/a

  659

  812

  n/a

  1988–89

  6,717

  7,699

  n/a

  970

  1,112

  n/a

  845

  969

  n/a

  1989–90

  5,877

  6,332

  102

  872

  940

  2

  778

  838

  6

  1990–91

  6,048

  6,048

  106

  280

  280

  1

  860

  860

  5

  n/a = Not available.

  No solid fuel is used. The figures relate to 14,262 sq ft of floor space.

  Bradford Cinema
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about provision for cinema in Bradford involving the British Film Institute.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 10 June 1991]: Discussions are continuing between the British Film Institute and interested parties in Bradford on the future configuration of cinema in Bradford as a partnership between the Museum Library Cinema and the Bradford Playhouse.

ENVIRONMENT

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his written answer concerning the status of the royal parks, of 3 June,Official Report, column 3, he will list the changes that are liable to occur to (a) employment of permanent staff in the royal parks, their career structure and skill training, (b) recruitment, and morale and (c) supervisors of work of ground maintenance by contract or other means, including outside tendering or agency arrangements.

  Mr. Yeo
  The changes for staff in the royal parks will depend on future arrangements for carrying out ground maintenance work. These are still under consideration.

  Local Government Structure
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed change to the structure of local government.

  Mr. Key
  So far we have received 432 responses to our consultation paper on local government structure.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts 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. Renton
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The information requested by the hon. Member is available only in (a) cash and (b) 1990–91 money terms from 1987–88, and (c) in units of consumption from 1989–90. This is given in the table:

  Countryside Preservation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered the effect of hedgerow and stonedyke systems upon the conservation of wildlife and management of the countryside; if he will consider the introduction of statutory controls over the removal of such systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has commissioned a research project on hedgerow management—including environmental and wildlife aspects. We shall receive the final report shortly.

  In our White Paper "This Common Inheritance" we announced our intention to give local planning authorities powers to protect important hedgerows in their areas. A consultation paper issued in December gave further details. Responses to that paper have raised a number of key issues, and we are giving these careful consideration. It would therefore be premature to legislate, and we have tabled an amendment to the Planning and Compensation Bill to delete provision for such orders from that Bill. I shall be making a full statement on this matter at the resumption of Report stage. Our aim is to ensure that any scheme commands the widest possible agreement and will be fair and practicable.

  Homelessness
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what annual percentage of households accepted as homeless by local authorities in London have been accepted under the category of vulnerability due to age each year for the last 10 years; what number of households this represents for each year; and what number of people this represents for each year.

  Sir George Young
  The available information relates to the number of households accepted by local authorities under the homelessness legislation as having a priority need for accommodation because of vulnerability due to
  617
  old age. The number of persons in such households is not reported. The estimates based on returns from London boroughs are as follows:

  Year

  Number of households

  as percentage of all priority acceptances

  1981

  1,300

  7

  1982

  1,700

  8

  1983

  1,900

  8

  1984

  1,900

  8

  1985

  2,300

  9

  1986

  2,200

  8

  1987

  2,100

  7

  1988

  2,100

  7

  1989

  1,900

  6

  1990

  1,800

  5

  Note: Including estimates for missing returns.

  East Quayside Development, Tyne and Wear
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) when the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation first entered into any legal or binding agreement in respect of the East Quayside development; with whom these agreements were made and on what terms; what is their current status and when this altered; and what is the current position of the corporation with respect to receiving tenders for this development;

  (2) on what date Tyne and Wear urban development corporation carried out a full financial investigation into the financial standing of NQD plc in relation to the selection of a preferred developer of East Quayside; what guaranteees were sought from NQD as to its ability to continue the development after the collapse of Stanley Miller; and what steps were taken to monitor the accounts of NQD over the past three years;

  (3) when was the last time that a financial check was made on the preferred developer for the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation East Quayside project;

  (4) when the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation was first aware that NQD plc was trading while insolvent;

  (5) how much money was paid by Tyne and Wear urban development corporation to the successful developer as a contribution for work preceding the competition for the redevelopment at East Quayside; to whom this money was paid; and in what form it was paid;

  (6) if he will make a statement on the stages of selection to find the preferred developer for the East Quayside scheme, East Newcastle;

  (7) what criteria the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation applied to selecting preferred developers; and how these were applied in assessing the financial status of NQD plc in regard to East Quayside development;

  (8) what is the compulsory purchase order price agreed with the district valuer for the seven acre site on East Quayside, Newcastle, formerly owned by Stanley Miller;

  (9) what is the current value of the land formerly owned by Stanley Miller on the East Quayside; on what date Stanley Miller transferred ownership of the land to NQD; and how many days then followed before Stanley Miller was in receivership;

  (10) if he will name (a) the architects and (b) the engineers who designed the original Godfrey Bradman scheme which was accepted by Tyne and Wear urban
  618
  development corporation, for the redevelopment of Newcastle Quayside; and whether either are still associated with the project;

  (11) what action the chief executive of Tyne and Wear urban development corporation took to seek a partner for Shearwater after Stanley Miller went into receivership;

  (12) how many consultants reported findings to the board of Tyne and Wear urban development corporation on the competition for the East Quayside development on (a) financial assessment, (b) hotel advice, (c) quantity surveyors, (d) valuers, (e) retail leisure specialists, (f) design/planning consultants and (g) economic assessment; and where these reports are available for inspection.

  Mr. Key
  It would not be appropriate to comment at the present time on matters relating to the proposed redevelopment of Newcastle's East Quayside. A related compulsory purchase order and stopping up of highways order may yet be subject to further legal challenge in the Court of Appeal. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as all the legal issues are resolved.

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage target figure his Department has set in respect of the rents-to-mortgages pilot scheme for council house tenants in Basildon.

  Mr. Yeo
  The scheme is for tenants of the Commission for the New Towns, not local authority tenants: that would require primary legislation. There is no set target for sales, the purpose being to test the working of rents to mortgages.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the range of remuneration received by the former board members of the water authorities immediately prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The ranges were set out for each authority in "Public Bodies 1989"—ISBN 0 11 430042 9—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the salaries received by former chairmen of the water authorities immediately prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The salaries were listed in "Public Bodies 1989"—ISBN 0 11 430042 9—a copy of which is in the Library.

  EC Nuclear Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department was invited to participate in or send an observer to the conference on European Community nuclear issues and local authorities, held in Birmingham on 5 June; and if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of papers presented.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no knowledge of this conference.

  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposal to be put forward by Iceland, Norway and
  619
  Denmark to the Paris Commission on Marine Pollution in its meeting in the Hague on 17 June, recommending that the disposal of radioactive waste under the seabed be brought within the remit of the commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government take the view that the disposal of radioactive waste under the seabed accessed from the land is outside the scope of the present Paris convention. However, this issue will need to be addressed at the appropriate time, within the context of the review of the Oslo and Paris conventions which is currently under way.

  Glenlochay Compensation Award
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy conclusions he has drawn from the Glenlochay compensation award.

  Mr. Trippier
  We shall wish to study the details of the award carefully before reaching any conclusions.

  Planning and Development
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the report of the research carried out on behalf of his Department into the effects of the Use Classes Order 1987 and associated provisions in the General Development Order 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Independent research into the effects of these orders was carried out last year on behalf of the Department by Wootton Jeffreys Consultants, in association with Bernard Thorpe. I have considered the consultants' report, which is being published today by HMSO.

  The researchers found that the introduction in 1987 of "business" use class had improved the efficiency with which space is used and had widened choice. They found evidence that some existing industrial uses have been replaced by cleaner uses, and that the opportunity for change has attracted greater investment, resulting in improvements to the local environment. Although the researchers found some evidence of increased traffic generated by more intensive use of former industrial land, no other adverse effects on amenity or the environment were associated with the business use class. I am therefore satisfied that there is no case on environmental grounds for amending the business use class.

  The research confirmed continuing misgivings about the business use class in other respects, including the displacement of manufacturing jobs, which have traditionally met local employment needs, and of pressures on specialised activities which have built up in particular locations. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that development activity since the 1987 Use Classes Order has been generally consistent with existing, often long-established market trends. I have concluded that to amend legislation which applies uniformly throughout England and Wales in response to these concerns would not be justified.

  Where clear justification can be provided, it remains open to planning authorities to propose policies in development plans aimed at channelling particular types of business development into particular locations. Development plans should not generally contain policies advocating the imposition of general restrictions on the freedoms provided by the Use Classes Order or the General Development Order.
  620
  The research revealed evidence of some local controversy resulting from changes of use involving fast-food and take-away outlets within the food and drink use class. I am also aware of some misgivings over changes of use to and from public houses within that use class. I am not persuaded that a case has been made for adjusting the present scope for changes of use in the high street sector, where the researchers found that market activity has been generally subdued since 1987.

  I am encouraged that the researchers found that the inclusion of small group homes within the dwelling houses use class has benefited the care in the community programme, without adverse effects on amenity. My attention has been drawn to concern about the impact on residential areas of changes of use within the hotels and hostels use class. This concern appears to be associated as much with the characteristics of the clientele, where "down market" changes of use have taken place, as with any land-use planning difference between the uses encompassed within the use class. There is some very localised evidence of harm to amenity, through increased traffic and general activity, associated with the conversion of hostels into hotels, but this is insufficient to merit amending the order.

  I have concluded that the freedom from planning control currently provided by the Use Classes Order and part 3 of schedule 2 to the General Development Order should remain unchanged. However, the Government proposes to continue to monitor closely the effects of the Use Classes Order and General Development Order and we are minded to commission further research in another three to five years.

  Discharge Consents
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approve the scheme of charges in respect of discharge consents proposed by the National Rivers Authority in March under the Water Act 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following public consultation my right hon. Friend has today approved the NRA's proposed charging scheme for implementation from 1 July, subject to a number of modifications mainly aimed at making the scheme's provisions clearer. A copy of the modified scheme has been deposited in the Library. We shall keep the operation of the scheme under careful review throughout its three-year period of validity.

  The scheme represents an important element of the Government's wider commitment to implement the "polluter pays" principle. It will ensure that the NRA's costs incurred in authorising and monitoring direct discharges of effluent to water are borne by dischargers themselves. By recouping the costs in this way it will save the general taxpayer some £41 million in a full year via a reduced need for grant in aid to the NRA.

  New Parliamentary Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to save the mahogany railed staircase and related iron-work after the proposed demolition of No. 1 Bridge street.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 7 June 1991]: As the hon. Member will no doubt be aware, the Opposed Bill Committee which considered the Jubilee Line Bills has recommended that approval to demolish Nos. 1 and 2

  621
  Bridge street, which is necessary to enable the new Westminster station to be constructed, should not be given until the House has approved the design of the new parliamentary building, to be built on the site.

  Design work has not yet started so it is too soon to say whether the staircase can be used in the new building or should be removed for use elsewhere.

  Councils (Internal Management)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the third paper of his review of local government relating to internal management of local councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 May 1991 at column 402.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Incomes
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage police pay, pensions and allowances have been raised higher or lower than the rate of inflation for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested in respect of pay is set out in the table and shows the minimum and maximum of the salary scales of a police constable. Equivalent figures for the various allowances to which police officers are also entitled can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Police pensions are uprated annually in line with movements in the retail prices index and have thus kept pace with inflation over this period.

  Minimum

  Maximum

  1979

  Salaries

  4·086

  6·471

  Percentage change

  (13·0)

  (18·6)

  1980

  Salaries

  4·956

  7·848

  Percentage change

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  1981

  Salaries

  5·610

  8·883

  Percentage change

  (1·2)

  (1·2)

  1982

  Salaries

  6·189

  9·798

  Percentage change

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  1983

  Salaries

  6·708

  10·620

  Percentage change

  (3·6)

  (3·6)

  1984

  Salaries

  6·708

  11·193

  Percentage change

  (-4·7)

  (0·4)

  1985

  Salaries

  7·752

  12·936

  Percentage change

  (1·3)

  (1·0)

  1986

  Salaries

  7·752

  12·936

  Percentage change

  (1·1)

  (5·7)

  1987

  Salaries

  8·352

  13·938

  622

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Percentage change

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  1988

  Salaries

  8·352

  15·125

  Percentage change

  (-4·7)

  (3·4)

  1989

  Salaries

  9·900

  16·521

  Percentage change

  (10·0)

  (1·4)

  1990

  Salaries

  10·886

  18·132

  Percentage change

  (1·0)

  (1·0)

  Notes:

  Salaries are based on 1 September for each year.

  Figures in brackets show yearly percentage change in real terms.

  Power Station, Isle of Man
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the Manx Government concerning the proposed power station to be sited in the River Neb valley, Isle of Man.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such representations have been made. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom and has primary responsibility for its own domestic affairs.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time fire fighters were employed in England and Wales as at 1 January 1990 and 1 January 1991, indicating both the authorised and actual establishment figures.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total of full-time fire fighters (establishment and strength)

  1990

  1991

  England

  Establishment

  33,863

  34,082

  Strength

  33,309

  33,850

  Wales

  Establishment

  1,753

  1,730

  Strength

  1,693

  1,709

  Charities
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total income of charities which is derived from direct mail and related fund-raising.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the income of charities from these sources is not collected centrally.

  Sudbury Prison
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held at Sudbury prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Monday 10 June 1991 there were 497 prisoners on the roll at Sudbury prison, 405 in the main prison and 92 in the Foston hall annexe.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released from Sudbury prison during the last 12 months for which figures are available.
  623
  Mrs. Rumbold
  According to the records held centrally, which are approximate, about 1,020 prisoners were discharged from Sudbury prison on licence or on completion of sentence in 1990.

  Interpol
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information about convictions of British citizens is passed to Interpol for dissemination to member countries for information; and whether such information is removed from Interpol after any fixed period of time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The national central bureau of Interpol does not keep details of all criminal convictions. It will pass on information about convictions only when a specific request is made by a member country. The bureau will pass on the details which are requested, but these will only be supplied once it has been confirmed through fingerprint checks that the subject of the request and the subject of the conviction are the same person.

  Member countries have also been made aware of the effect of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act on convictions in the United Kingdom. The bureau will keep a copy of the information which has been sent; this will normally be destroyed after seven years. The member country recieving the information will have its own rules for how long such information is retained.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an estimate of the number of offences committed, in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, by juveniles who have absconded from local authority care to which they have been committed following conviction or pending trial(a) in the Metropolitan police area and (b) in the remainder of England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available in the detail required to enable such estimates to be made.

  Northern Ireland Prisoners
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made for Northern Ireland prisoners who are serving sentences in gaols in England and Wales to serve the remaining part of their sentences in gaols in Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 makes provision for the transfer of a sentenced prisoner on request to another United Kingdom jurisdiction to serve the remainder of his or her sentence.

  Radiation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority has to equip fire rescue unit appliances with geiger counters for use at incidents involving radiation.

  Mr. John Patten
  Each of the six emergency rescue tenders in the South Yorkshire fire brigade is equipped with a survey meter. The decontamination unit is equipped with a contamination meter. All pumping appliances and special appliances are equipped with one dosimeter per firefighter.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the in-service training of prison staff regarding prisoners who are regarded as potential suicide risks.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 19 December 1990 at columns 206–7. A working group has since been established by the prison service to oversee the production of a suicide awareness training film for prison staff, and to assess the needs of staff for further guidance and training in relation to the treatment and care of prisoners.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to improve the links between families in Northern Ireland and relatives who are held in prison in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Rumbold: My noble Friend Lord Ferrers announced in another place on 4 June at columns 577–78 that the Government would carry out a comprehensive review of the arrangements governing the transfer of prisoners to Northern Ireland, either permanently or temporarily, to maintain family ties.

  Iraqi Armed Forces
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1979 members of the Iraqi armed forces have been granted entry into the United Kingdom under paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available. Statistics collected on passenger admissions do not separately identify members of the armed forces who enter the United Kingdom.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of the management review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  With the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible with me for the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Great Britain. I have today placed in the Library the report of the wide-ranging management review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which we commissioned last year.

  The review was carried out by a team of management services specialists from the Home Office and Treasury, co-ordinated by a private sector consultant. As well as examining in depth the board's operations, the team took account of practice elsewhere in the civil service, and outside.

  In recent times the board has had difficulty in coping with rising business. But with the changes to the scheme and the 60 new staff we provided last year, it is now making great strides. It dealt with 53,000 claims in 1990–91, against 39,000 in 1989–90, and it expects to clear

  625
  around 60,000 in 1991–92. Last year, for the first time in 10 years, it dealt with more claims than it received, reducing its backlog, and it has been able to establish that the true level of backlog is much lower than it had reckoned.

  Despite this encouraging picture the board needs to gear itself to do still better, cutting delays—which are often still unacceptably long—and further reducing its arrears, while coping with steadily increasing workload.

  I therefore welcome the recommendations of the management review, which hold out the prospect of a faster service to applicants, and a much reduced backlog, with no increase in staff. This will be achieved by simplifying procedures, cutting out duplication, and better management. Board members will need to set better guidelines for decisions, improving consistency all round, and enabling staff to deal with the majority of cases, which do not require the special skills of a QC or similarly eminent lawyer. I look to the board and its senior managers to respond positively and quickly to all of these recommendations.

  The report also makes some more radical suggestions.

  Arrangements under the scheme have not changed much since the board was created in 1964, when it was far smaller and dealt with far fewer claims. The review team does not believe that a board of more than 40 members—drawn from the single discipline of law, and most of whom have other claims upon their time—can reasonably be expected to carry responsibility for managing the organisation effectively on its present scale.

  The review recommends that I and the Secretary of State for Scotland should establish a small executive board, which should include members with business experience, and perhaps representatives of victims' interests. We think that this is a useful suggestion, on which we should like to have views from the board itself and from others with an interest in its work.

  The review also questions whether the scheme compensates the right people and in the right way. In particular, it discusses concentrating the scheme on injuries attracting higher or lower awards, by varying or imposing lower or upper limits on what awards are payable; excluding more strictly those who by alcohol or drug misuse contribute to their own misfortunes; transferring responsibility for criminal injuries at work to employers; and simplifying the basis of assessment to allow decisions to be taken more consistently and quickly. Finally, it suggests that we should explore whether the insurance industry might administer the scheme on an agency basis, or whether criminal injuries compensation might be amalgamated with other private and public sector compensation schemes to work more effectively and economically. These issues go well beyond the scope of the management review but the Government recognise that there are serious questions which should be open to public discussion.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses currently register an annual taxable profit of £35,000 or less; and how many of these businesses have been operating for(a) one year or less, (b) between one and two years, (c) between two and three years and (d) for three or more years.
  626
  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that about 250,000 incorporated businesses had taxable profits of £35,000 or less in accounting periods ending in the year to 31 March 1989. This is the latest period for which reasonably complete information is available.

  The approximate lengths of time for which these businesses had been operating are shown in the table.

  Number

  One year or less

  20,000

  Between one and two years

  20,000

  Between two and three years

  20,000

  Three or more years

  190,000

  Information on unincorporated businesses could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, excluding corporation tax, how much in total will have been lawfully received in tax through and from building societies in each financial year from 1984–85 on the basis of clause 50(a) being enacted and (b) not being enacted.

  Mr. Maude
  Net receipts of income tax from building societies, excluding those subsequently repaid as the result of decisions by the courts, are shown in the second column of the table. The third column shows the corresponding receipts after deducting the estimated amount of income tax due for repayment if clause 50 were not enacted. Such repayment would increase societies' liability to corporation tax.

  Years

  £ million

  1984–85

  1,844

  1,844

  1985–86

  2,608

  2,608

  1986–87

  2,481

  2,277

  1987–88

  2,694

  2,673

  1988–89

  2,678

  2,677

  1989–90

  3,655

  3,654

  Defence Companies (Surpluses)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to implement a recoverable levy on surpluses generated by defence-based and military production companies.

  Mr. Maude
  No. Increased use of competition, taut contracting and suitable contractual mechanisms are already designed to ensure maximum value for money in defence procurement.

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council, the meeting of the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union and the interinstitutional meeting with the European Parliament.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Luxembourg on 10 June. I represented the United Kingdom. I also attended a meeting of the intergovernmental conference
  627
  on economic and monetary union. The Minister of State attended the inter-institutional meeting with the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 11 June.

  Following the meeting on 3 June, the Council again discussed the presidency's proposals for the future of VAT and excise duties in the single market. No agreements were reached and discussions will continue. I reiterated that the United Kingdom remains unconvinced that there is a need for a centrally imposed minimum VAT rate in the single market. But I again made it clear that the United Kingdom has no intention of changing our VAT rate.

  On excise duties, member states remain very wide apart. I argued that the minimum duty rates on alcohol and tobacco in the presidency proposals were too low. I reiterated that there would need to be much higher minimum rates or measures such as limits on the amounts of these goods that can be brought into any member state tax paid, if agreement were to be reached.

  The Community's contribution towards loans by the G24 to Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania was also discussed. An informal agreement was reached that the first tranche of 100 mecu of an EC guaranteed loan to Hungary could now be released, since a matching sum had been committed by members of the G24 outside the EC, but it was agreed that the release of a first tranche of 150 mecu to Bulgaria should await a similar matching contribution. Discussion of a loan to Romania was deferred until the meeting of ECOFIN in July.

  At the ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on EMU, the presidency invited member states' views on key issues, which would inform preparations for the meeting of the European Council later in the month. I noted that a significant number of important issues required further debate in the IGC and suggested that the presidency might want to refer to these, while also registering the consensus achieved on issues such as the importance of convergence, in its report to the European Council.

  Our negotiating position in the IGC remains unchanged. The United Kingdom cannot accept changes to the treaty of Rome that would bind us to move to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament.

  The inter-institutional meeting with the European Parliament enabled Members of the European Parliament to put their views on the EMU IGC to Finance Ministers. The meeting was purely consultative in nature.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the United States federal criminal prosecution authorities for assistance with documentation on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Maples
  None.

TRANSPORT

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and for each port in the United Kingdom, the number of tonnes of nuclear waste that was imported.
  628
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Nuclear waste is not imported into this country.

  Primary Aggregates
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of primary aggregates used in(a) construction and (b) maintenance of the railway network over the past 10 years, in (i) tonnes and (ii) as a proportion of total national aggregates' consumption.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for purchases of ballast by British Rail are as follows:

  Tonnes (millions)

  1986–87

  2·9

  1987–88

  2·9

  1988–89

  2·7

  1989–90

  2·4

  1990–91

  2·2

  The other information is not available.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of primary aggregates used in(a) construction and (b) maintenance of motorways and trunk roads over the past 10 years, in (i) tonnes and (ii) as a proportion of total national aggregates consumption.

  Mr. Chope
  Detailed information across the whole range of road construction is not kept by the Department. Estimates are, of necessity, coarse. Industry estimates show some 32 per cent. of United Kingdom aggregates production is used in road construction and maintenance. This figure has remained stable over the past 10 years. The Department estimates that in 1980 around 10 per cent. of aggregates consumption—21 million tonnes—was used in the construction and maintenance of motorways and trunk roads. This compares with estimates of 12 per cent. of aggregates consumption—36 million tonnes—in 1989.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of primary aggregates used in(a) construction and (b) maintenance of local roads over the past 10 years, in (i) tonnes and (ii) as a proportion of total national aggregates' consumption.

  Mr. Chope
  Detailed information across the whole range of road construction is not kept by the Department. Estimates are, of necessity, coarse. Industry estimates show some 32 per cent. of United Kingdom aggregates production is used in road construction and maintenance. This figure has remained stable over the past 10 years. The Department estimates that in 1980, 22 per cent. of aggregates consumption—43 million tonnes—was used in the construction and maintenance of local roads. This compares with estimates of 20 per cent.—60 million tonnes—in 1989.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated requirement for primary aggregates arising from the Government's road building programme, set out in the May 1988 White Paper "Roads to Prosperity."

  Mr. Chope
  The requirement for primary aggregates is estimated at 120,000 tonnes per kilometre. The
  629
  Government's road building programme, set out in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" established a target of 4,247 kilometres—2,655 miles. The overall requirement is therefore in the region of 510 million tonnes.

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give urgent consideration to the installation of barriers at the open railway crossing in Tirydail, Ammanford and at other open crossings on the Heart of Wales railway line;
  (2) if he will bring forward the proposed installation of barriers at the open crossing in Cilyrychen, Llandybie.
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Stott criteria for the conversion of automatic open crossings to half-barriered crossings take into account the daily use by both road and rail traffic. In the case of Tirydail crossing, traffic is not sufficiently heavy to warrant upgrading.

  The only crossing on the central Wales line which met the upgrading criteria is at Cilyrychen. Conversion is scheduled for early next year. It is for British Rail to determine the conversion programme in the light of its resources available to carry out the work.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many open railway crossings there are, and how many have barriers, on the Heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury; and if he will identify their locations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Location

  Type of barrier

  Pantyffynon

  Hand operated gates

  Tirydail

  AOCL

  Brynmarlais

  AOCL

  Llandebie

  AOCL

  Cilyrychen

  AOCL

  Ffairfach

  AOCL

  Glanrhyd

  Open

  Llangadog

  AOCL

  Llanwrda

  Open

  Llandovery

  Trainmen operated barriers

  Berthddu

  Open

  Llandrindod Wells

  Trainmen operated barriers

  Dolau

  AOCL

  Bucknell

  AOCL

  Craven Arms

  Manned barriers

  AOCL—Automatic open crossing locally monitored.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those open crossings in Wales that have already been fitted with half-barriers as recommended by the Stott report and those earmarked for conversion in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following automatic open crossings in Wales have been converted to half-barrier crossings under the Stott programme:—

  Harlech Morfa

  Llanbadarn Fawr

  Maes (Criccieth)

  Ynyslas

  Those at Tygwyn, Cil-y-rychen and Llanboidy are due for conversion in 1991, 1992 and 1992 respectively.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many open railway crossings in Britain are 630
  to be fitted with barriers in accordance with the Stott recommendation for each year from 1988 to 1992 and thereafter.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Eighty-three automatic open crossings were identified for conversion to half-barrier crossings by the Stott criteria.

  Forty-six have been converted so far; the work was carried out as follows:

  Number

  1988

  13

  1989

  21

  1990

  10

  1991

  2

  Sixteen of the remaining 37 conversions are scheduled for this year and 21 in 1992.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textiles
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reaction he has made to the proposals from the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese Governments for use of European Community funds to assist their textile and clothing industries; and what assessment he has made of the likely impact on activity and employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have not been informed of any such proposals. I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.

WALES

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total expenditure by his Department on major improvement schemes on(a) the A487 trunk road, (b) the A483 trunk road and (c) the A470 trunk road in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Total costs including design and land acquisition for major improvement schemes costing over £3 million completed, in progress and in preparation, for each year since 1979 are given in the table.

  £ million

  A487

  A483

  A470

  1979–80

  2·2

  0·4

  6·0

  1980–81

  2·6

  0·2

  9·2

  1981–82

  0·9

  0·2

  3·0

  1982–83

  1·8

  0·1

  5·9

  1983–84

  0·3

  0·5

  21· 4

  1984–85

  —

  0·7

  18·2

  1985–86

  0·6

  3·9

  10·0

  1986–87

  0·4

  10·6

  4·4

  1987–88

  0·6

  8·6

  3·5

  1988–89

  0·6

  9·9

  2·.6

  1989–90

  2·2

  11·9

  3·4

  11990–91

  5·8

  8·8

  5·7

  Total

  18·0

  55·8

  93·3

  1 provisional

  Treatment of Pain
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the secretary of State for Wales what financial resources have been allocated to the Welsh Office budget this year for the relief and treatment of pain.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is for individual health authorities to determine from within their annual overall resource allocations, and in the light of local circumstances and priorities, the level of funding which is available for the relief and treatment of pain.

  Community Charge
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the amount of community charge payable by each eligible adult in a household of one, two, three, four or five adults where one, two or no adults have been exempted due to severe mental handicap in 1991–92 after the community charge reduction scheme has been applied, for each level of assumed rates bill in £50 bands from £150 to £500, in £100 bands from £500 to £1,500, £1,750 and £2,000, where in each case the community charge is set at each £10 increment between £140 and £600.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The community charge payable, on average, within each Welsh charging authority, net of £140 reduction and the community charge reduction scheme, by each eligible adult for 1991–92 is given in the table. The charge shown is the same irrespective of the number of adults in a household. Severely mentally impaired adults do not pay the community charge.

  The Welsh community charge reduction scheme is based on the difference between the notional average domestic rates per adult in 1989–90 and the average community charge paid in 1990–91 for each area. The reduction is this difference less £37 and is payable to every eligible adult in each qualifying community.

