Sitting of 14 June 1991

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

  Asylum Seekers and Refugees
  9.35 am
  Miss Kate Hoey: As the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, 1 have the pleasure of having the Refugee Council in my constituency, and I want to present to the House a petition signed by just over 1,000 people to highlight the position of asylum seekers and refugees in this country. I hope that the Government will consider the petition seriously.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House requests the Government to improve as a matter of urgency the arrangements and facilities for asylum seekers and refugees.
  To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED
  BREEDING OF DOGS
  Mr. Alan Williams, supported by Sir Bernard 13raine, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ron Davies, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Alan W. Williams, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. John P. Smith, Mr. Terence L. Higgins and Mr. John Ward, presented a Bill to extend powers of inspection for the purposes of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 to premises not covered by a licence under that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

Taxation Policies
9.36 am
Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on achieving reductions in direct taxation with the consequent encouragement of initiative and enterprise; urges the Government to continue its taxation polices of proven success; and warns the British people to recognise that the Labour Party's promises of increased public spending can only be achieved by substantial increases in taxation.
This is the second time this year that your hand, Mr. Speaker, has pulled my name out of the ballot for private Members' motions, and I should not like to go any further before thanking you and my good friend Lady Luck for making that possible.
I should like to use today's debate to try, at least at the start, to draw on a broader canvas than we usually can in the House and to look at the philosophy of taxation and at how in a modern society government lifts—if that is the word—about 40 per cent. of the national income from its citizens. I should like to examine how it should do that in a way most painless for those citizens, most effective for the economy, and most in keeping with modern life.
The principles of taxation go back to its birth in the 18th century. It was Burke, in this House, who made the bedrock remark on taxation:
"To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men."
That is clearly understood on both sides of the House; and it was also clearly understood on both sides of the Atlantic. It was Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia who realised that tax would be ever with us:
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
The 18th century was the time when we moved from primitive taxation—taxes on imports and levies, which were regressive forms of taxation that discouraged trade and wealth creation—towards the first taxes on income, inheritance and capital. It is not surprising, therefore, that the lasting principles that were to be the foundation on which modern tax systems were built, not merely in Britain but in Europe and the United States, were drawn up by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations", published in 1776. I quote Adam Smith not as some great guru of the right who has been hijacked by that wing of politics, and not because the Conservative Benches are today populated by fellow Scots, but because, with Lord Keynes, he was the greatest economist that Britain or the world has produced.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I attended a remarkable ceremony at Greyfriars churchyard in Edinburgh to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Adam Smith's death. At a conference there, Professor Wassily Leontief and Professor Laurie Klein two of the seven Nobel prize winners in economics who were present, argued convincingly that Adam Smith could have been a socialist. Every one of the seven Nobel prize winners emphatically agreed that he would have been violently opposed to the poll tax.
Mr. Fishburn: One can do many wondrous things with history. Whatever side Adam Smith would have been on if he were alive today, we are agreed that in 1776 he was a great economist.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Linlithgow

1157
(Mr. Dalyell) could and should have been a Tory, and that it would be much wiser for him not to be a socialist? Adam Smith was wise enough not to be a socialist.
Mr. Fishburn: The principles laid down by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" are still followed today in taxation policy. Smith's first great rule was that any tax should be related to the ability to pay, provided that it did not become a disincentive to further work or capital accumulation. His second rule was that a tax should always be certain and clear and should never be arbitrary and changing. He said that the state should make payment as convenient as possible. Smith's fourth principle was that taxation should raise as much money as effortlessly as possible, and that collection should be as cheap and efficient as possible.
More than 200 years later, those principles still stand. In those days, only 10 per cent. of the gross national product of the United Kingdom was taken by the Government. However, at that time the economy was far less robust than it is today. About 40 per cent. of the money that the Government raised then was used to repay the national debt. Given their good housekeeping record, today's Government would look aghast at such a percentage. About 33 per cent. of the money raised 200 years ago was spent on defence.
Mr. Tony Favell: I should like to join in this exchange between Scottish Members. What would Adam Smith have thought about Labour's policy for taxing the capital value of property?
Mr. Fishburn: I shall deal with that later. I have no doubt that any economist would find such capital taxes inefficient and socially regressive. They run counter to the rules that I have set out.
In 1776, only 27 per cent. of the income raised by Government, using far better methods of taxation than those proposed by today's Opposition, was spent for the relief of the poor. Although as a proportion of GNP the amount raised was far lower than today, the way in which it was spent towards the end of the 18th century was far less intelligent.
To those four principles upon which the Inland Revenue has been built over the past two centuries three more have been added. The first is the principle of John Locke, echoed by the French philosophers of the 18th century, that man is entitled to the fruits of his labour. That leads to the clear philosphical belief that it is a contradiction in a free society for government to take more than half the fruits of a man's labour.
The second addition is the clear principle that taxation should never be used as a tool for social engineering; but, in essence, Government spending is such a tool because its whole purpose is to redistribute wealth and to help those who are unable to help themselves. Government must also finance the defence of the realm and afford protection to the poorest in society. To design a tax specifically to achieve a social purpose is not merely economically inefficient but socially divisive, and has never been accepted by free civilised societies as a sensible way forward.
The seventh principle upon which taxation is based was abundantly clear 200 years ago but has been truly noticed only in the past 20 to 30 years. It is that, no matter how
1158
much politicians huff and puff, no country can afford to enter on its own a cul de sac of taxation quite separate from the systems of its neighbours. No open and free trading society, such as Britain, which has more than 30 per cent. of its GNP in international trade, can adopt a taxation system removed from that of its neighbours and competitors. It cannot go in a different direction from that taken by societies similar to its own.
The amount of money taken in taxation from Britain's citizens is within one percentage point of that taken from their citizens by most European countries. It is within one percentage point of the European average and, at 39 to 40 per cent., is exactly the same as the percentage in Germany, Italy and Ireland. It may be thought that taxation can be dragged in one direction or another, but no society in the west can afford to march in a direction different from that taken by history, our neighbours, friends and competitors. That has always been so.
The first death duties and capital taxes were founded between 1650 and 1680 in Britain, France and Prussia. Income tax was introduced in Britain, in three other European countries and in the United States in 18 months in 1799–80. That shows that economic ideas travel as rapidly today as they did 200 years ago.
The seven principles that I have outlined—four from Adam Smith and three that have been added to the taxation system—can be used to build a modern and effective taxation system. That is exactly what the Government have done over the past 10 years. They have stuck to all those principles; their clear policy over that time has been to move taxation away from direct tax towards taxes on spending. That reflects the growth of the consumer society, and Government policy has been to allow people to keep as much as possible of their earned income. By choosing where to spend their money, people may choose where to yield up their taxes.
The general trend so successfully set by the Government of lowering marginal rates of personal taxation and taxes on corporations so that they have more money to invest, of lowering direct and raising indirect tax, has been adopted by all our major competitors. Britain and the United States have led the way with such policies.
What it is possible to discern from Labour party policy on taxation seems to contradict not one or two of the fundamental principles but all seven. Let us consider, first, the bedrock that taxation should be built upon ability to pay without causing the disincentive of an individual to work or to form capital. The single clear policy of which the Labour party is so proud is to increase the income tax of high earners to 59 per cent.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will apply Smithsonian principles to the community charge—the poll tax—and tell us how that was linked to ability to pay or to cheap and efficient collection.
Mr. Fishburn: I am talking about primary tax. Poll tax, rates or a council tax are paid with moneys that are available after income tax has been paid. Such taxes are not primary taxation.
The one clear principle that is enunciated by those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench is that it is their intention to raise to 59 per cent. income on the high paid. That goes against the first concept that tax should be linked to ability to pay. It is worth noting that in a modern society income tax is no longer the fairest way of raising

1159
income. That is stated clearly in a rather good pamphlet entitled "Direct and Indirect Taxation: A Socialist Approach", which was published by the Fabian Society a year or so ago. One passage in the pamphlet states:
"The idea that direct tax is more progressive than indirect tax is not true."
The Labour idea that income tax hits the rich harder than the poor is also wrong. That is because the notion that income is the only way of achieving graded taxation is out of date. As we are now a consumer society, and as the spread of wealth throughout society has taken the form that it has throughout the west, the fairest taxes that are most directly linked to ability to pay are those that are specifically consumer taxes, not general income taxes.
Were income tax to be increased for the higher paid to 59 per cent., it would take the marginal rates of tax in Britain from near the lowest that now reign in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to the highest. That is an easy and quick debating point, but it is not the whole point. We must consider the amount of money that is already taken from the highest earners. Higher taxation begins to be levied in this country when someone is earning only two and a half times average earnings. In Italy, the highest rate of tax is only 50 per cent., not 59 per cent., as proposed by the Labour party. Furthermore, someone in Italy will have to pay this highest rate only when he is earning 11 times average earnings. In France, the threshold is six and a half times average earnings. Under the Labour party's proposals, the higher paid would begin to pay 59 per cent. income tax on earnings that were a mere two and a half times more than the average. That is the principle that makes such taxation so repugnant.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he arrived at that calculation?
Mr. Fishburn: I arrived at it through the considerable work that has been done by a number of accountants. If the hon. Gentleman refers to The Economist of 8 June, he will find set out the work that has been done by Coopers Lybrand and Deloitte.
Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says in reply to my intervention may well reveal the source of the figures to which he treats the House. Can he quote any Opposition Front-Bench shadow Treasury source as a basis for his conclusions?
Mr. James Paice: No such source would dare to put himself in that position.
Mr. Brown: We have never said anything of the sort.
Mr. Fishburn: I listened to last night's debate when the commitment to a 59 per cent. rate of income tax was made. It is clear that if a Labour Government were to increase child benefit rates and pensions and to respond to continuing spending pressures, they would have to increase tax revenue. Without that increase, there would not be a sufficient tax base to raise the money. Even if a Labour Government were to double the threshold—something which the Government have been unable to do over 10 years, for sound fiscal reasons—at which income tax would be paid at 59 per cent. that would still make the marginal rate of tax in Britain higher than in any other country in the OECD. That is the scandal of high direct
1160
taxation. It is not linked, necessarily, to ability to pay, and certainly not to modern work practices that seek to encourage incentive and capital formation.
Despite all that has been properly done by the Government, income tax still takes 32 per cent. of a British executive's pay. That is 32 per cent. for the Treasury from someone who is admittedly on high earnings of, say, £50,000 a year. That is already a much higher take than that which is to be found in competitor countries. The consequences of the Labour party's apparent policy would be economically horrifying and socially disastrous.
Mr. McMaster: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's calculations. He has referred to someone earning about £50,000 a year and paying 32 per cent. of his income to the Treasury in the form of income tax. Has he calculated the percentage that the senior citizen pays from his old-age pension as a result of the increases in value added tax that the Government have imposed?
Mr. Fishburn: The increases in VAT are linked to expenditure and not to income. I am talking about income. The one clear promise that we have had from the Labour party is that tax will be increased on high earners to 59 per cent. An increase from a 32 per cent. take to 59 per cent., irrespective of whether, by some miracle, thresholds were increased so that the highest rate came into operation only when someone's earnings were three or four times average earnings would result in British executives being taxed more heavily than their counterparts in the OECD by a long chalk. That cannot square with the running or an efficient, competitive or modern economy.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that an intervention about the increase in VAT rates would have come rather better from a Labour Member who had voted against them? As Labour Members did not vote against the increase, such an intervention can properly be ignored.
Mr. Fishburn: I knew that I had good reason to allow my hon. Friend to intervene. I am grateful to him.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: An even better reason for ignoring such an intervention is that pensions kept ahead of increases in prices, and price increases include VAT. It was a red herring coming from red Scotland.
Mr. Fishburn: I shall move on to the second principle which Adam Smith laid down and which the Government have done well to observe. That is that when a nation is taxed the taxation should be certain and clear. The Government have succeeded in making their tax policy simple and clear since they came into office. From the very start the Government enunciated the principle that they would move from high marginal rates of taxation to lower direct rates and higher indirect taxes. They announced that they would encourage savings and link, as far as possible, capital taxes and income taxes; and that they would encourage industry by lowering corporation tax. These are clear policies which have allowed British industry and individuals over the past 10 years to plan their tax. That is why Smith was so wise to say that if one is clear and certain, the Government will be able to take their share of national income from people in a way that is most efficient and least painful.

1161
When we consider the Labour party's spending plans, which we need to do because its taxation plans seem to be limited to the disastrous increase in income tax to 59 per cent. at the top level, we see that tax under a Labour Government would be anything but certain and clear.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does the figure of 59 per cent. include unthresholded national insurance contributions, or are they additional?
Mr. Fishburn: The figure includes national insurance contributions. To be fair and open-handed, each time I have made international comparisons, I have included the national insurance contributions in other countries. If national insurance contributions are included, the top rate in Britain would be 59 per cent. In Italy, the average tax of someone earning £50,000 a year would be 38 per cent.; in Germany it would be 30 per cent., in France it would be under 30 per cent., and in Canada, Japan and the United States it would be nearer 25 per cent. The figures for all those countries include national insurance contributions. Under the suggestions of the Labour party, the average person in Britain earning £50,000 a year would be paying 59 per cent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he should avoid turning his back on the Chair. It is not only a discourtesy to the Chair, but it makes things difficult for the Hansard reporters.
Mr. Fishburn: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was distracted.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman's figures for the top marginal rates of taxation in Italy and the other countries are wrong. If he is including social security taxes, the top marginal rate in Italy, for example, would be 63·9 per cent.
Mr. Fishburn: The hon. Gentleman is reading his own piece of paper and not listening to my argument. The figures have been calculated and apply to an executive working in Europe or in Britain who earns £50,000 a year. It is the real take that matters, because the figures take account of the thresholds at which taxes are levied. The real lift—the stealing from the pocket—would be 59 per cent. on someone earning £50,000 a year in Britain. As I made abundantly clear, it would not be anything like that in other countries.
It strikes me that the essential principle that taxation should be certain and clear is being violated by the Labour party's suggestions. They are only suggestions because the spending policies have not been spelt out; there have been promises and ideas, but they have not been costed. We must remember that every spending policy has to be matched by an increase in taxation. Even if it is matched in the short run by an increase in borrowing, that is merely deferred taxation.
The third and fourth principles outlined by Adam Smith—that payment should be as convenient as possible and that collection should be as cheap as possible—are, of course, essential to a modern tax system. The Government are much to be congratulated on increasing the efficiency of the Inland Revenue, on having brought on stream modern tax-collection methods such as computerisation,
1162
and on lessening the burden of tax collection by lessening the number of taxes to be collected. The abolition of taxes over the past 10 years—one or two in almost every Budget—has meant that the cost of collection has gone down.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although there have been improvements in the efficiency of tax collection, there could be considerable further improvement? Does he think that we might benefit from the introduction of a self-collecting income tax system such as is used in the United States and in this country for the collection of value added tax?
Mr. Fishburn: That idea is worth pursuing. There are objections to self-assessment, and one is that it transfers the costs from the Inland Revenue to the individual. The net amount of cost is not saved. If one considers money spent on raising taxes in the United States, the country with the longest record of self-assessment, one finds that it is no less than the amount spent in Britain. The money is spent by the taxpayer rather than the state.
However, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the subject is worthy of debate. It should not be slapped down straight away, but should be aired. I should like to encourage the House—this is one of the purposes of the debate—to consider the ways in which an efficient tax system can be created.
Another idea that could be pushed by the Government's computerisation of the tax system is that tax returns should be increasingly filed by corporations and individuals, who so wish, by computer. There is no reason for tax returns to be bound by paper. Now that the Inland Revenue has been successfully computerised, one would like to see much more action in that direction.
The most efficient way of lowering the cost of the collection of tax is, of course, to have fewer taxes. The abolition of many taxes is enormously to the Government's credit. That is why, on the principles that payment should be as convenient as possible and collection should be as cheap as possible, one must look askance at the Labour party's suggestions and its record when it was in government. Then the Inland Revenue was bogged down terribly as it sought to digest new tax after new tax. One remembers the backlog in the income tax department of the Inland Revenue in the 1960s and the 1970s and the chaos that selective employment tax—surely one of the worst taxes on the new and burgeoning service industry—caused among tax collectors.
The logical consequence of a system of clear taxes and cheap collection is that the Government must have as few taxes as possible and that they must be as easily collectable as possible, with self-assessment, as for value added tax, and computerisation, as for income tax and corporation tax. Over the next 10 years, I hope that the Government will press on with this line of reform, because it will lighten the tax burden and spread it more evenly in our community.
Let me consider the principle enunciated by John Locke that every citizen has the right to the fruits of his labour. The top rate of tax in this country is now fixed at 40 per cent., which means that someone paying that rate is working 24 minutes in every hour for Her Majesty's Government. That is no small tax on time and effort. If that tax were raised to 59 per cent., as is proposed, it would mean that 36 minutes of an individual's hour would be