  Average community charge payable (£)1

  Alyn and Deeside

  118

  Colwyn

  127

  Delyn

  125

  Glyndwr

  96

  Rhuddlan

  139

  Wrexham Maelor

  101

  Carmarthen

  61

  Ceredigion

  68

  Dinefwr

  63

  Llanelli

  81

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  67

  South Pembrokeshire

  73

  Blaenau Gwent

  67

  Islwyn

  80

  Monmouth

  108

  Newport

  125

  Torfaen

  105

  Aberconwy

  110

  Arfon

  79

  Dwyfor

  91

  Meirionnydd

  98

  Ynys Môn

  103

  Cynon Valley

  50

  Merthyr Tydfil

  68

  Ogwr

  67

  Rhondda

  26

  Rhymney Valley

  94

  Taff Ely

  96

  Brecknock

  87

  Montgomeryshire

  77

  Radnorshire

  86

  632

  Average community charge payable (£)1

  Cardiff

  112

  Vale of Glamorgan

  109

  Port Talbot

  75

  Lliw Valley

  64

  Neath

  76

  Swansea

  113

  Total Wales

  92

  1 Net of Budget Reduction and CCRS. Average for district.

  Further Education
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (i) what was the total cost of training further education governors in Wales;

  (2) if he will indicate the total cost of implementing the Government's reforms to the structure of governing bodies of further education colleges in Wales as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects all water supplies in Wales to meet the drinking water standards set by the EC drinking water quality directive; and what is the number of people currently supplied from non-complying sources.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Public water supplies already comply with the great majority of the standards in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1147) which implement EC standards or set more stringent standards. Where relaxations from the standards have been authorised under regulation 4 or undertakings accepted under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989, most should comply with the standards by 1995. Undertakings have been accepted which relate to all the zones supplied by the companies my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed. The existence of a relaxation or undertaking does not mean, necessarily, that the water supplied does not meet the standards set in the water quality regulations. Copies of all the relaxations and undertakings have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Universities and Colleges Funding Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce details of the funding and staffing arrangements for the Universities and Colleges Funding Council for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will announce detailed proposals for the new higher education funding council at the time legislation is introduced in Parliament.

  Casualty Units, Gower
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new attendances there were in 1990–91 between 10 pm and 8 am at Singleton, Morriston and Neath casualty units; and how many of these at each were residents of West Swansea and Gower.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not centrally available in the form requested. However, data collected to
  633
  inform the Welsh Office review of Singleton minor casualty unit (MCU) indicated that during the period 1 June 1988 to 31 May 1989, new minor casualty attendances at Singleton totalled 1,318 between 10 pm and 8 am, an average of four per night.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been each year's funding by his Department to enable a night service to be offered at Singleton casualty unit.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Funding in respect of the minor casualty unit at Singleton hospital was agreed as part of the cost of reorganisation of services in West Glamorgan consequent upon the opening of Morriston hospital. However, the distribution of funding within its overall allocation is a matter for West Glamorgan health authority.

  Prince of Wales Hospital, Rhydlafar
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his allocation separately to each health authority in Wales of(a) knee and (b) hip replacement operations to be carried out from Welsh Office central funds at the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, near Cardiff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Allocations are based on established referral patterns and currently these are:

  Hips

  Knees

  Others

  West Glamorgan

  37

  5

  3

  Gwent

  25

  16

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  19

  6

  21

  Powys

  14

  1

  1

  East Dyfed

  5

  1

  0

  South Glamorgan

  32

  10

  8

  Clwyd

  2

  0

  0

  Pembrokeshire

  26

  11

  0

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  160

  50

  40

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from patients, members of the public, Clwyd health authority or the relevant community health councils concerning the recent return of a patient requiring an artificial knee joint operation to Clwyd without treatment from the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We have not received any representations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from Clwyd health authority, community health councils in Clwyd, or otherwise, concerning the allocation of knee replacement operations to be carried out with Welsh Office central funds at the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, near Cardiff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We have not received any representations on this matter.

  Opted-out Schools
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether opting-out schools in Wales will be allowed to apply for a change of the nature of the school in less than five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is still considering whether it will be in the best interests of grant-maintained schools in Wales to alter his policy that they should not normally be able to change their character within five years of incorporation. That policy gives him the option of approving proposals for change when there are sufficiently strong reasons.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs created by the activities of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

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

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of Friday 7 June, what was the reason for the delay in placing copies of the Welsh Office report in the Vote Office and the Library until the day after publication and two days after they had been made available to the media; and if he will make it his policy in future to make copies of publications available to the media, the House and to the individual hon. and right hon. Members at the same time.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our normal practice is to place copies of inspectorate reports in the Library of the House, further copies being available on demand from the Welsh Office. The delay in placing copies of the recent three reports in the Library of the House was due to administrative oversight for which I apologise on behalf of the Department.

  Community Homes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors determined the publication date for reports on three community homes in Wales following investigations undertaken in 1989.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 7 June 1991]: The reports of inspections of secure units at Ty Mawr, Silverbrook and Llwyncelyn community homes were published as soon as possible following the completion of consultation on the drafts with the relevant local authorities.

  Future reports will be issued within four months of the inspection. Any actions requiring urgent attention by the relevant authority will as now be brought to their notice immediately.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  World Poverty
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Presbytery of Glasgow since 14 May in respect of world poverty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration has received a letter on world poverty from the Presbytery of Glasgow. A reply has been sent.

  Iraq
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held between representatives of the relief agencies responsible for the relief effort for refugees in Iraq and British military representatives.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The relief agencies in northern Iraq and Turkey have worked closely with the allied forces. They meet regularly with the military commanders of Operation Haven.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of plans for meeting long-term rehabilitation needs in Bangladesh following the annual meeting of the Bangladesh aid consortium on 29 and 30 May.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the Bangladesh aid consortium meeting, the World bank announced that the total indications of financial support from bilateral and multilateral donors amounted to $2·3 billion. This level of resources is sufficient to meet Bangladesh's relief, rehabilitation and overall development needs for 1991–92.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in response to its appeal for aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 12 June,Official Report, column 562.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  The Gulf (Disappearances)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made concerning the disappearance of Roseanna della Casa, and the deaths of Nick della Casa and Charles Maxwell, in the Turkish-Iraqi border region(a) to the Turkish authorities, (b) to the Iraqi authorities and (c) to allied military authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made and is making widespread representations 636
  to try and trace Mrs. Rosanna della Casa. Following representations made by Her Majesty's ambassador at Ankara, the Turkish authorities have extended full co-operation. The senior Iraqi diplomat in London and the Iraqi representatives to the ceasefire talks in Riyadh were asked to help. British embassies in the area made inquiries and sought the help of the Governments of neighbouring countries. We have maintained frequent contact with coalition military forces in northern Iraq. Urgent attempts to find Mrs. Rosanna della Casa continue.

  No representations have been made regarding the deaths of Mr. Nicholas della Casa and Mr. Charles Maxwell. The cause of their deaths has not yet been determined.

  COREPER
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British civil servants have been appointed or seconded to work for the Committee of Permanent Representatives serving the European Council of Ministers; and what is Her Majesty's Government's assessment of the effectiveness of COREPER in the development of European Community policies.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  COREPER is composed of representatives of the Twelve member states and meets to prepare decisions for the Council of Ministers, a job it has done effectively since the Community was founded. The Committee meets in two formats: COREPER ambassadors, comprising member states' permanent representatives to the EC, and COREPER deputies. The United Kingdom's permanent representative is Sir John Kerr. He heads the United Kingdom permanent representation which numbers 65 British civil servants.

  Syria
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance was given during the period when diplomatic relations with Syria were broken about the steps which Syria was required to take to ensure a restoration of diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We consistently made it clear that we could not consider restoring diplomatic relations without firm evidence that Syria had given up support for international terrorism.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances were given by the Syrian Government before the restoration of diplomatic relations on 28 November 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in the House on 28 November 1990—at columns 867–88—the assurances we had received that enabled us to resume relations.

  Gordievsky Family
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received to representations for Maria and Anna Gordievsky, with their mother Leila Gordievsky, to be able to come to Britain; and if he will make a statement.
  637
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This case has rightly attracted public concern in the United Kingdom, and has also received sympathetic attention in a number of articles in the Soviet press. We have made repeated oral and written representations to the Soviet Government, including at high levels, about the reunification of the Gordievsky family. The Soviet authorities have frequently indicated that they wish to resolve this matter, but have not given a positive and substantive response to our many representations. Mrs. Leila Gordievsky and her two small daughters, Mariya and Anna, are entirely innocent of any wrong-doing. We believe that there can be no justification for the Soviet authorities' refusal to them of permission to come to Britain to be reunited with Mr. Oleg Gordievsky, in accordance with their clearly expressed wish. The Soviet Government's denial to them of the right to travel stands in clear contravention of the detailed provisions relating to family reunification and freedom of travel in the documents of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, to which the Soviet Union is a party. We will continue to press this human rights case strongly until the family are granted their right to travel.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to accede to a request from the Gibraltar Government to negotiate the entry of Gibraltar into the EC customs union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Gibraltar Government have not made such a request. If they did, we would consider it in the light of the prevailing circumstances, including our assessment of the benefits of such a step for Gibraltar.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the financial consequences for Gibraltar of its joining the EC customs union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We keep this under review and are in close touch with the Gibraltar Government about the cost/benefits of Gibraltar joining the Community customs territory.

  Germany (Nuclear Facilities)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of the treaties endorsed by the European Council of Ministers in establishing a unified Germany provide for the application of Euratom safeguards to nuclear plants, facilities and materials located in the former German Democratic Republic.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The integration of the former German Democratic Republic into the European Community required neither a new treaty nor amendments to existing Community treaties. In principle the provisions of the treaties have applied in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic since unification. A package of measures was however agreed covering temporary and strictly defined derogations. No such derogations apply to united German's obligations under the Euratom treaty of 1957, chapter VII of which provides for the application of Euratom safeguards in all member states.

  Libya
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Libyan Government are required to take to ensure the restoration of diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We cannot consider improved relations until we have proof that Libya has completely broken off its support for international terrorism, including the IRA. People are still being killed in Britain with Libyan-supplied weapons.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on interference by Kenya in the internal affairs of Mozambique, and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aware of claims about Kenya's alleged interference in Mozambique, but we know of no evidence to support them.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has obtained a copy of the financial memorandum of Guy's hospital, referred to on 29 April,Official Report, column 22; and if he will make a statement on its implications for patient care and staffing levels.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. The paper was an internal working document of the Guy's and Lewisham Trust, prepared to assist it in developing its financial plans for 1991–92 and is now out of date.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by the Health Education Authority on the "Look After Your Heart" campaign in each of the last three years; and what is the planned level of expenditure for 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  "Look After Your Heart", England's coronary heart disease prevention programme, is jointly managed and funded by the Health Education Authority —HEA—and the Department of Health. Spending in the last three years, taking both basic allocations and special grants made during the year, has been as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  1988–89

  4,550,000

  1989–90

  4,000,000

  1990–91

  5,500,000

  A basic allocation of £5,300,000 has been approved for 1991–92. There are also departmental and HEA programmes for the specific risk factors, such as smoking, which contribute to the work on prevention of coronary heart disease. Additional support is also provided through commerce and industry through the workplace project and the health education work of regional and district health authorities.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage increase of child abuse cases for the last available five years in the Carlisle constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information collected centrally about child abuse relates to the children and young persons on child protection registers for each local authority with social services responsibilities. The data were first collected in 1988. The number of children on the child protection register in Cumbria on 31 March 1988 was 226; on 31 March 1990 the number was 453.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the training of physiotherapists; and how much his Department spends annually on such training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. Funding for physiotherapy training is a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Care Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretry of State for Health if he will meet a delegation from the Doncaster community health council, local councillors and hon. Members to discuss the future of Doncaster royal infirmary, Mexborough Montagu hospital and Conisbrough hospital and the development of a strategy for continuing care services for the elderly.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that medical confidentiality is maintained for patients in the billing arrangements between health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Personal health information is strictly confidential. It may be disclosed only on a need-to-know basis by authorised persons, and only to the extent authorised. It must be anonymised unless it is essential for the recipient to know the identity of the patient. Health authorities have been reminded of their responsibility for safeguarding confidentiality in the context of contracting for health services, and have been strongly advised to draw up procedures under the guidance of their directors of public health. In particular, references to diagnosis or operations in contract information must be coded. Any breach of confidentiality by NHS staff is regarded as a serious disciplinary offence which may result in immediate dismissal.

  Mile End Hospital
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of how waiting lists are affected by the Royal London hospital trust's agreement with the Charterhouse clinical research unit concerning Mile End hospital;
  640
  (2) whether the Royal London hospital trust sought his prior approval for its agreement with Charterhouse clinical research unit concerning the Mile End hospital;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the terms of the agreement between the Royal London hospital trust and the Charterhouse clinical research unit concerning Mile End hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No agreement has been reached between the Royal London hospital trust and Charterhouse clinical research unit.

  Pregnancy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was given to(a) the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and (b) the Life care and housing trust for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department gives no money to either organisation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals to issue guidelines on the use of the chorionic villus sampling test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The use of chorion villus sampling is a matter of clinical judgment.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated additional cost to a hospital in respect of the procedures required to be undertaken in recovering a kidney for transplant; whether any recompense is currently available to hospitals in respect of such additional costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the cost of organ recovery procedures is not collected centrally. We are actively considering the possibility of identifying and reimbursing hospitals for costs incurred in organ donation.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost to the national health service of an abortion at(a) under 12 weeks' gestation, (b) under 18 weeks' gestation, (c) under 24 weeks' gestation and (d) under 42 weeks' gestation in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial year(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department spent approximately £147,000 on hospitality in 1989–90; £158,000 in 1990–91; for 1991–92 information is only available on spend until 30 April totalling £12,000.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what has been the number of beds available to (i) NHS patients and (ii) private patients in(a) Guy's

  641
  hospital, (b) King's College hospital, (c) St. Thomas's hospital, (d) the Lewisham and North Southwark health authority, (e) the Camberwell health authority and (f) the West Lambeth health authority at the beginning of each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: The information that is available centrally is given in the tables. The number of NHS beds is not a reliable indicator of patient activity. Activity in the three district health authorities listed in the tables increased during the period as follows:

  NHS available beds (average over the year) 1979 to 1986 calendar year, 1987–88 to 1989–90 financial year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  West Lambeth HA

  2,274

  2,239

  2,248

  2,100

  2,119

  2,066

  1,993

  1,887

  1,715

  1,537

  1,539

  St. Thomas's

  956

  971

  990

  880

  929

  876

  854

  842

  819

  744

  861

  Camberwell HA

  1,432

  1,366

  1,332

  1,289

  1,279

  1,232

  1,264

  1,232

  1,242

  1,147

  1,108

  Kings College Hospital

  603

  603

  586

  602

  590

  606

  609

  599

  602

  541

  538

  Lewisham and North Southwark HA

  2,336

  2,257

  2,208

  2,185

  2,194

  2,058

  2,048

  1,910

  1,718

  1,657

  1,583

  Guy's Hospital

  851

  886

  885

  852

  853

  779

  749

  740

  795

  790

  825

  Source: 1979–86 Form SH3

  1987–88 Form SH3A

  1989–90 Form KP70

  Number of authorised paybeds at beginning of each financial year since 1979

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  West Lambeth health authority2

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  138

  138

  138

  138

  St. Thomas3

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  138

  138

  138

  138

  Camberwell health authority

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  45

  45

  45

  145

  141

  141

  King's College Hospital4

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Lewisham and North Southwark health authority2

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  69

  Guy's Hospital

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  64

  Notes on table for authorised paybeds:

  1 Estimated figure—information held relates to the number of bed days.

  2 Within Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority between 1979 and 1981.

  3 Figures for 1979 and 1985 are based on the district group authorisation given.

  4 Figures from 1984 are estimates based on the district authorisation given.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teacher Strikes
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many days have been lost by teachers through strike action for each of the past 11 years; and what was the number of children affected.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on days lost by teachers due to strike action and on the number of children affected by such action is not centrally recorded by the Department. However, figures for the United Kingdom provided by the Department of Employment show the following numbers of days lost due to strikes by all employees in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, including both teachers and non-teaching staff:

  Days lost

  11980

  127,880

  11981

  45,364

  11982

  97,241

  1983

  19,455

  1984

  248,414

  1985

  851,518

  1986

  315,064

  1987

  133,429

  642

  Number of in-patients and day cases treated 1979 to 1989–90

  1979

  1989–90

  Percentage increase

  West Lambeth HA

  37,549

  42,692

  14

  Camberwell HA

  37,478

  46,262

  23

  Lewisham HA

  59,960

  61,518

  3

  The number of NHS beds authorised for use by private patients is not a measure of private patient activity. These beds are also available to health service patients and are not particular beds reserved for the exclusive use of private patients. Reliable information about the number of private patients treated is not available centrally.

  Days lost

  1988

  27,658

  1989

  1,300

  1990

  30,370

  1 Figures for 1980–82 also include employees in further and higher education establishments.

  Primary Classes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to bring in legislation to set a maximum class size for primary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  No. The deployment of teachers and the internal organisation of schools are properly matters for local decision.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State For Education and Science if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for i he financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991.92 to date.
  643
  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure on hospitality met from Department of Education and Science running costs totalled £89,000 for 1989–90, £61,000 for 1990–91 and £4,000 for the first month of 1991–92.

  REPLAN
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his decision to discontinue the funding of the REPLAN educational development programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The REPLAN programme will have largely fulfilled the purpose for which it was established when its current term is completed in October this year. My right hon. and learned Friend will however be making additional funding available to the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and the further education unit for the production and dissemination of a manual of guidance on education and training for unemployed adults which will further promote the lessons and experience gained from the REPLAN programme over the last seven years. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 23 January 1991,Official Report, columns 196–97, it is now for the adult education providers to continue to develop provision for the adult unemployed, drawing on the lessons learned under REPLAN, and in particular working with the training and enterprise councils who are responsible for delivering the major training programmes for the adult unemployed.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The titles of the video recordings purchased by the Department of Education and Science in the financial year 1990–91 are as follows:

  Agreeing to agree

  Autism: behind an invisible wall

  Early stages: school play

  First things first

  Food without fear

  Happy accident

  Helen's story

  Hindi Urdu Bol Chaal

  An inside job

  Meetings, bloody meetings

  Motley crew

  School

  Amount allocated

  Purpose of allocation

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Projects beginning in

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Adams grammar school

  —

  21

  Removal of asbestos

  Audenshaw high school

  575

  —

  Repairs, room conversion and new arts rooms

  —

  225

  Room conversion and rewiring

  Bacup and Rawtenstall grammar school

  713

  —

  Replace temporary accommodation, roof repairs and laboratory renovation

  Bankfield high school

  480

  —

  Improve technology, art language accommodation

  Baverstock GM school

  275

  —

  Repairs and removal of asbestos

  644

  Passport to success: National Record of Vocational Achievement.

  Through the maze: a guide to information sources in education

  Time for training

  Trouble with training

  Working mathematically with infants.

  During the financial year 1991–92 to date the following video recordings have been purchased:

  Building the perfect team

  Databases

  Teleworking

  30 ways to make time

  Working together: English in the national curriculum in Key Stages 1 and 2.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria are used for the determination of capital allocations for those schools which have held grant-maintained status for more than one year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The same criteria for determining capital allocations apply to the 29 schools that have been grant maintained for more than a year as those which have entered the sector more recently. All schools receive a formula allocation for small capital works based on their pupil numbers. In addition, all schools can bid for named capital projects. Priority in these allocations has been given to schools' most pressing needs. These include projects related to the health and safety of pupils, and to projects concerned with the introduction of the national curriculum, especially in science and technology.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the capital allocation for each grant-maintained school for(a) 1990–91, where appropriate and (b) 1991–92 and the purpose of each capital allocation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table lists the allocations for named capital projects for grant-maintained schools to begin in the two years. I shall write to the hon. Member when decisions are taken about further allocations for 1991–92.

  In addition to named project allocations, each grant-maintained school is eligible to claim an amount of capital grant calculated according to a formula which takes account of the number of pupils on roll. The grant is used for small capital works and the purchase of equipment. For 1990–91 the formula was £13,000 plus £6 per pupil on roll. For 1991–92 the formula is £19,000 plus £9 per pupil on roll.
  645

  School

  Amount allocated

  Purpose of allocation

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Projects beginning in

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Beechen Cliff school

  480

  —

  Kitchen and dining room

  —

  320

  Technology block

  Bishopshalt school

  —

  206

  Science block extension

  Bournemouth grammar school

  —

  300

  Repairs (including roof repairs and rewiring)

  Bridgewater Hall school

  —

  65

  Boiler replacement

  Bullers Wood school for girls

  —

  228

  Refurbishment and extension of 3 laboratories

  Cardinal Vaughan memorial school

  219

  —

  Roof replacement

  Carre's grammar school

  —

  630

  Technology and laboratories extension

  Castle Hall GM school

  11

  —

  Removal of asbestos

  —

  105

  Roof renewal and concrete frame repairs

  Claremont high school

  328

  —

  Repairs and renovation of laboratories

  —

  120

  Technology rooms and health and safety

  Colyton grammar school

  950

  —

  New technology block

  Ecclesbourne school

  —

  400

  Repairs (including re-roofing and rewiring)

  Francis Bacon school

  —

  105

  Modern language classrooms

  Handsworth grammar school for boys

  —

  953

  New science block

  Heckmondwike grammar school

  198

  —

  Repairs

  —

  252

  Technology refurbishment

  Hendon school

  180

  200

  Window replacement and lab refurbishment

  Lancaster Royal grammar school

  155

  —

  Rewiring, room conversion and new washrooms

  London nautical school

  100

  —

  Repairs

  —

  50

  Rewiring

  London oratory school

  151

  —

  Renovation to laboratories

  —

  216

  Design and technology

  Long Field high school

  —

  236

  Roof repairs

  Netherthorpe school

  65

  —

  Staff room and administration

  Old Swinford hospital

  35

  —

  Repairs

  —

  500

  Science laboratories

  Pate's grammar school

  —

  1,500

  Replace existing accommodation

  Queen Elizabeth's GM school for boys

  261

  —

  Repairs and boilder replacement

  Queen Elizabeth's grammar school

  100

  503

  Replace temporary accommodation

  Queensbury school

  57

  —

  Repairs and health and safety

  Ribston Hall high school

  295

  —

  New technology unit

  St. Francis Xavier's college

  122

  —

  Roof repairs and asbestos removal

  —

  200

  Repairs

  Skegness grammar school

  92

  —

  Classroom improvements

  —

  63

  Modernise kitchen and canteen

  Small Heath school

  50

  —

  Roof repairs and rewiring

  —

  105

  Replace windows and improve maths suite

  Southfield school for girls

  —

  650

  Technology block

  646 647

  School

  Amount allocated

  Purpose of allocation

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Projects beginning in

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Southlands school

  46

  —

  Conversion to design and technology

  —

  113

  Re-roofing

  St. James' CE school

  650

  —

  Replace classroom block

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

  44

  —

  Repairs

  —

  45

  Conversion to CDT

  The Kings school

  128

  —

  2 new classrooms

  Watford boys grammar school

  —

  80

  Re-roofing

  Wilson's school

  200

  —

  Technology workshop and room conversion

  Note: The figures exclude £138,000 of support for emergency projects allocated during 1990–91.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the discussions he has held with(a) local education authorities and (b) other organisations about the future of adult education following the publication of the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century".

  Mr. Eggar
  Although my right hon. and learned Friend regularly discusses the future of education with representatives of local education authorities and other organisations, no meetings specifically on the further education of adults have taken place since the publication of the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century."

  Teachers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his department's latest estimate of the number of qualified teachers who are not currently teaching.

  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 May 1991, c. 423]: In March 1988 there were estimated to be 385,000 qualified teachers aged under 60 who were not in regular teaching service. This total includes all those who had previously taught or been trained in England and Wales, except for those who were in full-time or part-time teaching service in the maintained or non-maintained sector in England and Wales, or had retired from teaching.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Schemes (North Staffordshire)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the expenditure on Government-financed and assisted training schemes in North Staffordshire for each of the last five years; and what it is projected to be in the current year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The following figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are for the Staffordshire training and enterprise council—TEC
  648
  —which became operational on 15 October 1990. Prior to that date the Training Agency area office administered the Staffordshire area.

  The TEC boundaries are not coterminous with those of the area office. Staffordshire area office covered the whole of Staffordshire whereas the TEC boundaries exclude part of south Staffordshire.

  Staffordshire AO/TEC: Actual Expenditure

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  30·14

  Staffordshire AO/TEC: Budget Allocation

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  31·59

  Petrol Containers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received following the Health and Safety Executive's directive that petrol may be sold only in one or two gallon containers at filling stations and the withdrawal of the use of five gallon approved containers which are used by boat owners and inshore fishermen; and what effects he expects this will have on safety at sea.

  Mr. Forth
  None. No HSE directive has been issued restricting the sale of petrol to one or two gallon containers or prohibiting the use of 5 gallon containers.

  Storage of petrol in 5 gallon containers is subject to the discretionary powers of Petroleum Licensing Authorities under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, the Petroleum-Spirit (Motor Vehicles &c) Regulations 1929 and the Petroleum-Spirit (Plastic Containers) Regulations 1982. Licensing authorities would take into account the suitability of the containers themselves and the individual circumstances of the storage place.

  Citizen's Europe Advisory Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has had any recent meeting or communication with the Citizen's Europe advisory service in regard to employment mobility within the European Community.
  649
  Mr. Forth
  No.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the European Energy Council last discussed the application of Euratom safeguards to nuclear materials and facilities within the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The application of Euratom safeguards has not been a Council agenda item in recent years. When such matters are discussed they are taken by the General Affairs Council.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implementation in the United Kingdom of EC regulation No. 220/90 (Euratom) on nuclear materials inventories.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Regulation No. 220/90 constituted a minor amendment to Commission Regulation (Euratom) No. 3227/76. This was to cover possible circumstances where nuclear material is concentrated by processing to a level above that specified in article 2 of regulation No. 9—428/60.

  Sensitive Buildings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 384, if he will define sensitive buildings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A sensitive building is one which contains or could give access to information or material which needs to be protected in accordance with defined Government requirements or prudent management practice.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for energy whether people entering the BN FL dining room at Sellafield are required to wear(a) special clothing, (b) body monitors for radiation, (c) helmets or (d) shoe covers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that all personnel leaving controlled areas are required to monitor themselves in a manner appropriate to that area. I am told that there is no requirement in all cases to undergo a change of clothing, although when leaving an area in which contamination may arise it is necessary to remove overalls. It is not unusual for employees to wear their radiation dosimeters when outside controlled areas—indeed in some circumstances it is a requirement of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. It is thus to be expected that diners will be wearing a range of clothing/radiation dosimeters.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether building 215 at Sellafied is a sensitive building; whether it is in an active area; what controls are applied to people entering the building; whether people entering the building are required to wear(a) special clothing, (b) body monitors for radiation, (c) helmets or (d) shoe covers.
  650
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that Sellafield management consider B215 to have a degree of sensitivity. Building B215 handles radioactive material and is within a much larger active area, known as the separation area. People entering the building are required to be dressed for standard entry to an active area—factory shoes and socks, a laboratory coat or overall and radiation monitors are needed.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will name the two people referred to in his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 384; and what evidence he has that the two people referred to were demonstrators.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the persons to which my answer of 7 June,Official Report columns 383–84, referred gave their names and addresses as Anne Marie Black and Chris Drake of Blue Gate, Greenham Common Womens Peace Camp, Newbury.

  Their address and the press release from CORE—Cumbrian's Opposed to a Radioactive Environment—suggest that they were demonstrators.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 384, whether the two people apprehended on Thursday, 23 May had entered (a) building 215 or (b) the vitrification plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the intruders' claim that they entered B215 has been investigated and that there is no evidence that they gained entrance to this building or to the vitrification plant.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 384, whether British Nuclear Fuels plc kept his Department's officials fully informed of the official statements made to the press by BNFL following the apprehension of two people within the Sellafield perimeter fence on Thursday, 23 May.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that to be the case.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what warnings were given to the two people apprehended within the Sellafield perimeter fence on Thursday, 23 May about the circumstances in which they would be required to undergo a body scrub.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The two people were monitored for contamination in the presence of the police officers. No contamination was detected and no action was needed.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy further to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 384, if he will now review security at Sellafield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Security at Sellafield is kept under constant review by British Nuclear Fuels plc, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Government.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the nature of the process undertaken at building 215 at Sellafield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Building B215 is primarily a store containing the highly active waste arising from
  651
  reprocessing, held awaiting vitrification in the adjacent plant. The function of the building is to maintain the concentration of the material, the temperature and the consistency in the desired range.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the operational log for building 215 at Sellafield for Thursday, 23 May.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No, this is a matter for BNFL.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 384, which security fences were breached by the two people apprehended at Sellafield on Thursday 23 May; and whether they entered an active area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In order to enter the active separation area, the intruders must have penetrated both the factory boundary fence and the separation area boundary.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, pursuant to his answer of 10 June on multiple share applications, all stockbrokers involved in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry have now supplied Touche Ross with a full list of names corresponding to their nominee accounts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the terms of the regional electricity companies' offers, stockbrokers were required to supply information on the underlying beneficiaries of applications made by those firms either on bulk manager application forms or on individual forms; failing this, the applications would have been rejected. Touche Ross has had access to this information in connection with its audit activities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answers of 6 June,Official Report, column 267 and of 10 June, to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West on representations from stockbrokers involved in electricity privatisation, what proportion of the fees and commisssions owing to the five stockbrokers referred to have so far been paid.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The payments already made, in respect of the admissible claims of these and other eligible brokers, are the amounts which the calculation and audit of their claims has shown with sufficient certainty to be due to them. In many cases a balancing payment may become due and my Department expects to make such payments shortly. A small number of brokers have not received any payments pending the clarification of queries arising from their claims or the audit process.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answers of 6 June,Official Report, column 267 and of 10 June to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West on representations from stockbrokers involved in electricity privatisation, what arrangements he has made to meet the principals of the stockbroking firms concerned, together with Touche Ross.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has no plans to meet the principals of any of the stockbroking firms concerned. I expect Touche Ross, together with officials from my Department, to be able to resolve all outstanding issues.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet received any recommendations from the Energy Action Grants Agency with regard to the future operation of the home energy efficiency scheme in the Scottish area 14; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the Energy Action Grants Agency has received a report from consultants on the future operation of the home energy efficiency scheme in Scottish area 14 and will be making recommendations to my Department shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were registered homeless in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Renfrew district during the past 12 months for which records are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information relates to 1989–90. During that period, district councils in Strathclyde assessed as homeless 4,901 households who applied to them under the homelessness legislation. The corresponding figure for Renfrew was 359. Approximately 3,000 returns for 1989–90, mostly from Glasgow, are outstanding. It is not possible to say what percentage of the applicants to whom these related might have been assessed as homeless. The 1989–90 returns did not collect the number of persons in applicant households.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce in Scotland a special needs management allowance similar to that available in England and Wales.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes is currently reviewing funding arrangements for housing associations in Scotland and I shall consider its proposals with care in due course. Any changes in revenue funding arangements are unlikely to be announced before the spring of 1992. Hostel deficit grant will continue to be available for eligible schemes until 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid out in hostel deficit grant to housing associations in Scotland in the last five years for which figures are available; and how many units of accommodation were covered by hostel deficit grant in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table.