1163
spent on Government labour. That is 12 minutes longer than is spent at present. That means that an executive working a 10-hour day and paying 59 per cent. tax would spend two more hours working for the Government. How does that square with John Locke's idea of every citizen being entitled to the fruits of his own labour?
We must remember that taxation policy takes not merely money but time from an individual. Time itself is an incentive. The Opposition's suggested increase in taxes is nothing more than an indication that under a Labour Government we would be slaves to Her Majesty's Treasury for a greater amount of the day. The time that an individual might have to create his own capital, to provide his own incentive, to take risks and to produce wealth and prosperity would be diminished by a new tax burden.
The old concept, which seemed to rule the country for so long, that held that it was somehow noble to spend public money but ignoble to produce and create private money must be reversed. The nobility, dignity and success of the nation depend not on the spending of public money, but on the creation of private wealth.
When people are subjected to a high marginal rate of tax, they work less hard and less productively. As taxes have been lowered on the top 5 per cent. of earners, the amount that they contribute to the Treasury has gone up sharply. When the top rate of tax was 83 per cent. and 98 per cent. on investment income under the previous Labour Government, and almost all of a rich man's time was enslaved to the Government, the top 5 per cent. of earners in this country contributed only 24 per cent. of income tax revenue to the Treasury. When direct taxes were lowered, people's desire to work grew rapidly. Less time was spent fiddling taxes; they were paid more willingly. As a result, the amount of money that went to the Treasury from those lower rates of taxation increased rapidly. When the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers were paying 40 per cent. only, they contributed 32 per cent. of the overall tax revenue.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Most of us now realise that the Labour party's idea of a square meal is a £500 snack in Park lane. Perhaps the Labour party should inquire from its supporters how many of its professional advisers now pay a reduced tax bill compared with when the Labour Government's taxation rates went up to 98 per cent. If the Labour party's millionaire supporters can confirm that they now pay their taxes openly when previously they found all sort of ways of legally avoiding paying them, my hon. Friend's message may be taken in by the Labour party.
The Labour party should also consider that it cannot run its show on £500 meal tickets. It must get contributions from the great raft of ordinary people who support it. The same principle applies if the Opposition increase taxation in order to increase spending.
Mr. Fishburn: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that his point will be taken. The wealthy supporters of the Labour party—good luck to it that it should have them —will be less wealthy should it succeed in its intention to form the next Government.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend mentioned the top rate of tax of 98 per cent. on income as set so short a time ago under the Labour Government. I remember returning to the Palace with the late Lord Arran in a taxi. He gave the taxi driver a 10p piece and said, "There's a
1164
fiver for you, cabbie." The taxi driver said, "No, no, that is only a 10p piece. What do you mean?" Lord Arran replied, "Yes, but I had to earn a fiver to give it to you."
Mr. Fishburn: The result is that Lord Arran probably earned fewer fivers and probably took fewer taxis. It is notable that the lower the rate of marginal taxation, the greater the contribution an individual makes to the national treasury. I am not suggesting that that is of itself a good idea, for we should not make the mistake of equating high revenue to the Treasury with successful policy. Successful policy means high revenue to individuals and relatively low revenue needed by the Treasury.
If we accept the notion that in a modern western society approximately 40 per cent. of national income needs to go to Government for Government expenditure, for heaven's sake we should look through the clear lens of economic efficiency, not through that of the politics of envy and the dogmatism of socialism, to discover how to raise that money from the unsuspecting public.
Western society has now concluded that taxes of more than 50 per cent. are morally repugnant and old fashioned. To take more than half of the fruits of man's labour is no longer acceptable practice. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury may cite two or three European countries where the marginal rate of taxation is theoretically more than 50 per cent., but, in reality, no European country takes more than half of the fruits of a man's labour in direct income tax.
Mr. John Battle: Would the hon. Gentleman go as far as to support the view that, if a person rents a house privately to another individual and demands more than half of his income in rent, that is unjust? Surely the landlord is asking more in rent than that person can earn. Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to prices as he does to taxation? If prices are too high, people cannot earn enough to pay them.
Mr. Fishburn: I am not sure that I understand the question. We are talking about whether a Government have the moral right to take more than half of the fruits of a man's labour. It is an entirely different matter if people agree to such lunacy in a private contract.
I did not expect the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to catch the point. We are talking about whether the Government of the people have a right to take mandatorily more than half the fruits of a man's labour. I doubt whether a Government with good sense would pursue such a policy. In the old days, the Labour party found that notion repugnant, as did 18th century progressive thinkers such as Locke and Hume.
Whenever taxes are raised, it must be done in the most efficient way. To tax with the idea of forming such-and-such a pattern of society is wrong. To spend with the idea of forming such-and-such a pattern in society is entirely justifiable. To spend is the way to produce the society desired. Raising the necessary revenue for that, however, must be done in a way that is blind to the social engineering costs. It must be done in the most productive and efficient way.
That principle has been widely understood for the past two centuries in western society. The redistribution of income is achieved through Government spending, not through the revenues that they raise. That was not understood by the previous Labour Government, and that is one reason why the country went downhill rapidly and

1165
became bankrupt. The last time we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer from a Labour Administration it was his avowed policy to squeeze the rich "until the pips squeak". It was not his avowed policy to raise money from the rich in the most efficient manner, to maximise the nation's income. That would have been entirely understandable. Instead, his idea was to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. His policy was one not of economic efficiency but of social engineering—not one that would increase the revenue that could be spent on the poor, but one that would discourage those people who helped to create wealth. They are perhaps a small section of society, but to the right hon. Gentleman they were nothing less than the enemies of the people.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, following Labour's policy review, the policies that he describes are nothing like those of today's Labour party?
Mr. Fishburn: I am a great follower of U-turns. It is extraordinary how two U-turns make a straight line. Labour has made so many U-turns that it is hard to say where it is at the moment.
It is possible so to tax a society that the social benefits of fairly-spread taxation benefit it. One of the most socially progressive and welcome moves of the past 10 years has been to give women control over their own tax affairs. That reform was introduced by my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), and will stand as his most lasting contribution to this country's tax reform. That measure, while not seeking to change the nature of society by tax policy, recognised the changing nature of society. I hope that the Government are even now considering other ways in which tax raising can fairly reflect the way in which British society is developing.
The politics of envy and social engineering, which seek to use tax to exploit one group of people at the expense of another, is not the right way forward, but methods that recognise modern work practices, the part that women play in society, on the role of those who are past the age of retirement but want to remain economically active, should be taken on board in our tax philosophy. This should alter to reflect the changing nature of modern life.
When we make international comparisons, we bump into something that politicians do not like very much—absolute reality. Earlier I said that even in the 17th century tax methods in western Europe were almost identical. If a tax was introduced by the Stuart court, it was only a matter of years before it was adopted by the Hanover, Prussian and French courts. Tax is an international phenomenon.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman says more about international considerations, will he reflect on the fact that near his own constituency—in fact, in his constituency—there is to be found the Natural History museum, in south Kensington? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the international outrage felt by those concerned with taxonomy and the basic data of science that this country does not seem to have the money to keep going the internationally famous institution that is to be found in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency?
Mr. Fishburn: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Natural History museum, and have heard
1166
him speak on that subject in Adjournment debates. I may point out that the Natural History museum is not, alas, in my constituency. I have to put up with the House of Commons as an example of fine Victorian architecture. In any event, the hon. Gentleman refers to spending, and not to tax raising.
I was making the point that western societies have precisely the same needs for raising tax. If one looks at the chart produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, one sees that over the past 10 years countries overseas have marched hand-in-hand in their requirements for the amount of tax that they need to take from national income. In all European countries, that amount has increased year by year. The percentage of the national income taken in 1979 was about 35 per cent. in the United Kingdom, and today it is nearly 40 per cent. The same is true of the country whose economy is nearest in size to our own—Italy. In 1979, it took 29 per cent. of its national income in taxation; today it takes the same as we do.
That reality points a mocking hand at both sides of the House. Over the past 10 years, the Government have done much huffing and puffing over how they have cut this and that and are spending less—yet the figures show that public expenditure accounts for an increased share of national income. One wonders why the Government allowed themselves to be so regularly hit over the head when they were saying that this and that was being cut when—despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the Natural History museum—the amount of national income being taken and spent, even during years of great economic growth, rose remorselessly year after year.
Is it the Government who should feel ashamed of themselves or the Opposition who, year after year, led attack after attack suggesting that services should be cut or not enough money was being provided in Government expenditure? If the Opposition were to examine the figures, they would know very well the clear, simple and published truth that more money, and a higher percentage of the national income, was spent year after year. All the arguments in this Chamber and elsewhere in the country to the effect that the Government were cutting back and not spending enough were wholly bogus. The reality was that a higher share of national income was being spent each year. One questions whether it is the intention of the Government—or would be the intention of a Labour Government—to increase the share of national income still further. Unless that question is answered clearly, all the rest is so much political garbage. If it is true that we will hold on to taking just 40 per cent. of national income for public expenditure, we must stay with the same patterns and amounts of expenditure.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House knows that there are some questions that the Labour party answers with a 200-word sentence, and others to which it gives answers running to four pages of transcript in Walden-type interviews. My hon. Friend asked whether it is Labour's intention to increase the percentage of national income taken in tax. The answer must be yes, no, or that Labour has not thought about it. Can my hon. Friend encourage the Opposition to give a clear answer today, because it must be one of those three?
Mr. Fishburn: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) will at least attempt to give a clear answer. He may find himself in some difficulty, because he must recognise that the amount of money available for public expenditure is directly related to any growth in the economy, and that only if the economy grows will it be possible to increase expenditure, or to hold it at 40 per cent. of national income. That would be one possible and honest answer.
Alternatively, the hon. Gentleman will have to admit that Labour, having examined its expenditure plans, has decided, if not to make a dash for growth, to make a dash for expenditure. He would need to acknowledge that, while all other European countries are converging on a 40 per cent. share of national income, Britain under a Labour Government—at a time when it is emerging from a recession—would be seeking to pursue a unilateral policy of increasing the share of the national income taken by the Government from the European average of 40 per cent. to 45, 46, 47, 48 or 49 per cent.—perhaps the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will tell us.
I can say categorically that if the hon. Gentleman accepts the second argument, that would be an economic disaster for this country as it enters the 21st century. If he accepts the first argument, it follows as night follows day that all the blarney that we hear in the House about how much a Labour Government would spend on public services is nonsense and as dust before the wind. In the end, we will have to spend the same amount of national income.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend consider that the proposed national investment plan, for which industry will have to pay, and the proposed training tax, which is the selective employment tax in wolves' clothing, would affect the dash for growth?
Mr. Fishburn: There would be a dash, but it would be a dash into foreign investment and away from further capital creation in Britain. It would not be a dash for growth in the circumstances that my hon. and learned Friend depicts. It would be a dash to the past and, I am afraid to say, to a rapid contraction of our economy.
The Government's taxation policies in the past 10 years have followed the seven principles on which tax raising has been founded in all west European countries in the past two centuries. Their policy was clear from the start. They have lowered direct taxation and increased indirect taxation. Greater individual freedom has been given; the individual can choose where he yields up his taxes. It may be on his habit of cigarette smoking, or on his car by paying more in petrol tax. It will be on this, that or the other item; as he spends, he will pay tax. That is a fair and modern way of raising revenue.
Because of the diminution of marginal rates of taxation, people who earn more are now making a greater contribution to Treasury funds. The Government have put into practice a major principle enunciated by Adam Smith: tax must be related to the ability to pay.
The Opposition are muddled. They have proposed nothing that counts as a clear policy, and have not said whether their spending policies would increase or maintain the share of national income taken by government. I hope that the Government, when they are returned to office
1168
after the next general election, will continue with their clear policies and will hold—in time, I hope, diminish—the amount of national income taken from the taxpayer.
10.33 am
Mr. John Battle: We are increasingly aware of what could be described as anti-tax language. It is not confined to Conservative Benches; it is used widely in society. People believe that taxes are an unjust confiscation of a citizen's deserved earnings and that the purchase of goods and services from the private sector is an exercise of individual freedom. Phrases such as "consumer sovereignty" are used. That reinforces the myth that the consumer is all-powerful. However, it rings hollow in the ears of millions of people who cannot exercise choice because their incomes are too low.
Government figures show that poverty is increasing. The view that we are all consumers neglects to take account of the fact that we are also citizens.
Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman define the term "poverty" as he just used it?
Mr. Battle: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Library where he can look at the latest Government figures on households on low incomes. They make it plain that people on benefit are living in poverty and many people who are not on benefit are living below the poverty line. We regularly debate that subject in the House. The Government try to hide behind statistics. They have redefined the terms on which a person is considered to be unemployed and denied benefit to 17-year-olds.
I am sure that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I continue on that subject. If the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) does not believe that there is poverty in Britain because he cannot agree on a definition, he should test his eyes and ears by talking to his constituents who are struggling to live on unemployment benefit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remind me how much that benefit is. It is £41·40 a week. That is much less than the amount that Conservative Members earn.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Battle: Not at the moment. I shall develop my argument, and then I shall graciously give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Are Conservative Members still expressing the view that taxes are a moral evil and, at best, a burden begrudgingly paid? During the election campaign in America, a pro-Bush car sticker read "Every man is born free and taxed to death"—notably it referred only to men. I was interested in some of the annual reports of the charities, such as the Convert Aid Society. Its report contained sentiments that were typical. It stated:
"Inheritance tax now takes a substantial toll even from quite modest estates—if you own your own house it is unlikely that your heirs will escape.
However, since bequests to charities are exempt from tax, the question you might wish to ask is whether you would prefer merely to enrich the Exchequer or help give a home." The Exchequer is seen as a malign, imperial figure—[Interruption.] We are hearing echoes of that from the Conservative Benches. Contributing anything in taxes is considered a moral evil.