  Hostel deficit grant £

  Number of units

  1986–87

  18,870

  214

  1987–88

  28,125

  209

  1988–89

  101,708

  298

  1989–90

  184,279

  292

  1990–91

  611,241

  742

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason statistics relating to sexual offences in Scotland are not collected centrally in a way which separately identifies such offences against children; if he will make it his policy in future to collect statistics in this way; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  While statistics on crimes collected centrally have generally not been classified by the characteristics of the victim of the crime, the Scottish Criminal Statistics Committee is currently examining the feasibility of collecting information for certain offences, including sexual offences, on whether the victim was a child or an adult.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many fire appliances were in operation in Scotland as at 1 January 1980 and each succeeding year;

  (2) how many full-time fire fighters were employed in Scotland as at 1 January 1980 and each succeeding year, indicating both the authorised and actual establishment figures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information as at 31 December of each year, is as follows:

  Scottish fire authorities: Full-time firefighters and appliances

  Year

  Establishment

  Actual strength

  Fire appliances1

  1979

  4,033

  4,271

  561

  1980

  4,359

  4,300

  560

  1981

  4,365

  4,288

  577

  1982

  4,373

  4,279

  577

  1983

  4,372

  4,291

  575

  1984

  4,375

  4,270

  592

  1985

  4,372

  4,297

  496

  1986

  4,379

  4,296

  509

  1987

  4,418

  4,327

  504

  1988

  4,475

  4,408

  509

  1989

  4,483

  4,456

  502

  1990

  4,486

  4,439

  504

  1 1979–1984 figures include vehicles operated by volunteer fire crews; figures from 1985 onwards do not.

  Renewable Energy Programmes
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the administrative and consultative arrangements for the 1991 review of renewable energy programmes have progressed in relation to Scottish interests.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 3 June 1991, at columns 8–9.

  Glenlochay Estate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the size and number of older estates in a similar position to Glenlochay, in relation to sites of special scientific interest and compensation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have asked the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland to advise me on this issue. I will then write to the hon. Member.

  NHS (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made within the Scottish health service with competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards have made commendable progress. By the end of March, 226 contracts had been awarded and these are expected to release savings of more than £80 million over the periods of the contracts. These awards include nearly all the domestic, catering and portering services being provided in health boards throughout Scotland. The savings realised are available to boards for re-investment in direct patient care.

  Boards have also extended competitive tendering into other service areas. Laundry/linen, grounds and gardens, estate maintenance and transport are just some of the services where contracts are being awarded. Some boards have, following competitive tendering, awarded contracts for the care of the elderly and for renal dialysis services. In all cases quality of delivery of service is of paramount importance in preparing tender specifications.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) central and (b) local Government expenditure, (i) capital and (ii) revenue, devoted to creating facilities for residential care of the profoundly mentally handicapped in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not held centrally.

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such payments have been made.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many acres of green belt zoned land in Scotland have been dezoned and used for building in each year since 1985;

  (2) how many houses have been built in Scotland each year since 1985 on land which was changed from green belt zone status to allow building.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Information in respect of the Scottish Office, but excluding the associated Departments and the Scottish prison service, is available for the following years:

  655

  cash terms £

  1990–91 money terms £

  1987–88

  150,000

  184,730

  1988–89

  62,000

  71,060

  1989–90

  100,000

  107,750

  1990–91

  148,000

  148,000

  Disability
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to the Scottish tourist board concerning special provisions for disabled people.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: The Scottish tourist board has long recognised the special needs of the disabled and has actively encouraged the provision of adequate facilities in Scotland. The board was one of the national tourist authorities which collaborated with the holiday care service to produce in 1989 the report "Tourism for All" and is, at the Government's request, implementing a Scottish implementation strategy, which is now in its second year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist hoard to discuss tourism in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I meet the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board regularly to discuss tourism matters and will continue to do so as required.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest unemployment figures for Northern Ireland; how many of those workers have been unemployed for a year or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  At 9 May, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 97,951 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland. This represents a fall of 1,059 over the previous month. Approximately 49,900 (50·9 per cent.) claimants have been unemployed for over one year.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of inward investment projects in Northern Ireland over the last two years.

  Mr. Needham
  During the last two years the Industrial Development Board has secured 27 inward investment projects for Northern Ireland, with the prospect of over 3,000 new jobs.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to implement the White Paper "Higher Education: A New Framework in Northern Ireland," and if he will make a statement.
  656
  Dr. Mawhinney
  As one of the joint signatories of the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully supports the plans for the future of higher education set out therein and believes them to represent the best way forward for the entire United Kingdom. In determining the arrangements needed to reflect the new structures in Northern Ireland, he will wish to ensure that the Province's institutions retain the close cross-channel links and high quality standards that have enabled them to play their full part as members of the United Kingdom higher education community. At the same time, he will be seeking a strong and continuing local input to the decision-making process and will be considering what type of links with the new higher education funding councils will best secure these objectives.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking against the financiers of terrorism.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have sought to include in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill measures which should help to ensure that the financiers of terrorism will not profit from their illegal activities. I am pleased to say that the measures have received wide support in this House and in another place.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died as a result of terrorist incidents since Thursday 2 May; and how many of these deaths were caused by(a) republican terrorists, (b) loyalist terrorists and (c) the security forces.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier today to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

  The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for seven of the murders. To date no organisation has claimed responsibility for the murder of one policeman and one soldier. Three men, apparently members of the Provisional IRA, were killed in an incident at Coagh involving members of the security forces.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his reasons for deciding not to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity generation and distribution as a single entity.

  Mr. Needham
  I am anxious to inject as much competition as possible into the Northern Ireland electricity industry, as I believe competition will lead to benefits for consumers. It would be difficult to have fair competition for future generation if NIE also owned generating stations.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).

  Rathlin (Roads)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the roads of Rathlin is hard surfaced.

  Mr. Needham
  Approximately 48 per cent. are hard surfaced with bitumen-bound stone.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  At 9 May 1991, the latest date for which information is available, there were 97,951 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, representing 13·5 per cent. of the work force.

  Sport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was spent on sport per capita in the Province in the past year and in 1978–79 at current prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Comprehensive records about how much money is spent on sport in Northern Ireland are not held centrally.

  Grants paid on sport in Northern Ireland by Government per capita, for 1990–91 and 1978–79 at current prices are respectively £1·30 and £1·32 on recurrent items and £0·65 and £8·85 on capital projects. The reduction in capital expenditure reflects the fact that the provision of major leisure facilities across the Province has progressively been completed during the 1980s.

  Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what observations he has received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons concerning the use of strychnine as a poison for the control of foxes; and if he will take steps to prohibit such use.

  Mr. Hanley
  No observations have been received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  The Department of Agriculture is, however, currently reviewing the use of strychnine for fox control, with a view to a possible ban.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those sites licensed for the disposal of hazardous, toxic and special wastes, respectively; what has been the cost of disposal of such wastes in Northern Ireland since 1979; and whether there are any plans to change the arrangements for handling such wastes in the future.

  Mr. Needham
  Licenses for the disposing of controlled wastes are issued by the district councils. The wastes include industrial wastes, certain of which may comprise substances in concentrations considered to be hazardous or toxic (defined as "special wastes"). Licenses which provide for depositing these types of waste have been issued for sites at Culmore, Londonderry and Dargan road, Belfast by the Derry and Belfast city councils respectively.
  658
  Details of the cost of disposing of hazardous, toxic and special wastes since 1979 are available only from the producers of such wastes.

  In 1990 the Government published "A Review of Waste Disposal in Northern Ireland" commissioned from the waste management consultants, Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. The review suggests various options for waste management. Comments on the review have been received from the 26 district councils and other interested bodies, and the Government are now formulating a waste strategy for Northern Ireland which will be the subject of further public consultation this year.

  Peace Initiative
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of his current peace initiative.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and to the statement that I made on 26 March 1991 at column 765–66 which set out the purpose and objective of the current talks process.

  Advance Factories
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what locations it is proposed to commence construction of advance factories in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Needham
  The Industrial Development Board has no plans to build any further advance factories in the next 12 months. The factory stock is considered adequate to meet demand in this period.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answer on 4 June,Official Report, column 196, how many of the 27 Roman Catholic members of the staff of the Fair Employment Commission were civil servants prior to their employment by the Commission.

  Mr. Needham
  I understand that of the 27 Catholic members of the staff of the Fair Employment Commission none was a civil servant immediately prior to employment by the commission, but five had been in civil service employment earlier in their careers.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the Taoiseach to discuss the Anglo Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no present plans for such a meeting. The current political talks will provide opportunities for discussion of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated population within each of the district council areas within the area of the Eastern health and social services board; and what was the population in each of these district council areas 10 years ago.
  659
  Mr. Hanley
  The information, contained in the mid-year estimates of population, is:

  District Council Area

  11990

  1981

  Ards

  65,400

  57,800

  Belfast

  295,100

  315,300

  Castlereag,

  58,100

  60,700

  Down

  57,700

  53,600

  Lisburn

  98,700

  84,900

  North Down

  72,600

  66,700

  1 Figures for 1991 will not be available until mid-1992.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has recently received about the law on Sunday trading.

  Mr. Hanley
  None, Sir.

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the report on the Irish sea from the environment education and culture committee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary body.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are at present considering the report and will be making its response in due course.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 454, on flying over Caerwent, if he will outline the radius in nautical miles, and height restriction, within which military aircraft are required to take account of the potential hazard.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our practice to publish detailed information on flying restrictions in individual areas.

  Helicopters
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recent Royal Marine operations in northern Iraq in respect of the operational sufficiency of the number of Sea King helicopters available to the armed forces to fulfil simultaneously commitments in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade are to be congratulated on their achievements in providing relief and assistance to the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. They have been admirably supported by Royal Navy Sea King helicopters which continue to play an important part in this successful operation. Previously, Royal Navy Sea King helicopters were also able to make a substantial contribution during hostilities in the Gulf and they were, in addition, used in support of the recent relief operation in Bangladesh. This exceptional effort was due in no small part to the dedication and professionalism of our armed forces.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any scientists from the Blacknest verification centre attended the eighth thematic conference on geologic remote sensing in Denver, Colorado, on 29 April to 2 May in connection with their work on verification of a nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None attended.

  Contracting Companies
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Department of Defense in the United States of America in relation to its policy on questioning contracting companies about senior executives' emoluments.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's latest discussions with Colin Wallace about compensation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the payment of £30,000 in September 1990, the Department has had no discussions with Mr. Wallace about compensation.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future strength of the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to attach the greatest importance to all our reserves and volunteer reserves. The Territorial Army will continue to have a key role to play. We shall be examining our requirements in this area, including the roles, size and organisation of TA units, in the light of the numbers we can expect to recruit and retain. Final decisions have yet to be taken.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of Her Majesty's forces who have been contracted out to Royal Ordnance plc in respect of Kuwaiti minefield clearance operations have volunteered for the job; what will be the terms of compensation available in the event of injury or death; and if he will list the occasions on which members of Her Majesty's forces have been contracted out to a commercial company in circumstances where their safety and lives may be at risk.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The men of 21 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron are under military tasking and as such they were not required to volunteer. The squadron's task includes explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) which has been restricted by the MOD to exclude mine clearance, except where it is necessary for the squadron to gain access to specific and agreed EOD task locations. In the event of injury or death, the service men concerned will receive benefits payable by the Department of Social Security and by the Ministry of Defence under the terms of the war pensions scheme and the armed forces pension scheme respectively. The nature of this
  661
  deployment reflects the unique circumstances that existed in Kuwait following its liberation and the successful immediate post-hostilities work carried out by the Royal Engineers. I am not aware of any precise comparisons but, for example, RAF personnel seconded to British Aerospace served in Saudi Arabia throughout the Gulf war.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what percentage of the staff of the Palace of Westminster is registered as disabled; what is the target level; what measures are being taken to improve employment opportunities for disabled people within the Palace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 10 June 1991]: Of the staff employed by the House of Commons Commission, 0·6 per cent. are registered disabled.

  The Commission's policy on the employment of disabled persons remains as set out in the Commission's annual report 1981–82. The Commission has appointed a disabled persons officer who is responsible for promulgating the Commission's policy on the employment of disabled people and for advising management and staff on matters concerning disablement. He keeps up to date with civil service policy on disablement and from time to time arranges seminars for departmental management with organisations concerned with disabled people.

  Although not statutorily bound by the provisions of the Disabled Persons Acts 1944 and 1958, the Commission has nevertheless undertaken to accept the same responsibilities as other employers. This includes compliance with the requirement to employ a 3 per cent. quota of staff who are registered disabled.

  Management has endeavoured to achieve the quota by encouraging applications from disabled people through recruitment literature and contacts with organisations dedicated to finding employment for the disabled. The implementation of this policy has recently been reviewed with the object of making it more effective. Consequently management have agreed, on the advice of the disabled persons officer, to adopt certain further measures. These will have the effect of ensuring that all applicants for vacancies in the House of Commons service who are registered disabled will be shortlisted for interview provided it is clear that their disabilities do not prevent them from satisfactorily carrying out the duties of the post
  662
  and they have the qualifications asked for, if any. Disabled applicants who have not the required academic qualifications may take a short answer test. Where there are two candidates of equal merit, one of whom is disabled, the policy will continue to be to select the latter. Further measures are being considered.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No video recordings have been purchased by the Department in the years mentioned.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The expenditure incurred by the Privy Council Office in respect of hospitality was as follows:

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 to date £

  3,726·50

  4,450·22

  273·05

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) of 6 June,Official Report, column 319, what percentage of publications printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of the House of Commons is not of archival significance; and what are the reasons for not producing such material on recycled paper.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not possible to give an objective estimate of the percentage of publications considered to be of archival significance. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee is giving further consideration to the use of recycled paper for the Vote bundle, which could include a trial run by HMSO during the summer recess, and I would be prepared to ask it to carry out similar exercises for material which is clearly not of archival significance.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not available in the form requested. The cost of official hospitality met by my office during 1989–90 was £27,427; it is estimated to be £20,904 and in 1991–92 to date, it is £6,485.

  Statistics
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to improve the quality, substance and accuracy of economic and commercial statistics available to Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  A comprehensive statement on the current state of official economic statistics was submitted by the Central Statistical Office to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on Wednesday 24 October 1990 —HC 671, Session 1989–90.

  The memorandum gave details of an important package of measures to improve the reliability of economic data which the Central Statistical Office is now implementing. I announced this package to the House as Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 May 1990, Official Report, column 172. It is directed towards improving the quality of both the gross domestic product and the balance of payments estimates. In this context it has three major objectives:

  (i) Reducing revisions to early estimates of both gross domestic product and the overseas current account by extending the range of quarterly sources;

  (ii) Improving the accuracy and coherence of the measurement of gross domestic product through strengthening the weaker elements in the estimates;

  (iii) Improving the accuracy and coherence of the financial accounts including the overseas or balance of payments accounts.

  For details of the measures being undertaken, in order to achieve these aims, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) by the Economic Secretary on 13 May, Official Report, columns 19–21. Further and more detailed information appeared in an article, titled "Improving Economic Statistics—The Chancellor's Initiative", in the February 1991 edition of "Economic Trends" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The Government attach great importance to the need for reliable economic statistics and will consider further measures to maintain and improve the quality of economic data as the need arises.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  The Prime Minister
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Departments have taken in response to the report of the efficiency scrutiny on ministerial correspondence; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The report of the efficiency scrutiny on ministerial correspondence was made available to Members of Parliament and others last December. The report, which provides recommendations of good practice, was accepted by the Government.

  Departments have reacted very positively to the scrutiny report. Each Department has produced an action plan to implement those recommendations which they have accepted, and which are not already departmental practice. Each Department has nominated a Minister for correspondence issues.

  Every Department accepted a majority of the scrutiny team's recommendations; overall 90 per cent. were accepted and none was generally rejected.

  The report recognised that Members of Parliament always have the right to approach Ministers directly, but that a more efficient service could be achieved by decentralisation of correspondence on operational matters to agency chief executives and other discreet units or local offices. Departments have generally accepted these recommendations, and the most recent edition of the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities" has been extended to provide information on agency chief executives and other key addresses.

  The report identified the use of targets and monitoring of performance as important factors in improving the management of correspondence and all Departments agree with this. All Departments accept the recommendation that their own targets on correspondence should be published, and there has been widespread acceptance of the recommendation to send a prompt and informative interim reply where a departmental target will not be achieved. Departments also gave a strong support to the recommendations for monitoring annual publication of performance.

  Departments are pursuing other recommendations, designed to improve the handling of correspondence, taking into account their differing functions and organisation.

  In line with the normal procedures for an efficiency scrutiny, each Department will produce by July next year an implementation report to record the achievements in carrying through their action plan.

  Minister for Ex-Service Men
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with responsibility for ex-service men.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 June 1991]: No. It would simply add another tier of administration to the present system as one Department could clearly not have

  665
  policy responsibility for all the matters of concern to ex-service men or their widows. Creating a new Department could lead only to unnecessary delay on inquiries since these would need to be referred to other Government Departments for consideration.

  The Ministry of Defence is responsible for service pension matters, the Department of Health, through the NHS, for treatment of the disabilities of ex-service personnel and the Department of Social Security for war pension matters. The Department of Social Security administers the war pensioners' welfare service through a countryside network of offices. The service offers war disablement pensioners and war widows help and advice on personal problems and liaise on their behalf as necessary with statutory and voluntary bodies. War pensions committees also play an important part locally in matters relating to the welfare of war pensioners.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current rates of child benefit if uprated in line with inflation since 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  The rate would be £9·55 per week for each child.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to the chief adjudication officer's complaint, in his annual report for 1989–90, regarding the failure of presenting officers to attend social security appeal tribunal hearings.

  Mr. Scott
  The chief adjudication officer made no formal recommendation in his report about non-attendance by presenting officers at tribunal hearings and I have not made a response to him on this point.

  The Benefits Agency makes every effort to ensure that a presenting officer attends every tribunal hearing. Non-attendance is not a widespread problem and existing liaison arrangements with the office of the president of social security appeal tribunals provide the opportunity to resolve any difficulties which may arise.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will arrange for information to be collected on the number of social security appeal tribunal hearings at which, and the reasons why, there is no presenting officer.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to collect such information.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the location of new jobs or relocation of existing jobs in his Department in Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no current plans to locate new jobs or relocate existing jobs in Wales.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will consider raising cold weather payments made to senior citizens; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce automatic cold weather payments for all senior citizens, irrespective of income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  On 11 February I announced in the House that I would undertake a review of the operation of the cold weather payments scheme. I shall be making an announcement shortly.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will name the statutory instrument from which he derived his definition of full-time education as 12 hours or more of supervised study each week in the "Invalid Care Allowance Claim Pack," DS700 (1991).

  Mr. Scott
  Regulation 5 of the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Regulations 1976, as amended, describes the circumstances in which people are to be regarded as receiving full-time education.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide suitable benefit office facilities in the constituency of Darwen and Rossendale following the proposed closure of the Rossendale social security office.

  Mr. Scott
  We are presently conducting a service planning exercise to establish the needs of our customers throughout Rossendale. There are no plans either to close Rossendale social security office or to reduce the customer services currently being provided in the area.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pigs
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that blue-ear disease in pigs is kept out of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 April 1991, c. 554]: The history of blue-eared pig disease. Blue-eared pig disease has been diagnosed in Germany, the Nertherlands, Belgium and Spain and it appears that a similar condition has occurred in North America in recent years. Experience on the mainland of Europe is that the disease lasts for four to eight weeks in affected herds. The symptoms are by no means consistent—only a few affected animals show blue ears, for example. The first signs may be high temperatures and pigs off their food. A mild influenza-like illness may be seen in all ages of pigs on the premises. Sometimes blue discolouration of extremities such as ears, teats, vulva and backs of legs occurs. A consistent feature of the disease is an increase in the level of abortions that would normally be expected and in still births in pregnant sows. Those piglets which survive show laboured breathing, diarrhoea and other symptoms and up

  667
  to 40 per cent. or more may die within the first two weeks of life. Deaths among adult pigs are very low and infected sows normally recover.

  Spread of disease has been associated mainly with the movement of breeding pigs but airborne spread may also occur. The Dutch central veterinary institute announced recently that it had isolated a virus that causes the disease.

  In the Community, the disease first occurred in Germany in November 1990, although it was not reported until 16 February. Since 1 March the Community rules on trade in pigs (which require that all pigs traded between member states should be subject to veterinary inspection and health certification) have been supplemented by additional measures and trade safeguards in response to the disease. These include a prohibition on the export to other member states of any pigs from infected holdings and of pigs for breeding or fattening from municipalities where disease is present or has recently occurred. In practice the United Kingdom does not import pigs from any of the infected countries.

  Britain's precautionary action. Last year, the British Government took powers to restrict the movement of animals if a new disease was suspected, under the Movement of Animals (Restriction) Order 1990 as amended. These powers enabled us to be quicker in our reactions to any disease threat than previously, and indeed quicker than other members of the European Community.

  Suspicious symptoms were first reported to the veterinary investigation service on 16 May. On investigation the symptoms appeared significantly different from those found elsewhere in Europe, but nevertheless precautionary restrictions were imposed on the premises concerned on 20 May. To date, 12 premises have been placed under restriction for the same reason, all in the Humberside area apart from one in county Durham.

  The restrictions that have been imposed since suspicious symptoms first appeared are more stringent than those required by Community rules for the control of blue-eared pig disease and more stringent than those imposed in the Community countries where the disease is established. All movements of pigs off premises where disease is suspected are subject to licence by a veterinary inspector. No such movements have so far been licensed except for movements direct to a slaughterhouse. If severe overcrowding were to occur on a suspect farm, growing pigs might have to be moved off. Such movements would be only to a non-breeding farm already situated in an infected area and not situated adjacent to a breeding unit, and the receiving farm would be placed under restriction as soon as the movement took place.

  In addition, farms in the areas surrounding those where disease is suspected have been put under restriction too. In these areas licences have been issued allowing movement of pigs direct to a slaughterhouse. The movement of growing pigs to fattening units in Humberside has also been licensed subject to there being no breeding stock on the receiving premises, nor any breeding unit adjoining the receiving premises.

  Blue-eared pig disease confirmed. Yesterday evening (12 June), a Dutch veterinary laboratory using the only known diagnostic test sent us results which showed that blue-eared pig disease had indeed spread to the United Kingdom. The very early action that we have taken under our existing range of measures has meant that we already have in place restrictions which are significantly tougher than those employed on the continent. Now that we have
  668
  a positive identification of the disease, these measures will be made specific under the Blue-Eared Pig Disease Order 1991, which I have already signed, and which came into force at 12.01 pm today. The new order will confirm measures we have already taken which enable movement restrictions to be imposed or maintained on infected premises and areas. In addition, the order
  enables movement restrictions to be imposed on premises which have received animals from premises where infection exists;
  lays down requirements about the destruction of infected material;
  lays down requirements about the cleansing and disinfection of premises.

  Finally, the disease will now be notifiable, which clearly it could not have been until it was properly diagnosed by yesterday's results. As no test for the disease is generally available, and as a wide range of symptoms can occur, the Ministry will be publishing guidance to farmers and veterinary surgeons on the signs giving rise to suspicions.

  Limiting the spread. All the steps we have taken were designed to limit the disease to the maximum extent possible. We have been in close touch with our Community partners who also have the disease, and they have cooperated fully with us. Even so, none of us have sufficient information to know fully how the disease is spread. We cannot guarantee therefore that any particular measure will be successful in preventing its communication. Nonetheless, it must be sensible to take those steps which are most likely to make a difference, and it would be irresponsible not to try to protect those areas of the country where it has not occurred, if at all possible. It seems clear that one factor which does lead to the spread of disease is the movement of breeding pigs. Following discussion with the pig industry I therefore intend to use the powers under the new order to define a large restricted zone. This will not be easy for the industry in the parts of the country which will be covered, but in discussions today their representatives have made it clear that they support the Government's determination to prevent the spread of disease. This zone will embrace all the infected farms in Humberside, and a wide area around them bounded by a line running roughly from Cleethorpes through Lincoln, Doncaster, York and Scarborough. The movement of pigs out of this zone will be permitted only when going direct for slaughter. Pigs from farms where infection is not suspected or confirmed may, however, move freely within the zone.

  As I have already indicated, it is by no means certain that this measure will succeed in curtailing the disease. Our policy will therefore need to be kept under close review, in discussion with the industry.

  Blue-eared pig disease has important economic effects upon individual producers, but it is exclusively an animal health problem and there are no implications for human health.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether pigs from areas of the United Kingdom which are not under movement restrictions are able to be exported to other EC and non-EC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Provided that pigs meet the conditions of Directive 64/432 and the conditions set out in the appropriate Community decision 91/237 they can be exported to other member states. Commission decision 91/237 lays down conditions for breeding and production
  669
  pigs from farms and municipalities under restriction. Exports to non-EC countries would need to meet the conditions laid down by those countries.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the causes of blue-ear disease; and whether he has eliminated the possibilities of(a) a virus, (b) a bacteria and (c) chemical contamination;

  (2) whether he will make blue-ear disease notifiable;

  (3) what evidence he has on the means of transmission of blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what inspections are carried out by his Ministry on the health of pigs which are imported and exported to and from the United Kingdom to ensure that they are free of blue-ear disease and other diseases; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what information he has concerning the infectious nature of blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) on what date he first knew about the problems of blue-ear disease in pigs in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) in other EC countries; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what controls and regulations exist on the import and export of pigs between EC member states where blue-ear disease has been found; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) how many man hours have been devoted by his Ministry to the investigation of the cause of blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) if he will list (a) the numbers of farmers and (b) the numbers of pigs under movement restrictions as a result of blue-ear disease to date on a county by county basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) earlier today.

  Farm Budget
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the overall farm budget agreed for 1991–92 as a result of the new farm price package; and what was the actual common agricultural policy expenditure in this area last year.

  Mr. Curry
  Taking account of this year's price settlement, the European Commission is forecasting that Community expenditure on agricultural support in 1991 will exceed the budget of £22·0 billion but will fall within the agricultural guideline of £22·7 billion. A supplementary budget will be put forward in due course. For 1992 the budget has yet to be agreed but expenditure cannot exceed the agricultural guideline of £24·4 billion. The forecast outturn for Community agricultural guarantee expenditure in 1990 is £17·9 billion.

  Simazine
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he envisages any restrictions being placed on the use of the herbicide Simazine; and whether its continued use has been considered by the appropriate European Community authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Simazine is not being considered by the European Community authorities but is under review in 670
  the United Kingdom. Any recommendations concerning the approval status on conditions of use of simazine made by the advisory committee on pesticides as a result of the review will be considered by the six Ministers responsible for pesticides.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to implement the recommendation of the Dunnet review and re-examine the Ministry's policy on badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are already implementing the recommendations of the present interim badger control strategy which is firmly based on the recommendations of a committee chaired by Professor Dunnet. One of these was that the strategy should be reviewed if certain criteria were met three and five years after the strategy was implemented. In the event, the criteria were not met at the three-year point, and five years have not yet elapsed. Nevertheless in line with Professor Dunnet's recommendations, a test to detect tuberculosis in live badgers is undergoing field trials. The way in which such a test might be used is being considered with the assistance of the consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Ministry's badger eradication programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no badger eradication programme, and no such policy is justified. Small numbers of badgers are removed when implicated in a tuberculosis breakdown in cattle, as recommended by Professor Dunnet's independent review.

  Animal Diseases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many man hours were devoted to(a) BSE, (b) salmonella and (c) blue-ear disease at the Lincoln veterinary investigation centre on (i) 31 December and (ii) 31 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the period 31 December 1990 to 31 May 1991, 398 man hours were devoted to BSE, 1,239 man-hours were devoted to salmonella and an estimated 100 man-hours were devoted to suspect blue-ear disease of pigs at the Lincoln veterinary investigation centre.

  Megrim
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated catch of megrim in British coastal waters in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is not available in the form requested. Total landings of megrim into the United Kingdom by British vessels in each of the last five years were as follows:

  1986

  2,284 tonnes landed weight

  1987

  3,660 tonnes landed weight

  1988

  4,141 tonnes landed weight

  1989

  3,810 tonnes landed weight

  1990

  3,720 tonnes landed weight

  Source: Annual Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables.

  Whaling Conference
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Governments which were present and entitled to vote at the recent international whaling conference at Reykjavik.

  Mr. Curry
  The countries are Australia, Brazil, Chile, the People's Republic of China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Seychelles, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. One country left the meeting early before certain votes had been taken or considered.

  Quarantine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the disease quarantine premises he has in the United Kingdom, giving the location in each case, and which animals they are approved for handling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Quarantine is required for three diseases. For foot and mouth there is one quarantine premise at Poole. For rabies there are a number of approved premises throughout the country. For Newcastle disease there are a number of privately owned approved premises. Lists of the premises currently approved for rabies and Newcastle disease are available from the Ministry and I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

North East Shipbuilders: Closure Terms
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission as a result of which North East. Shipbuilders' yard at Sunderland has been closed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission with a bearing on North East Shipbuilders contain much commercially confidential information which it is not appropriate—nor would it be the practice—to publish. The essence of these exchanges relating to the closure of North East Shipbuilders and associated matters have however been made publicly available in the minutes of evidence taken before the Trade and Industry Select Committee in October 1989.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as this yard was one of the most modern in Europe and employed a large labour force in an area of heavy unemployment and as a private firm was ready to operate it without any kind of subsidy, does the Minister agree that it is a mockery of accountability when neither Parliament nor the public can be told the terms of the agreement or who made it on behalf of the DTI?
Lord Reay: My Lords, a note submitted by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee on 24th July 1989 sets out the background and the details of Her Majesty's Government's notification of 12th December 1988 to the European Commission of proposals for the disposal of British Shipbuilders' remaining operational subsidiaries and for closure aid to North East. Shipbuilders. In addition, the note summarises developments and discussions with the Commission relating to North East Shipbuilders between the date of notification in December and the Government's decision in July 1989 that the future interests of Sunderland would not best be served by continuing to pursue shipbuilding bids at the expense of the enterprise zone and other measures to promote new jobs in the town. I have nothing usefully to add to the information contained in that submission.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, do the Government and the Minister know that in fact two offers to purchase the yard were made clearly without any subsidy of any kind from the Government? I should have thought that that would appeal to this Government perhaps more than to any other. For the
1198
Minister to say that the commercial information is confidential is a scandal. Is that the way to proceed in a situation of this kind where literally thousands of skilled and dedicated workmen are thrown on the scrapheap, as has happened? I must say to the House that it is a most unsatisfactory reply from the Minister.
Lord Reay: My Lords, by December 1988 unsuccessful attempts to find a satisfactory buyer for the Sunderland yard had dragged on for many months. Work in the yard was running out and a decision had to be taken so that the workforce could be given redundancy pay and the opportunity to find new jobs. That was the principal reason why the yard was closed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why is the Minister so shy about declaring the reason for Mr. Newton, the responsible Minister at the material time after the date to which the Minister has just referred, having gone to Brussels if it was not to seek to ensure that the Sunderland yard could be reopened? Why does the Minister not inform the House or at least the people of Sunderland, who surely are entitled to know why their jobs have disappeared, of what went on and what was the essence of the deal, without giving away any so-called confidential information?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in discussions with the European Commission in June 1989 on specific proposals from a new interest for continued shipbuilding in the yard, it became clear that the Commission would open a procedure under Article 93.2 of the Treaty of Rome. That would have resulted in reopening the package notified in December 1988, jeopardising both earlier disposals and the Sunderland remedial measures. Therefore the Government concluded that the best interests of Sunderland and other areas which would have been affected would not be served by submitting a renotification to the Commission.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister say why Mr. Newton, the Minister later responsible, apparently was not told of the agreement for a period of many months? Who was the Minister responsible for making the agreement?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Ministers knew perfectly well about the negotiations in Brussels. It is nonsense to suggest that the notification to Brussels and the response from Brussels were withheld from Ministers. However, it is a sad fact that in the three years prior to the closure announcement, NESL alone incurred losses of £100 million. Perhaps I may remind the House that the cost of British Shipbuilders to the taxpayer in the 10 years of its existence was around £2 billion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House who within the Government were responsible for pre-judging the result of any case brought by the Commission under Article 93? Surely somebody must have advised the Government. I do not know which European lawyers advised them or whether they advised themselves. Why should they

1199
automatically have assumed that any proceedings brought under Article 93 which are challengeable in the European Court would have had the results that the Government say that they might have had? Or is there some reason other than the possibility of Article 93 being brought into operation?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. As I explained, when it became clear that the Commission would open a procedure under the article to which the noble Lord refers and that that would result in reopening the package that had been notified, which would have jeopardised the earlier disposals and the remedial measures, the Government concluded that the interests of Sunderland and other areas would not be served by submitting a renotification.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking a second time. I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. He said that Mr. Tony Newton, the Minister, knew that negotiations were taking place. Will he say specifically what were the contents of the negotiations? That is the crucial point.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have explained the situation. When the specific proposals from a new interest came up in conversations with the European Commission, it became clear that the Commission would open a procedure under Article 93.2 of the treaty. For that reason the Government concluded that it would not be in the best interests of Sunderland or other areas to submit a renotification to the Commission.

Unemployment
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people were unemployed at the latest date for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in May 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,244,200.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the figure issued today that he has just given is the 14th consecutive monthly rise in unemployment and that unemployment is rising faster than in any other European country? I look forward to the 14th different excuse for that lamentable and devastating figure. Is the Minister aware that the number will continue to rise for at least six months, and some people say 12 months, for two reasons? First, the current severe contraction in demand is clearly deflationary in the short term. Secondly, the clear fall in investment will cause long-term damage to the supply side of the economy. Does he agree that a complete reversal of policy from the present Government's actions on unemployment is now due?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this month's increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment is the smallest since January. Therefore there is unmistakable evidence that the battle against inflation is being won. Retail price inflation has fallen for several months. A continued and sharp reduction is expected over the remainder of 1991. As a result, in recent months interest rates have already fallen by some 3.5 per cent. Job prospects will improve following a resumption of economic growth.
Lord Morris: My Lords, how effective has Her Majesty's Government's legislation been in reducing the number of working days lost to industrial disputes?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if one compared the early eighties with the late eighties, one would see that the decline in the number of working days lost has been dramatic. That demonstrates the effectiveness of trade union legislation. The number of working days lost in the 12 months to April was just under 1 million, the lowest 12-month total since the year to April 1942. The number of recorded stoppages in April 1991, at 32, is the lowest for any April since the current series began in 1930.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it is good to hear that the situation will get better. Will the Minister inform the House what new or different policies the Government propose to pursue to ensure that matters will not become bad again, as has always happened in the past?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are determined that the battle against inflation will be won. That is the most important issue that the Government are tackling; and they have been very successful.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government agree that we are in general far too complacent about this continuing high rate of unemployment? Does it not show that there is now a shift in the economy in favour of capital as against labour, of which we ought to take account? Are not the Government deeply concerned that thousands of young people who have been trained in work are unable to gain employment and start their youth on the dole?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I fear that the nation has been too complacent about wage increases. It is right that we have an unemployment rate for young people which, at 12.3 per cent., is much better than the EC average of 16.4 per cent.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, do those figures include teachers who are made redundant by London boroughs, such as Westminster, in order to cut down their community charge?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we count those who are actively seeking work.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is not only complacent but also evasive? Is he aware that the trend in wage levels is falling and not rising? Is he further aware that it is

1201
expected that the May and June figures will indicate that unemployment will fall, not rise, by 70,000? Do the Government realise that there should now be a sharp reduction in interest rates to single figures? That is the only way that we shall come out of this deflation, as the CBI has already told the Minister.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear the noble Lord's support for the Government's position on curing the problems of inflation. That is what the noble Lord has just stated. Yes, of course we are pleased that average earnings continue to moderate. The average earnings index for April, at 8.75 per cent., is 1.5 per cent. lower than the figure for July 1990. That current downward trend is the longest sustained decline since the early 1980s.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in this country we now have very little regulation in the employment field? Surely the unemployment figures demonstrate that that factor has little to do with regulation. Will he also agree that the fact that wage levels are now more stable also has little to do with unemployment figures? It simply bears out what my noble friends have been saying: that the situation relates to the Government's economic policies.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no. I do not accept that. I believe that the Government's industrial relations activities have produced a climate in which the number of industrial disputes is a credit to this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I believe that no one would wish to underestimate the misery and seriousness of unemployment, but does my noble friend agree with the leading article in The Times this morning? It deprecated the artificiality and want of objectivity of this perpetual trench warfare which turns everything into a party issue.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I agree with my noble and learned friend. I have said from this Dispatch Box, on the many occasions that I have been given the opportunity to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that all increases in unemployment are regrettable and that no one should underestimate the difficulties which unemployment can cause for the individuals concerned or for their families.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may recall that when we discussed government statistics on 13th March, we agreed that the correct way to calculate unemployment depended on what we wanted to know. I do not wish to know the number of people on benefit; I wish to know the much greater number of people who are not actually in work. Will the Minister inform the House of the number of people on income support who are under 65, not registered disabled and not registered unemployed? Will he also tell us whether the Government have been too complacent about the cost of unemployment to the Treasury?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that issue is a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. However, I am advised that the number that the noble Earl seeks
1202
is in the region of 1.3 million. The Government recognise that there are groups of people who, for one reason or another, are not capable of being available for work and of actively seeking it. It would be unfair to expect them to do so. As they are not required to satisfy those conditions, it is right that they should not appear on the unemployment count.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that to some of us who sit on these Back Benches the charges of complacency and evasiveness which have been made are not justified, especially when they are made by those who urge that we should prime the pump and yet not degenerate into complacency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will consider that the answers given from this Dispatch Box are in no way complacent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government's attitude to this issue is still that enunciated by the Prime Minister some months ago: that if it is not hurting it is not working? How much more hurt do they have to inflict?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The Government are stepping up their positive action to help those out of work to find jobs. One hundred thousand new places in job clubs and job interview guarantee schemes have been introduced. We are doing our best to help those who have lost their jobs.

Israel: UK Trade Policy
3.19 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to prevent United Kingdom companies from giving formal undertakings that they will not trade with Israel.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we deplore the boycott but have no proposals for legislation against it. Companies should be free to act in accordance with their commercial judgment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not a question of commercial judgment but of commercial intimidation? Is he aware that five member states of the European Community have either adopted, or are embarking upon, legislation to ensure that their companies do not comply with the boycott? Is he not further aware that the European Commission has put forward similar proposals? What will be the Government's reaction to that situation? What about level playing fields?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we do not believe that companies can or should be instructed or compelled by law to trade with different parts of the world. Companies must make their own decisions in the light of their own commercial judgment about the markets that they wish to serve. Our opposition to anti-boycott

1203
legislation is a long-established policy followed by administrations of both parties since 1978 when a Select Committee of your Lordships' House considered the matter at length and reported against the idea. I had understood that government policy continued to have the support of the party opposite.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that if made these undertakings are almost certainly unenforceable in law as racially and politically discriminatory and contrary to public policy as in restraint of trade?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are opposed to and deplore all trade boycotts which lack international support and activity. We do not recognise the boycott administration and have no formal communications with the boycott offices.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government are opposed to the blackmailing of our industries by anyone, perhaps I may say this. Surely they will bear in mind that they have been reminded that five European countries already take steps to protect their industries from being blackmailed. In view of the fact that Israel is our second largest market in the Middle East, will the Government again consider taking action to protect British industry from Arab blackmail?
Lord Reay: My Lords, with respect to what other countries do, it is our information that the United States is the only country with effectively enforced anti-boycott legislation. British exporters do well in their trade with Israel. In 1990 our visible exports amounted to £558 million. In 1989 (the latest year for which figures are available) the United Kingdom's share of Israel's imports from the OECD was 8.1 per cent. That compares favourably with our worldwide market share of 7.3 per cent., and is higher than the share of other EC countries which have some form of anti-boycott legislation.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some years ago the late Lord Byers chaired a committee of which I was a member, and it raised the same question with the Government of the day? On that occasion the answer was sympathetic. The Minister appears to be less sympathetic today. Why is that?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I have indicated, there has been no change in government policy. It is not our policy to interfere with the commercial decisions of British firms. We believe in firms taking responsibility for their own commercial decisions. Our policy of allowing companies to make their own decisions on boycott issues is well understood by exporters and has stood the test of time.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend really believe that there is a government more committed to the view of free commercial choice than the Government of the United States? If the Government
1204
of the United States can protect their firms against blackmail, why should that be out of reach of the Government of the United Kingdom?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United States must take its own decisions with regard to its own trade policy. I have outlined ours.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, the Commission is considering devising a recommendation with regard to this boycott. If such a recommendation were made, what would be the attitude of the United Kingdom Government towards it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is no agreement within the European Community to enact legislation on the boycott. I have indicated the attitude of the United Kingdom Government.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, are the Government aware that those companies trading with Arab countries are not asked the same questions as those trading with Israel? Therefore are they carrying out the terms of the boycott to which they were partners some time ago?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that even if the boycott did not exist, companies with important interests in Arab markets would be reluctant to trade with Israel while the Arab-Israeli dispute persists.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I may ask this question. While the Israelis persistently defy Security Council resolutions, might not the Council solve this and other problems by making the economic sanctions official?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the boycott is a facet of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and a solution must be sought in that context. Confidence-building measures would need to be reciprocal in order to be effective.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister saying that all the reports which have appeared in the newspapers about the European Community putting forward a proposition along the lines that I have stated are untrue? Is he also asserting that the Government would vote against any such proposition because of the views that he has expressed today?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a hypothetical question. There is no such proposal before the Community at the present time.

Homelessness
3.25 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the Salvation Army report Faces of Homelessness, whether they are planning any changes in their policy towards the homeless.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, our initiative to help people sleeping rough in central London took full account of the findings of the survey quoted in this report.
Loud Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that constructive Answer. Will she recom mend that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes the proposal on board and meets directly and personally with members of the Salvation Army in order to ascertain whether it can be dealt with on a broader basis?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing has taken on board all the messages of the survey. The data on which the survey was based are somewhat out of date; it was taken in 1988–89. Already there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people sleeping rough. In London, for example. in January this year, there were 1,000 people sleeping rough; today, there are only 500. That is a remarkable success rate for my honourable friend.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister and I are speaking about the same report. The report that I mentioned was published only today. To say that the Minister for Housing has already taken its proposals into account appears a little far fetched. Is the Minister aware that the report publis led today makes a constructive proposal that could be discussed with the Salvation Army?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is well known that the data contained within the report and upon which it is based date from 1988 and were updated in 1989. A main theme of the report is that we should not merely be picking people off the streets and housing them temporarily but that there should be follow-through accommodation. The Government have such an initiative which falls entirely within the recommendations of the report. So far that initiative has been shown to be remarkably successful.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of 16 to 18 year-olds who are sleeping rough have jobs? They need low-cost rented accommodation. Will she ask her honourable friend the Minister for Housing, whose forward-looking policies we much admire and respect, whether special concern can be shown for them?
Baroness Match: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. A large proportion of the young people living ,in squats and sleeping rough in London have jobs. For that reason my honourable friend the Minister for Housing is addressing the problem. To that end we have asked the University of York to carry out a precise survey in order to update our figures and to underwrite what we are doing in order that we can do even more for young single homeless people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report which shows the relationship between unemployment and homelessness and between homelessness and poverty? Together those three issues form one of the biggest drains on the National Health Service. Would it not be far better to try to tackle those terrible problems and so reduce the strain on the National Health Service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I hope that nothing that I have said has detracted from the misery of homelessness. However, it is over simplistic to relate the issue to unemployment. There are many contributory factors, not the least of which is the breakdown of family life. Many young people take the decision to leave home without properly thinking about where they will end up and how they will find somewhere to live. Some resources have been made available to help to provide advice to young people in order to ensure that they think carefully before leaving the family home only to end up on the streets of our cities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that legislators and civil servants tend to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone goes through the same experience as they themselves; namely, the move from living at home to living away from home while in employment via the comfortable intermediary stage of university digs and halls of residence? Is there not a case for having in this country what I believe exist in France; that is, foyers—halls of residence for young people who are not students but who are in their first job? They are convenient, supervised and reasonably cheap.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes some interesting points. I understand that my honourable friend in another place has gone a long way down that road by making supervised hostel accommodation available to young people. However, it must be said that if it is made easy for young people to leave home and live in our cities and they are persuaded to do so because there is provision for them, then it is absolutely essential that the resources available go to the most needy. I am confident that my honourable friend is doing that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the initiatives which have been taken since Sir George Young returned to the housing department. Those initiatives are to be acclaimed. However, the problem is so gigantic that the initiatives are minimal. The point made by my noble friend Lord Stallard is that the report can be acted upon or taken into consideration in formulating a policy which may eliminate, or go a long way towards eliminating, the situation which exists, certainly in London at present. We are asking the Minister to have discussions with the Salvation Army instead of doing what has been done in the past with reports such as Faith in the City which have been thrown in the dustbin.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is considerable scope for doing more—improved management of housing authorities; bringing empty properties back into existence; and the continuation of successful initiatives. My honourable friend is consulting all the relevant agencies, and we shall continue to do just that.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 will be taken.

HMS "Endurance"
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I should like to make a Statement on HMS "Endurance" following questions in the House from your Lordships yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked how it was that instructions were given that the crews were to be told on Monday that HMS "Endurance" was to be scrapped and that there would be no replacement. No such instructions were given. I would also stress that no ministerial authority has been given for any action with regard to the future of HMS "Endurance" or her crew.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for making that Statement which clarifies a point that remained in doubt at the end of last night's debate. Can we now take it that on Monday the crew will be told nothing and that there is no message for them at all? Also, can we take it that Ministers are now prepared to listen to arguments in favour of a replacement for HMS "Endurance"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the first question, I understand that when the crew returns on Monday it will be told that no decision has been taken. That will be made quite clear. Secondly, as regards HMS "Endurance" and her future, a decision will be taken at the appropriate time.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his frank Statement. As far as it goes, it is some encouragement. Perhaps I may ask him to pursue his inquiries further because I am satisfied that my authority is good and that whether or not instructions have been given, steps were being taken to inform the crew. I can tell the noble Earl that categorically, although I fully accept his helpful reply.
I should like to echo the question of my noble friend. Will it now be possible to use the arguments for the replacement of HMS "Endurance", which is particularly important at a time when we are negotiating in Madrid on the future of the Antarctic Treaty? At this moment the British Antarctic surveys are engaged in their summer plans, which are dependent upon HMS "Endurance". I take it that those plans can now go ahead.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that full consideration is being given to the future of HMS "Endurance". I give the noble Lord that assurance. As regards his claimed source of information, I have
1208
checked extremely carefully in all the relevant departments in the Ministry of Defence and there exists no ground whatever for saying that instructions were to be given.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does the noble Earl include Portsmouth in that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it includes all the areas from where such a leak may have come.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend suggested that a decision with regard to the future of HMS "Endurance" will be taken when the time is appropriate. Is he able to give your Lordships' House any indication of when that may be?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot. I repeat that it will be when it is considered appropriate.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, many of us are grateful to hear what the noble Earl has said. However, I hope that he will not mind me saying that, because of the past record of the Ministry of Defence, currency is given to these rumours. Will he tell us when the future of HMS "Endurance" will be decided? If it is decided to withdraw it, in view of its great international significance as a symbol to the Falkland Islanders, and, incidentally, to the Argentinians, will he undertake that HMS "Endurance" will be replaced by a ship of similar capacity, with a similar role?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord expects me to agree that such considerations should be taken into account. All the requirements for that part of the world will be taken into consideration. I cannot give any guarantee about a future replacement, nor would the noble Lord expect me to.
As regards leaks or suspicious information coming from the Ministry of Defence, I resent the implication because everything is as secret as possible.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I regret that the Minister resents the implication, but if he were as aware as I am of the history of the Ministry of Defence in trying to get rid of HMS "Endurance" he would understand the phrases which I use. If he inquires, he will discover that year after year the Ministry of Defence has made this proposal. Surely the noble Earl can give me a general assurance—and I do not ask for a particular assurance—that this ship, which has become such an important symbol, will be replaced by a ship with a similar capacity and with a similar appeal to the Falkland Islanders.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the future is always kept under continuous review.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is it possible that the confusion may have arisen because of the question of a refit for HMS "Endurance"? Is it possible that the rumour which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I heard yesterday may arise from the fact that HMS "Endurance" is due for a refit and the crew is being paid off for that purpose? Is it possible that that lies behind the rumours which, as the noble Lord, Lord

1209
Shackleton, said yesterday, he had heard? I too heard those rumours from a very senior source in the Royal Navy.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have no wish to add speculation to rumour. I know not where the rumours came from. They are deeply regrettable, wherever they came from. There is not one ounce of truth in them.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Earl has not addressed himself to my question. Is it possible, or is it a fact, that HMS "Endurance" is now going in for a refit and its crew is being paid off and that that gave rise to the rumours?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the crew is not being paid off.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the anxiety which is felt by all Benches of this House and following on from yesterday's important debate, perhaps my noble friend would convey to his right honourable friend the feelings of the House, possibly assisted by the Leader of the House. It is clear that there is anxiety. Those of us who lived through 1980 to 1982 and the discussions regarding "Endurance" before that, have every ground to feel anxious as to the policy to be pursued.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall certainly oblige my noble friend and do that.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that HMS "Endurance" is not to be paid off? I thought that that was what he said. If so, it is a striking statement.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I said that the crew were not being paid off. As regards the future of HMS "Endt ranee", no decision has yet been taken.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, as a result of our discussion yesterday it appears that the Navy, Army and Air Force, now based in the Falklands in quite a considerable strength, may be watered down or progressively tailored away. That could have a long-term repercussion on "Endurance" or on a successor performing the same function. Perhaps my noble friend will reassure the House on that matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that all such matters as outlined by my noble friend are being taken into consideration.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
3.41 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Football Offences Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Road Traffic Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 45 [Designation of priority routes]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 41, line 7, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert:
(" (I) A new council for Greater London ("the London Traffic Authority") shall be created for the purposes of transport planning and traffic management.
(2) The London Traffic Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we asserted in Committee, our case is that London desperately needs a new transport strategy. It needs that for the sake of its people, its business, its ability to compete in international trade and for a variety of other reasons. To apply that strategy, a new democratically accountable authority is required to replace the motley London-wide bodies involved in planning and transport issues at the present time.
I should perhaps repeat the number of bodies that exist in that respect: the London Planning Advisory Committee; the London Boroughs Transport Committee; the London Committee on Concessionary Travel; the London Committee on Accessible Transport; the London Road Safety Committee; the London Channel Tunnel Group, the Traffic Control Systems Unit; and the London Accident Analysis Unit. To that list the Government propose to add yet another body, a new committee for parking enforcement. That is nothing short of a bureaucratic mess. It is no way in which to conduct the affairs of a great city. London is the only capital city in the European Community and elsewhere which is denied its own elected strategic authority. It was denied that as an act of spleen on the part of the Government.
A strategic planning authority will not produce instant solutions. But a start needs to be made with transport issues on a proper London-wide basis taking account of all the issues that impact upon transport. Ministers have claimed in this House and in the other place that Londoners do not want more bureaucracy. But Londoners have had imposed upon them, as I indicated, an incoherent, uncontrollable, unaccountable, host of bureaucracies. I suggest that the Minister is wrong in asserting that there is no place for an authority along the lines that the Labour Party has just enunciated.
The Evening Standard of 21st May immediately responded to Labour's proposal in an editorial comment which appeared on the front page. It stated:
"the fact is that the Conservatives do not have a properly-thought-out programme for London".
That comes from a newspaper which is hardly friendly to the Labour Party. The article continues,
"The Government has shown an extraordinary disregard for the wishes and needs of Londoners, which could cost it dear at the next general election. In the past 12 years, for all the money pumped into the economy and for all the new development in Dockland, London's quality of life has declined. The roads have become more crowded, and public transport is an international disgrace. London has had no powerful voices to speak out for it, as Mitterrand and Chirac speak out for Paris, to remind us that we live in one of the great cities of the world".
In a nutshell, that is our case. Moreover, it was borne out by an opinion poll also carried out for the Evening Standard newspaper a short while after that comment was written. It was an NOP opinion poll which found that 21 per cent. of Londoners thought that things should remain as they are. However, the largest proportion, 44 per cent., favoured the idea of an elected body like the Greater London Council. Other ideas were canvassed but none was as popular as that.
Our case is not for a revamped Greater London Council. I will not go through all the details of our scheme because it has been put forward in a form which even the Government can understand. It has met with widespread approval. Therefore it is not surprising that Londoners, including many Conservative Members of Parliament, condemn the refusal of the Government to acknowledge let alone allay the anxieties concerning transport and other matters which need to be addressed.
Londoners live with transport services which bear no comparison to those in the capitals of our main competitors. They experience the difficulties daily. Moreover, they perceive the problem vividly when they go abroad. That is the most vivid comparison that they are able to draw. To add insult to injury, Londoners pay the highest fares in Europe for all the overcrowding on the trains and on the Tube that they have to endure. The fares are twice as much as for the people of Amsterdam and Frankfurt; four times as much as for the people of Rome and five times as much as for the people of Paris. The CBI recognises the appalling cost of congestion that hits London and the South East. It has estimated that it is something of the order of £10 billion a year. So the CBI clearly
1212
recognises and understands the threat to our competitive position vis-à-vis our main industrial and financial competitors.
The damage to our environment is increasing. People are finding it more and more difficult to obtain decent access to work, shopping and leisure. Notwithstanding the red routes, traffic speeds are comparable to the horse and cab era. The essential objectives of providing a modern, safe, efficient and reliable transport system are central to the prosperity and quality of life of and the quality of environment for the people of this city. They can be met only if we change the existing order of priorities adopted by the Government; if we carry out an extensive review of the roads' programme which the Government have themselves estimated will cost over £17 billion in the next 10 years; if we undertake major infrastructural changes by a marriage between public and private finance; and if we change the policies which have led to staff being removed from stations, booking offices and platforms, all of which endanger the safety of our people.
The future plans of the Conservative Party and the Government show no proper indication that they are prepared to consult Londoners let alone undertake to set up a proper democratic authority. They come forward with certain plans to privatise British Rail, the London Underground and the bus services. That is a sure prescription for causing even more traffic to congest London's roads.
I cannot enlarge too extensively now—in any event the evidence is before the House if it chooses to read it—on all the responsibilities that the authority that we have in mind would undertake. It could begin to enforce service standards for public transport operators; it could begin to undertake proper investment plans based on high environmental standards, taking account of social and economic costs and benefits for users and non-users alike, as well as environmental situations. It could begin to end the prejudice against the railways. I was present when the Secretary of State made his announcement at a Financial Times conference the other day. I actually chaired the meeting. I welcome what he had to say.
What he said was in direct conflict with what the previous Prime Minister believed in and had put forward. Unfortunately one has to ask: where is the beef? Where is the extra money? One week after the Secretary of State seemingly heralded a new golden age of rail, British Rail is told to mothball hundreds of millions of pounds of investment over the coming year. Corresponding new delays will occur for new trains, new track and for signalling improvements. All that will have a major impact on London and the South East. The Government can find no way—they do not want to find a way—of consulting the people of London about these matters. So a new Greater London authority would have as its top priority investment in new rail services and in rapid transit systems, including the improvement and extension of the Docklands Light Railway. There would be new bus priority measures extending bus lanes and giving