1169
I recently read the illuminating book by Nigel Tutt "The History of Tax Avoidance". It is interesting to look at all the guides to tax avoidance that are to be found on bookshop shelves. They reinforce the impression in my mind that tax legislation is a vast playground for special interests that plead for exemptions and use loopholes to get people with some pull off the hook. That is also the impression given by some of the Conservative amendments to the present Finance Bill.
The common view outside the House is that tax is a tedious, mysterious world of codes and numbers, and is a matter for experts. I agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) that taxation is central to government. Sabine's "A Short History of Taxation" makes it clear that we can have taxation without government, but we cannot have government without taxation. Taxation is part of the contract of civilisation. It is part of the social, economic and political development of society.
The question is not whether taxes should be raised at all, despite the slogans of the new right or the recent north American, so-called "Tax Freedom Days", which present the view that paying taxes is like throwing money away. They reinforce the view that the public sector is a burden on citizens and limits their freedoms. Attacks on taxation in principle are thinly disguised attempts to soften the public to attacks on the public sector. That is the agenda. There is an attempt to deny the fact that any public sector activity provides crucial and vital services that benefit the whole of society. In a democracy, we can collectively agree to raise funds by taxation to a common Treasury for those activities. I fail to understand how reducing services enhances individual freedom.
I remember when proposition 19 was introduced in California. The fire service was privatised and people were told that, through the insurance policy on their house, they were contracted out to an individual fire service. It seemed to work for a while, but when a home in Beverly Hills was burned down—thankfully, no one was injured—and the owners thought that they would claim back on the insurance to rebuild the property, they were told that they could not do that because the contract had been with a fire service whose engine had been out elsewhere that night, so the cover was broken. They did not get their money back. Within months, a public fire service was reintroduced in California and taxes were increased to put on the road fire engines to which the whole community had access. Why do we need to go around the wheel of reinventing public services by privatising them, only to discover that they need to be brought back into public ownership so that the community does not suffer—for example, by catching typhoid if there are no public health facilities?
Conservative Members agree, because in practice they are not opposed to taxes. The Conservative party pretends that it is not taking money through taxes. In yesterday's debate, a Conservative Member referred to the Government's slashing of taxes. It would be more honest if Conservative Members spelt out the truth under the Government—taxes have increased from 34·75 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37·75 per cent. this financial year. The Government are taking more taxes from the British people. The Government may say that they have switched to indirect taxation. What did they do when they needed
1170
money to make good the damage of poll tax? They switched to indirect taxation and shoved up VAT to 17·5 per cent. The Government have massively increased indirect taxation.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Did the hon. Gentleman vote against that?
Mr. Battle: Conservative Members can hardly ask how we voted on the poll tax. We voted 170 times against the poll tax, whereas Conservative Members voted for it on practically every possible occasion. They now have the nerve to tell the country that they are against the poll tax, that they have dropped it and are now introducing something else—so much for all their talk of principles when it was introduced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said in an intervention, we were told that ability to pay was no longer relevant. Because the Government imposed such a burden on people, the only way out was to increase VAT and to tell people that they would get £140 back. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) may like to explain why many people have not received that money back. As the Secretary of State for the Environment revealed, the £140 was a headline figure. It was not money in pockets. People at the bottom of the scale did not get their £140 back. That is typical.
The anti-tax campaign has been a cover story, because the key aim has been to discredit progressive taxation. The aim has been to undermine the idea that the rich should pay a larger proportion of income than the poor. The 1980s were the decade of the yuppie, of quick fortunes on the futures market and of overnight killings on real estate and property development. They will not be remembered for consideration or for any caring for the poor. They will go down as the "loadsamoney" decade and as the age of record sales in Christie's and Sotheby's.
The hon. Member for Kensington referred to Adam Smith, but I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not quote the writings in which Smith said that the tax system should overcome some of the inequalities in wealth and income. Adam Smith argued for a progressive taxation policy and said:
"It must always be remembered that it is the luxurious and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people that ought to be taxed."
Selective quotations by Conservative Members will not lead in a helpful direction.
Adam Smith's principles have not been followed. Under the Government, tax reform has always meant lighter taxes for the wealthy and a financial squeeze on everyone else. Mr. John Hill, in "Changing Tax"—which I recommend to hon. Members—spells out what happened since 1979 in tax and benefit changes. He says:
"Remarkably what has happened has been a virtual zero net cost reform. The cuts in direct taxes have been entirely paid for by cuts in the generosity of benefits. There has indeed been a major redistribution from those on low incomes to the better off. Overall, the bottom 60 per cent. of the income distribution has lost, while the top 30 per cent., especially the top 10 per cent., has gained. The losses for the bottom 50 per cent. average out at nearly £8·50 per family—a substantial proportion of their net incomes—while the top 10 per cent. have gained nearly £40 per family. Overall, the bottom half of the population has lost £6·6 billion of which £5·6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent., and indeed £4·8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent."
The tax-cutting 1988 Budget reduced the taxation rate for top earners from 83 to 40 per cent. The take from capital

1171
gains, inheritance and capital taxes has decreased. There has been a redistribution of wealth, but it has been from the poorest to the richest.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the principle that the objective of taxation is to raise money to meet the Government's expenditure programme and, therefore, a change to a lower tax rate produces a larger gain from those on higher incomes than occurred at a higher tax rate? Surely that achieves exactly what the Government want. Did not that happen with the reduction down to 40 per cent?
Mr. Battle: If that were true, I should be interested in the argument, but the rules have favoured the rich. I shall come to the precise details of how that works in practice when I examine the salaries of the top earners. They found that their tax payments were massively reduced. Therefore, they are now putting in for massive pay increases because they can benefit from low taxation.
By 1980, 86 countries had substantially reduced their tax rates. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington about the tide of history. Was it Fukuyama who decided to announce the end of history? Perhaps it is the end of economic history and the hon. Gentleman believes that we can go in no other direction. In Bolivia, 75 per cent. of income tax is collected from labour; only 20 per cent. is collected from capital. Has that resulted in a reduction in poverty? No; it has resulted in a massive increase. What has been the result of the Government's policies here? There has been an increase in poverty, and people in poverty have been watching the highest earners increase their rewards.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am listening with increasing incredulity to the hon. Gentleman. That he should rely on the Bolivian tax system to tell us how to operate is extraordinary. He said that we reduced the top rate of income from 83 per cent. in the 1988 Finance Bill. Would he care to confirm that it had been reduced from that rate long before?
Mr. Battle: I am pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. The rate was reduced between 1979 and 1988. Let us make no bones about it—the Government reduced the top rate to that level.
Conservative Members challenge me about the figures. In the Conservatives' campaign guide, which I suppose is given to all Conservative Members and to prospective candidates, they say:
"The Government's consistent aim has been to bring down the tax burden when it is prudent to do so … Progress has been considerable. The tax burden as a proportion of national income or Gross Domestic Product, has fallen steadily from its peak in 1981–82."
On the very next page of the same campaign document, there is a table which clearly shows that tax, measured as a proportion of national income, has increased from 34·75 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37·75 per cent. in 1991. Not that I expect clear statements from Conservative Members when we heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the "Today Programme" come out with the remark:
"We cut income tax, we cut tax rates overall—it's the burden of taxation—because we have run honest public finances."
I am tempted to add that it depends what one means by the word "honest". It seems that the Chief Secretary was being economical with the language because, according to the latest figures produced by the Central Statistical Office in
1172
March this year, between 1979 and 1988 the burden of taxation increased for people on middle and low incomes, while it decreased only for those at the top. In 1979, taxes as a percentage of gross income for the bottom fifth of households, ranked by incomes, were 30·5 per cent. and in 1988 they were 39·7 per cent.; taxes for the middle fifth were 37·6 per cent. in 1979 and 39·2 per cent. in 1988; and, for the top fifth, taxes were 37·6 per cent. in 1979 and 34·5 per cent. in 1988. The poorest have paid more, because their tax burden has increased by 9·2 per cent., while those on top incomes have enjoyed a decrease of 3·1 per cent. of the taxes that they pay.
When we hear about salary increases for top earners, we should be aware that the top executives of the largest companies are given pay rises that are running at 19 per cent.—twice the rate of inflation and the growth in average earnings—yet at the same time the very same people are urging their work forces to accept modest wage rises in the national interest or even pay freezes. In one case, in Leeds, they are asking the work force to take a 7·5 per cent. wage cut, which the work force accepted on behalf of the company. When one man is paid £4,194 a day and has just taken a 17 per cent. rise, despite a fall in his company's earnings, it rings hollow to be told that he needs to be left out of taxation as an incentive.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East asked me for a definition of poverty. I offer him a definition of the word "rich". In our society being rich has come to mean being hard to tax and being able to employ armies of highly paid accountants and tax lawyers, who themselves make a handsome living by working out ingenious ways to beat the system to ensure that they keep all their income.
When Conservative Members refer to Labour's tax policy for fair taxes and before we get the lurid headlines in the tabloid press—as we always do—saying that Labour intends to tax everyone off the face of the earth, it is worth reflecting on and answering the question, "Why should hon. Members not pay a little more tax on their basic salaries to ensure that funds are available for pensioners, for the unemployed, for the health service, for those needing income support, for the schools system, housing, transport and environmental protection?" There has to be some redistribution of income in our society. We cannot allow the maldistribution that has gone on under the Conservatives to continue.
Mr. Paice: I am fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he thinks that people on the salaries of Members of Parliament should pay more tax. However, I find it difficult to relate that to the Labour party's position on child benefit in the past few years—the hon. Gentleman said that it should be universally increased. However well off one is, one's benefit would thus be increased and it seems odd that he is saying that the wealthy should pay more tax but on the other hand should receive more benefits.
Mr. Battle: If the hon. Gentleman is opening the debate to include child benefit, I am more than happy to enter into the argument. He will remember that child benefit was a part of the income tax system as family allowance and was deliberately taken out and made into a non-means-tested benefit. It was shifted from the earnings of the adult parent as it was for the cost of bringing up children, to ensure that

1173
it reached children—the child benefit book is in the mother's name. There was a switch in the system and there is no inconsistency in that.
Some Conservative Members would like child benefit to be taxed and if that is the case those hon. Members should stand up and argue it in the House. Some of us would then have an argument about that. However, the hon. Gentleman is hardly in a strong position, because child benefit has been frozen by the Government. There was a little release this year in the Budget, but for years the value of child benefit was frozen. Its value has yet to catch up with its 1979 value in real terms. The Government have cut child benefit and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of all the rows in the House and outside about the iniquities of that sort of policy.
I recommend a book by the Bishop of Manchester called "Taxes, Burden or Blessing" in which he argues:
"Every decision about taxes involves important moral considerations about justice and economic well-being for all and not simply the majority."
He argues that taxes offer an opportunity to bring society into a vision of justice, equality and participation by all and he calls for a
"radical change in our attitudes towards what we do in common and how we pay for it."
I disagree with the hon. Member for Kensington as I do not think that we can separate the distribution of services from the purposes of raising the money in the first place. People want to know what their taxes are spent on. That is why when asked questions in opinion polls some people—in the most recent polls it is now a majority—say that they would be prepared to pay a bit more tax according to their means so that, for example, the health service can be properly funded.
Democracy is about people having a role in determining the level of taxation and the distribution of taxes and not simply being consumers. A Government who are the real friend of the taxpayer take their trust and understanding with them and the consent to use the money collected wisely on behalf of the whole community according to principles of distributive justice and the common good.
If we want society to be rather more than a mere collection of individuals, we must tackle the common needs and problems of society. That means tackling environmental issues and also poverty, housing, education and health in our society. Our proposals for a fairer distribution of tax and a fairer taxation system—that is all that we are asking—are essential, because they will bring the rich and the poor into a closer relationship. Because people understand that and do not want further divisions in society, with the rich getting infinitely richer and the poor getting poorer, they will vote for our fair and just taxation policies at the next election and there will be a Labour Government to implement them.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is nearly 11 o'clock and, not wishing to interrupt a parliamentary colleague's speech, may I ask whether there has been any request from the Government for a statement on the serious situation relating to intact Iraqi nuclear weapons which may be stored near the Turkish border and the issue of monitoring the nuclear centre at Tuweitha? In the light of Christopher Gunness's report, which was the second item on the news at 6 and 7 o'clock this morning
1174
on BBC radio, perhaps the Government would like to make a statement and to clarify what action they will take through the United Nations on reports which, if true, represent an appalling situation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received any requests for permission to make a statement. Doubtless what the hon. Gentleman has said will be conveyed to the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Arbuthnot: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is nearly 11 o'clock, may I say that I understand that today, at about 11.30, the retail prices index figures are due to be published. I wonder whether I could ask the Minister to refer in his speech to the retail prices index figures, because we never hear enough about them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is not a matter for me. I am sure that the Minister's speech will be in order when he makes it, if he catches my eye.
11 am
Miss Emma Nicholson: The debate reveals the deep and unbridgeable divisions between Conservative and socialist philosophy. Conservatives stand for freedom of the individual, the family, the community and the country. Labour stands for statism, centralism and patronage, representing a corrupt and discredited political modus vivendi, more appropriate to the South American mafia than to the proud and distinguished country which is the United Kingdom.
It is unusual to have the chance to discuss the distributive nature of modern Governments. The distributive nature of modern Government expenditure is seldom questioned. Therefore it is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who initiated this private Member's debate, that we have this chance to debate that subject. I warmly congratulate him on his thoughtful and interesting speech, which outlined points that many of us do not have much chance to consider politically during the rough and tumble of our normal debates. This is a very unusual opportunity which I warmly welcome.
The fundamental difference between the Conservative and Labour parties is that while socialist dogma dictates that everyone's earnings belong to the state, Conservatives know that they belong to the individual who then freely, and with no guilt, gives back to the state—to the Treasury—a proportion of his or her income to carry out programmes that that individual supports or which, in a democracy, the majority of voters have said that they support.
Furthermore, it is clear that the individual voter wishes the Government to achieve on his or her behalf the least taxation for the maximum effect on those packages of expenditure in public life that have been deemed to be more effectively and more economically carried out by the public purse. It is seldom questioned in our society, but I believe it to be true that it is not the amount that we raise that we should question so much as the way in which we spend it. In many senses, it is not a question whether the Government raise 39, 40 or 41 per cent. in taxes. I wish it to be very much less than that. It is a question of how economically and effectively the Government use the funds that they have raised. The key question should always be: will that package of work be more effectively carried out

1175
if it is not undertaken by the Government? When we look at the redistributive nature of our modern taxation system and Government expenditure today, again it is true to say that, in contrast to the Opposition, Conservatives want everyone to earn a handsome living. That phrase was used a moment ago in a wholly derogatory sense.
Child benefit is a universal benefit, and—
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Nicholson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my sentence. Child benefit is a universal benefit, and it is our desire that state taxation systems should help the poorest of the poor. Universal benefits do just the reverse. That is the great weakness of universal benefits, if we want to help the poorest members of society. Universal benefits spread exactly the same sum of money throughout the whole of society.
Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the question of what is or is not handsome, was the hon. Lady pleased and flattered by the statement that she was the only Conservative lady Member of Parliament who dresses as well as the Labour lady Members of Parliament? Would she not be better, given her opinions this morning, to stick to dress rather than politics?
Miss Nicholson: As I am not sexist, I would not wish to criticise Opposition Members for their looks or demeanour, or for their discourteous behaviour. However, Conservative Members know that Labour men as well as Labour women Members of Parliament have been Folletted. They were taken out because they were deemed to be so unattractive by members of their own party. It is not Conservatives who make sexist and rather dreary judgments of Labour men and women Members of Parliament. It was a leading member of the Labour party who said that, alas, they were so unpalatable that they had to be dressed up—that they had to be cosmetically altered from top to bottom.
I prefer the reality of a Labour Back-Bench Member. A colleague who sits in front of him saw that the television cameras were shining too brightly upon his bald pate, so the balding Member went out and bought a wig. A colleague who sits behind him was heard to refer to the dead rat that he now has to look at, sitting on the Bench in front of him. Conservatives believe in the diversity of human nature and, therefore, of human appearance, so we do not fuss in any way about what we look like.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is an Old Etonian. They are well known for their great desire to look lovely all the time. I did not read the newspaper comment to which he referred. In any case, I have no interest in such things. I am a genuine politician. I am here for the good of my constituents. I am not here for this intolerable frivolity. I shall not give way to someone who, since he happens to be a Labour Member of Parliament, is sexist, dull, drab and badly dressed.
Socialist dogma—the belief that everyone's earnings belong to the state—fails to recall the lessons learnt in eastern Europe, which is that me and mine is more productive than us and ours. It is the Folletting effect—pulling all the dress money for those who sit on the Opposition Benches into the centre—that has given us this uniformity of padded shoulders and carefully contrived colour schemes. This is a job-lot purchase from the
1176
old-style state stores in Russia—soon to be privatised, I am delighted to say. Conservatives, however, believe in people being able to purchase exactly what they want.
More seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, me and mine is more productive than us and ours. That is why, when we look at the Labour legacy of taxation that we inherited in 1979, we see that, due to Labour's desire to take more control at the centre and to depress the individual's unique contribution to his or her life and to that of the community, the basic rate of income tax was increased from 30p to 35p in the pound, giving the United Kingdom the highest rate of income tax of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, except Denmark. Personal allowances ceased to be index linked, with the result that more people paid tax and more people paid income tax at the higher rate than ever before.
By 1978–79, 1·8 million more people were paying income tax than in 1973–74. The starting points for higher tax rates and investment income surcharges were reduced and halved respectively. The top rate of tax on earned income was raised from 75 to 83 per cent., and the top rate on investment income increased from 90 to 98 per cent. It was a third-world taxation approach, surprisingly reminiscent of India's.
Despite Labour's fine talk about equal opportunities for women, the previous Labour Government did not reform taxation policies for married women. Despite their hurling charges against the Conservative Government, they did not care about women. Successive Conservative Chancellors made the major reforms to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington referred.
The Conservative women's national committee made the first move while the Labour Government were in power in the late 1970s. Joan Seccombe, who subsequently became a Dame and member of the House of Lords and who is now Conservative party vice-chairman with special responsibility for women, worked hard with national committee members such as Dame Margaret Fry and others to produce a keynote report proposing that when the Conservative party took office, which they so rightly foresaw, it should alter taxation policies for married women.
That tax reform had been overdue since Julius Caesar arrived in the United Kingdom. It is curious that when he wrote about the United Kingdom he said that Britain was not only a grey and rainy island but that we were the oddest nation because we were unique in treating men and women equally in law. It took a Roman invasion to destroy that fine principle and a Conservative Government to put it right.
Mr. Battle rose—
Miss Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance; I shall not give way to him.
Before the Married Women's Property Act 1851, taxation was relatively light and married women were not people in law. The same applied under the Labour Government, who did not alter taxation for married women. That Act allowed married women to own property and to inherit.
Previously, the only married women who had that right were rich city widows. No doubt Old Etonians from the Labour party would have been trawling the city in the last century to find rich city widows. They were rich because they were the only married women who were allowed to

1177
inherit property. That is why they are identified so finely in Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". Even then, those widows had toy boys because they were able to inherit money. The 1851 Act corrected that, but it did not allow for independent taxation of women; it took a Conservative Government to do that.
Why did Labour make no changes? Presumably, because it costs money and the Labour party sacrifices any principle if it demands real financial commitment. That is a political prostitute's attitude—it cost money, so married women were not allowed independent taxation. Labour did not really care. I say that with some feeling, because when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the then Chancellor, announced his momentous reform, the shadow Chancellor did not even refer to it. What a shoddy crowd the Opposition are; they really did not care.
I contrast that with the tax reforms of the Conservative Government, which were made because they are central to the Conservative philosophy and because we practise what we preach. Our goals were to reduce the basic rate of income tax, which we have done and will continue to do, from 33 to 25 per cent., with an achievable goal of 20 per cent. Another goal was to raise the thresholds at which tax become payable, which we have done, taking 2 million people out of the income tax system. We planned to switch from tax on earnings to tax on spending, which we have done with value added tax.
Before the Opposition bestir themselves from their political slumbers and complain about value added tax, I remind them that we have the second lowest VAT average in the European Community. VAT here ranges from zero to 33 per cent. That is an incredibly wide tax range and no harmonisation is planned or possible .because of that broad band. We have an average outturn of just over 11 per cent. That fine track record was achieved because 25 per cent. of all goods are zero rated.
We have encouraged savings through devices such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which was introduced by the present Prime Minister. We have simplified the tax system by abolishing seven major taxes—national insurance surcharge, investment income surcharge, capital duty, capital transfer tax, development plan tax, composite rate tax on savings and stamp duty charges on shares and on property outside London. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, we have carried out a massive computerisation programme of the Inland Revenue. It is one of the finest large computer systems in Europe and it will prove powerful and effective.
The Labour party has not admitted that it wants to bastardise the tax system by a mismatch that is alien to our political philosophies in the United Kingdom of putting together tax and benefits and by compiling a huge detailed record on each citizen in the United Kingdom to achieve what could only be a grotesquely unfair rates system.
We have helped business considerably by restructuring business taxation so that the new main corporation tax of 33 per cent. is one of the lowest in the industrialised world. We have reduced the small companies rate from 42 to 25 per cent. and brought it into line with the basic rate of income tax.
1178
I have some points to make on which I should be glad of clarification from my hon. Friend the Minister. The first is the question of advance corporation tax, which is paid by companies on their dividends and shareholders. It appears that companies investing abroad are penalised because when they distribute in the United Kingdom the overseas income generated, little or no relief is available for the advance corporation tax payer. Secondly, over the years, that causes severe cash flow penalties, compared with companies that are wholly or mainly investing in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, that depresses the market capitalisation, because lower earnings are reported where advance corporation tax is charged—against profit rather than against tax payable or profits earned in the United Kingdom. Thus, the market capitalisation is depressed.
Secondly, perhaps the Minister will comment on the issue of benefits in kind, with particular reference to company cars. After all, scale benefits are being increased dramatically to discourage the provision of company cars. Following that, it seems that there may be an inconsistency of approach by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in taxing the benefits where cash alternatives to the provision of cars are not proposed by companies.
Thirdly, on foreign exchange gains and losses, current taxing legislation is unclear and uncertain, leading to potential muddle. Little progress seems to be happening on that front, despite the recently issued consultative document. I should welcome the Minister's comments on those three points.
I warmly welcome the greatly enlarged tax incentives for charitable giving. I have had the good fortune to be closely involved for many years with non-governmental organisations in the United Kingdom and overseas. Indeed, for 11 years I was .a staff member of the Save the Children Fund. Following that, I have been concerned with the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme and others. Now that I am in Parliament, I have the opportunity as a volunteer to be heavily, and I hope constructively, involved in the workings of about 58 voluntary organisations carrying out crucial work in the United Kingdom and overseas.
All the institutions and groups with which I am concerned warmly welcome the splendid inititives that the present and previous Conservative Governments have taken in the last decade in easing giving to charity from tax perspectives. That has made an enormous difference to their income and we hope that further incentives will be forthcoming from the Government.
Overall, the Government's aim is to reduce the tax burden when it is prudent to do so, and in particular to reduce the basic rate of income tax. Much progress has been made, which I warmly welcome, and I am grateful to the Government for the fact that the tax burden as a percentage of gross domestic product has fallen throughout our period in office.
11.22 am
Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on choosing this interesting and tricky subject for debate. It has been an illuminating debate so far.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) raised the important issue of the taxation of married women. I agreed with the thrust of her remarks,

1179
possibly apart from her implication that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) might be regarded as a toy boy. She may agree that there is also cause for concern about the position of unmarried women, many of whom, rightly or wrongly, live as part of a couple. It is important to pay close attention—not only in relation to taxation but in other respects—to their legal position vis-a-vis their partners and the state.
The hon. Lady referred to charities, and I join her in welcoming the changes that the Government have made which are of benefit to charities. I hope that, with her great and respected experience of working in the charitable sector, she agrees that charities continue to labour under an archaic legal framework and that it is to be hoped that in the next Session of Parliament the Government will grasp the nettle, for which, unfortunately, they were not able to find time in this Session, for a wholesale review of charity law.
I raised that issue earlier in the week in Committee upstairs on the Finance Bill. Charities will not be able to operate in a sufficiently clear and predictable environment unless charity law is reformed and we are able to look at charities throughout the statutory framework in a modern context.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I am not sure whether toy boys must have slightly slenderer waists than the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am not being discourteous to him when I say that I prefer him as a non-toy boy.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about charities. The purpose of revising charity law should primarily be to stop the public being ripped off by so-called charities which are not charities. I see that as the key initiative. Proper charities which wish not to fall into that trap can simply register as companies, when they come under the provisions of company law. The best charities do that now.
Mr. Carlile: I have some professional experience of dealing with frauds in the charitable sector. They cause great unhappiness and anger to many members of the public.
Paying tax hurts because it involves the compulsory removal of money which we feel we have worked hard to earn. Taxes should never leave more than that most basic and inevitable sense of injustice which we feel when we are compelled to give our money to the Government, like it or not.
Unjust taxes are ultimately uncollectable, as the Government recognised when they decided to abolish the poll tax. At best, we cannot expect even just taxes to gain more than a grudging acceptance from the public. Yet they are essential if we are to sustain a society in which there are as few illiterate, poor, sick and homeless people as possible. The duty of government is to raise the taxes that are necessary to avoid those social evils which are self-evidently unacceptable and divisive.
That has not happened under the present Government, whose achievement falls short of their often-expressed ambition. Marginal rates of tax have been reduced, but many of our citizens—especially those with small businesses living on tight financial margins—say that under Conservative rule they have found themselves paying more tax than ever before.
The uniform business rate is a tax. It is not in proportion to the earnings of businesses. It is related to the
1180
size of premises, which may often, for historical reasons, bear no relationship to the prosperity of the business. It has gone up by 10·9 per cent., way ahead of inflation, and it greatly hurts small businesses.
I see that starkly in my rural constituency of Montgomeryshire. For example, there is an old established post office in the very small town of Llanfair Caereinion. The uniform business rate for that shop is so great that the family that has owned it for some time has had to place it on the market. The business rate has been the final nail in the financial coffin of its future. It has been rated so highly because 100 years ago the shop sold everything from food to basic agricultural equipment. Today, the public go to the B and Q and Payless stores to buy their garden spades, ironmongery and so on. As a result, the range of services offered by village shops is necessarily reduced.
The uniform business rate is a tax which has hurt small business very much. The new council tax promised by the Government is barely more just than the poll tax because, like the Labour party's proposals, it remains based on what seem to be notional or often fictitious property values which bear little relation to reality.
It is right to say that the very rich have benefited under this Government. The most articulate who have gained the most under the Government's taxation policies. That fact tends to distort the public report on the effect of the Government's policies on personal taxation. When one analyses carefully what has happened, it can be seen clearly that the gap between the very rich and the very poor has increased enormously under this Government at least partly as a result of their taxation policies.
I should like to be able to say that we can at least have confidence in the Government's predictions about the economic climate in which they can frame future tax policies. Unfortunately, however, their forecasting is so bad that it is not possible to have such confidence. I shall give just one example.
In the 1989–90 Red Book, the Government forecast a cumulative public sector debt repayment of £19 billion for the period 1990–93. In this year's Red Book, they predicted an increased deficit of £19 billion over the same period. That means that the forecast of cumulative public sector debt repayment for that period is £38 billion out. That is hardly a cause for trust or confidence for the future.
I also suggest that the Government have shown a surprising lack of imagination in dealing with the tax regime. It is especially surprising because, when he was Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) often spoke about reforming the tax system and modernising it for the future.
National insurance contributions are, in reality, a tax. The very term "national insurance contributions" is a lie which has been perpetuated for many decades. The truth is that from the moment a Labour Government introduced national insurance contributions immediately after the war the contributory principle has never applied. Those of us who pay money into private pension schemes know that our money goes into a pension fund and that, subject to the performance of the fund managers, when we reach the beginnings of our dotage we shall receive an income related to the performance of the investment. National insurance contributions go into the same fund as road fund licences, betting pool duty and every other tax. Therefore, the term "national insurance contributions" is a fiction. It is high time that the Government took steps to