1213
buses priority through existing junctions. It would therefore have a proper policy for our buses instead of talking glibly about privatisation.
Otter actions at national level have to accompany these. One is dealing with a huge expansion in the number of cars, which has been projected by the Government themselves. What have the Government to say about that? They have produced a document called Strategic Planning and Guidance, which is an electrirying title. Its main message is that market forces should prevail. That ignores the links between land use, economic development, and transport and the environment. In other words it ignores the essential connections which make for a strategic and integrated transport policy. It fails in every material particular to address the need for a London-wide approach. It has deservedly earned the condemnation of many professionals, developers and even of Conservative politicians.
It is because they equate bureaucracy with democracy that the Government will not be remotely able to answer the problems of London. At the next election they will be shown by Londoners the door out of office. I know that the Government are not going to begin to accept the argument. I believe that the amendment enables us to discuss a very important issue. In an amendment one cannot express all the powers, responsibilities and duties of a London authority of this kind, but we thought it right at this late stage of the Bill to address these issues properly. I urge the House to accept the amendment which I have the pleasure to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, like some of his colleagues, seems to be haunted by the ghost of the Greater London Council and with almost sentimental enthusiasm he wishes to reproduce in part that, on the whole, discredited organisation. The noble Lord was quite right when he criticised many aspects of London transport at present and in particular perhaps London Undmround, which has been very effectively criticised recently by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He was also quite right to criticise the railways.
What he did not do was to give any evidence whatever that setting up this kind of miniature Greater London Council would help to remedy any of these matters. For example, for the railways the problem extends well beyond the Greater London area. Is this democratically elected organisation in Greater London, which the noble Lord proposes should De set up, also to have authority in the crucial areas ir Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex, where the railway problem is probably at its most acute? It certainly cannot be separated from the operation of the railways in the Greater London area.
Therefore, the noble Lord's argument breaks down on its first point. If I may cite the language of London Underground, it is a case of "mind the gap"; that is the gap between his proposal and the problems which he alleges it will solve. What would be the advantage in dealing with these problems? First, he said that it is to be a democratically elected body. He knows perfectly well that if it is democratically elected over Greater
1214
London, it will be very strongly politically split because there are London boroughs which, perhaps not quite to the extent of Liverpool, are still examples of the hard Left of the party opposite. There are other London boroughs which are excellently run by Conservative administrations. By putting these two together in what I imagine will be a fairly closely balanced council or organisation, how shall we help to resolve the problems? The noble Lord realises that if he sets up this council for Greater London it will not administer London transport. Like the GLC before it, it will acquire a large and expensive bureaucracy. That bureaucracy will be responsible, as between the Department of Transport and the local authorities, for some undefined parts of the London transport problem. It simply will not work. But what it will do, undoubtedly, is to add to the cost and delay the speed of operation of those responsible for London transport.
The noble Lord did not even mention from where this proposed body is to receive its funds. Is it simply to go cap-in-hand to the Government and ask them to produce a large subsidy, is it to have powers of local government taxation or is it to depend upon subsidies from the London local authorities? He did not say a word about that aspect. If this is to be an effective body it must be effectively financed. However, there is no indication either in the terms of the amendment or, if I may say so with the greatest respect, in the noble Lord's speech about the realisation of these proposals.
As I understand it, what is proposed at present in the Bill is that there should be a director of traffic for London under the Department of Transport. That seems to me to be the most sensible way of dealing with the many defects in the London transport system. I do not under-rate them; indeed as your Lordships know, I sometimes raise issues in connection with them. But surely it would be sensible to have a senior officer, or director of traffic, under the Secretary of State for Transport who, if he is successful in persuading his chief, will be able to draw on funds for necessary work in London and will have behind him the full authority of the Department of Transport and of central government. That is the practical and workmanlike way of ensuring that London transport is properly looked after. Moreover, that must be the alternative, and a much better alternative, to the creation to this proposed democratically elected council, with its attendant bureaucracy.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that our great capital city is unlike others in that it does not have a separate council or authority to act for it. However, there is a strong argument for saying that when you are dealing with a great capital city it is the responsibility of central government. It is the responsibility of central government to ensure that London is not handicapped by inadequate transport. Not only do the millions of people who come into the London area daily to work have a right to demand of their government—and many of them live outside Greater London—a reasonable means of transport; it is also essential to the efficient working of our great

1215
capital city and its ability after 1992 when we are in the new Europe to establish and maintain its position as a financial centre.
Finally, as I understand it, if London transport is run under this council, no one in either House of Parliament would be able to raise questions as to the working of transport in London. As it is, and under what is now proposed in the Bill, it would be perfectly possible for any of your Lordships to ask a question of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I see that he does not look enthusiastic about the suggestion. However, it would certainly be possible. Moreover, if I may say so, we know that we should receive a plausible and forceful, if not always wholly convincing, answer. Further, in another place his right honourable friend would be answerable for any defects in the system raised by honourable Members.
Surely that situation, in which central government accept responsibility and answers for the working of the transport system in the capital, is infinitely better than creating as between government and local authorities this shadow organisation which will undoubtedly prove to be expensive, ineffective and riven by political division. I hope that your Lordships will throw out the amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. When the noble Lord who has just spoken reflects on what he said, I believe that he may be sorry. The GLC was not a discredited authority; it tried to carry out its various functions. Having been the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London—a fact of which I am very proud —before this Government virtually abolished the Greater London Council, I found that it was very efficient. As I said, it was not a discredited authority.
The noble Lord referred to the hard Left authorities. Perhaps I may refer to some of the hard Right authorities. For example, the City of Westminster, as it is now called. It was never called a city before, so why it is a city now?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It was a city from 1964.
Baroness Phillips: Yes, my Lords; but it was never referred to in quite the that way as it is now. It is no more a city than the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The reasons are there. However, we shall be able to go into that debate some other time.
But how does Westminster exercise its authority? The first thing it does, like Wandsworth, is to boast to the Government about its low community charge. But it cuts every kind of service in the borough. Indeed, we learnt today that it is even shipping out its homeless people to some other authority which wishes to pick them up. If we are to be left at the mercy of such authorities, I hope that the noble Lord will remember that we are not merely talking about Lambeth; there is also my authority of Fulham and Hammersmith, of which I am very proud. I suppose it is possible that he
1216
will find something wrong with that council as it happens to be a socialist authority. However, it is highly efficient, just like the GLC.
It is mystery to me why any authority set up by this side of the House has to be more expensive than those set up by the other side. Perhaps I may give your Lordships another example of what I mean. Westminster Council is sacking various members of staff from schools; at the same time Saatchi & Saatchi has been commissioned to attract teachers into the area. That does not seem to me to be a sensible way of spending money.
We understand that the proposed director of transport will answer questions. But having sat through Question Time day after day in this House, I feel it may not matter how many directors or Ministers we have: we can put questions, but whether we receive answers is another matter. London transport must be under the control of Londoners. I am proud to be a Londoner. I believe that there are not too many Members of your Lordships' House who can claim to have been born in London. We need this authority. I am delighted that my noble friend has used the Bill to try to bring some common sense to this very difficult problem of handling traffic in London.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, some years ago I was involved in transport matters. I used to be savagely and unkindly attacked by those who said that I was responsible for London traffic and that I could not be making a worse mess of the job. I was never able to persuade them to believe that the Government had been so foolish as to devolve responsibility for London traffic to a committee of the Greater London Council. I should say, first, that I shed not too many tears on the demise of that body. However, I am stricken with horror by the present state of affairs of traffic in the capital.
The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to reincarnate in some shape or form a limb of the GLC in order to supervise a disastrous situation does not encourage me. Indeed, I could not support it. However, at the same time, I should like to make it clear that if I saw a constructive proposal which had any hope of remedying this dreadful situation, from whatever source, I should be glad to support it. But I fear that such a council would be immediately filled with politicians who would surely be amateurs. Although I do not wish to be offensive, such councils tend to become refuges for the bungling amateur which England holds so close to its heart.
Years ago Ernest Marples adopted the radical approach of asking an ex-cab driver for his views. I do not believe that the Government would be making a disastrous error—indeed, they would be doing a rather sensible thing—if they were to repeat that step. They could at least seek the opinion of people who every hour of every day are thinking of and suffering from the congestion which is making our city streets impassable. I hope very much that the Government will consider doing that. I also hope that they might consider making a sensible and what is likely to be a very unwelcome innovation. No innovation in this country is ever greeted with anything except cries of horror; but I believe that the time has come when

1217
deliveries in crowded streets have to be limited to hours when ordinary traffic is not seeking a way through. In other words, deliveries should take place between seven o'clock in the evening and seven o'clock in the morning. That may not be very palatable, but the alternative of going on as we are at present is totally unacceptable.
If we want to keep the highway as something other than a parking lot, I suggest that there should be some thought given as to the number of parking meters which are permissible or advisable. There is a deep belief in our country—one which I do not believe the Department of Transport finds entirely alien—that it is possible, with a bit of luck on a good day, to get a quart and perhaps just a bit more, into a pint pot. It is a belief which I do not share. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will make it clear that he does not, either.
The possibility of having the best of both worlds and of accepting sensible rules only to disobey them immediately, and the almost total rejection of any kind of effective discipline, is producing a very unpleasant mess. I suppose it is a natural phenomenon of our affairs that we should look immediately for someone else to blame; but it is all of us who tolerated a government in London for many years which has been based on confrontation rather than on progress who are to blame. I wish I could see in this amendment some hope of remedying the situation but I do not.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps another voice can be heard in the series of party political broadcasts which seem to be going on at the moment. I am aware that a general election is approaching, but 29 minutes on what is a fairly simple amendment seems to me a little excessive.
I want to make one or two brief points which arise out of what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said in his interesting Second Reading speech. I agree with him when he says that the amendment is not the cat's whiskers in the sense that it will solve anything. I also agree with him that leaving everything in the hands of the Department of Transport is not the way to solve the problems of London's traffic. However, I do not know of anything better than the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has put before us. Therefore I shall support it today with less than full enthusiasm.
I return to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made in talking about the Traffic Director. The noble Lord should bear in mind that if he looks at Clause 47 he will see that the tasks of the Traffic Director are very limited indeed. They do not fulfil the function that the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Clinton-Davis, were talking about. What is set out i n the clause is no substitute for a co-ordinating person Dr department to look after all these problems. The provision is merely directed towards the red routes. The Traffic Director's job, as I read the Bill, is to co-ordinate the activities of the local boroughs in relation to the red routes, and nothing else. This amendment argues that there is need for some person or body—preferably with some democratic control —to N: able to oversee the whole of the complex arrangements for transport in London. Then there
1218
would be some co-ordination, and buses and trains would in some way overlap in timetable and fare pricing, and so on, and the problems of road traffic in London could be brought under control.
I do not necessarily believe that this amendment is the best way to do that. However, we need to have from the Government a recognition that leaving it in the hands of the Department of Transport and a director of the red routes is not going to solve the problem.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on finding new material to support his rather thin arguments. The Evening Standard article: what a marvellous straw that was to catch hold of showing the deterioration of conditions in London and the need for all kinds of things to be done! We are only discussing one thing here and that is to try and improve traffic movement in London.
At this point I should interpose a correction to the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Clinton-Davis. They both had a bit of fun about my speech last time when they accused me of making out the case for recreating the Greater London Council. However, I had specifically made the case of why it failed in regard to transport. If the noble Lord will be good enough to read the speech again that I made at Committee stage, he will see what I said.
The GLC had quite a good traffic management unit, and gave advice to the London boroughs. The London Boroughs never took the advice. That was the trouble. The GLC had no overall authority. And—God bless my soul!—when the GLC plucked up its courage to build an inner-ring road around London, and even started building it, the political complexion of the council changed and the new Labour council stopped the whole thing. All the property was lost but for two or three bits of it. So we shall never have one now. That is not a very good recommendation.
The point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was that if the London traffic council which the noble Lord proposed was created, it would inevitably be composed of two or three different political parties. The difficulty of getting agreement would be just as acute as it ever was. I am not one who will write off everything the GLC did. I had a long and successful association with it in the planning field. As an overall strategic planner, it was very effective. However, in the traffic field its contribution unfortunately was totally ineffective.
Although the noble Lord expatiated on the Evening Standard article, he did not give us much detail on how the traffic council would work. There is the alternative of either a directly-elected body (which would be a very major undertaking by the whole of metropolitan London) or to invite the 33 local authorities to each send representatives. We all know what would happen then. They could never agree about anything. Therefore either way the noble Lord's concept is a pipe dream. I am sure he knows that because he has immense political and administrative experience. It is

1219
an idea to ask the Government why they do not do this. The answers are so conclusive that the idea simply would not work.
We are considering the red route scheme where the Government are proposing that the Secretary of State should have complete powers over the red routes with regard both to parking and traffic movement. He will set up the traffic director who will have the obligations to win co-operation so far as he can through all the local authorities through which the routes pass. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will be able to take decisions and get the work done. With traffic management, there must be an authority somewhere which can take decisions and settle priorities so as to get the traffic moving. That is what is being done.
We have had a press handout as a result of the pilot red route scheme. It states that journey times have been reduced from 30 minutes to 27½ minutes southbound and from 37 minutes to 28½ minutes on average northbound. Those are tremendous improvements. There are fewer stationary vehicles at the kerbside, especially those stopping illegally. That is also an improvement. Journey times have been improved by one and a half minutes southbound (that does not sound very much) and by almost seven minutes northbound. The most noticeable improvement in journey times is between peak periods. They are 30 per cent, better. That is just the beginning.
Those are significant improvements. The scheme will make the traffic move more quickly in and out of London during peak periods and will prevent the rat-running that many drivers do. They nip through residential areas to get out of the traffic, and disturb them. The red route scheme is a practical traffic management scheme. Once again, I warmly congratulate my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Minister on having the courage to introduce it. It would be impossible for the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to achieve similar improvements. There would never be agreement. The proposed scheme is the right one. I warmly support my noble friend and I hope that the House will.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I sometimes regret sitting in the Chamber listening to some of the debates, because this is not the right place for anyone to denigrate democracy. Before the war, when I was not involved with local government, I remember a claim made by someone in Europe, that he made the trains run on time. He did that, but later there was a system which believed in a corporate state run by bureaucrats. There is no need to denigrate democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wants only the kind of democracy that suits him politically. It is too bad that a council is sometimes elected that offends someone or does something wrong. That does not mean that we should denigrate the principle of democracy. Otherwise, why on earth are we sitting in the Chamber? This is the mother of democratic parliaments.
The noble Lord referred to Liverpool as a Left-wing council. Liverpool is not a Left-wing council. The trouble with Liverpool is that some moderate, democratic councillors are trying to solve
1220
the problems occasioned by private enterprise moving out of the place. They are battling against some militants who have been deprived of work by private enterprise, and are trying to restore some sanity to Liverpool. Liverpool City Council should not be denigrated. It should be praised and given some encouragement. In that way it may begin to resolve Liverpool's problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the traffic problem would be solved only by having a director of transport. That will not work. I shall give the noble Lord two examples of why it will not work. I attended a meeting in this building called by the transport authority of London. Present at that meeting was the newly appointed chairman who was called the planning manager of London Transport. I made a simple point. Anyone who crosses Vauxhall Bridge between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. knows something about transport problems and congestion. He accepted that. I asked him whether he thought that it would be wise to have an input from the transport authority into the siting of new developments when planning the transport system for London.
I do not know what the position will be on Vauxhall Bridge when the building now being constructed adds 6,000 more passengers in two hours to the existing problems on that site. Transport is not an isolated problem. It has something to do with the rest of society. Buildings are constructed which create jobs in a limited area, and it is then found that there is no room for the transport system. The essence of the problem is that one cannot plan London's transport unless the land use is planned. It is to be regretted that it was a Conservative government which strongly supported Buchanan who produced his report entitled Traffic in Towns in which he pointed out that simple fact.
No one will deny that the GLC made some mistakes. I would not, but as a result of some of the mistakes it made all the metropolitan county councils were abolished. Anyone who goes to Merseyside now will see the results of county-wide planning. It has an excellent transport system. Excellent public facilities have been provided. They would have guaranteed a good life for the economic powers that be if they had not decided to go down south. That all worked efficiently. The person who was the last Prime Minister —I understand that that is not the correct way to refer to her—suddenly took a dislike to the GLC. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has admitted that there were some good things about London Transport. One of them was that it tried—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will kindly give way. I did not pay a compliment to the GLC for its contribution towards managing London Transport. I acknowledged that it had a good team of traffic engineers, but I said that it was completely ineffective in persuading the London boroughs to accept its advice.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord has made my point for me. There were some good things about the GLC. Why abolish it? Careful reasoning could have weeded out what was wrong

1221
with it. We could have accepted amendments and changed it. However, there had to be a wholesale abolition because someone took a dogmatic look at the GLC and decided he did not like it. The Government scrapped not just the GLC but all the other metropolitan county councils that they had established.
I do not deny that there were faults, but I deny that the scooting-from-the-hip policy of a certain noble Lady was right. That policy did not just lead to the abolition of the GLC; it led to an open commitment by the Tory Party in Scotland that rates would be abolished. Then we had the poll tax.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, she is not noble.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I will give her the benefit of the doubt. Will the proposed scheme receive the necessary funds? I do not know whether it will. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to task because he did not say this and he did not say that. If he had tried to answer all the points that were raised, noble Lords would have complained about the length of his speech. Of course many things are not said, but it is undeniable that if we want to plan London and achieve a proper transport system for London we must take into account land use in London.
I shall finish on this note which is very pertinent. The Government decided to approve the building of Canary Wharf. I opposed that and divided the House on it. I said that no one had the right to construct such a development in the City of London which might overwhelm the whole of South-East England. Property owners in the older parts of London should be asked what is happening to their property values. People should visit Canary Wharf to see the bribes and favourable conditions that are being offered to persuade customers to take part of those buildings.
The Government have ruined any possibility of planning for London. It was all done in a few moments. The trouble with this Government is that they have allowed certain individuals to adopt a certain slant and to carry out simple childlike experiments. Then if they do not like something they abolish it. The Government have removed any hope of a planning authority for London. Until we get one back the situation in Liverpool—in London will become worse.
Do not blame the GLC. It was the Tory Party that said that the abolition of the GLC would lead to a better London, particularly in terms of transport. All I say is, go and have a look. Is it any better? There has been plenty of time.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the speech to which we have just listened deserves a mention in the Guinness Book of Records for irrelevance. Not one word of it was directed to the amendment under discussion. I shall therefore beg leave to return to the subject which we are discussing.
The first point that I want to make is that the faults of the amendment are threefold: first, it misunderstands the nature of the problem; secondly, it
1222
misunderstands the nature of democracy; thirdly, there is no connection between the evils of transport in London, which are admitted, and the remedy which is proposed.
The proposers of the amendment misunderstand the nature of democracy. The noble Lord who moved the amendment talked, quite rightly, of the problems of the commuter. However, the commuter will not have a vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and I would both have votes because we live in London. The commuter would not. People commute from as far west as Newport and from the surrounding counties well outside London. What makes the situation even more bizarre is that the interests of the commuter are totally different from the interests of the inhabitant. Indeed, as will be seen when we discuss the next amendment, the interest of the inhabitant is very largely to keep the commuter out, for many reasons. There is more than a hint of that in the next amendment.
Worse still, the amendment misunderstands the nature of the problem. In so far as it is a single problem it is a national problem, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, and not simply a local problem. It includes through traffic, different types of traffic, law enforcement and many issues which would be outwith the function of the proposed authority.
It is an extremely complex problem. That is where the difficulty arises. For example, a great deal of difficulty is caused by double parking in the streets. That is a question of law enforcement and probably a matter for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Many local inhabitants complain bitterly because people park outside their houses. A great many local boroughs quite rightly complain that their constituents do not like people who interfere with the amenities of those who want to live and sleep there.
It is an extremely complex problem which we face. The only certainty is that the remedy proposed, like the last speech, has nothing whatever to do with it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the debate has ranged far and wide. However, although Liverpool may be a long way from London, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that one cannot consider transport in isolation from planning. The two must go together. In that respect I find the amendment deficient because it does not take strategic planning into account. There may be a case for creating a small strategic London authority but it would have to have a different role from the one set out here. Therefore, I could not support the amendment as it stands.
The noble Lord who moved the amendment raised a matter which is dear to my heart when he opposed the setting up of a further layer of bureaucracy in terms of the proposed all-borough joint committee on parking. It is incredible that anyone should think of setting up that degree of bureaucracy, and I shall deal with the matter again when my amendments are dealt with. We already have the LPAC and there is the Secretary of State. That proposal would create an incredibly complicated system for determining penalty charges for parking. As the noble Lord said, it would create another layer of bureaucracy.

1223
A review of local government is currently taking place. At this stage perhaps, instead of all the existing authorities being retained, they could be slimmed down. However, to create another authority at this point would be ridiculous and seems to fly entirely in the face of government policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned how marvellous the GLC had been. She was Lord Lieutenant for Greater London, which is the top of the tree, and she saw the best of it. There were good patches but there were also some pretty bad patches. An enormous bureaucracy had developed which cost everyone in London a fortune. When the time came to dissolve the GLC it was discovered that the council owned hundreds of properties which it did not know that it owned. That was a remarkable situation. However, we are not debating the GLC issue now.
Mention has been made of a Traffic Director for London. That is what we need: someone who is detached from the political pressures of his own constituents. When I served on the Greater London Council my constituents did not want a northbound bus lane. There was already a southbound bus lane —I may have that the wrong way round, it is so long ago. My constituents said that no buses used the route and a bus lane would merely make it impossible for their cars to use the road if they were restricted to one lane. For years, while we were the party in power, we resisted the proposal. The day the political complexion of the GLC changed that bus lane was introduced, whether or not it was needed.
Such matters should be judged on an objective basis. An assessment should be made of where bus lanes would be effective and whether other traffic would be able to flow at the same time. It is no good having a bus lane if buses do not use it and there is not enough room for cars to pass. Someone like the traffic director would be able to consider such problems independently, without the pressures of constituents or party policy.
I did not understand my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that the Traffic Director would come under the Department of Transport. It is my understanding, having re-read the clause and Schedule 4, that he will be independent and independently appointed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry if that is not so. If it is not so, we should look at the matter again. I believe that, like the men who run Oftel, Ofgas and other such bodies, he should be independent. If he is to work in the Department of Transport that will not be as effective. He needs to be someone to whom everyone, including the boroughs, can make representations.
I did not understand the suggestion that the Traffic Director would have no control over general measures. It is set out quite clearly in Clause 47 that he will have a general duty. It has been said that his powers will be very limited and that he will not be able to do very much. Nevertheless, the general duty is set out in Clause 47(3).
1224
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned that deliveries should be made at night—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if, with the leave of the House, I draw her attention to the fact that Clause 47(3) refers to the Traffic Director,
"co-ordinating the introduction and maintenance of traffic management measures taken by highway authorities in relation to priority routes".
As I read it, that is the only area in which he can operate. He cannot deal with matters other than priority routes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. If what he says is the case, perhaps the Traffic Director should have a bigger role. That is yet another reason why we do not need the expensive and bureaucratic system that is suggested in this amendment. I believe That the traffic Director could have a much bigger role.
The matter of deliveries has been mentioned. The Greater London Council has been mentioned several times in this debate. That council carried out research which showed that more residents would be adversely affected by deliveries taking place at night than would be the case with day deliveries. Many people live above premises to which deliveries are made. That fact is often not appreciated. A conflict has emerged repeatedly during this debate which concerns how one keeps the traffic moving and copes with deliveries. Perhaps deliveries should be restricted to between 7 a.m. and midnight. This is a most complicated subject but I certainly do not think that this amendment provides the answer. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is opposed to the establishment of a parking bureaucracy. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must say that I would not want it to go on the record that I swanned into the position of Lord-Lieutenant during the heyday of the GLC. I remind the noble Baroness that the GLC was set up by the Conservative Party, as was the ILEA. I am a Londoner and I have lived in the jurisdictions of various London authorities throughout the whole of my life. Consequently I know what I am talking about. I do not wish it to appear that I arrived as if from outer space, looked at what was going on and said, "Oh, they are all doing very well". I wonder whether, if the noble Baroness represented a local authority, she would wish that authority to be known as a discredited authority. I resented the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on that matter. The GLC was not discredited. It was simply abolished as that happened to suit the government of the day.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to reply to that point. There is no way that the noble Baroness or anyone else could have known everything that was going on at the GLC because when the GLC was dissolved the members of that body did not know everything that had occurred in the building.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I must say with respect that I do not believe there is a single capital city in

1225
Europe that does not have an overall traffic authority. I do not think politics should enter into this matter in any way. People must get to work and return home again. They must be able to travel to London and travel about in London. The need for an overall traffic authority is self-evident. I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the reasons he has so clearly given.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this amendment. The debate has ranged further than the amendment itself. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton I believe it was a slip of the tongue when he said that until there was a planning authority for London the situation in Liverpool would get worse and worse. Having read the newspapers, it is hard to imagine how the situation in Liverpool could get any worse at the moment.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward again today for a strategic transport authority for London. However, unlike my noble friend Lord Cross, I have not heard anything new and I have not been impressed by any of the points made.
I am fully aware of the proposals from the party opposite for a greater London authority, not only to deal with traffic and transport issues, but other strategic matters as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, these proposals call for a new, integrated transport strategy. This will be integrated into a new London-wide strategic plan that will cover a whole range of other topics. Boroughs will be expected to draw up plans which will no doubt be integrated into this new regional structure plan. A lot of integration is involved in the plans, but what about some effective action to benefit the millions of people who live and work in this city? Perhaps I could repeat that for the Government's part we do not want more bureaucracy and grand strategic plans like the Greater London Development Plan. Eleven years elapsed from the start of preparatory work until ministerial approval was given. The plan was out of date before work could begin. That is not a good precedent.
In our view the Opposition's proposal would add a new layer of bureaucracy. That would blur rather than clarify the lines of responsibility and lead to waste of public money rather than investment, and to delay. As regards traffic in London, we see no need for a London traffic authority to be created for the purposes of transport planning and traffic management. The GLC did not achieve very much in traffic terms, but it certainly interfered with boroughs' activities. It is investment and resources, not more authorities, that are the key to action. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the investment sums are so large that they can only be decided at government level, involving the Treasury. On the other hand, more authorities are likely to lead to delay. In the present case a good many priority routes should be operating and delivering worthwhile results in the time it would take to establish a new traffic authority and prepare integrated plans.
1226
We want to see effective action taken in the short to medium term to improve traffic conditions in London and help tackle London's congestion problems. The provisions in Part II of the Bill, including the introduction and maintenance of a network of priority routes, are major initiatives which will achieve this. We are proposing that, subject to consultation, the priority route network will be based on the primary routes in London. These are existing main roads. They are the best routes for longer distance traffic in London. Although they comprise only 3 per cent. of London's road network, they carry over 25 per cent. of London's traffic and serve many important bus routes. Early action here, backed up by more effective action for enforcing parking controls, will be a starting point for widespread traffic improvements across London.
The Secretary of State will set the policy framework for the action on the priority routes and the action will be co-ordinated by the Traffic Director. There will be wide consultation over the policy framework and by the Traffic Director. He will have clearly defined objectives and a dedicated staff and will seek to work with the co-operation of the local authorities.
It is our intention to appoint the Traffic Director as soon as is reasonably practical after the Bill has received Royal Assent; and preliminary work is already in hand. The director will therefore be able to make any early start on the preparations for the fully operational priority route network. The results of research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory into the early stages of the pilot scheme in north London have already shown the potential of such schemes. As my noble friend Lord Nugent reminded us, journey times over the route have reduced significantly. They have reduced by up to 30 per cent. between the peaks, and they are also now 40 per cent. more reliable. This is being achieved without the benefit of a coherent network, the new powers that will be available to traffic wardens, and the higher penalty levels that will apply to illegal parking on the priority routes proposed in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Peyton will welcome the preliminary results. The Traffic Director will be able to address the timing of deliveries on the priority routes. However, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, we must be careful about night-time deliveries as they have anti-social consequences for residents.
I am pleased to announce today that the Government will be proposing that the penalty level for a parking infringement on a red route should be £40; that the penalty for parking infringements elsewhere in London should be £30; and that outside London the penalty should be £20. These proposals will soon be subject to consultation. This would mean that a motorist who parks illegally on a red line would be faced with a total charge of £125 if his car were to be subject to removal action by the police.
The fact is that the Government already have a comprehensive strategy for improving transport in London. Over the next three years London Transport plans to invest approaching £3 billion, supported by government grant of nearly £2.5 billion. That is an

1227
increase of 120 per cent. in real terms on the three years to April 1991. That is the best possible proof of our commitment to a bigger and better public transport system in London. We have a programme of nearly £2 billion over the next 10 years for selective improvements to London's trunk road network to get rid of the worst bottlenecks and accident blackspots. It is complemented by a further £1 billion of investment planned by the local authorities and the LDDC with government support. All those are far greater sums than were ever achieved under the Greater London Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also referred to investment in British Rail. He referred to the speech made not so long ago by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He also said that my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister had not been a supporter of British Rail. How come then that, under the present Government, investment in British Rail is higher than at any time over the past 30 years, including under the previous Labour Government? It is not because we do not support British Rail.
We are also supporting the necessary legislation, including Bills for new rail services such as the extension of the Jubilee Line to Docklands; the New Roads and Street Works Bill to get better quality street works which are properly co-ordinated; and this Bill which will pave the way for a network of priority routes on which traffic will be able to move more easily, reliably and safely.
Decisions on those issues, which involve massive public expenditure and major new legislation, have to be made at the highest level. Other decisions naturally fall to local highway authorities. However, frankly I find it hard to see the case for an intervening layer of bureaucracy as proposed in the amendment. I must therefore ask the House to reject it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, said it all in about two sentences. Where else in the world, in any major city and most particularly among our industrial competitors, is there no directly-elected democratic, strategic authority? That is the evidence for which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked. I love the noble trio over there. The noble trio always delight the House with their eloquence and power of debate and they can never be removed from their deep and unyielding prejudices; but they did not answer the question. They cannot answer it. The evidence for having a strategic authority on that basis is yielded by the fact that no country among the member states of the Community wants to imitate what we are doing in London. That is pretty powerful evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, implied that he prefers the 10 layers of incoherent and inconsistent bureaucracy with which the Government have beset London at present. That bureaucracy does not work. The evidence comes from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and from many others on both sides of the House. It is patently not working. I apologise to the noble Lord; I did not mean that. On the argument about political splits, we even have political splits in
1228
this place occasionally, and the whole functioning of a democracy depends on a political split. Sometimes both the hard Left and the hard Right do no service to the cause of democracy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his support. If I were not grateful to him, I would have been tempted to say that in the first part of his remarks he adopted a holier-than-thou attitude; but as he is supporting me, such a thought would never occur to me.
I do not want to detain the House any further. We have gone over the issue very thoroughly. Different points of view have been expressed. The Government tend to rely upon an extraordinarily complacent attitude in relation to London's transport and the present system, but the Minister's comments about the changes that will be brought about in this death-bed repentance are a compelling indictment of what has happened over the past 12 years. However he may seek to dress up certain facts, the people of London know that London transport is in a state of terrible decline and that London is grinding to a halt. The Government must accept their share of responsibility for that.
When the Minister refers to the fact that the Greater London Council did not spend as much as it should have done, we should remember—the noble Lord has never denied this fact —that the Greater London Council was constrained in its expenditure plans and its plans for London's transport by this Government. Previous governments had been much more forthcoming, but things changed in 1982 and the noble Lord knows it. His Government have much responsibility to bear in terms of London's present decline. It is right that we should test the opinion of the House on this matter and that is what I now seek to do.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hunt, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jacques, L.