1181
integrate income tax and national insurance contributions and described the NIC as the tax that it really is. They should thereafter integrate the tax and benefit system.
The personal tax system is very difficult for ordinary members of the public to understand. Even people who work in relatively straightforward jobs with a straightforward pay-as-you-earn code find it impossible to explain to their friends and neighbours—let alone to themselves—exactly how the tax—the pounds and pence—that they pay is calculated. Under a unified tax and benefit system it would be easier to understand personal taxation and benefits.
As for benefits, I am given to understand that in Department of Social Security offices there is now a four-volume looseleaf explanatory encyclopaedia that explains to the experts sitting behind the counter what the legislation means. That cannot possibly be the comprehensible, realistic and useful system to which we should aspire in a society in which the citizen should be able to understand at least the basics of Government activity.
It is time that we considered seriously the question of self-assessment of income tax. It is right to acknowledge the improved efficiencies in the Inland Revenue, although our accountants do not always find it easy to locate them in the bureaucratic system. Nevertheless, the Inland Revenue is a huge department dealing with vast complexities. It exercises a wide range of discretions and interprets legislation in many ways, perhaps nearly as many as there are collectors of taxes.
The self-assessment system works quite well for value added tax. There are now many refinements of VAT which have also made that system complicated, and I question whether they are all necessary. However, the system works reasonably well. The inspections carried out by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise reveal that, for the most part, people assess their VAT honestly and that in many businesses there may be a tendency to underclaim rather than overclaim inputs. Why could not a similar system work for a simplified income tax?
The hon. Member for Kensington rightly said that self-assessment involves considerable expenditure to the assessor, to the trader, to the individual who must assess his own tax. However, if one considers the bills that self-employed people—and, as one of them, I declare an interest—pay to their accountants, I do not believe that it could cost very much more. I hope that my accountant reads this speech—perhaps I should send him a copy. I do not believe that people could pay very much more to their accountants if the system was drawn sufficiently clearly. It would certainly save the Government a great deal of money in the long term, although it would take some time and expense to set up.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. and learned Gentleman probably could not work out his income tax himself, so he would have to send details to his accountant and the bill would be multiplied by 10.
Mr. Carlile: I doubt that. I suspect that if there was a self-assessment system, as there is in the United States, the basis of the calculation would have to be very much simpler than at present.
Should we have confidence in what might happen to taxpayers under a Labour Government? I have talked
1182
about reforming the system, but we have heard little about that from the Labour party. We have heard merely about the raising of more taxes.
Let us consider—and the Labour party cannot run away from this issue—what would happen under Labour's proposals to, for example, a police inspector with five years' service. He is an important public servant, but he would be significantly worse off.
To take another example, the Government and, indeed, all political parties talk a great deal about encouraging enterprise. We should not underestimate the importance to national prosperity of the high income earners who earn several times the national average but fall far short of the absurd salaries claimed by some chairmen of public companies. A range of entrepreneurs will be discouraged from enterprise if they are overtaxed. The Labour party's proposals are unjust to precisely those people upon whom the national wealth depends.
The Labour party's proposals are fuzzy in the extreme. Labour has spoken of introducing a reduced rate band of 19 per cent., but has not told us why or when. Surely that proposal would be regressive compared with raising basic tax allowances. Why has not the Labour party recognised that allowances are much more progressive than reduced income tax rates? That seems to be a basic arithmetical fact which it has failed to recognise, and gives us cause for concern about its competence to deal with Treasury matters.
It is possible to produce a personal tax structure which is fairer than the one we have by raising basic tax allowances—a progressive measure; by adjusting the NIC ceiling to nearer the upper point of the basic rate band; by increasing personal taxation—something which my party has never sought to hide—but only for those who are earning several times national average earnings, in a way which would not discourage enterprise; by paying for local services by a tax related to the ability to pay, rather than by an unfair system based on property values which are often arbitrary; and by spending the revenue raised in a way which is seen as an investment in the country's future rather than merely profligacy, incompetence or muddle by government.
We should start with a clean sheet of paper in our consideration of taxation policy. We need to achieve the ends that will satisfy the taxpayer, so far as he or she will ever be satisfied by taxation, yet ensure that the national wealth remains intact.
Mr. Arbuthnot: On a point 'of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the retail prices index figures have now come out and show that inflation has fallen—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, no, no; the hon. Gentleman cannot play that game with the House.
11.42 am
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). It seemed to be sound and rational. I only regret that his party's policies on Scotland are not equally sound and rational.
I heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) something that I already knew about socialists—that they like spending other people's money. He essentially declared taxation to be a virtue. Under the proposals of all parties but ours, Scotland would pay even

1183
more tax than any other part of the kingdom. We would pay income tax, corporation tax and national insurance tax—I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that we should call it a tax when it is a tax. Tax is a simple three-lettered word. We would also have to pay an assembly tax. Scotland would have the great privilege of enjoying the virtue that the hon. Gentleman claimed taxation was. We would not just have the present polygamy of taxes; we would have a further two wives. Scotland would have the privilege of additional beggary.
I take a simple view of tax: it is a form of slavery. A slave must work for his master for nothing. The extent to which a slave must work for his master for less than his worth is to that percentage slavery. If half one's income is taken by one's slave master, the Treasury or the Government, one is half slave and only half free. If 60 per cent. is taken, one is two thirds slave and one third free. Every increase in taxation is an exercise in the extension of the concept of slavery. Slaves, apart from excellent, charitable workers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), are the only people who work for nothing.
There is a certain lesson to be learnt about the Labour party's proposals and its concept of taxation from its attitude to a matter which was discussed in the House this week—the tolls on the Forth and Erskine bridges. It is the Labour party's avowed view that the socialist-controlled joint boards should spend as much as they can on those bridges and resist the increase in the tolls to demonstrate that tolls are unjust. That seems to be a fairly perverse approach to taxation, but it is the Labour approach. To object to a toll of 60p, which is less than the cost of half a pint of beer, to travel by car from Fife to Edinburgh and instead to go by a nationalised train which costs £1·60 seems to be perverse.
Fundamental to the whole concept of socialism is the idea that money is like air—cosmopolitanly available. All one need do is to breathe in and out as often as one wants or to spend money as often as one wants because it is always there. I am not sure whether there will be all that much oxygen if the world population continues to increase as it is doing. One principle that is basic to economics—I do not suggest that I understand economics—and which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) introduced is that the lower the tax, the higher the revenue, and the higher the tax, the lower the revenue. That is absolutely certain.
To propose to the nation an increase in taxation and an increase in public expenditure is a conundrum that could have been invented only in the acidic tank of socialism—they are contradictory ideas, as the financial and fiscal policies of the past 10 years have shown. The less we enslave those who earn, the more they earn and the more they contribute in taxation at a lower rate. That should be added to the ten commandments.
While I am on a biblical theme, let me say that I am reminded that there is a phrase in the Bible to the effect that the labourer is worthy of his hire. I have looked in vain for any text in either Testament to suggest that, having been worthy of it, he should have it taken off him afterwards and spent by someone else who is not in the vineyard. We are a rich and successful country, but this country was the poorest in western Europe in 1979 and Scotland was the poorest part of this country. Thanks to the Government's policies since then, Scotland has become
1184
the richest part of this country. I do not want it beggared by a tax-raising assembly or any of the other proposals advanced by the Opposition parties.
Mr. McMaster: I am very interested to learn that Scotland is now the richest part of the United Kingdom. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman elaborate the basis for his information so that I can try to convince my constituents who have lost their jobs and who are living in poor housing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be persuaded to pursue that line.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: You have my double assurance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—with tax. The average industrial wage in Scotland is the highest in the United Kingdom with the exception of that in a small part of the south-east of England. I spend half the week in the south of England and half among the glories of the civilisation and quality of life in Scotland, so I know that the costs here are about double what they are there.
The philosophy of socialism is the philosophy of beggary, in two ways. Socialism has beggared every country in which it has been tried. I am not as familiar with Bolivia as is the hon. Member for Leeds, West—perhaps it is part of his constituency—but I am aware of the socialist Cuban economy and of the economy in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which has been so beggared by socialism that Mr. Gorbachev, if he is still in place, is going to the G7 meeting to beg capitalism to bail out the corruption, rottenness and poverty of every socialist republic in his quarter of the globe.
Malawi, a socialist country, cannot feed itself. Mozambique, seven times the size of France with a coastline longer than that of Florida and the best soil on earth, not to mention a population only twice the size of Scotland's, cannot feed itself because it is run by socialists. I can think of no country in the world run by socialists which has not been beggared. I can think of no marxist or socialist regime which has ever created prosperity.
Not only does socialism beggar whole countries; it is itself based on a philosophy of beggary—we should for ever be whingeing and asking for handouts from bureaucrats of the state.
In Bulgaria, which sits next to Bolivia in the United Nations, one can see what socialist taxation policies do to a nation.
I have been to Poland on innumerable occasions over the past 20 years. Lorry loads of medical supplies were: taken there through east Germany and given to the priests because if they had been given to the socialist bureaucrats they would have stolen or sold them. The only way to survive under the socialist Government of Poland was to have about 10 jobs or to go to western countries for a few years, earn some money and then return. Under Poland's previous Government a doctor earned about £40 a month. That is an example of a national health service under socialist tyranny. Socialist taxation policy would beggar this Country in the way that it beggared it before. A rate of 98p in the pound is slavery, and 59p in the pound is fairly close to slavery.
Hon. Members who were properly brought up—in view of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West I shall not mention in this context the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—will

1185
remember the story of Red Riding Hood. For the purposes of my speech, the redhead who is the Leader of the Opposition is Red Riding Hood, and the Labour party is the grandmother. If Red Riding Hood tossed grannie out of bed and took her place in this cottage—and I hope that such a misfortune will never befall the British people—the Labour party would take off its lace cap and remove its undergarments and the wolf of taxation, theft and public ownership would be back at our throats.
Like the wolf dressed up as the grandmother, Labour taxes bear false names. They are called investment taxes, training taxes, assembly taxes and property taxes. The Opposition propose renationalisation, whatever they call it, without compensation, and will increase company tax and impose a tax on the value of property, which is a fatuous concept. A person who on marrying bought a flat for £100 may find that it is worth £100,000 by the time he is 80. On his retirement he will have to pay tax based on the value of a property which he has not improved, and which has increased in price purely because of an outside market force. The Opposition propose that people should be taxed on the value of an asset which produces no income with which to pay that tax. It is an iniquitous proposal.
I shall return to the philosophy of beggary and slavery. Under a Labour Government, a postmistress, a nurse, a postman or a traffic warden who saves a proportion of income for retirement and invests it in the glorious shares of the Scottish power companies would have to pay tax on the income from savings on which he has already paid tax. That is double taxation at its worst. It is a quadratic equation.
The welfare state results in many iniquities. For example, if a layabout has an accident and he has spent his unemployment benefit payments and any other moneys that he might have, he will be given legal aid to sue the district nurse who diligently made savings. She will not be given legal aid because she has savings, but the layabout will get it. Surely that is an immoral principle, but it is central to the Labour party's philosophy. The idea that a bureaucrat should hand out money from one person's pocket to the pocket of another, from the most thrifty to the least thrifty, is based on a principle that is objectionable in every characteristic.
The Russian Republic has today rejected socialism along with socialist taxation and all the implications of it. It has done so with a resounding cheer. Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have all taken the same course. Is Britain to do the opposite? Are we to contribute from our income to cure the beggary of socialism in Russia? Is East Germany to be saved from socialist taxation and socialist principles by West Germany? I was in East Berlin on that great hogmanay when the first part of the wall came down. I watched it happen. I was in the Unter den Linden and the Kaiser Friedrichstrasse at the Brandenburg gate. I saw about 250,000 people celebrating freedom from socialism. I should be appalled to think that our nation would go back to such a thing.
I am glad to say that the great horses on the Brandenburg gate, which used to face west and were turned east by the socialists to allege that our system was
1186
decadent and theirs glorious, have been turned back again to the west, to the values of western civilisation. [Interruption.] In talking of the four horses of the apocalypse, one apocalypse that this country must not suffer is the return of a Labour Government and Labour policies, however disguised, mollified and embalmed they would be.
I have some business interests. I have certain companies that are hoping to make major investments in Scotland from all over the world. Not one of them would go ahead—I am talking about hundreds of millions of pounds—if a Labour Government were to be returned. That may be a good price for the hon. Member for Leeds, West, who could worship at the hideous altar of taxation, but I do not think that it is a price which the electorate would appreciate once it had come to pay it.
12.4 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I definitely came out second best on my ill-advised intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I shall not pursue the subject of the four horses of the apocalypse nor, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), what was said about devolution. However, he has prompted me to question the Treasury seriously about Forth Bridge tolls. I represent the toll collectors of the Forth road bridge toll station.
There is much talk in Scotland about a second Forth road bridge. Some of us think that before we embark on that expenditure, there should be a serious discussion about whether we should continue with toll collection which, in itself, is responsible for many of the traffic jams from Fife, Perth, Kinross and elsewhere. They are a serious headache for the people who suffer from them. Nevertheless, one must ask: is not toll collection a contribution to the road problems west of Edinburgh? There are other problems such as the Barnton and the Newbridge roundabouts, but there should be an urgent discussion on whether collecting tolls should be continued because it boils down to the fact that the road goes over water. Collection per pound in tolls used to be twelve and a half times as expensive as the collection of the standard rate of income tax. I should like the Treasury to comment on that.
On a Friday, we can discuss tax matters out of the yah-boo of the normal give and take of party politics. I wish to raise with the Treasury the rather complex issue of the terms and philosophy on which it thinks it has a continuing obligation in matters in which it has accepted property as tax in lieu of death duties. The specific case I have in mind, of which I have given short notice to Treasury officials, is that of beutiful Heveningham hall in Suffolk. To cut a long story short, I was told by Lord Schreiber that I ought to take an interest in the matter.
As a result, I tabled a number of pointed questions and wrote to Ministers. Yesterday, I visited Heveningham hall and I have never been so impressed as I was by the standard of restoration that is being conducted by the owners, whomsoever they are, under the guidance of Hussan Khamoud, Nicholas Playfair and Ralph Parry. I thought that the hall was superb because of their concern for detail and accuracy. They have also replaced the original fittings of this great house lost after a fire. Their work was absolutely commendable.

1187
The Treasury should put its mind to monitoring what happens to a property once it has been accepted in lieu of death duties—even if it is in the guardianship of the National Trust—in the light of what happened to Heveningham hall in the mid-1980s. The Treasury should discuss the matter with the Department of the Environment, which is well aware of many of the issues.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, of course I shall.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. An even more important one is the fact that much of our heritage is no longer restored because its owners are dissuaded from doing so because they have to pay value added tax on repairs. If one knocks all the windows out, puts on a flash-Harry roof, and other hideous things, as one is allowed to by the planning regulations, it becomes a new building and value added tax is not paid. However, the repair of historic houses is still subject to VAT.
Mr. Dalyell: That is a problem—especially at Heveningham hall, where, as I understand it, the entire cost of the work—including the expensive leading of the roof, which has been superbly done—is being met by the owners. The woodwork and plasterwork, on which I am to some extent qualified to comment, is also superb. However, the VAT problem is very real. Ian Richardson and the local group were wholly justified in expressing their concern over the past decade. I am very much in favour of local groups taking an interest in great buildings.
On Wednesday, I have the good fortune to have an Adjournment debate on the taxation of areas that are potential world heritage sites, such as Mar lodge. How does the state, in the form of the Treasury, place a value on ancient forests? Unless we come to grips with our capacity to protect our own ancient Caledonian forest, how can any right hon. or hon. Member lecture Sarawak, Brazil, Zaire, or wherever on how to look after their rain forests? It is almost impossible to value ancient woodland. It is not a simple forestry equation but a question of how we protect the only remaining part of the ancient European forest, which places us under a special obligation in respect of Mar lodge, in relation both to European heritage and world heritage sites.
In view of my Adjournment debate on Wednesday, I have written to the Prime Minister about how Scotland and the Scottish Office can be helped financially in relation to the designation of world heritage sites, which is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. I understand that the transfer of funds from the Department to the Scottish Office is a very real problem. In the circumstances, I ask the Treasury to review that aspect before the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) replies to my Adjournment debate on Wednesday night.
On a Friday, one can probably get away with saying something good about Treasury Ministers. I want to place on record the appreciation of many of us of the alteration in the Finance Bill on the treatment of gifts from big firms—particularly Hewlett-Packard, which dreamt up the scheme on its American experience, and its managing
1188
director, David Baldwin. In the hope that this will help academic institutions, I ask the Minister to explain how the Government will monitor the way that the scheme operates in practice. It is no use just saying that it has worked well in the United States, which it has. I should like to know in year two or three how academic institutions have benefited.
My next point concerns a matter that I raised in some detail in the Scottish Grand Committee, and I do not apologise for raising it again. I refer to the treatment of the sale of assets by universities to meet short-term crises. I have in mind the terrible state of the university of Edinburgh which, by any standards, is one of world importance. After a century and a half, it may have to sell its Audubon books, which are among one of the first editions purchased. Audubon, who was the great historian and painter of American birds, worked in Edinburgh between 1826 and 1839. It seems tragic to the Scots that these sales may have to take place to meet what one hopes are fairly short-term financial considerations and to close a crisis gap in expenditure. What is the Treasury's attitude?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Member's remarks to the motion.
Mr. Dalyell: I anticipated that you would find it difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Knowing that you were in the Chair, I took the precaution of having the motion by me. It
"warns the British people to recognise … the Labour Party's promises of increased public spending".
I am speaking on the issue of increased public spending, which I hope brings me within order. I have done rather better with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, than I did previously.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not press me on that matter.
Mr. Dalyell: In a letter on 29 May, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated:
"During the Public Expenditure debate on 15 May, you asked me about the sale by Edinburgh University of the Audubon book on birds, and I undertook to look into the matter.
You will have been referring to the decision by Edinburgh University on 13 May to identify for possible sale an edition of Audubon's 'Birds of America'. This was acquired by Edinburgh last century from its general funds, and the University is entirely free to dispose of unencumbered assets as it sees fit.
Edinburgh University forecasts a deficit of £5 million in the current academic year. It has accepted full responsibility for its current situation and is now determined to resolve its problems."
The letter goes on to refer to autonomous institutions.
That is not an adequate answer. It is a national problem. Edinburgh university, like Leeds and Glasgow universities, has buildings all over its city.
There is an added problem, which I wish to raise with the Treasury—that of universities with great and famous medical schools. Medical professors and lecturers are paid significantly more than anyone else in any other department. Those moneys must come out of the total grants to the university, so departments such as engineering or physics are seriously disadvantaged if there is a large, distinguished medical school. I ask the Treasury to consider hiving off and detaching medical school expenditure from that of universities in general.

1189
That brings me from Edinburgh to London and to the public expenditure issue at London zoo. I can put it no better than the considered opinion of Roger Wheater, writing as chairman of the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens. He is also the Edinburgh director. He said:
"with decision day looming ever closer, I felt that I must place on record my feelings with regard to the future of London Zoo which has found its way into the hearts and minds of countless millions of British citizens and visitors to these shores during the 160 years of its existence. I do understand the Government's disquiet at the failure of the Zoological Society of London to get its Regent's Park house in order. I believe that it is right and proper to question why, despite funding already provided by Her Majesty's Government which was presumably given on the basis of a sound management strategy, it has not lifted itself out of the financial morass into which it had fallen.
However, I do hope that your tough attitude"—
that is how Mr. Wheater addresses Treasury and Environment Ministers—
"and I have no problems with this approach, is getting the answers you require but is also indicative of a desire to carefully examine the proposals which I know the Zoological Society of London are now putting to you which will dramatically reduce the size of the collection, thus providing more space for the species that remain. These plans should reduce the operating costs and in addition to space for the animals will allow for the development of exhibits which demonstrate much more clearly the environmental issues which face us in the world today and the positive way in which these conservation issues are being tackled. There is no doubt that the work already being carried out by zoos like London is rather understated. Indeed, the Chairman of the Select Committee"—
the Select Committee on the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—
"complained that he was totally unaware of the considerable scientific, conservation and education activities of the Society. The slimmed-down collection would seem to offer an excellent opportunity to promote these activities and those of other organisations involved in wildlife conservation, including it should be added, the Department of the Environment itself who might use the location as a shop window to publicise the considerable work of the Department in environmental matters, much of which I suspect is no better known to the public than the current work of the Zoological Society of London.
I am certain that all those who have some knowledge of London will hope that whatever mistakes, errors of judgment or timing that may have been made in the past by the Society, this will not be used as an excuse for disbanding one of the famous institutions of the world and one which for many years was pre-eminent in the world of zoology. I feel quite certain that the Regent's Park site provides excellent opportunities for the continuation of a living collection of animals with a commitment to conservation breeding, research and education paid for at least in part by the recreational activities of the visitors to the collection.
On the knotty question of finance, there seems to me to be little doubt that whatever shape the Zoo may take in the future, it will require some financial assistance from the public purse. Our colleagues in major zoos overseas are amazed that London is expected to operate without such assistance, subsidised as they are up to as much as 60 per cent. of operating costs as well as the provision of capital funding. This should not come as a surprise to the Department of the Environment as you will be aware of the financial commitment to museums and botanic gardens and what such support represents in terms of subsidy per visitor to the institutions concerned.
Minister, a zoo of London's scientific standing is no different from these other institutions. Particularly relevant are the botanic gardens who are responsible for living collections of plants in the same way as zoos are responsible
1190
for living animals. There seems to me to be profound cultural and historical reason for viewing these institutions as being so different and yet their activities, particularly at this time, are in fact so similar. It is frankly rather foolish to put forward the argument that because Kew Gardens has been financially supported by Government for 150 years that this makes it more deserving for support than a similar organisation which has managed until recently to remain financially solvent. I presume that over 150 years ago the government of the day made the decision that financial support from the public purse was essential for the future of Kew Gardens and made it available. I suggest that the wisdom that prevailed at that time and which allowed Kew to develop into its world pre-eminence, should once again prevail to ensure a similar future for Regent's Park.
I do not believe that any financial commitment should be made, however, without a clear understanding and approval of the new policy for the London Zoo site and I believe that within any future funding must be included the appointment onto the Council of ZSL representatives of the Department of the Environment to ensure that the financial commitment from the public purse to the institution is used for purposes which follow the new policy for the collection and which develop and enhanced the excellence of its work."
In view of the public expenditure involved in London zoo, this House ought to have a debate before the middle of July or whenever—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is opening the way for a debate now, if the Chair would permit it. I had hoped that by now he would have related his remarks to the central theme of the motion, which is about taxation.
Mr. Dalyell: That brings me directly to paragraph 9.40, entitled "Tax and Accounting", of the House of Lords report on scientific innovation which says:
"One massive disadvantage which is faced by British industry is the high cost of capital in the United Kingdom compared to that in competitor countries. High interest rates, and the expectation by investors of high financial returns, can discourage industrial investment in innovation. In these circumstances it is important that wherever possible obstacles to investment should be reduced."
Paragraphs 9·40 to 9·43 of the House of Lords report are of crucial importance to this country. Thanks to the Foundation for Science and Technology, I attended a presentation last week on the House of Lords report which was introduced by the noble Lord Caldecote, at which Professor Rothwell and Mr. Oscar Roith, one of the advisers to the Committee, also spoke. I think that there ought to be a discussion of this document before the end of July, important as it is to taxation.
Finally, those of us who represent hundreds of people who work for ICI are very bothered about the consequences, if Lord Hanson goes ahead with his bid. Unlike a large number of my colleagues, I have good experiences of Lord Hanson. On the occasion when I raised—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to show me how this relates to the substance of the motion.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes. The motion concerns public expenditure, which is certainly involved in the potential takeover of ICI. However, you have been very lenient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as there are other hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate I shall only refer to the case that I should have liked to make concerning the article by Sir John Harvey-Jones in the Observer—that he wished
"Lord Hanson would take his money and go away."

1191
I would simply register the fact that the ICI issue is central to the political concerns of many of us. I hope that the Government will take note of the various delegations that will be going to see Ministers next week.
12.25 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) when he is not on one of his hobby horses. He analyses issues very closely. We do not always have the opportunity to listen to him in the sort of mood that he is in today. I found great delight particularly in his reference to public buildings and in his comments about London zoo, to which I have now referred in passing and from which I shall pass on before I run any risks.
I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). I believe firmly that it is every citizen's inalienable right in a democracy to pay as little tax as is legally possible. That has been the view of our courts since time immemorial. I well remember, in the days of high taxation, men on the production lines in the factories where I worked coming to me and saying, "How can we pay less tax on our overtime money—tax that is being imposed on us by this Labour Government?" They were advised about how they could pay less tax legally. These are not millionaires but production workers. It is also interesting that the hon. Member for Leeds, West referred to the decade of various troubles but that he forgot to talk about that decade as the decade of Liverpool and Hatton, so vividly brought to our screens by "GBH." That is a subject which the Labour party wants to avoid as much as it can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) is having a well-deserved break, having been here all the time so far, but he will have the opportunity to read in Hansard what I say. In his opening speech he analysed taxation policies, going a long way back, in a way that we have not heard in the House for a very long time. I do not propose to refer to Adam Smith. The only Adam with whom I was particularly familiar was Old Adam who had a gardening strip in the Sunday Express. He also was a wise old bird—as was Adam Smith. We would do well to learn from both. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that I cannot, alas, stay until the end of the debate, but I, too, will read what is said in my absence.
My hon. Friend began by giving us a history of taxation. History teaches us lessons. We should be very unwise if we failed to observe the lessons that history teaches us. One lesson that cannot be learnt often enough is that Labour is the party of high taxation. It is also the party which has always left office with this country more in debt than when it was elected. At the next election there will be millions of first-time voters who did not experience the nonsense of selective employment tax, which was a tax on jobs, or 98 per cent. taxation, or this folly of taxing overtime very heavily and who did not—
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: If I may finish this statement I shall, of course, give way.
They did not experience the humiliation of the International Monetary Fund dictating our policy—a
1192
policy which meant that the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer had to cut hospital building for the only time in our history. Labour has always presided over the devaluation of sterling. We must continue to drive home those lessons.
Mr. Brown: We are not planning to do any of the things that the hon. Gentleman is denouncing.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Nor did the previous Labour Government, but they still got us into a mess. The hon. Gentleman was not a member of that Government, but he should read their pious declarations and the book of Lord Barnett in which he says how he tried to cope with their follies but failed because he was unable to control their mad spending desires. He will then see the need to drive those lessons home.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No. The hon. Lady has been opening letters for the past 10 minutes. She came in late, and I shall not give way to her.
We have a duty to remind the public of those facts and that they will experience the dangers of a socialist Government even if they vote for the Liberal Democrats, who kept the previous Labour Government in power for a year longer than was necessary to taste the crumbs of power.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, Labour policies sound attractive—they always do. The pill is always sugar coated, but, my God, when one gets below the sugar, one suffers. Labour policies always seem achievable, but they never are, except at exorbitant cost.
All too often, Labour produces a menu without prices, but they have been smoked out. It fell for the media hype that there would be a summer election and was forced to rush out its policies, which are now being analysed by the City and by economists and are being shown to be bogus. They will involve immense costs if Labour is elected.
To pay for Labour's programme, police sergeants, senior nurses and deputy head teachers will be clobbered by having to pay higher taxes and national insurance
contributions. We are told that they are the super rich because they earn £20,000 a year. We have been told how many people will pay higher taxation, but it will be interesting to discover whether the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East can clear up our anxiety and uncertainties. The shadow Chief Secretary said that one in 20 will pay higher taxes; the Leader of the Opposition said that it will be one in 18; and the shadow Chancellor says that it will be one in eight. It will be interesting to know which of those is right, but it is crystal clear that under Labour everybody will pay higher taxes because its rates will force up the cost of living. In addition, its jobs tax will lead to fewer jobs, so all of us will pay more.
Almost every Labour party spokesman says that more must be spent, but not necessarily all at once. Yet, some of them are saying, "We do not need to raise taxation." That does not add up. It sounds fine, but the various interest groups that are pushing for more expenditure will ask, "How much will be spent on us?"
At no time in our history since 1948—and this will be so in the next 10 years—have we spent enough on the national health service. We can never spend enough on the