Cross, V.

Jay, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ennals, L.

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Lockwood, B.

Foot, L.

Longford, E.

1229

McNair, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Seear, B.

Mayhew, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Serota, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Peyton. L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Phillips, B.

Thurlow, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rea, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Underhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Willis, L.

Russell, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Astor, V.

Hood, V.

Attlee, E.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Bauer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Goding, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Knollys, L.

Blatch, B.

Louderdale, E.

Blyth, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lond, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashdern, L.

Brentford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookes, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Marlrsford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Montgomery of Alameib, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson. E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Huildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre c f Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

DownsItire, M.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Erroll, E.

Todney, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfuil, B.

Selborne, E.

Flather. B.

Shannon, E.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Geddes, L.

Swansea, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, E.

Gridley. L.

Swinton, E.

Hailsha Tr of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

1230

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Westbury, L.

Waddington, L.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment
disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
Clause 46 [The Secretary of State's traffic management guidance]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 41, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) In setting any objectives under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall take into account—
(a) the need to protect local businesses in London;
(b) the need to protect the environment;
(c) the need to promote road safety;
(e) the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and public transport; and
(f) the need not to encourage further car commuting into central London.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief. This amendment was discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Government resisted it, saying that the consultation paper on Traffic in London had raised these issues and consequently there was no need to include the matters on the face of the Bill. That reply is unsatisfactory.
Clause 45 of the Bill sets out the primary objective of the priority route network as:
"improving the movement of traffic".
That objective was also stated in the consultation paper. If the Government are to be consistent, there is absolutely no need for that objective to be stated in the Bill. However, it is included and consequently, despite words to the contrary, it must indicate that that is an overriding objective in comparison with anything else. Because that one overriding objective is, in our judgment, an unsatisfactory one, it is appropriate to include these other matters in the amendment from paragraphs (a) to (f) on the face of the Bill. They set out an effective counterbalance so as to ensure that the other aspects of transport policy are not lost when directing the Traffic Director and deciding traffic management generally.
In Committee the Government agreed with the issues. The Minister went on to say that they would form part of the consideration in setting objectives. If that is the case, I can see no reason for the Government not to accept the amendment. I find it somewhat worrying that there are already indications that these other matters are going by default. In announcing that the red routes are a success, the Government made great play of the fact that some journey times have been reduced substantially. We heard that in the earlier debate. They have not admitted that the results also included increased speeding. Surely that would have a detrimental effect on road safety. There are already serious questions about that. Also, worse conditions have arisen for pedestrians and cyclists. That is not a matter just to be lost sight of.
There is some evidence to suggest that businesses have been materially affected. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the effects of the recession and the effects of the red routes. But

1231
if one visits those areas and speaks about these routes to the people who run businesses there, one immediately finds great disquiet.
The Government are very keen on market forces so it is surprising that they have refused to admit the law of supply and demand in road space: if a road journey is made more attractive by speeding up traffic, demand will also increase. One creates a vicious circle. There is also a pollution risk from the additional traffic.
It is essential that the Minister makes clear statements about objectives other than the objective of improving the movement of traffic. We believe that for that reason those objectives should be set out on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we must remember that the House is trying to pass a law. By definition a law is something which has to be enforced in the courts. It is very difficult to imagine anything less enforceable than any one—or altogether all —of these paragraphs (a) to (f) in the proposed amendment.
I do not know how the courts would approach the Secretary of State. I suppose that they might want a judicial review under the rules of the Supreme Court Order 53. They would say that in this case he has not taken account of the need to promote road safety or that he has not considered the need to protect local businesses in London. The Secretary of State would then swear an affidavit saying that he had taken carefully into account all six items and had drawn a careful balance to the best of his conscientious ability. That would be the end of the matter and there would be no judicial review.
The proposal is basically a nonsense. It is the result of wanting to put on the face of statute anything which any decent democratic Minister would take into account. The only people who would able to hold him to account if he did not achieve a proper balance would be the electorate. I think that this is a perfectly vacuous amendment which ought firmly to be rejected.
Before I sit down, I shall add a further sentence. It always sends a shiver down my spine when I hear the proposer of an amendment say that it ought to be put on the face of the Bill. I see that there are two occupants of the Liberal Benches. In 1911 Parliament passed 450 pages of public general statutes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord acknowledge that it was before our time?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it certainly was not before my time. I was going strong at the age of four. However, the Government were not that bad and had a reputation for getting things done, although they were sometimes contentious matters. They passed 450 pages of statutes, which was about average for that reforming Government. Governments of both parties who have been in power since the war have produced a steady annual average rising to 3,000 pages of public general legislation. My view is that there ought to be fewer Acts with less in them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask him to consider Clause 68(12) which sets out from paragraphs (a) to (p) the regulations which provide for a variety of matters—far more than those set out in the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I shall consider the detail of Clause 68 when we come to it. The fact that I do not want this amendment does not necessarily mean that I shall enthuse about a clause of that length.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his introduction to the amendment, and I appreciate that he has addressed the point made during Committee that the appropriate place to discuss policy aims such as those covered in his amendment is in the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance.
However, I remain of the view that it would be inappropriate to try and list, on the face of the Bill, all the issues which should be discussed in that document. I do not believe that a list prepared at this stage would be exhaustive. The noble Lord's list does not, for example, include references to ways of reducing congestion or to the interests of residents, which we have said should be taken fully into account. Moreover, within any list there will be many conflicting priorities, and balances will have to be struck. The amendment therefore, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, would open up opportunities for unproductive debate on the relative weight given to one aspect or another, with no one likely to benefit as a result.
Nevertheless, I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave in Committee that the Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance will discuss all the issues listed in the noble Lord's amendment.
We have also stated publicly in our consultation document that the aim of the priority route network will include the improvement of the movement of all traffic so that people and goods can reach their destinations more easily, reliably and safely. We have also said that we do not intend to make life impossible for people living or conducting business on priority routes.
With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, I refer to another result of the survey of the trial red route; namely, with regard to businesses. The number of callers at businesses varied from that previously measured along that part of the pilot scheme. Callers had increased at about 60 per cent, of the businesses monitored. However, for 20 per cent. the number of callers had gone down by more than 10 per cent. on week days. The evidence is not as clear-cut as the noble Lord would have us believe.
Exceptionally, government amendments, including one to this clause, have been tabled to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the needs of people with a disability will be taken fully into account. I do not believe that there there can be any doubt about our intentions.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the issues he raises will indeed be discussed in the

1233
Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance and that in view of that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Loyd Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were carefully to consider the Bill, he will find in virtually every clause objectives of the kind to which he has taken exception. The Bill is replete with them. I should therefore have expected him to have taken some draconian action before he descended on my little amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as Samuel Johnson said, "Stark insensibility, sir".,
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has repeated his assurances. I am sure that they are given in good faith. I see significant inconsistency in the argument that he adduces. However, we must leave it at that and hope that the Government will not place one of these objectives that the noble Lord has set out above all the others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 41, line 41, after ("Commissioners;") insert:
("( ) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 to 28, 30, 33 34, 37 to 39, and 85. During the debate at Committee stage on 7th May, in responding to amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeking to safeguard the interests of disabled people in relation to the priority routes and the Secretary of State's new parking guidance, I repeated that the Government have a long-standing commitment to promote the improvement of transport facilities and opportunities for disabled people. I also said that we attach particular importance to their interests being reflected in transport developments; and that given those commitments, it would follow automatically that the Secretary of State's traffic management and parking guidance would address the interests of disabled people.
I also recognised the considerable support in your Lordships' House for the principle of the amendments; I agreed to give them careful consideration and to return to the issue. I am now pleased to introduce government amendments which address your Lordships' anxiety. In doing so, I should say that I have been persuaded by the argument that in this case people with disabilities are in a unique position. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, many disabled people are unable to walk at all, and those who can walk can often walk only a limited distance and often are totally unable to use public transport.
Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 38 and 39 require the Secretary of State, when preparing his traffic management guidance under Clause 46, and his parking guidance under Clause 58, to have regard to the needs of people with a disability. This phrase goes slightly wider than the amendments moved by my noble fiend in Committee. But it is consistent with the
1234
amendments that have been made to the New Roads and Street Works Bill, and the principle is unchanged. The amendments also require the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to be consulted in the process. This is consistent with the existing provision for consultation with bodies with statutory transport responsibilities.
Amendment No. 26 requires the Traffic Director to have regard to the needs of people with a disability when preparing his network plan for the priority routes. And Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 and 37 require the London authorities, the Traffic Director and the Secretary of State, when preparing local plans for priority routes, to indicate the measures they propose to take in relation to the needs of people with a disability after consulting such organisations as appear to them to represent the interests of people with a disability covered by the plan. Amendment No. 85 is a consequential amendment including a definition of disability. That is a standard definition.
The amendments are therefore more comprehensive than those moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen in Committee. They do not, however, include a specific requirement for the Traffic Director to approve a local authority's local plan only if it provides adequate safeguards for disabled people. This is the subject of a further amendment by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. The requirement is not included in the government amendments because we believe that it will follow automatically from our other amendments made in relation to disabled people. We also believe it would be invidious to single out for special reference one of the many issues on which the Traffic Director must he satisfied.
I trust that our amendments will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank my noble friend not only for taking on board what was said by me and other noble Lords in Committee but also for his courtesy in seeing me and my adviser on the matter and for bringing forward these amendments which I heartily approve and strongly support.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may add brief but heartfelt thanks for the amendments. The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People also welcomes them enormously. In particular I welcome those provisions on consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and organisations which represent the interests of people with disability.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I endorse and repeat the grateful thanks to the Minister for introducing the amendments.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. Amendment No. 26 on Clause 48 refers to "the needs of people with a disability". However, there is no reference to consultation with the disablement committee or with representatives of people with disabilities. Is there a special reason for that? I note that in Clause 48 the same list of statutory bodies is

1235
mentioned for consultation. For some reason there is no reference to consultation with disablement bodies or representatives of disabled people, although that is the case in respect of every other clause to which the Minister has referred. Is there a special reason for that?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it would be churlish if from these Benches I did not give wholehearted support to the amendment, and I do so. I have nothing to add to what has been said.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of thanks to the Government for having tabled the amendments. I cannot reply precisely to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but I believe that the consultation would already have taken place. I now understand clearly the point that he made. The issue is covered by consultation on traffic management guidance, which will have taken place in the order of events.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 41, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In preparing any such guidance, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the needs of people with a disability.").
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 48 [The Director's network plan]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, line 37, at end insert ("and to the needs of people with a disability").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Duty of London authorities to prepare local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 44, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) indicate how the proposals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability;").
Page 44, line 38, after ("Transport;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to the authority to be appropriate;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 45, line 6, at end insert:
("(e) with the traffic management measures that have been taken to safeguard the interests of people with a disability;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, notwithstanding what I said when my noble friend moved Amendment No. 24, I still believe that Amendment No. 29 will improve the Bill. It will ensure that the traffic director has responsibility for ensuring that the needs of disabled people have been met. It adds strength to the Government's amendments, proposing a general duty to have regard to the needs of disabled people by giving specific responsibility to one person to ensure that that is carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a distinction between what was
1236
said in an earlier debate and the point now raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I hope that the Minister will reply constructively.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment. The disability organisations also believe that it is a necessary and complementary amendment to the Minister's amendments, which have been accepted.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the amendment. I regret that I am unable to accept it but I hope he and the House will be able to accept my reasons for not doing so.
My first reason is that the amendment is not needed. Clause 49(10) provides that the Traffic Director shall not approve a London authority's local plan unless he is satisfied that it is consistent with the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance and his own network plan. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, to which the House has just agreed, provide a requirement on the face of the Bill that in preparing the traffic management guidance and the network plan the Secretary of State and the Traffic Director respectively shall have regard to the needs of people with a disability. Amendment No. 27 requires the local authorities' local plans to indicate the measures that they propose to take to ensure that those needs are met. It will therefore follow automatically that the Traffic Director will be unable to approve the local plans unless he is satisfied with the measures to be taken.
My second reason is that, although there will be no explicit reference on the face of the Bill, there will, as I have undertaken, be a whole range of issues which the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance will need to address. Some of the issues have been referred to in Amendment No. 23 moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. They include the need to promote road safety, to protect the environment and the needs of local business and to provide for the needs of buses, cyclists and pedestrians. I also referred to the need to take account of the interests of local residents.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Swinfen and his supporters can accept that these are important issues. They will affect the health, safety and livelihoods of whole communities of people in this city and are not to be taken lightly. While we may have different approaches on how to improve traffic conditions and deal with congestion in London, I believe that both the Government and the Opposition are agreed on this point. So in this instance I do not believe that there is a case for a special reference to the needs of people with a disability.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on the way they have pursued the interests of disabled people in connection with this part of the Bill. They have pursued their case eloquently and forcefully. The Government have been pleased to respond where that case has been argued logically and justifiably. But in

1237
the present instance I hope that my noble friend will accep: the logic of the Government's argument and withdraw this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend was most flattering; I do not believe that his praise is deserved. I do not intend to press the matter this evening. I am not entirely satisfied with his response, although it was not completely unexpected. I shall look at the matter again with my advisers in the light of what he said. I may return to the fray on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [The Director's trunk road local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 45, line 37, after ("apply;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to him to be appropriate;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 45, line 37, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 35 and 36. They relate to consultation on the Minister's and director's trunk road local plans. As the Bill stands, the plans will be drawn up in great detail for the sections of priority routes hat are on trunk roads. Despite the provisions for the local authority to draw up the plans, the Minister made it clear in Committee that in the main the director will be responsible for the detailed plans on trunk roads. He will be subject to formal consultation only with the local authority, the police and London Regional Transport. That is despite the fact that there will be a major impact on different types of road users such as delivery vehicles and cyclists.
In rejecting the amendments in Committee the Government used three arguments. They said, first, that it is for the local authorities to consult; secondly, that individuals would retain their statutory consultation when draft orders were made; and, thirdly, that the director or the Minister, as the case may be, will not ignore comments made by the public. It will be noted that the amendments are different from those printed on the original Marshalled List because the Government have introduced Amendments Nos. 30 and 34, which provide for consultation with representatives of disabled people and which have been spoken to.
The Government's arguments on those three points are inadequate. In general, it is not reasonable for the local authorities to be responsible for public consultation on someone else's proposals. They cannot explain the proposals properly, or the reasoning behind them. In many cases they will not know the reasoning. They could tell the public, "We don't like this element of the plan but we don't know why the director or the Minister has included it". In fact, the London Cycling Campaign, to which we referred in Committee, which represents the Cycling Tourists Club and the Cycle Campaign Network has said:
1238
"We find that it is unacceptable to expect local authorities to have adequate resources to consult the public over decisions taken by a Minister or Director who is not directly or electorally responsible for the affected area".
It is really saying that one cannot expect the public to express views on something which, without consultation, no details are available.
We find also a situation in which there is no provision for consultation with bodies such as the Freight Transport Association, which is keenly interested in the problem of deliveries. In any case, the trunk road schemes can move from one borough to another. A local authority cannot be expected to pass on comments on a particular proposal for a trunk road scheme which covers another borough which may be many miles away. It is not satisfactory to rely on objections at the draft traffic management order stage to safeguard public rights. By that stage the plan will be very difficult to alter and it is hard to envisage what could be a sustainable objection.
Also, it is hardly reasonable for the Government to claim that consultation takes place on the basis that they do not turn away volunteered responses. That is what the Government said in Committee. Unless the director or the Minister makes information available freely and encourages responses, how will the organisations representing road users know of the proposals?
We ask that Clauses 50 and 51 provide that the consultations should include:
"such organisations of road users as he thinks fit";
that is, the Minister or Traffic Director as the case may be. There can be no reason for the Government not accepting this amendment. Surely they want consultations with road users. There should be proper provision in the Bill for that. The words "as he thinks fit" leave the matter open for the Minister or director to make the decision on that matter. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. I am particularly concerned about the needs of cyclists. At earlier stages of the Bill we agreed that cycling is an environmentally friendly method of transport and should be encouraged. It is also the most vulnerable. It is essential that the needs of cyclists should be understood. That requires specific consultation on new route proposals.
Probably all Ministers travel by car in London so that they can observe and relate first hand to the needs of the motor car. However, I suspect that none of them cycles although I should be delighted to learn otherwise. Perhaps the Minister will have a confession to make. However, does the Minister recall a letter from no less a person than the Minister for Aviation in his Department in March of this year to the Cycle Campaign Network—and I was impressed to hear that cyclists fall into that category? It stated:
"I can confirm that the needs of cyclists will be considered in the development of the priority route network".
How can their needs be known, let alone considered, without consultation? This modest amendment allows at least for possibility of consultation and I support it.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I add to the voice of cyclists as a frequent and practising cyclist. I should

1239
like to address the problem when a particular local authority is unsympathetic towards cycling. My own local authority of Kensington and Chelsea, which has a good record in most other spheres, is known to be almost antagonistic towards cyclists. It is very dispiriting for cyclists to make representations to be passed on to higher authorities—Ministers and directors—when the cyclists know that there is little chance that their feelings will be conveyed. For the reasons so eloquently given by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I urge the Minister seriously to consider this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introduction to these amendments. As I have said, I believe that statutory consultation in relation to the implementation of priority routes should be limited to bodies which have a statutory role in the operation of London's roads and transport systems. We believe that consultation with road user organisations would be more appropriate on an informal basis. At a local level it will normally be more appropriate for consultations to be undertaken by the local authorities. They will be in a better position to undertake this consultation than the Secretary of State or the Traffic Director. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Traffic Director would be able to establish and maintain an up-to-date list of local groups in the same manner as the local authorities, so they will look to those authorities for assistance when preparing their local plans. They will be mindful that the quality of their plans will be raised and the practical problems of implementation reduced by wider consultation with road user groups, including cyclists, which will be encouraged by the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord referred to cyclists. I must admit that in London I always travel by car because it is rather difficult to carry a red box on the back of a bicycle even if that were allowed. Outside London I cycle and in London I have a chance to observe the behaviour of cyclists. Sometimes that is rather horrifying although I do not wish to generalise on that. I must admit that I do not recall the letter which evidently I sent to the organisation to which the noble Baroness referred. However, as I said, there will be an opportunity for consultation. We believe that that should be carried out through the local authorities which best know the views of their user groups. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply although I understand what he is endeavouring to say. However, there are flaws in the argument. It is suggested that this matter is best left to local authorities. Perhaps I may give an example. A trunk road local plan affects the borough of Redbridge but I live in the borough of Waltham Forest, which is some miles away. How do I make representations as regards matters which affect the whole route? Most cyclists cover more than one local
1240
authority area in their journeys. The difficulty is how best to devise a scheme so that their views are considered.
The Minister suggests that informal consultations are better. The Freight Transport Association is vitally concerned with deliveries to stores and other buildings throughout the whole London area. There will be various trunk road local plans. As a proper road user body, provision should be made for the Freight Transport Association to be consulted. The Minister suggests that consultation is far better on an informal basis. If that is so, why are certain bodies listed in clauses in the Bill for statutory consultation? The Minister will not include provision for representatives of road users to be consulted "as he thinks fit". It seems to me that that is a simple request but the Minister seems adamant. I register my objection to the Minister's refusal to do something more than have informal consultations and I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 46, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) indicate how the proposals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [The Minister's trunk road local plans]:
The Lord Brabazon of Tara The Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 47, line 2, after ("Commissioners;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to him to be appropriate;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 47, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) indicate how the proposals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [The Secretary of State's parking guidance]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 52, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;").
Page 53, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) In connection with the preparation of the Secretary of State's parking guidance regard shall be had to the needs of people with a disability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 with Amendment No. 24. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Parking penalties in London]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 54, line 13, at end insert:
("(2A) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (2) (a) (ii) and paragraph (2) (b) above, no penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, if a current disable d person's badge is displayed on the vehicle and the vehicle at the time at which it was parked was being used or was to he used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge was issued.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment tabled at Committee stage, but I believe that it is worth bringing forward again. It is designed to allow orange badge holders to park in meter bays without charge for a limitless length of time in all parts of London. The facility presently exists in all areas of London except Kensington and Chelsea, the Cities of London and Westminster and parts of Camden.
The orange badge is recognised throughout the whole of the European Community and the exclusion of its powers in the centre of London makes it impossible for most disabled people to use those facilities. In his reply to the amendment moved during Committee stage, the Minister said that he did not wish to bypass the discussions being held with local authorities. I sometimes wonder whether local authorities should have greater powers than Parliament. We are often given the impression that the Minister is being directed by others above him to allow that to happen. I, for one, am disappointed.
I perhaps did not make clear at Committee stage that the amendment only affects meter bays. It does not in any way affect yellow lines. It allows only disabled people to park in meter bays for a limitless length of time. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made the case clearly. I wish to emphasise that it refers purely to meter bays. The rest of Great Britain and the EC recognise the orange badge. At Committee stage we referred to the hopes that the proposed changes would limit abuse and perceived abuse and encourage the three-and-a-half London boroughs that do not recognise the scheme at the moment to fully implement it.
I hope also that it will help to resolve the question in regard to some towns issuing their own badges. I spoke of that in Committee on 9th May (at col. 1219 of Hansard) and of how my own neighbouring town has issued a blue badge. Holders are allowed to park on pedestrian areas whereas orange badge holders may only park in adjacent side streets. The criteria for issuing the blue badge are bizarre. One is eligible if one has difliculty in walking 50 yards. On the other hand, if one cannot walk at all one is not eligible. That only serves to decrease the value of the orange badge and increase, public cynicism.
Until the proposed new passport schemes are implemented we will find more and more towns issuing their own badges. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, changes are long overdue. They were the subject of wide consultation in August 1986. The Minister will remember that clearly because he was
1242
deeply involved in those consultations. There were further wide consultations, and draft regulations incorporating the changes were circulated in April 1990. In Committee the Minister said that he could not give us any indication of when the changes would be introduced. If he is still unable to give us that indication, perhaps he will try to obtain the information by Third Reading.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, this discussion returns to a matter debated at some length at Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or agree to come back with an amendment of his own. Perhaps he can assure the House that the negotiations taking place with these recalcitrant London boroughs have come to some positive conclusion or are about to do so.
It is a scandal that these boroughs can hold out against the rest of Europe. Now is the obvious opportunity to do something about it. If we allow it to pass, we shall not be forgiven. I hope the Minister will either reassure us that there is some movement taking place, accept the amendment, or offer something similar.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we on these Benches support what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and ask the Minister to follow the suggested courses. However, I should like to make three points in supporting the amendment.
First, it does not permit parking on yellow lines. That should be emphasised because it is a problem some people feel may arise. Secondly, disabled people move around London from one borough to another and should therefore have the parking facility wherever they are travelling and for whatever reason they are travelling. Thirdly, in resisting the amendment in the other place Mr. Chope said that there was opportunity for abuse. We have already agreed amendments that will lessen the abuse of the yellow badge scheme and therefore I see no reason why the Government cannot either accept the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, or agree to bring forward one of their own at the next stage. That would be heartily approved of by the whole House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we discussed this important issue in Committee when my noble friend Lord Swinfen explained the difficulties faced by disabled people from outside central London when coming to the area on business, to shop or for other purposes. The reason is that the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the area of the Borough of Camden south of and including the Euston Road are exempt from the orange badge scheme. I very much understand and sympathise with the problems of disabled people needing to visit this part of London. But the fact is, as I said previously, that those areas have particular traffic and congestion problems and very great pressure on parking space indeed.

1243
At present the authorities concerned operate their own concessionary schemes for people with disabilities living and working in their areas. They are mindful of the needs of disabled people. And they accept that the present situation is less than ideal. Indeed, they seek to make limited extra provision where they can, as I understand the City of London is currently proposing. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that there is some movement in the right direction. But the pressures in their areas are such that they do not believe that they could, in practical terms, at present operate the orange badge scheme.
As the House will know, and as our debates have shown, widespread abuse of the current orange badge scheme is a national problem. But it particularly exacerbates the special problems which the Inner London boroughs would face in implementing the scheme. The House will also know that we are working up a package of proposals to improve the orange badge scheme, including the introduction of the passport-style badge which has been discussed in previous debates on the Bill. The authorities concerned indicated their willingness to make progress by discussing with the department the possibility of implementing part, at least, of the orange badge scheme once the new system, which should be less open to abuse, is in place.
I remind your Lordships once more that that will not require primary legislation. We are not therefore throwing away the opportunity if the amendment is not included in the Bill. The issue of penalty charges at meter bays, the subject of this amendment, is very much in the minds of the authorities here. I believe that this demonstrates the concern of the authorities so as far as possible to meet the needs of people with disabilities. I can assure noble Lords that once a package of changes to the orange badge is agreed the department will lose no time in re-opening discussions with the authorities on the issue.
I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) , any more information as to the likely timing but I hope that it will not be too far away now. I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Baroness will accept that, in view of the particular problems of central London under the present scheme and of the prospects for change, it would not be reasonable to compel the authorities at this stage.
I also say to the noble Baroness that I shall be happy to consider what happens in local authority areas outside London which issue their own badge. I am reluctant to discourage authorities to go further than the orange badge scheme. Obviously I cannot comment without details. Although the matter is not relevant to the Bill, if the noble Baroness will let me have details I shall look into the matter.
I regret that I feel unable to accept the amendment. Having heard the explanation that I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder what would happen if boroughs throughout the country were to discriminate against disabled people from the inner London boroughs in the same way as they
1244
discriminate against other disabled people and to issue instructions to their traffic wardens not to allow them to overstay the normal time at parking meters? Quite honestly, I feel that they would be justified in doing that because at the moment disabled people are being discriminated against for not living in central London.
I find the Minister's response extremely disappointing. He said that things are being done, but he gave no indication of when. It is all promises, promises but no action. I do not believe that this afternoon would be an appropriate time to press this to a Division. I shall read what my noble friend has said. I feel certain that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading and at that stage it is likely that I shall take it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of vehicles displaying disabled person's badge
.—(1) Notwithstanding the general powers to remove a vehicle in pursuance of an order to which section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 applies, or of regulations under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 apply, those powers shall not extend to permit a vehicle displaying a current disabled person's badge to be removed unless—
(a) the vehicle was on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to cause obstruction to other persons using the road or as to be likely to cause danger to such persons, or
(b) at the time the vehicle was being parked the vehicle was not being used or was not to be used by the disabled person to whom that badge was issued.
(2) In the case of the removal of a vehicle under subsection (1) (a) above, the removal shall be in accord with provisions set down by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not the same amendment on the subject as the one I moved in Committee. It is a new amendment. It is again designed to prevent orange badge holders having their cars towed away if it is said that they are parked illegally unless the car is a hazard or dangerously obstructing the road. The amendment is drafted in such a way as to provide a code of practice on the removal of cars. The present restricted parking facilities for disabled people mean that sometimes they have no choice but to park in prohibited places, particularly in central London.
sI should like to see statutory backing given to guidelines. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment, bearing in mind that for a disabled person to have his car removed is a much greater punishment, if that is the right word, than for an able-bodied person. At Committee stage I pointed out the difficulties that a disabled person has in going to get his vehicle. I realise that the police are probably instructed to remove the car not to a pound but to a safer position close by, but one cannot always see the position. A disabled person, like any other person, may panic and think that his or her car has been stolen.
I do not know, but I have a feeling that more and more car removal is being handed over to private contractors and I suspect that payment may be by results. In that case more and more cars will be removed and a greater number of cars driven by disabled people will be removed. I wonder whether my