1193
national health service because medical science is advancing all the time. The vast increases that have been given in the past 11 years have not been, and never could be, sufficient to keep up. A Labour Minister once said that the needs of the NHS were infinite and that the resources would always be finite. The sooner the Labour party realises that and stops trying to kid the public that Labour would spend more on the NHS, the better it will be for the peace of mind of the people.
Joe Soap public will have to pay higher taxes under a Labour Government when they come to power in 1999 or the year 2000. Labour certainly will not get in next time. Despite the blarney and blandishments of Labour Members, the City now begins to realise that behind the acceptable face of socialism portrayed by the Labour spokesman to whom I have referred, there are those, such as the former chairman of the Labour party, who tell us that we will see the real agenda of the Labour party when Labour is elected, and we know that to be a fact.
In the manner of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, Labour Members attack high salaries. They attack British Telecom for high profits. Why do they always conceal the truth? The Post Office used to run our telephone service. We then had outdated equipment—basically, it was Strowger, the invention of an American undertaker pre-1914. We had to share party lines because there were not enough lines, and we had to wait months for new phones. We as taxpayers had to foot the losses of the Post Office.
I know about that in detail because I was for several years chairman of the postal and telecommunications committee of the CBI and a member of the Post Office Users' National Council until I was sacked by Shirley Williams because I was Conservative. She did not have the guts to tell me herself. She got one of her junior Ministers to tell me.
British Telecom is now private. There are no shared party lines. With its massive digital equipment, one may wait a couple of weeks for a new phone. Calls are now a fifth cheaper than when it was privatised. Shareholders get dividends, the Exchequer gets taxation on those dividends, and it gets corporation tax on BT's profits, instead of having to ask the taxpayer to fund the country's telephone system. That is the story that Labour Members never dare tell us. That is why they know in the end that the public will not fall for their nonsense of renationalising—by 2 per cent. more, or whatever the figure may be—of BT.
Ms. Abbott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about British Telecom without mentioning the astronomic rise in directory inquiry call charges?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is barely a point of order for the Chair. All hon. Members are responsible for the speeches that they make in the House.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Lady, in raising that bogus point of order, should have reminded us that costs to the general public have come down by 6 per cent. as a consequence of charging for directory inquiry calls, so that only those who use that service pay, instead of all of us
1194
paying. Let us have no more of that sort of intervention, although it was helpful, which the hon. Lady did not intend it to be.
The capital programmes today of BT and all our nationalised industries, now privatised, can go ahead without the Treasury trying to treble guess everybody. That was the trouble in the past, though not under Conservative rule. In the past, when those industries were nationalised—as we heard in a brilliant speech last week from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—an industry worked out what it wanted, went to the sponsoring Ministry, which reworked it, and it then went to the Treasury, which re-reworked it. The Treasury then replied, "Of course you would like three digital exchanges, but we have a bridge to build and we regard that as more important." Now, when any of the privatised industries wants to carry out a capital project, it does so without recourse to taxation and the Treasury, which is a saner way of managing things.
All that would disappear were a Labour Government to be elected again. We have seen and heard about the open agenda and the hidden agenda. I prefer to believe, from experience, that the hidden agenda would operate.
There is one basic difference between the Tory party and the other parties: we believe that it is better to let people's money fructify in their own pockets. We do not believe that we know better how to spend other people's money. The choice is simple: high taxation under the socialists and Liberal Democrats, or low taxation under the Tories.
12.39 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I was delighted to be third in the ballot for private Member's motions, but I was beginning to suspect that we might not get that far today. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on taxation.
We have heard much rhetoric about the effect of the Government's policies on taxation over the past decade, but I shall concentrate on the real effects, as I know them from my constituency and elsewhere, on real people. Many hon. Members did not try to hide the fact that during the past 10 years the Government have made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Every report and all the statistical evidence shows that to be the case.
We have heard some carefully reasoned arguments today, but we know that some adherents of the Conservative cause argue openly elsewhere that they want to apply the law of the jungle in what should be a sophisticated civilisation so that the strong should be rewarded and the weak left to founder. No one would dispute the wisdom of encouraging the strong to prosper, but to do that at the expense of the weak and of people who cannot therefore contribute to the economy is not good. I have always believed that we should judge a civilisation not by how great its national assets are, but by how it treats the weakest in society. Judged by that criterion over the past decade, the Government do not fare at all well.
Specific groups have been mentioned today. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) referred to someone who is unemployed and able to receive legal aid, whereas a district nurse was unable to do so. I do not dispute that, but that criterion

1195
—or hidden tax—could also be said to apply to other groups. Let us consider, for example, the senior citizens who have worked all their lives and contributed to their works pension funds, but now discover that any income that they receive from that source is deducted pound for a pound so that they are not entitled to a reduction in community charge or to housing benefit. They are, in many cases, no better off for having contributed to their works pension schemes, which is clearly wrong.
I had intended to refer in my private Member's motion to the fact that the case for the disabled is equally strong, but I shall leave that for the moment except to issue a word of caution to the Government. The disabled community of Great Britain comprises about 6·5 million people, in addition to their families and those who care for them. It would be folly for anyone to ignore their wishes or those of all the voluntary and lobby groups that support the disabled. I ask the Minister to spell out how the cuts in direct taxation have helped such people in the past decade, as the groups involved say that they do not understand it. Disabled people have had their benefits changed and are now worse off. They now pay a higher proportion of their earnings in value added tax and find it increasingly difficult to find a place in the job market.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is not alone in being concerned for the well-being of the disabled. I hope that he is not suggesting that because someone is disabled he or she cannot do a job. Many disabled people do jobs and earn substantial incomes, and I include myself in that category.
Mr. McMaster: I certainly accept that we do not have a monopoly of concern for the disabled. That is not in dispute. My point is that if the Government continue to pursue their policies on the disabled, the partnership and consensus will be in jeopardy.
I have personal knowledge of the work that disabled people can do and the role that they can play in the community. For 10 years I taught horticulture in a Glasgow college. For the last two of those years I was seconded to a project to help disabled people into employment. During that period I learnt the salutary lesson that disabled people can make a contribution. Is a person who is wheelchair-bound any less able to do a secretarial job? Is someone with a learning difficulty any less able to do many jobs? There is a good example in this Chamber: is someone with a hearing impairment any less able to do this job? There are many such good examples.
I am aware that I am straying wide of the debate and I shall return to it. The purpose of taxation is to provide services at the point of need. Those in need include groups in the community with particular disadvantages. Much has been made of the Government's targeting of income tax and the philosophy that lies behind it. In 1985 when my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was promoting the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 he said at a press conference:
"The principal purpose is to ensure greater representation of disabled people in decisions which affect their own lives. Disabled people should not be continually done unto."
This morning Tory Members have applied that argument to all people. They have said that they want to give everybody more control of their lives, more say and more freedom, and that the Government should not do unto them. There is consensus on that point when it is applied
1196
to disabled people and an opportunity for partnership, but only if the Government apply to them the policies to which the Government say they are committed.
An important aspect of taxation relates to the 1986 Act. For six years the disabled community and all the organisations that serve it have believed that the Act would be implemented. Government agencies, voluntary agencies and local authorities have already spent considerable sums of taxpayers' money training staff to cope with it, only to find now that the Act will not be implemented. That is a serious waste of taxpayers' money.
Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that cuts in direct taxation do absolutely nothing for those on benefit and those who depend on state social security? Those people have suffered during the past 12 years. Does he further agree that the unpleasant gloating of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) over the Government's success in allowing rich people's money to fructify in their pockets, Swiss bank accounts and offshore trusts, and his complete lack of concern for people on benefit, pensioners, the low paid, women dependent on social security and those who have suffered under the Government, will ensure that he is replaced in short order by Miss Glenda Jackson, the Labour party candidate in his constituency?
Mr. McMaster: I certainly agree. The old adage has come to life: to make the rich work harder, pay them more; to make the poor work harder, pay them less. That is the Conservative philosophy and it completely misses out disabled people who do not even have the opportunity to work and pay taxes.
The Government's failure to implement the 1986 Act has another effect on disabled people. The Act provided for assessment of needs. If the Government intend, as they say they do, to target their resources where they are required, how can they proceed without an assessment of needs? Globally speaking, no new legislation has superseded the 1986 Act—the only new element has been the right of appeal.
Last night I had the good fortune to be in the company of and to hear a speech by the only Member in the House who is as wise as and even more distinguished than you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to Mr. Speaker himself, who said:
"Parliament should not only deal with issues affecting all the people. It should deal with issues which affect any of the people."
The disabled are being discriminated against still and the Government have the legislation in place to do something about that—if only they will implement the 1986 Act.
A few weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking how many manufacturing jobs had been lost in the area with a Paisley postcode. The answer was that 76 per cent. of such jobs in that area had been lost. There used to be 19,100; now there are 4,500. So 14,600 people, three quarters of those who worked in manufacturing industry, have lost their jobs. That is the real effect of the Government's taxation and economic policies.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that this week Babcock, a name which he will recognise, is celebrating 100 years of successful business in Scotland? Will he further reflect that in the past few years Babcock's work force has fallen from more than 6,000 to

1197
between 1.500 and 2,000—yet productivity is higher than before? Now the company has sure jobs in a difficult and competitive international market and it is no longer vulnerable, as it was when too many people worked for it. I was told all this by the chief executive of the company—does the hon. Gentleman dispute it?
Mr. McMaster: Babcock is actually in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), but the last time I visited it to talk to the management—it was during the Gulf crisis—I learnt that when the company had to freeze its contracts the Government would not give it a bridging loan. So there is everything to be proud of when productivity is improved but nothing to be proud of if, when it has been improved, the opportunity to expand is not taken up. Babcock is capable of doing many other things and of entering many other markets. It is an excellent company, but when it was in difficulty it did not receive Government support.
Less than half a mile from Babcock used to be a company called Howden's. It was a world leader in renewable energy—a fashionable idea—and at the forefront of environmentally friendly renewable energy products. While still in profit, the company closed down due to a combination of factors, not least among which were high interest rates and the associated economic problems of this country. Rolls-Royce is another example. It has just made redundant 6,000 workers, some of whom worked in the Hillington engine factory. Rolls-Royce announced today that it is to open a factory in Germany. How can it be called economic success when workers are losing their jobs? They are not getting a chance to improve productivity because their jobs are going to other countries. There must be lessons to be learned from that.
Ms. Abbott: My hon. Friend ably describes the shrinking of our manufacturing base. Does he agree that the tentacles of the recession reaching into the south-east and affecting white collar jobs in the service industries that were set up in the latter half of the 1980s will ensure that the Government are swept away at the next general election?
Mr. McMaster: I agree. I knew that incomes in the south-east were higher than in Scotland, but I am a new Member and in the six months that I have been here I have seen many poorly clad children in London. That is because all family income is used to fund high-interest mortgages.
The motion refers to the "initiative and enterprise" which Government taxation policies have created. I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is not in his place, because he takes a great interest in and is an expert on the fashion industry. I was one of the four Labour Members present when the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about alleged Folletting in the Labour party. We did not look as if we had been Folletted. In the spirit of the initiative and enterprise mentioned in the motion, I suggest that some Conservative Members should be "Fairbairned". That would certainly bring some colour to the House.
Ten years ago Paisley was famous for its thread mills, but they have all closed as a result of the Government's economic policies. The paisley pattern is world renowned.
1198
I am wearing a paisley-patterned tie, as are some other hon. Members. Not a single stitch of the paisley pattern is now sewn in Paisley. For many months the local authority and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and others have been trying to persuade industry to manufacture paisley-patterned goods in Paisley. That is bound to be an economic success, but we have not found the enterprise and initiative that are necessary to bring it about.
Conservative Members have spoken about high indirect taxation. The rich can only spend so much of a tax cut. It would make far more sense to give the majority of consumers more money, and that can be done only through a measure of wealth distribution. The Labour party has plainly said that it will not promise anything or do anything that it cannot afford. We have also said that people such as pensioners and the disabled, who have suffered over the past decade, must be given more spending power.
Wealth must be created before taxes can be paid. Employed people make a great contribution through pay-as-you-earn, so it makes sense to get more people back to work. In that regard the Government have singularly failed. Worse than that, they have pursued policies that have put people out of work.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I am sure that many Conservative Members are fed up hearing my colleagues quote the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but we shall continue to do so—that unemployment was a price well worth paying. I can assure Conservative Members that the electorate in my constituency and other electorates elsewhere think that unemployment is a price which the country cannot afford to pay. It is an issue which will guide the electorate generally when it comes to place its cross on the ballot paper at the general election.
Among the many who have been disfranchised from employment are the disabled. That has had many effects, including economic effects. If disabled people do not work, they cannot contribute to the income tax system. That means that they do not have a chance to contribute to the economy, and there is a dignity to be gained from making that contribution. There is also an economic benefit in getting people back to work.
Self-esteem is much enhanced if someone feels that he is contributing to society. That leads to improvements within the community generally and to many social benefits. It would do us all well to remember that none of us can say any more than that he or she is temporarily able-bodied. Some people are born disabled and others become disabled. We do not know what lies before us, so concern for the disabled is something which we should all share.
Having worked on a project with disabled people, I believe that there is a tremendous pool of untapped talent among the disabled community. It was made evident in the film "The Rain Man" that if someone has a disability there tends to be a compensatory ability. That is why we should always emphasise ability rather than disability.
When disabled people who want to work are kept out of work, their disabilities are emphasised and their abilities become diminished. That leads to personal and social problems as well as economic problems. As I have said, it is important that disabled people should be able to contribute to the community.
There is much employment discrimination. For many years there has been a legislative requirement that

1199
employers should meet the 3 per cent. quota and ensure that 3 per cent. of the work force comprises the disabled. We all know that that requirement has not been enforced and that it has become almost a voluntary objective. I served as the leader of a council and I know that the Department of Employment gave awards to employers who ensured that 1 per cent. of their work force were disabled people. In other words, they were given awards for breaking the law by two thirds.
The Government's record is not honourable. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland a few weeks ago asking him to state the extent to which the Scottish health service had succeeded in meeting the target quota. I selected the Scottish health service because I thought that a public spending body would have some sympathy for and empathy with those with disabilities. I discovered that over a 10-year period the employment of disabled people as a percentage of the work force had declined from 0·5 per cent. to 0·2 per cent. It seems that the shortfall is becoming worse.
I was fortunate last night to receive a reply to a question from the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), in his capacity as a representative of the House of Commons Commission. I am sorry to inform the House that, far from our meeting the quota, only 0·6 per cent. of those employed in this place are disabled. The place that enacted the legislation has not implemented it. Indeed, it is more than two thirds short of the quota.
There is a great deal to do if we are to get disabled people back into the community and ensure that they are given a full place in it. Another problem—it is one that many employers would identify—is getting those who are registered disabled to take employment. From my experience as a councillor and in my place of work before I became a Member, I know that it can be difficult to get the registered to take up employment. That is because they do not want to carry that label with them. I am conscious that I am straying from the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the simple answer would be to amend the legislation so that anyone who is registered or eligible to be registered as disabled comes under the remit of the Disabled Persons (Service, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That is what we could do.
To return to the subject of taxation which I should be discussing, the question is: how can we get the weakest in our community back into employment? I suggest in my motion that if employers deliberately—rather than accidentally—fail to achieve the quota, we should consider penalising them for not doing so. The money then raised should be paid into an equalisation fund which could be distributed for aids to access, rehabilitation and support for disabled people.
We have heard an important principle advanced by Conservative Members today. They suggest that only those who use British Telecom's directory inquiry service should pay the charges. That principle could be adopted to ensure that only bad employers were forced to pay. In fact, there could be tax incentives for good ones. The first report of the Select Committee on Employment in 1990–91 supported such a measure and the tightening of the quota system. That Committee, of course, has a Conservative majority.
The Government's tax policy has penalised many people, especially the most vulnerable in the community. I reiterate my earlier point that Conservative Members seem to be arguing that to make the rich work harder, one has
1200
to pay them more, but that to make the poor work harder one pays them less. Everything that Conservative Members have said today convinces me that that is their view.
It should be emphasised that the Labour party has stated that it would have lower taxes for those on the lowest earnings—they would be even lower than now. There should also be tax incentives for good employers, especially those who invest in training and in becoming a good employer. We would, therefore, increase wealth by increasing tax income through getting people back to work.
1.7 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) has made an eloquent plea on behalf of the disabled. He obviously has a serious and deep knowledge of the subject, and I am glad that he was at least able to make the opening speech of the debate that he had hoped would follow this one by topping and tailing his speech with a little bit about the Labour party's tax policy. Concern for the disabled is widely shared in the House. He will find that the Government's record on increasing spending on the disabled is pretty good.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on picking the subject of taxation policy for the debate. His motion gives us an opportunity to examine the stark difference between the Conservative Government's policy on taxation and that of the Opposition. It will enable us to strip away the fig leaves of respectability with which the Labour party has sought to conceal its plans for vastly increased public spending, leading to vastly increased taxes.
In the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) we heard the authentic voice of socialism—a hatred and envy of personal success that motivates many Labour Back Benchers, if not those on the Front Bench who are hungry for office. Those plans and the envy mean that the Labour party has a secret agenda of tax increases, not just for the so-called rich but for all taxpayers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) reminded us, the Labour party's definition of the so-called super-rich will have to include nurses, police inspectors and teachers or there will not be any money to pay for its spending pledges.
To the contrary, the Government seek to distribute the growth of the economy in a balanced way, part of it going in increases in spending on the priority public service arid part of it going to reduce the tax burden.
The Labour party, as always, seeks to increase public sector spending, while giving none of the benefits of growth to the taxpayer. What is more, with its hostility to all the measures that we have taken to improve efficiency in the public sector, there is absolutely no assurance that increased public spending would do anything but raise wages and employment in the public sector. That is unlikely to improve the service. It is right to debate these issues properly as they represent a significant difference between the Conservative and Labour parties. Some Opposition speeches have borne that out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington drew on the comparative history of what has happened when Labour and Conservative Governments have been in office.