1245
noble friend will comment on that when he responds. I know that in theory (and probably in practice) there is always a policeman in attendance. But I suspect that the youngest and most inexperienced police officers are given those rather boring and routine jobs. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment so thoughtfully and clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. In effect it virtually establishes on the face of the Bill the current practice in accordance with police guidelines but it shifts the balance slightly to put disabled people in a more secure position.
I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Chope, in an interview on the radio on Tuesday, said that in future towing away may well be supervised by employees of the local authority rather than the police. I wonder whether the Minister can say more about that. Does he agree that police guidance is not much use if they are not actually involved in the operation? Does he agree that guidance will be needed for whoever is responsible for towing away? Therefore, does he not agree that it is essential to have something about that on the face of the Bill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and by the noble Baroness. This new clause is similar to one proposed in an amendment at Committee stage. I am very much aware of the particular difficulties faced by a disabled person whose vehicle is removed. As I said at an earlier stage, I therefore well understand why the amendment has been tabled. 1 note too that in the amendment before us there is no longer a reference to a code of practice dealing with the removal of disabled persons' vehicles and the matters that that might cover. I know that my noble friend appreciates the practical difficulties of notifying a badge holder about the details of removal. I have to say, however, that I still do not believe that a statutory prohibition on removal, even with the safeguards suggested by him, can preserve the operational flexibility which in the last analysis the police may need.
I have provided my noble friend with a copy of the relevant part of the Metropolitan Police guidelines on the removal of vehicles which are displaying an orange badge. I believe that anyone would say that they are clear and to the point. They cover the matters which concern my noble friend and the noble Baroness both as to the circumstances in which vehicles may be removes and how they should then be dealt with. There is no question of guidelines being ignored. Indeed, I believe that police officers, and even junior police officers, will be more familiar with, hence less likely to disregard unintentionally, matters which are covered in operational guidelines. Nevertheless, it is not possible to foresee every eventuality. It would be particularly difficult to allow in the Bill for every circumstance in which it might be necessary to remove a vehicle. As l said previously, we are by no means talking entirely of circumstances determined by traffic
1246
and parking considerations. The House will understand that there may be other considerations such as those of security. The danger of a statutory provision is that it would place an absolute restriction on the operational flexibility essential for the police in such matters.
I assure my noble friend and the House that the police are sensitive to the needs of disabled people. I believe that the guidelines that I have described are evidence of that. I am also not aware of any problems in practice. Indeed, I understand that removal of orange badge holders' vehicles is very rare. I do not deny that there may be occasional instances where a vehicle is removed in error, but I suspect statutory provision would make little difference in such rare cases. There is no reason to suppose that it would make any difference. I am also aware—as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) pointed out—that the extension of wheel clamping and removal powers to local authorities will need to be the subject of guidance to ensure that they also take full account of the needs of disabled people. I can assure the noble Baroness that such guidance will be given to local authorities when they assume these powers in their areas.
Overall, I am sure that the most effective way to tackle the issue is through specific guidance which is sensitive to the needs of disabled people and is issued to those who are directly involved. I do not believe that amendment to the Bill would provide material improvement for disabled people. It would take from the police a flexibility which, while rarely used, may occasionally be vital.
We shall of course want to be kept in touch if problems develop. That is an area where, if the need were proven and practical problems could be overcome, it would be possible to act in regulations. However, I believe that guidance rather than statutory provision is the right answer. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before I decide what to do with the amendment, I have a few questions to ask.
My noble friend acknowledged the fact that what the noble Baroness said was correct; namely, that more and more local authorities will be responsible for removing illegally-parked vehicles. However, can he confirm that there will be a greater number of private contractors being asked to do so? Further, at the same time, can he tell the House whether the guidelines as laid down by the police at present will form part of the contract agreed between the police or the local authority and the removal contractors?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that a great part of the Bill is involved in handing over control of parking to the local authorities. That fact has been welcomed on all sides of the House. I cannot now say which local authorities will choose to use private contractors for the task and which may choose to use their own employees. I do not know how many will do which;

1247
but I can assure my noble friend that whoever undertakes the task, whether it be the local authority or a contractor, they will be given similar guidelines to those which are given to the police at present in order to ensure that there will be no problem on that score.
So far as concerns this being a matter to be included in the contract, I can say that the guidelines for police contractors will be such that they will not be allowed to do anything that the police or local authorities cannot do. Therefore, they will be bound by that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall take the amendment away and read very carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. He said quite a lot; but I am not entirely clear in my own mind as to whether he has satisfied me. Therefore, I should like to reserve my right to return to the matter on Third Reading if necessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 63 [Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 56, line 4, leave out ("as that authority") and insert ("or otherwise provided or controlled by that authority as they").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 109.
In Committee we debated a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which sought to decriminalise offences at off-street parking places controlled by London authorities, and at loading areas.
My noble friend Lord Cavendish explained why the Government believed that the case for these changes was neither proven nor urgent, and that changes could be implemented in due course through the new provisions for,
"special parking areas in London".
Nevertheless, he noted the noble Lord's illustration of a foreign registered car parked illegally in a Richmond Borough Council car park and undertook to reconsider the principle of his amendment again, without commitment. We have reconsidered this principle, but we are not persuaded of the case for change. A decision to change at this stage would be rushed and would involve some highly complex drafting. That would be undesirable. There are also alternative methods of enforcing parking controls at local authority car parks; for example, physical controls so that motorists cannot leave without paying the appropriate charge.
However, we are persuaded of the case for providing the London authorities with a power to charge for removing vehicles which have parked illegally in off-street local authority car parks. This power is available to local authorities outside London and it is, I admit, an anomaly that it is not available to the London authorities.
The amendments amend the new Section 102(2) (d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which is provided for in Clause 63 of the Bill and which enables
1248
a London authority to recover the costs of removing vehicles which have parked illegally at on-street parking places. The amended Section 102(2) (d) of the 1984 Act will now also cover off-street parking places provided by the London authorities. The amendments also make consequential changes to the 1984 Act to enable local authorities to charge for removing illegally-parked vehicles in any off-street parking place provided or controlled by a London authority under letting or other arrangements made under Section 33(4) of the Act. I hope that the House will find these amendments helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking these matters seriously, and for the changes which he has made by way of these amendments. As always, they do not go as far as one would wish. However, I believe that they cover the basic problem. I am sure that the London Boroughs Association, and others, will be pleased with the amendments which have been put forward by the Government. I am most grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 56, line 14, after ("is" ") insert:
("(aa) in that definition, the words following paragraph (b) shall be omitted;").
Page 56, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(9) For the purposes of—
(a) subsection (2) (d) above, and
(b) paragraph (b) in the definition of "appropriate authority" in subsection (8) above,
a parking place provided under a letting or arrangements made by a local authority in pursuance of section 33(4) of this Act shall be treated as provided by that authority." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 56, line 34, leave out ("parking attendant") and insert ("person authorised by the relevant authority to give such a direction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 89. These amendments are designed to introduce a greater element of flexibility into the procedures for releasing vehicles from wheel clamps.
At present, Clause 64(3) provides that a vehicle which has been wheel clamped because it has contravened the controls at a designated parking place in London may only be released from the wheel clamp by or under the direction of a parking attendant. The practical effect is that at the very least a uniformed parking attendant will have to be present at each payment office where the release is authorised once payment has been made. That would be wasteful of resources which could be better employed elsewhere. Amendment No. 46 will therefore enable the London authority to authorise a person to give such a direction. For example, the authority could authorise the clerk at the payment office to give a direction for

1249
a release as soon as payment is made. That will improve the efficiency of the new system for enforcing permitted parking controls without disadvantaging drivers and owners.
Amendment No. 89 provides for similar flexibility over the authority to release vehicles from wheel clamps which have been fixed, by the police or traffic wardens, because of contraventions of controls over illegal parking. It amends Section 104(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so that vehicles may be released from wheel clamps when a direction is given by a person who is authorised to do so by the chief officer of police in whose area the vehicle in question was found. That will avoid the need for a police officer or traffic warden to be present, or in an office, to authorise the release. I believe that these amendments will he welcomed both by motorists and by local authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Exemptions from section 64]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 49:
Page 57, line 23, leave out from ("(a)") to ("of') in line 24 and insert ("in accordance with regulations under section 21").
Page 57, line 25, leave out ("(institutional use)").
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("117(2) (b)") and insert ("117(1) (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 10. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 68 [Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the proposed process for managing parking adjudicators and setting parking charges as set out in the Bill is grossly over-complicated. I drew the attention of the House to that at Second Reading. In particular, the intention to set up a new committee of all the boroughs is a duplication of effort at a cross-London level. Indeed, in the first amendment this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out that this was yet a further stage of bureaucracy in the management of traffic in London.
The process for setting parking charges as proposed in the Bill may detract from the ability of local authorities to set charges at an appropriate level and to bring the charges into force quickly enough to respond to change in local circumstances. Local authorities should be empowered to set all the parking charges, as the local authorities themselves are in the best po6tion to assess the relative demand for parking space and the need for deterrence within their own areas. I have mentioned previously that there are very many widely differing charges, even within one borough, according to demand.
The old theory still holds good that charges should be set al a rate that encourages people not to stay too long. Meters are not designed for long-term parking;
1250
that is for offstreet parking. Charges should be set at a level where people use the space for a brief time and move on. I noticed in the City of London yesterday that many meters were available; the charge was £2 an hour. That meant that people who were just delivering documents or making a brief call at an office had no difficulty at all in parking in the City of London yesterday. Long-term parking is prohibitively expensive, and time is limited.
The boroughs have already demonstrated that they can set charges and tariffs which do not result in wide variations across borough boundaries. That system is already working. While there is a role for central guidance and co-ordination between authorities, this should be limited to broader matters of principle. The proposed procedures will in any case require Department of Transport officials to scrutinise all the charges after they have been through the joint committee. Therefore, there will only be a marginal increase in the role of the Department of Transport as the boroughs submit the charges directly to it. Why have two layers, when one will do?
I have set out three options in this series of amendments. I shall go through them separately and then explain the difference. The first option, which is covered by Amendments Nos. 52, 67 to 70 and 72 to 81, represents the least change to the Bill. Under these amendments the proposed new joint committee would be retained for the purposes of the appointment and overseeing of parking adjudicators. However, proposed parking charges would be submitted directly to the Secretary of State by the individual boroughs. This option would therefore reduce the role of the proposed new joint committee, cut down the possibility of the committee expanding its deliberations to cover an ever-widening range of topics, remove an unnecessary and possibly delaying tier of decision-making, and allow each borough to get on with the administration of parking in its own area. That is not my favourite of the three options.
The second option is the one that 1 personally favour. That would require the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53, 55, 57 to 59, 61, 63, 65, 67 to 70 and 72 to 81. It removes the need to set up a new joint committee. The appointment and overseeing of parking adjudicators would be passed to LPAC, an existing committee which has representation from all the boroughs; it already exists. Proposed parking charges would be submitted directly to the Secretary of State by the individual boroughs, as in the first option.
The third option, which would require the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 54, 56 to 59, 62, 64, 66, 67 to 70 and 72 to 81 would also remove the need for a new joint committee. Under the amendments both the appointment and overseeing of parking adjudicators would be passed directly to the boroughs, although the boroughs would retain the right to set up their own joint arrangements for starting up and running the adjudication responsibilities set out in the Bill. As with the other two options, the proposed parking charges would also be submitted directly to the Secretary of State by the individual boroughs in accordance with parking guidance.
I do not intend to go round in circles on the question of the whole parking procedure and the requirement to set up a whole new body, which would clearly have to have an establishment and staff and borough members appointed from every borough. Most borough councils are already hard pressed to find enough people to appoint to such committees. I made out my case at Second Reading. I have put forward three options. I hope that the Minister will comment on which he views more favourably. I would choose the second group of amendments which would do away with the setting up of the new committee and would use LPAC which is already available to study these matters. The committee already exists and I believe that it would do the job very accurately. The amount of extra work involved for the Department of Transport would be minimal. It would be much more a parallel to the old system operated by the GLC where boroughs were required to set their parking charges in terms of turnover of cars on the meters and to meet the demand.
I cannot move all the amendments together. I shall therefore move Amendment No. 50 at this stage. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining so clearly the purpose of this very large group of amendments. Although I clearly understand her keen interest in and knowledge of transport matters, I find it difficult to support the general trend of her amendments.
I am grateful for the fact that she put three options before us. Perhaps I may look at the third option. It deals with a number of matters and provides that parking arrangements, parking penalties and adjudicators should be left to the London boroughs. That is very difficult on efficiency grounds alone. It is unlikely that the call for an adjudication system will either be even throughout London or sufficient to require one adjudicator per borough, except perhaps for the central London boroughs. It therefore makes great sense for the adjudication process to be handled jointly. I shall come to the suggestion of the noble Baroness in that regard later on.
Secondly, there is a need to secure consistency across London in relation to penalty charges. That is not to say that charges will be the same across London. However, it is necessary to avoid the position where the penalty for parking against regulations is three or four times higher on one side of the road than on the other simply because they are in different London boroughs. The common-sense point there will be readily understood by all noble Lords.
Thirdly, there will have to be a degree of consultation between boroughs. One could give some examples as to why such practical consultation will be necessary. The noble Baroness suggests that instead of a joint committee, as proposed in the Bill, these matters could pass to LPAC. The view of the Association of London Authorities, which I admit is comprised of the Labour-controlled authorities in London, is that enforcement, the system of penalty
1252
charges and the new adjudication system, is so important that it requires the most serious attention. To pass this work on to the LPAC would be inefficient. The committee already has a considerable amount of important work to undertake. To ask LPAC to undertake this work in addition would place much too heavy a burden on it.
I know the noble Baroness will say that by supporting the establishment of the joint committee we are supporting the Government in establishing another layer of bureaucracy. However, we believe that this work is so important for the London boroughs that it ought to be dealt with on a co-ordinated basis through a joint committee set up especially for these purposes. Therefore we support the Government's attitude and regret that we cannot support the noble Baroness.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has a strong point which I hope the Government will attend to. My impression of the clause is that it will set up a huge bureaucratic machine. How many people will sit on this committee? How will the London boroughs find the appropriate people? I have a great aversion to going along with a proposal to set up more committees when I am uncertain as to who will serve on them and when there is no guarantee that they will do any good.
I have always believed that at the first meeting every year every committee should have as item one on its agenda what it achieved in the previous year, and if it achieved nothing, it should be dissolved. I fear this mesh of committees. I hope that my noble friend will consider the great generosity of my noble friend Lady Gardner in proposing not just one possible way by which the Government can get out of this complex mess but three choices. She has shown once again, if proof were needed, the nobility of her nature.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have one small point to make which I hope the Minister or perhaps the noble Baroness can answer. I live in a borough where it is still possible to park free of charge. Perhaps I should not tell the world as everyone might go there. It would be unfortunate if through this legislation and through this body, whichever way it is constituted, there were some arbitrary rule that all boroughs should conform to exactly the same arrangements over parking meters or off-street parking. The next step would be the Government telling them that they must take money from people because it would help in the running of the borough. That would be most unfortunate because the boroughs still have, luckily, a good deal of local jurisdiction; and long may it remain.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her introduction and explanation of the amendments. However, I regret to say that I am unable to accept any of them, particularly at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill.
The joint committee is an integral part of the new arrangements for enforcing parking controls in London. These arrangements provide for the

1253
Secretary of State to issue the London authorities with London-wide parking guidance. This guidance will complement the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance issued under Clause 46 and will provide the authorities with a strategy within which they can develop and co-ordinate their parking policies, taking account of the new system of permitted parking, the development of special parking areas, the capacity of London's road system and the needs of people with a disability. The guidance will also include an overview of appropriate levels of parking charges and additional parking charges because of their effect on traffic levels and patterns and, in the latter case—that is, in the case of penalty charges and charges for removing, storing and disposing of vehicles and releasing them from wheel clamps—the need to maintain a suitable relationship with the penalties and charges set by the Home Secretary under the remaining illegal controls.
It will be for the joint committee provided for under Clause. 68 of the Bill to have regard to this guidance in fulfilling its two basic functions: setting the levels of additional parking charges and providing for the system of parking adjudicators. Both functions will need to be co-ordinated if the local authority parking system provided for in the Bill is to have maximum effect in a beneficial way. They are both concerned with the practical development and overall management of the new parking system. So the co-ordination will require a different expertise from that provided by the London Planning Advisory Committee.
It is of course true that LPAC is an existing organisation with a statutory duty to represent the views of all the London authorities in preparing advice to the Government. But this duty is related to planning and development in London. While the expertise associated with that duty is highly relevant to the preparation of the Secretary of State's parking guidance, where we see an important role for LPAC, it is r of appropriate when it comes to the more detailed operational functions that will be of concern to the joint committee.
The levels of additional parking charges will need to be co-ordinated so that they bear a suitable relationship, one area with another, and are appropriately consistent with the penalties and charges; applied to the control of illegal parking. This will avoid the undesirable displacement of parked vehicles from one area or road to another. It will be particularly important as the special parking areas develop, when the local authorities and the police will be responsible for enforcing different sets of parking controls over the same types of contravention. It will also have a continuing importance in relation to illegal parking on the priority routes and other main roads, where enforcement responsibility will remain with the police.
However, I can confirm—I hope this will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—that the joint committee will have no role in or influence over parking charges, as distinct from additional parking charges, set by the London authorities. The Secretary of Stat, will provide an overview of these charges in his parsing guidance, but that is all. As one who also
1254
lives in London in an area where there are no parking charges at the moment, I very much endorse that approach.
It will also be appropriate to co-ordinate the provision of parking adjudicator services and the results of their work because of the nature and importance of that work—a point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. With the implementation of the provisions in the Bill, local authority parking control services will become an important instrument of traffic policy in London. They will have a wide impact on drivers, business and residents.
It will be important for the services to be provided to a consistently high standard across London. The parking adjudicators will effectively monitor these standards through the services they provide to drivers and owners who feel aggrieved at the treatment they have received from the local authorities. So they will need to provide a consistent quality of service as well. The joint committee will be able to arrange this. It will also be responsible for co-ordinating and publishing an annual report on the work of the parking adjudicators and submitting it to the Secretary of State. This will be an important control and safeguard over the operation of the whole local authority parking system and it is difficult to see how these objectives could be met if matters are simply left in the hands of 33 individual authorities.
I hope that my slightly lengthy explanation, and the assurances that I have given over the role of the joint committee in relation to local authority parking charges, will satisfy my noble friend Lady Gardner, and indeed my noble friend Lord Peyton as well, and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that all 33 London boroughs will be unable to agree everything. There is not necessarily any understanding between them. However, I have formally moved Amendment No. 50. Therefore, I now beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 60, line 44, at end insert:
(" ( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (11) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Joint Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an amendment in similar terms was moved in Committee. It may be recalled that in an earlier amendment my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis drew attention to the fact that 16 points were to be considered by the Secretary of State in issuing regulations. Clause 68(12) sets out the provisions for the parking adjudication procedures. Many of the issues for regulation have cost implications for the joint committee. The joint committee is obliged to fund the procedures. These include the procedure for the appeal, the likelihood of appeals in written form, the award of costs and procedures for the notification of decisions. Therefore it seems reasonable that the joint committee should be consulted on these regulations. The body will have to provide and finance a service.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he thought that the joint committee would be consulted informally. When he was pressed to accept formal statutory consultation he promised to look into the matter. That is why we are bringing the issue before the House again with this amendment.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. If not, I hope we shall be given sound reasons as to why formal consultations should not be preferred to the informal consultations to which his noble friend referred when the matter was raised at Committee stage. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord said we covered this ground at Committee stage when we considered an identical amendment. I subsequently wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, explaining the position. I should like to confirm that position to your Lordships' House. The regulations will cover the procedures to apply in proceedings before parking adjudicators. The council on Tribunals is the body with special competence in these matters. The parking adjudicators will be among the tribunals which the Council is empowered to supervise by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Bill. That paragraph amends the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Section 10 of that Act requires the council to be consulted before a Minister makes procedural rules for a tribunal covered by the Act.
It is only in very rare circumstances that Parliament has created an obligation to consult bodies other than the Council on Tribunals on procedural matters. There is, for example, no obligation to consult such bodies as the TUC or the CBI on procedure regulations for industrial tribunals when the findings may have far greater and fundamental effects for many people and their livelihoods than a parking grievance. The joint committee provided for under Clause 68(1) will have no special competence in procedural matters, and I do not believe there is any justification for departing from the normal practice in the present case.
I do, however, accept that the joint committee will have a close interest in the procedures before parking adjudicators. I also believe that this interest will extend beyond the cost of financing the adjudicators. The adjudicators will be an important element in the system for enforcing the new system of parking controls, and the local authorities will want to know that their operation will be quick and efficient. As my noble friend Lord Cavendish said in Committee, we would expect the joint committee to be consulted informally on the draft statutory instrument. I hope it will be helpful for me to give a firm undertaking that this will be so and that that reassurance will be sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, so that, in the light of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My lords, I think the Minister has been helpful on two points. First, I believe he said that the question of costs would be dealt with and the joint
1256
committee would have the costs of carrying out the work reimbursed in some way. Secondly, he gave an undertaking that informal consultations would definitely be arranged, even though there would not be the formal ones to which we refer. I believe that to be a helpful offer by the Minister, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 61:
Page 62, line 1, leave out ("the Joint Committee") and insert ("LPAC").
The Noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 61 to 66. I now wish formally to move them in order to place on record that I reserve the right to bring them back at Third Reading. I do not know whether that can be done en bloc.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, when we come to the next block of amendments it will probably be wiser for the noble Baroness to say "not moved". She does not then expose herself to the possibility that the Government Front Bench will wish to negative her amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not thinking of negativing them, though the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, tempts me. It is not necessary for my noble friend to say anything other than "not moved". She does not lose the right to come back at Third Reading.
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Fixing of certain parking and other charges for London]:
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 62, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State, any such additional parking charges may include the requirement that all outstanding parking charges registered against a specific vehicle during the period in which the current registered keeper was properly registered, except those against which undecided representations have been made to the local authority or the parking adjudicator, shall be paid as part of the release fee for vehicles which have been removed or immobilised.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 71 raises the issue of persistent offenders, which noble Lords will recall was dealt with at Committee stage. At that time, the general principle that this issue should be tackled was supported on all sides of the Committee. There was no dissent that such action needed to be taken. Though it presented some practical problems, the Minister promised to go away and reconsider the principle.
The amendment allows the principle to stand without detailed consideration of the practicalities by permitting the Secretary of State to issue regulations which would cover ways of dealing with persistent offenders. The reason for doing this was stated at Committee stage to be the following:
"A major problem in enforcing parking regulations is from the persistent offender, who consistently ignores both the law and the penalty associated with it".
Another point made was:

1257
"It is only when a vehicle is clamped or towed away that there is any certainty that the payment of penalties will be forthcoming".
Reference was also made to the fact that:
"Unpaid fixed penalty notices can be accumulated and, in many cases, mount up to large numbers".
Information was given by myself and other noble Lords about the number of instances where offenders had run up substantial numbers of fixed penalty notices which they had not paid.
The procedures already laid down in the Bill will make one advance, in that local authority enforcement will require both the penalty charge and the release fee to be paid before a car which has been clamped or towed away can be released. Improvement in the provision to deal with persistent offenders is also needed. What I am seeking with the amendment is for action to be taken and for the Minister to get down to the question of practicalities to see what can be done. But w should not cover ourselves merely by saying that the practical difficulties are such that we cannot deal with the persistent offender. The Minister said at Committee stage that he would like to go away and think about it. I hope there has been an opportunity for the matter to be considered and that whatever may be the Minister's reply he can accept the amendment, leaving to a later date the working out of the details and practicalities. We need to go on record that action must be taken to deal with persistent offenders. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord to say that this amendment would deal with the persistent offender, I support the principle of it. It has reached the stage where many people look upon even a wheel clamp as just nothing; it does not bother them. They may have to pay to have the wheel clamp removed but at least they get away with all their other parking tickets. One knows there are many people with huge lists of unpaid fines which are totally disregarded. When they come to court with bills for hundreds and hundreds of pounds they say there is no way they can possibly meet them. Questions are raised as to how anyone can let such bills be accumulated. I support the principle of the amend Went as I understand it to deal with the persistent offender.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his introduction of this amendment, which develops further the principle of an amendment moved in Committee. Like my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I can see some superficial attractions in the principle. But we consider that the practical difficulties, even with the changes proposed, are so basic as to render the proposal unworkable. The difficulties are still the need for the London authorities to develop a highly sophisticated recording system covering the whole of London, and the inability of that system to provide sufficiently accurate information at the moment at which a driver or owner of a vehicle seeks the release of that vehicle following wheel clamping or removal action by the local authority.
The recording system would need to provide for each payment point in each borough to be capable of
1258
establishing whether penalty charge notices issued anywhere in London are outstanding in respect of a vehicle to be released, and to know the up-to-date position about any representations to relevant local authorities and appeals to parking adjudicators. It is true that the amendment provides an exception to requiring the person collecting the vehicle to pay an outstanding charge where a representation to a local authority and a parking adjudicator is undecided. However, in order to decide on the appropriateness of an exception, it would still be necessary for the individual payment point to establish whether a representation or an appeal has been made within the due time.
I do not believe that the information supplied to the recording system would be sufficiently responsive to provide an up-to-the moment picture on which individual payment points could rely for their decisions. Even if the payment points were to have that information, and, as I say, I doubt that this could be the case, owners or drivers could argue that they were not the owner of the vehicle at the time it incurred the outstanding notice. The local authority payment point would therefore need a further capability of checking with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, but the agency's records rely on both the present and previous owners of vehicles having completed and returned the vehicle registration forms when ownership is transferred. So its information may not be totally up-to-date either.
Considerations about the effectiveness of the amendment in achieving its objective of dealing with persistent offenders also need to bear in mind that penalty notices cannot be "outstanding" until drivers and owners have had the opportunity to use the full set of procedures, including representations to local authorities and appeals to parking adjudicators. In extremis, those procedures could take several months to complete.
In those circumstances, I am still unable to accept this amendment. I firmly believe that the procedures set out in Clauses 61 and 64 and Schedule 5 will minimise the number of outstanding penalty charges in respect of vehicles parked at "permitted" parking places in London. The threat of early wheel clamping action—I cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner—which has proved to be the most effective deterrent against illegal parking offences, should reduce the number of contraventions against the new controls. Where contraventions do occur and wheel clamping is not done, the procedures provide the incentive of a discount from the full penalty charge in the case of early payment of a penalty charge notice and the threat of an enhanced penalty charge if the notice remains unpaid beyond the due date; and, as has been acknowledged, where wheel clamping is undertaken, or the vehicle is removed, provision is already made for the penalty charge to be paid at the same time as the release or retrieval fee.
It is conceivable that the local authorities will be able to develop efficient communications and data collection systems which will help to identify persistent offenders. It is open to them to concentrate enforcement effort on motorists who regularly

1259
contravene the new controls, and to clarify any outstanding issues with the persons collecting the vehicles before the vehicles are released from clamping or from vehicle pounds. It seems to me to be against the rules of natural justice that we should seek to legislate to recover back payment of previous penalty charges "over the counter" and with no mechanism for challenge, and to set aside some of the enforcement procedures and safeguards already provided for in the Bill; for example, the ability of an owner to make a statutory declaration.
I repeat, the Bill already provides a mechanism for the enforcement of unpaid PCNs and the Government are not persuaded that further provision should be made. With that lengthy explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the matter has been reconsidered, as promised in Committee. I recognise that the Bill contains provisions which will help to improve enforcement. I also appreciate that when we tabled the amendment we realised that there were difficulties. The Minister confirmed that there are still difficulties. I do not know what we can do to improve the position. I recognise that a huge bureaucratic machine might have to be established to keep information on all offenders. On the other hand, the casual offender who is caught once a year, or even less frequently, might take umbrage if he realises that someone can get away with persistent illegal parking and collect fixed penalty notices which could run into large sums of money.
I wonder whether discussions can continue with the local authority associations to see what further action can be taken to deal with persistent offenders whom we want to tackle. I agree that wheel clamping is a serious threat to someone who may commit an offence. I would think carefully about parking illegally if I knew that I was in an area where wheel clamping was in operation. I should like to see further discussions take place with a view to removing the impracticalities. When we tabled the amendment we realised that there were difficulties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 81 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 82:
Before Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement
.—(l) In this section—
"certificated bailiff", means any person authorised to act as such under subsection (6) below; and
"a Part II debt" means any sum which is—
(a) payable under, or by virtue of, any provision of this Part of this Act; and
(b) recoverable as if it were payable under a county court order.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—
(a) for warrants of execution in respect of Part II debts, or such class or classes of Part II debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs;
(b) as to the requirements which must be satisfied before any person takes, with a view to enforcing the payment of—
(i) a Part II debt; or
(ii) such class or classes of Part II debts as may be so specified,
any other step of a kind specified by the order.
(3) Any such order may make such incidental and supplemental provision (including modifications of any enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by that order under subsection (2) above.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in connection with the certification of bailiffs under this section and the execution of warrants of execution by such bailiffs.
(5) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—
(a) as to the security (if any) to be required from certificated bailiffs;
(b) as to the fees and expenses payable with respect to executions by certificated bailiffs; and
(c) for the suspension or cancellation of certificates issued under this section and with respect to the effect of any such suspension or cancellation.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person is a certificated bailiff if he is authorised to act as such by a certificate signed—
(a) by a judge assigned to a county court district; or
(b) in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, by a district judge.
(7) Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the new clause puts further flesh on the arrangements for the recovery of unpaid penalty charges and sums ordered to be paid by a parking adjudicator. The aim is to provide an efficient and effective method of enforcement for local authorities.
Under the existing criminal law, unpaid fixed penalty notices are pursued through magistrates' courts. If the sum is not paid, the court may employ firms of bailiffs to seize and sell goods belonging to the vehicle owner to satisfy the debt. The new regime under Part II will enable local authorities to enforce parking controls, including the issue of parking charge notices, within their areas. Where such notices are issued, they may be enforced through the county courts. If a vehicle owner still refuses to pay and has not contested his liability before a parking adjudicator, the local authority may request the court to issue a warrant for seizure of the debtor's goods. That is clearly a different type of work to the general run of county court business.
Unlike magistrates' courts, bailiffs are an integral part of the county court structure. In 1989 over 480,000 fixed penalty notices issued in London were enforced in the magistrates' courts. The shift of enforcement of parking penalties to county courts would therefore place a severe strain on the county court bailiffs, which would result in a deterioration in the service they offer to other court users. In recognition of those factors, the new clause enables bailiffs certificated by the county courts to execute warrants for unpaid penalty charges. The clause has been drafted in consultation with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; he wishes to make

1261
it clear that the new clause is necessary to avoid overloading the courts and to protect present levels of service. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have a few brief questions for the Minister. In respect of subsection (5), is it usual for security to be required from certificated bailiff? What shape does it take? What type of situations is it supposed to cover?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given me a large r umber of supplementary answers. I had hoped to cover any question the noble Lord might have asked. The answer to his question is yes, £10,000.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would like to write to me on that point. I am not familiar with the position as to the security required from bailiffs. Perhaps he will tell me the circumstances it is supposed to cover. It is presumably in respect of some form of liability on the part of the bailiff.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to take e opportunity that the noble Lord offers me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Financial provisions]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 83, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 84.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 65, line 19, leave out from ("reimbursing") to first ("the") in line 2l, and insert ("all reasonable costs incurred by any London authority under sections 48 to 56 of this Act, and deemed by the Director to be essential to the operation of the priority route network").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not weary the House with the arguments rehearsed in Committee. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on the point. I shall cite part of page 2 of the letter in which he said:
"I recognise that one of the most important issues from the local authorities' viewpoint "—
the point relates to the costs that they would be incurring—
"as you and Joan Ruddock"
—my honourable friend Joan Ruddock in another place—
"have suggested, is that they should not be required to take action without being reimbursed for the reasonable costs they incur in doing so.
I can see how they might be concerned at the phrase 'in whole or in part' in relation to 'reasonable costs' in clause 74(1). I am prepared, when responding to your amendment, to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that in general the Traffic Director will reimburse all the reasonable costs the local authorities incur on work they undertake in relation to the implementation and maintenance of priority routes in response to a request from him and in the manner that he prescribes. I am also prepared to make it clear that it is not our intention that the local authorities should be out of pocket as a result of the operation of the clauses covered by clause 74".
I thank the Minister for that reply. All he has to do is to confirm that the situation is as set out in the letter from which I have quoted. I am informed that the
1262
local authorities consider that that is a reasonable response. Therefore, the purpose of putting down the amendment will have been served. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his acknowledgment. As he said, I wrote to him. Perhaps I may expand on the assurances that I was able to give in that letter.
Clause 74 is intended to provide the Traffic Director with a power to reimburse costs incurred by the local authorities. It sets two basic tests as to the circumstances and conditions under which the Traffic Director may undertake that activity. It will require him to be satisfied, firstly, that the local authorities' costs have been incurred under the relevant provisions of the Bill covering the preparation and implementation of local plans and trunk road plans; and, secondly, that the costs are reasonable and represent value for money. It provides the Traffic. Director with a residual discretion if those basic tests have been met. It enables him to make:
"such payments as he considers appropriate"
and to reimburse local authorities' reasonable costs "in whole or in part".
Discretion is necessary because it is not practical to foresee precisely the form in which the Traffic Director will require the local authorities to prepare their local plans, nor the terms in which he will grant approval. Both actions will depend in part on the content of the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance. The way in which the guidance distinguishes between action which the local authorities must take to implement and maintain the priority routes and action which they might consider it desirable to undertake at the same time will be relevant.
The two phrases providing the discretion are linked and would enable the Traffic Director, in appropriate cases, not to pay part of the local authorities' costs. For example, the Traffic Director might approve the inclusion of a traffic management measure in a local plan where he considered the benefits for the network were marginal. In such a case the director would pay only a share of the reasonable costs.
I recognise the concern that the London authorities should not be required to take action without being reimbursed for the reasonable costs they incur in doing so. I should therefore like to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that in general the Traffic Director will reimburse all the reasonable costs the local authorities incur on work they undertake in relation to the implementation and maintenance of priority routes in response to a request from him and in the manner that he prescribes; and that it is not our intention that the London authorities should be out of pocket in responding to those requests in the prescribed manner.
I hope that with those further assurances, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 65, line 20, leave out ("57") and insert ("54, 56 and 57").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment corrects an error in the Bill. Clause 74 provides the Traffic Director with a power to reimburse reasonable costs which the local authorities incur on work they undertake on implementing and maintaining the priority routes. It includes references to those clauses under which the local authorities may incur relevant costs. However, the reference to Clause 55 is inappropriate and the purpose of the amendment is to remove it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 66, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) shall apply in relation to this Part of this Act as it applies to that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]:
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 73, line 6, at end insert:
(". In the entry relating to section 143 of that Act (using vehicle while uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks) in column 4 for the words "Level 4" there shall be substituted the words "Level 5".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was being discussed in another place considerable concern was expressed about the scale of the problem of driving without insurance. People who deliberately drive without insurance show an irresponsible disregard for other road users and it is important that the penalty acts as a deterrent.
We have already increased the penalty points for this offence from a range of 4 to 8 points to a new higher range of 6 to 8 points. The maximum fine is at present at Level 4 of the standard scale, namely £1,000. The amendment would increase the fine to Level 5, which is the maximum penalty which can be imposed for a summary offence. It will allow the courts greater scope to reflect the financial advantage to be gained by the offender who fails to take out third-party insurance. I have pleasure in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I commend the amendment to the House. This is a very serious offence which is not regarded by the general public as being as serious as it is. I am glad that the Government have now raised the penalty to the maximum which the circumstances allow. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 88:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("Schedule
Permitted and Special Parking Areas outside London
Permitted parking areas
1.—(1) Where an application for an order under this sub-paragraph is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a county council in England and Wales;

(b) with respect to the whole of their area, by a metropolitan district council;

(c) with respect to the whole of their areas, by two or more metropolitan district councils acting jointly;

(d) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a district council in Wales acting with the consent of the county council; or

(e) with respect to the whole, or any part, of the Isles of Scilly, by the Council of the Isles of Scilly,

he may make an order designating the whole, or any part, of the area to which the application relates as a permitted parking area.
(2) Before making any such application, a county council in Wales shall consult the district councils whose areas lie wholly or partly within the area to which the application relates.
(3) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate chief officer of police.
(4) While an order under sub-paragraph (1) above is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the permitted parking area designated by the order—

(a) section 35A(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (offences), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or non-compliance with, any provision of an order made under section 35 of that Act (use of parking places) in relation to parking places provided under section 32(1) (b) of that Act (power of local authorities to provide free parking places on roads); and

(b) section 47(1) of the Act of 1984 (offences) in so far as it applies in relation to any designated parking place.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (4) above by adding further provisions (but only in so far as they apply in relation to stationary vehicles).
(6) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such representatives of chief officers of police; and

(b) such associations of local authorities (if any),

as he considers appropriate.
Special parking areas
2.—(l) Where an application for an order under this sub-paragraph is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a county council in England and Wales;

(b) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a metropolitan district council; or

(c) with respect to the whole, or any part, of the Isles of Scilly, by the Council of the Isles of Scilly,

he may make an order designating the whole, or any part, of the area to which the application relates as a special parking area.
(2) Before making any such application, a county council in Wales shall consult the district councils whose areas lie wholly or partly within the area to which the application relates.
(3) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (I) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate chief officer of police.
(4) While an order under sub-paragraph (I) above is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the permitted parking area designated by the order—

(a) section 5 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of a traffic regulation order under section I of that Act to be an offence), so far as it

1265
relates to the contravention of any provision of such an order prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

(b) section 11 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, experimental traffic order under section 9 of that Act), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an order prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

(c) section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (parking of heavy vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);

(d) section 21 of the Act of 1988 (prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks), so far as it makes it an offence to park a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (4) above by adding further provisions (but only ir, so far as they apply in relation to stationary vehicles).
(6) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such representatives of chief officers of police; and

(b) such associations of local authorities (if any); as he considers appropriate.

Control of parking in permitted and special parking areas
3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any vehicle which is stationary in a permitted parking area, or special parking area, in circumstances in which an offence would have been committed with respect to the vehicle but for paragraph 1 or (as the case may be) paragraph 2 above.
(2) A penalty charge shall be payable with respect to the vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle.
(3) An order under paragraph 1 or 2 above designating a permitted parking area, or special parking area, may—

(a) provide for such provisions of Part II of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to apply, with such modifications (if any) as he considers appropriate, in relation to the permitted or special parking area in question; and

(b) make such modifications of any enactment, including any provision of this Act, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of the provisions of paragraph 1 or 2 above, this paragraph or the order.

Orders under this Schedule
4.—(1) Any power to make an order conferred by this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) Any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91:
Page 78, line 37, leave out ("In section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked)") and insert:
("(1) Section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for the word "constable" there shall be substituted the words "person authorised to give such a direction by the chief officer of police within whose area the vehicle in question was found.
(3)"). Page 78, line 44, at end insert:
(".—(1) Section 105 of that Act (exemptions from section 104) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6) (a), for the words from "either" to use) of" there shall be substituted the words "in accordance with regulations under".
1266
(3) In subsection (6) (b), for "117(2) (b)" there shall be substituted "117(1) (b)".").
Page 85, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1), in the definition of "trolley vehicle" for the words "and moved by" there shall be substituted the word "under", and at the end there shall be added the words "(whether or not there is in addition a source of power on board the vehicle)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 87, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 13 and insert:
("(1) Section 17 of that Act (provisions as to proceedings for certain offences in connection with the construction and use of vehicles) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words "section 42(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (contravention" there shall be substituted the words "section 40A, 41A, 41B or 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using vehicle in dangerous condition or contravention".
(3) In subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Traffic Director for London]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 94, line 5, after ("contain") insert:
("(a) a statement on the effectiveness of the Director in—
(i) protecting local businesses in London;
(ii) protecting the environment;
(iii) promoting road safety;
(iv) meeting the needs of people with disabilities;
(v) meeting the needs of cyclists, pedestrians, and public transport users; and
(vi) restraining any additional car commuting into central London. and (b) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to an issue which is very similar to but not the same as the issue which we debated earlier. It relates to a provision concerning the Traffic Director's annual report. We feel that the provisions which we have set out in Amendment No. 92A should be included in the annual report. They are quite different from the points that were raised in opposition by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, earlier. I hope that the Minister will feel it appropriate to accept the amendment, which I consider to be perfectly reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my arguments are, of course, somewhat similar to those which I deployed earlier in relation to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 23.
I remain of the view that it would be inappropriate to try to list on the face of the Bill all the issues which should be covered in the Traffic Director's report. As I said during the earlier debate, I do not believe that a list prepared at this stage would be exhaustive. The noble Lord's list does not, for example, include

1267
references to reducing congestion or to the interests of residents, which we have said should be taken fully into account.s
The Traffic Director's annual report will give account of his activities throughout the year, including his success or otherwise in meeting the objectives in the traffic management guidance which, as I said earlier, will include all those points listed in the amendment. As I have already mentioned, those objectives will be comprehensive and it would be unproductive to try to list them on the face of this Bill.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will accept my assurance that the issues that he has raised will be addressed in the Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance and that as a consequence the Traffic Director's annual report will include a reference to those objectives and how they are being achieved. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by that reply.
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall of course read with great interest every word, sentence, dot and comma of the Traffic Director's report to see whether it complies with what the Minister has said. But having said that, I accept the Minister's assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Parking penalties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 95, line 3, leave out from ("serve") to end of line 4 and insert ("a notice ("a notice to owner") on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 to 97, including Amendment No. 96A. These are all drafting amendments correcting, improving or clarifying the detailed procedures set down under Schedule 5 for pursuing unpaid penalty charge notices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 97:
Page 95, leave out line 5.
Page 95, line 42, leave out ("him") and insert ("that firm").
Page 97, leave out line 17.
Page 98, line 6, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
Page 98, line 38, leave out from beginning to second ("is") in line 39 and insert:
("10. Any charge certificate, or notice under this Schedule—
(a) may be served by post; and
(b) where the person on whom it is to be served is a body corporate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments in relation to London]:
The Principal Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. I now call Amendment No. 98.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 99, leave out line 37 and insert:
("5.—(l) Section 55 of that Act (financial provisions relating to designation orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "designated" to the end there shall be substituted the words "for which they are the local authority and which are—
(a) in the case of the council of a London borough and the Common Council of the City of London, parking places on the highway; and
(b) in the case of any other authority, designated parking places."
(3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 98, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and 108. The amendments are consequential upon the provisions relating to the new decriminalised system of enforcing permitted parking controls in London. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 99, line 44 at end insert:
("(4) In subsection (4) (c), the words from "to the council" to "City of London" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 100, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 101 and insert:
("Paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 shall be repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the issue of the general need for designated roads was raised, given the fact that priority routes were being introduced. It was pointed out in Committee that we now have the following tiers of roads in London: trunk roads, primary routes, priority roads and designated roads. Some of those categories overlap; for example, some but not all designated routes are priority routes. Similarly, some but not all designated roads are primary routes, although this network is not the same as the priority route network. The situation can lead to considerable confusion.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked the Minister to comment on a particular point. My noble friend said:
"There is a strong case for abolishing all designated roads in this Bill on the basis that they will either be priority routes and therefore fall within that purview or should be just local roads".
The Minister promised to consider that point. This amendment is really a probing amendment to ascertain what consideration the Minister has given to whether the network should be restricted to priority routes and local roads. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to respond to this amendment and to outline our proposals in more detail. Our present proposal is to base the priority route network on the primary routes in London, with a suitable extension on to certain

1269
important roads in central London. It will become the top layer of London's road hierarchy. The primary routes include all London's trunk roads and a number of designated roads under the 1985 Act. I can confirm that it is our intention to de-designate the latter roads for the purposes of the 1985 Act at the time they are designated as priority routes. But we do not believe that there is a case for designated roads outside the priority route network losing their status under the 1985 Act as they will continue to have a strategic role to play in the movement of London's traffic. The remaining designated roads will complement the priority route network and become the second layer of London's road hierarchy.
Should experience with the priority routes show that a particular designated road no longer needs that status, an order could be made under Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 providing for it to be de-designated. There is therefore no need to make an express provision on this point in the Road Traffic Bill. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as I have already said, this is a probing amendment to ascertain the Government's view on their reconsideration of the matter. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I shall read them carefully. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 101, line 30 leave out ("a London authority") and insert ("any council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. These are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 105 and 106:
Page 101, line 31 leave out ("the authority") and insert ("they").
Page 101, leave out lines 34 and 35
On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 107 to 113:
Page 102, line 3, at end insert:
"1970 c.44.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
In section 21(4) the words "and any badge" onwards.
In section 21(5) the words "and in the case" onwards.")
Page 103, line 15, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 55(4) (c) the words from "to the Council" to "City of London".").
Page 103, line 26, column 3, after ("(8)") insert ("the words following paragraph (b), in the definition of "appropriate authority", and").
Page 103, line 44, column 3 at end insert:
("In section 117(3), the definition of "disabled person's badge.")
Page 103, line 44, column 3, at end insert: ("Section 141.").
Page 104, line 39, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 193. Schedule 4.").
Page 106, line 22, at end insert:
("1991 c.00 The Road Traffic Act 1991.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 78.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have all been spoken to before at various stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991
7.8 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires the BBC and Channel 3, 4 and 5 licensees and domestic satellite service licensees to ensure that at least 25 per cent. of the qualifying programmes broadcast on their services are made up of a range and diversity of independent productions. It also provides for the Secretary of State, after consultation with the BBC and the ITC, to define by order the meaning of qualifying programmes and independent productions. This draft order accordingly provides the necessary definitions of those terms.
The provisions in the Act relating to the 25 per cent. independent production requirement were essentially a formalisation of earlier voluntary agreements. Your Lordships will recall that in November 1986 the BBC and the independent television companies committed themselves in principle to achieve a 25 per cent. commissioning rate of independent productions by the end of 1992. A detailed scheme was subsequently agreed by all parties and announced in April 1988. We have been pleased with the progress the broadcasters have made towards achieving the 25 per cent. target by way of the interim targets which they have set themselves. The broadcasting White Paper indicated our intention to place this voluntary initiative on a statutory basis and there has, it is fair to say, been a general welcome for the provisions in the new Broadcasting Act.
Before laying this draft order, we had detailed consultations, not just with the BBC and the ITC, but with representatives of the independent production sector themselves. We have listened carefully to all the views expressed. Although the order will not come into force until 1st January 1993, we have been conscious of its importance in the context of the current application process for the new Channel 3 licences. We recognised that bidders would have a keen interest in knowing what the detailed rules regarding independent productions were to be. With that in mind, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the outline of our proposed arrangements on 14th March this year and laid the draft order on 18th April. It was approved in another place on 21st May.
Many of the detailed provisions of the order follow the guidelines for the voluntary independent production initiative which have already been agreed. There is, however, one important difference relating to permissible levels of shareholding as between broadcasters and independents, about which I shall say more in a moment. More generally, we have incorporated in the order a number of detailed improvements and clarifications derived from our experience with the voluntary scheme.
As I said, the essential purpose of the order is to define the terms "qualifying programmes" and "independent productions" in order to make clear, first, what can qualify for inclusion in the 25 per cent. quota, and, secondly, to answer the question "25 per cent. of what?". In other words, qualifying programmes represent the 100 per cent. denominator, at least 25 per cent of which must be made up of independent productions, as defined.
Qualifying programmes include those which the broadcaster makes or commissions alone and also those in which there has been collaboration with other broadcasters, provided that the broadcaster in question contributes at least 25 per cent. of the cost. Programmes are also included in which pictures and sounds are received direct from abroad—for instance, from international sporting events such as World Cup football matches—but to which the broadcaster or independent producer in this country adds commentary and further pictures. To qualify, at least 25 per cent. of the pictures must be provided by the broadcaster who is broadcasting the programme.
Under the present voluntary initiative, an independent production company is defined as one in which broadcasters have no shareholding. Furthermore, an independent producer may not be part of the same group as a broadcaster. When we came to consider the content of the draft order, we concluded that it would not be practicable or sensible to carry over that provision as it stood. For instance, under the no cross-ownership provision, it would be technically possible for an independent producer's pension fund, invested in a portfolio of shares which included a broadcaster, to disqualify that independent producer from independent status.
It would be an administrative nightmare for broadcasters, independent producers and regulators
1272
alike to keep track of all the minor and possibly unintentional cross-shareholdings that could occur. Furthermore, a complete ban on cross-shareholdings would leave open the possibility of spiteful shareholding whereby an aggrieved broadcaster could buy just one single share in an independent producer simply to prevent a piece of work commissioned from that producer being counted as an independent production.
Having ruled out a total ban on cross-shareholding, we had to consider what level of shareholding between broadcasters and independents should be permitted, bearing in mind the need to ensure that independents really were independent and that the objectives of the 25 per cent. initiative were not frustrated. After consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading and consideration of a range of options, we decided that the level of cross-ownership should be fixed at 15 per cent. for independent producers in broadcasters' companies and vice versa. That level of shareholding achieves a nice balance, in that it is not enough to allow significant influence to be exerted on a company but is sufficient to reap some of the benefits of cross-shareholding.
When we consulted, we found that both broadcasters and many independent producers themselves considered our proposed arrangements not only workable but positively attractive. The broadcasters argued that the system would enable them to provide the financial security and stability which many independent producers sought and which would help move on the independent production sector from its "cottage industry" beginnings. It was also pointed out that our proposals could benefit would-be bidders for Channel 3 franchises with no previous broadcasting experience as it would allow them to establish formal links with experienced programme producers. Thus, both established and potential broadcasters saw merit in the 15 per cent. level of cross-shareholding.
Views among independent producers were, it is true, more mixed, with some arguing for only a minimal 5 per cent. or so cross-ownership, and others saying that a higher figure of perhaps 20 per cent. was needed. Those independent producers who argued for allowing a significant degree of cross-ownership said that they would welcome opportunities formally to team up with broadcasters and suggested that, without the chance to do so, independent producers could struggle to achieve any significant market position. I believe that the 15 per cent. figure in the order will assist the development of the independent production sector in that and other ways.
I have set out briefly the general provisions of the draft order and have outlined in some detail the reasons that led us to opt for the 15 per cent. level of cross-shareholding. Taken as a whole, I suggest that the measures represent a sensible framework within which the statutory 25 per cent. independent production requirement may operate. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. We are discussing it in the context of the bids for the Channel 3 franchises, which have all now been declared. When the Bill was before the House, we made clear our opposition to awarding contracts to the highest bidder as we were concerned about the consequences for national and regional programming. Those issues are still relevant today, as they are to the order that we are discussing. We certainly welcome the not-less-than 25 per cent. quota for independent producers and believe that they have an important role to play. However, a number of problems may arise as a result of the definitions of "qualifying programmes" and "independent producers" contained in the order and it is to those that I should like to address myself.
The first concern is the danger of cartels developing within the independent sector. In spite of what the Minister said, the Independent Programme Producers Association has expressed concern that the order contai as too few controls on cross-shareholding between broadcasters and independents. Under the terms of the order, a broadcaster could have up to a 15 per cent. shareholding in an independent producer. IPPA fears that that could lead to Channel 3 broadcasters gaining stakes in a number of independents and could eventually lead to cartels of broadcasters controlling most independent commissions within a regional area.
Equally possible under the terms of the order is the position whereby a number of independents could obtain a 15 per cent. stake in a Channel 3 licence holder. According to IPPA, that could lead to a cartel of major independent production companies carving up the 25 per cent. independent Channel 3 productions between them and still being free to bid for space in Channels 4 and 5 and the BBC. The Government have suggested, as the Minister said tonight, that any cartel arrangements would be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, but, according to the independent producers, that does not appear to be the right way to go about it. Surely the cartel controls should have been included in the order. As the value of the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading in that specialised area is doubtful, however assiduous it is in its efforts in that field, will the Minister at least agree that the situation should be monitored as it develops and then, if necessary, a further order introduced to control cartels?
A further problem in the order—I gave the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, notice of my intention to raise this issue, which I believe I am right in saying was not raised in another place—concerns the position of relatives of a director of a broadcasting company. The order makes it clear that no independent production company which has a 15 per cent. shareholding in a broadcasting company can maintain its independent producer status if any one of its shareholders controls more flan 15 per cent. of the share capital of that independent production company and is also a director of the broadcaster. If the director of a broadcasting company also controls the share capital of an independent production company, then it seems
1274
clear from the way in which the order is drafted that the director would be able simply to transfer the shares which he or she holds in the independent company to his or her spouse or other members of their immediate family in order to ensure that the independent production company still qualifies as an independent producer.
The confusion on this issue—which I understand has been looked at by a number of lawyers—seems all the more unnecessary when clear definitions on "connection" are given in other sections of the Broadcasting Act. For example, Schedule 2 (page 174) gives details of restrictions on the holding of licences and clearly states that for the purposes of measuring control or shareholdings, associates of individuals are to be included. Associates are defined in detail in the Act as an individual's:
"husband or wife and any relative, or husband or wife of a relative, of that individual or of that individual's husband or wife".
I cannot believe that in drafting this order it was the intention of the Home Secretary to allow an individual in such circumstances to take such action. That would appear to circumvent the proposals in the order for avoiding a conflict of interest between a broadcaster and an independent producer. Possibly that was not even realised or perhaps it was overlooked at the time and it should be looked at again.
A further worry within the industry is that the order provides little clarification of production costs. Existing distinctions between co-productions, which are acceptable for the quota, and acquisitions, pre-sales, output details and commissions, which are not acceptable, according to the IPPA are fast disappearing. That could lead to broadcasters fulfilling their 25 per cent. quota by disguising acquisition contracts to make them look like independent commissions. The independent producers are particularly anxious, as this could lead to the import of more American and Australian programmes at the expense of the UK industry. I wonder whether the Minister would also comment on the fact that in the order there is no reference to non-EC countries and the 25 per cent. quota.
Finally, I should like to say a word about training within the broadcasting industry. During the Committee stage in this House, as a result of pressure from the Opposition the Government introduced amendments which make Channel 3 and Channel 5 companies responsible for describing their proposals for encouraging the training of staff in independent companies. We should still like to see the Government encourage licence holders to have more active involvement in the training of freelances and others employed by the independents.
Certainly the 25 per cent. quota is to be very much welcomed. But the points that I raised would both clarify and improve the order if they were incorporated in it, in particular the point that deals with the possibility, because it is contrary to what is already in Schedule 2 to the Act, of the ability to transfer shareholdings to an immediate relative. As this is a draft order it would surely not be too difficult for the Government to take it back and incorporate those improvements. I am sure that the noble

1275
Viscount will appreciate that these are not party political points but points of substance. If the order is left as it is at the moment it will not work as I feel sure that the Government intended it to do.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. Regarding the danger of cartels developing, we do not consider that it is at all likely that a group of broadcasters—or for that matter independent producers—could gang together with a common interest without intervention from other Channel 3 licensees or the Office of Fair Trading. In particular, it is likely that such arrangements would constitute a restrictive trade practice or breach competition rules as they apply to the network.
In those circumstances, where it seems unlikely that the nightmare scenario of a coalition of broadcasters would happen in practice, we should not want to impose any unnecessary restrictions on aggregated shareholdings. The Office of Fair Trading would not be in favour of that. Moreover, once we have set out a maximum level of shareholding—say at 30 per cent. —we move back into the realm of the possibility of spiteful shareholding or unwitting investment above the permitted level through, say, a pension fund.
Finally, it would be administratively very difficult for the ITC to administer a maximum level as it would involve it in continuous investigation as to the percentage of independent producers with an interest in a broadcaster, and vice versa. On another point, we shall of course undertake to keep the position under review.
I turn to some of the other points that were made. The definition of "associate" in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 is specifically affected by Article 3 of the draft order. The noble Baroness asked whether it would be possible for a close relative of a person who is a director of a Channel 3 licence holder and has a 15 per cent. shareholding in an independent production company to have any further shareholding in the independent production company. The answer is that this would not be possible. The intention of Article 3(4) and (5) is to set out that neither a broadcaster nor an associate of a broadcaster taken together may have a shareholding greater than 15 per cent. in a producer or an associate of a producer, or vice versa.
The intention of the first two lines of subsection (5), which states that:
"any reference to a broadcaster or producer includes a reference to a person connected with, respectively, a broadcaster or producer",
is to ensure that all connected bodies are treated as one person. Accordingly, since two close relatives would be connected persons for these purposes, if one of them were a director of a broadcaster the maximum combined shareholding that a person and all persons connected with him could have in an independent producer would be 15 per cent.
1276
The noble Baroness also asked me why the order did not specify that independent productions must be of European origin. It is possible that we might be deemed to have contravened our GATT obligations if we specified that independent producers must be European. However, I do not believe that that will necessarily mean that there will be a large influx of non-European independent productions. The Broadcasting Act requires that a proper proportion of programmes included in a regional Channel 3 service must be of European origin. In its invitation to apply for regional Channel 3 licences, the ITC has set out that it will expect the majority of hours of programming to be of European origin.
The ITC has also indicated that it would expect at least 65 per cent. of the hours of programming transmitted within the calendar year to be originally produced or commissioned for regional Channel 3 services. Consequently not more than 35 per cent. should be acquired programmes originally made for some other market.
In addition, the ITC has reflected the requirement in the European Community's directive on television broadcasting that at least 10 per cent. of transmission time, excluding the time allocated to news, sports events, games, advertising and the Teletext service, must consist of European independent productions.
I believe that the effect of the combination of those requirements will be that the overwhelming majority of independent productions will be of European origin; and I dare say that the vast majority will be British. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point about relatives, of which I gave the noble Viscount notice. It has not been raised previously.
The position is not as clear as it might be. I have been amazed at the experience of a number of people who have been in touch with me on the issue. They are extremely worried. I listened carefully to what the noble Viscount said. It does not seem to mirror Schedule 2 at page 174 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. I do not wish to hold up the order. However, I am worried about whether I should obtain an undertaking on monitoring the control of cartels in regard to relatives. Many people who know more about the matter than I do are anxious about this.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in my answer to the noble Baroness I stated that we thought that that would not be possible. However, I shall read carefully what she said today and write to her to clarify the position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commercial and Private Bank Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  IRAQ: PAYMENTS TO UN COMPENSATION FUND
  IRAQ: PAYMENTS TO UN COMPENSATION FUND
  THE STATUTE BOOK: PUBLICATION
  THE STATUTE BOOK: PUBLICATION
  BLUE-EARED PIG DISEASE
  BLUE-EARED PIG DISEASE
  SHOP AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: RENTS
  SHOP AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: RENTS
  CONSERVATION: PROPOSED DIRECTIVE
  CONSERVATION: PROPOSED DIRECTIVE