1201
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) called for a review of charity law. Many people believe that there are problems with that body of law. However, I am sure that he will accept it when I say that that is not one of my responsibilities. I know that his concerns and those of others are widely known, and I am sure that they have been heard.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we should have a system of self-assessment for tax. Most taxpayers in the United Kingdom are on PAYE—pay as you earn—and do not have to make any tax return. I am not sure whether there is an advantage in putting those people on self-assessment. The Treasury is publishing shortly a consultation document on schedule D taxpayers, the self-employed. I do not know what that document will say, but in the context of the debate on that subject it is appropriate to discuss it now.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) has not been to the Skinner school on the rules of order; otherwise he would have been able to slip in the fact that the inflation rate for May has fallen. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend was stopped from doing so. The inflation rate has fallen to 5·8 per cent. and that shows that the Government are on course for our target of 4 per cent. by the end of the year.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the underlying rate?
Mr. Maples: The underlying rate fell from 6·8 per cent. to 6·6 per cent. That shows that the headline rate of inflation, which the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Maples: I will not give way as I have already answered the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman used to say that most attention should be paid to the headline rate of inflation. Is he suggesting that we should use an inaccurate definition of the underlying rate of inflation that leaves the VAT increase in but takes the community charge decrease out? He knows as well as I that that is an extremely misleading definition of the underlying rate of inflation. That is pure mischief making by those who use that old definition.
At the heart of the debate lies the question of which policies are more likely to produce faster and sustainable growth. Only growth can provide the resources for increased spending on priority services and only growth can provide higher take-home pay. If growth is low, more public spending means heavier taxation. If growth is fast, the resources are there to increase spending where needed, to reduce the tax rates and to increase take-home pay.
The growth dividend that we achieved in the 1980s enabled us to increase public spending in real terms by 7 per cent. while reducing it as a proportion of the gross domestic product from more than 47 per cent. to just over 40 per cent. That growth also enabled us to slash the public sector borrowing requirement from 5 per cent. of GDP when we took office. I should remind the House that it was more than 9 per cent. in 1975–76, which is the equivalent now of £60 billion. We have had a substantial surplus in two of the past three financial years and a small surplus in the most recent financial year.
1202
The growth dividend has also enabled the real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings with two children to rise by no less than 37 per cent.—about £70 a week. That is a measure of what the growth dividend has achieved and the way in which it has been possible to divide it. If we had sought to spend the entire dividend in the public sector, and had raised taxes to do so, we would never have achieved the growth that has enabled us to achieve those three objectives.
Despite the huge reduction in Government borrowing, the tax burden on all multiples of average earnings is lower today than it would have been had we done no more than index the tax regime that we inherited in 1978–79.
Between 1974 and 1979, when the Labour party was in office, it became clear that if one was soft on spending, the state sector would grow as a proportion of GDP. That is inevitable, as is the fact that the tax burden rises. If that happens, average tax rates and marginal tax rates will rise. That is what happened under Labour. The Conservative Government understand that and we have limited the growth of the public sector to what the taxpayer can afford. That has enabled public spending to grow at the same rate at which the economy has grown—in fact, slightly faster—without increasing the tax burden. Without a benchmark, public spending would soon be out of control. Labour would not only be without such a benchmark—we have set a target of around 40 per cent.—but has a whole raft of spending commitments that would obliterate in weeks any target that it set. That is what happened before. We remember what occurred when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and public expenditure ran out of control.
Borrowing consistently on a large scale does not solve the problem either. In 1979, the Government were borrowing 5·5 per cent. of gross domestic product—down from nearly 10 per cent. a few years earlier. At today's prices, 5·5 per cent. is £30,000 million—taxes that were not raised at the time, but have to be paid for with interest now. If one had accumulated 5·5 per cent. a year of GDP since 1979, it would have added nearly £200 billion to public debt. That would have required nearly £20 billion per year in interest to service, which alone would be the equivalent of lop on income tax or a substantial cut in a sector of public expenditure. Borrowing is not an alternative to tax. It simply defers the cost, making the next generation pay for the excesses of the current generation.
Even if we assume that Labour, on taking office, ran a 2·5 per cent. public sector borrowing requirement, at the end of five years it would have added £72 billion to public sector debt, involving more than £7 billion of debt servicing, or 4p on income tax, or an equivalent cut in public expenditure.
The last Labour Government tested the limits of what could be levied in taxation. In 1979, the basic rate of income tax was 33p, having been 35p before the election. The top rate was 83p, and there was an extra 15p on investment income. There were six higher rate tax bands. Corporation tax was 52 per cent.
It was not only the rich who were howling at those tax rates. As the then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, said in 1978:
"If you talk to people in the factories and in the clubs, they all want to pay less tax."

1203
They still do. It is no wonder that such high rates of tax were a disincentive. Between 1975 and 1979, some of the country's most valuable managers and qualified staff emigrated, with the brain drain taking 68,000 well-qualified people away from Britain.
Tax reform is only one aspect—albeit a vital one—of the Government's commitment to an irreversible improvement in the supply side. We demonstrated that commitment almost as soon as we came to office by demolishing the edifice of control that had incarcerated British firms for so long. Pay, price, and dividend controls were abolished. Hire purchase controls went. Foreign exchange controls were dismantled. Those steps had a decisive influence on the behaviour of companies, which no longer had to compete with one hand tied behind their back.
Equally important were our measures to make the labour market work better. Changes in trade union legislation introduced more democratic procedures and made unions more accountable under the law. The result was that last year the number of stoppages due to industrial disputes was the lowest since 1935. Firms across the world now see the United Kingdom as a prime site for industrial investment. In 1988 and 1989, the United Kingdom took almost two fifths of all inward investment into the EEC.
Two vital ingredients are supply side policy and lower marginal tax rates, and competition. Labour does not appear to believe in either. Over the past week or so the Financial Times has examined various aspects of Labour party policy and how it appears to have improved. They were summed up in a leader entitled "Labour as government". In the context of lower tax rates and competition, that article made two points that I could not put better myself:
"Labour's proposed multi-band income tax is unnecessarily unwieldy and the implicit top rate—59 per cent.—too high … and the intention to sustain substantial public borrowing is worrying.
Nevertheless, the most serious doubts lie elsewhere. Labour may try to talk about the market, but it is a foreign language. Whenever it tries to utter a complex thought, Labour returns instinctively to its dirigiste native tongue. From Vancouver to Vladivostock, the importance of competition and individual choice were the most appealing themes of the 1980s. Most people find the ability to make choices for themselves more attractive than the right to a tiny voice in collective decisions. Furthermore, the resulting competition provides a spur to improved performance and disciplines the arrogance of organised producers."
That article adds that the "hole in the heart" of Labour policy is
"the resistance to competition and individual choice, a resistance demonstrated as much in its plans for education and health as in its plans for BT."
Those are two essential ingredients on the supply side. They were essential for the growth of the economy that was achieved in the 1980s.
Public spending, which peaked at nearly 50 per cent. of national income, was simply too high for the taxpayer to sustain. It is no surprise that during the 1970s the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the league table of economic growth. In the 1980s, it was near the top of the European growth league. Indeed, the United Kingdom was the only member of the G7 to have a better average growth rate in the 1980s than in the 1970s.
Under the Government, non-oil gross domestic product has grown by an average of 1·9 per cent. a year—that is, after taking account of the downturn in the
1204
second half of 1990. Under the previous Labour Government, non-oil GDP grew by only 1·2 per cent. What is more, growth in the 1980s was much more broadly spread than in the previous decade. Investment grew faster than consumption, and that did not happen between 1974 and 1979. During that period, annual capital formation grew by 0·3 per cent.—yes, 0·3 per cent. —a year. The non-oil economy grew at an average of only 1·2 per cent. Inflation averaged 15½ per cent. We should remember that in the context of today's announcement. Unsurprisingly, we were bottom of most international growth leagues.
After we sorted out the mess that we had inherited, the British economy grew strongly. Between 1981 and 1990 it grew at over 3 per cent. a year. In the 1980s, the United Kingdom economy grew faster than those of Germany and France. In fact, our performance was better than that of all major European Community countries except Spain. We also did better than West Germany or France on investment growth and manufacturing productivity.
There are many reasons for that better performance. A vital ingredient has been the Government's approach to taxation and the lower marginal rates now imposed. We made our approach clear in our 1979 manifesto. We felt that direct taxes were too high and that marginal rates were far too high. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, there has been a switch from direct to indirect taxation. That enables people to make their own decisions about spending, and thus about the level of tax, at least at the margin, imposed on them.
Since 1981 we have corrected the previous Labour Government's borrowing binge. The overall tax burden has been reduced from 40 per cent. to just under 38 per cent., and is forecast to fall to 37 per cent. in 1991–92. Marginal rates of tax have also decreased substantially. The basic rate of income tax is down from 33p to 25p—lower than at any time since the 1930s. Personal allowances have risen by over 27 per cent. more than prices, taking almost 2 million people out of the tax system. Nine higher rates of income tax have been reduced to a single higher rate of 40 per cent. Corporation tax at 33 per cent. is one of the lowest in the industrial world. In addition, six major taxes have been abolished—national insurance surcharge, investment income surcharge, capital duty, capital transfer tax, development land tax and the composite rate of tax on savings. Next year, stamp duty on share transfers will also be abolished.
We have introduced the independent taxation of husband and wife under which 3 million people will pay less tax, including 1 million elderly couples.
I believe that it is no coincidence that growth in the 1980s was faster than in the 1970s, with lower marginal rates of tax for everyone. The high-rate taxpayers have been paying a greater share of the total. In 1976 the top 10 per cent. of earners paid 35 per cent. of total income tax; last year they paid 42 per cent. The bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers have seen their share of the income tax bill fall from 20 to 15 per cent. Between 1983 and 1989, a net 30,000 professional and managerial people came back into the United Kingdom from abroad.
It is a fallacy to say that high rates of tax create high revenue; they do not. They create jobs for tax avoidance specialists, which was, I confess, one of the only growth areas of the economy between 1974 and 1979.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) will no doubt point out that the overall burden of tax increased slightly by about 1 per cent. in the 1980s.

1205
However, he will not tell us that there was a public sector borrowing requirement of 5 per cent. of GDP in 1978–79 which no longer exists. If the total tax burden and the PSBR—which is simply deferred tax and imposes burdens on later generations—for 1975–76 are added together, the total burden was 46 per cent. In 1978–79, the Labour Government had managed to reduce it to about 40 per cent. Next year it is forecast to be 38½ per cent. That is a substantial reduction in the Government's imposition on this and future generations of taxpayers. In addition to doing that, we have succeeded in repaying £30 billion of the national debt, which now stands at 28 per cent. of GDP compared with a terrifying 51 per cent. when we came into office in 1979.
To get some idea of what the Labour party's tax policies might be like if it were in government, it is worth looking back to what they were like when they were in government in the 1970s. If we had taken the tax regime that we inherited in 1978–79 and simply indexed it for inflation, taxpayers would be paying an extra £28 billion in tax this year—more than £1,000 per taxpayer, or £20 a week—and tax would be running at 42¾ per cent. of GDP. That would represent someone on average earnings paying 36 per cent. of his income in tax compared with 33 per cent. now.
It is astonishing that we should be attacked for the slight increase in taxes as a percentage of GDP—not taking account of the PSBR. First, it pretends that the PSBR does not exist and that it is not simply deferred taxation. Secondly, it seems that Labour's answer to what it calls the too-high tax burden is to raise it even further.
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend referred to a clear mathematical calculation of the extra taxes that would be paid now if the Labour party's 1979 taxes had been carried through. Does he agree that that would never have happened? Those penal levels of taxation would have continued to deter effort and invention, resulting in many more wealthy people taking their money abroad. The net effect would have been a reduction in the tax take, rather than the increase which mathematically one would assume.
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is obviously right. One would not raise tax at 98 per cent. rates, because it is not worth working for that. More and more of my friends were finding that this was an impossible place in which to live and work and that it was pointless to put any effort into doing so.
Mr. Dalyell: Last Tuesday, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I attended a seminar at University College London in the Institute of Contemporary History. It was on the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970 and took place in the presence of Sir Alexander Cairncross, who was chief economist, and others.
One of the features of that Government is that there were never more than 700,000 unemployed people. Recently there have been a couple of million or more. It is all very well the hon. Gentleman saying how difficult he found it to work, but under a Labour Government many other people were only too thankful to be in a job.
Mr. Maples: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. One of the other unfortunate and uncomfortable facts from the point of view of the Labour party is that unemployment has grown under every Labour Government. It has risen under a good few Conservative Governments, too.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: What about unemployment under this Government?
Mr. Maples: It was much higher than when Labour entered office.
So far, Labour has promised higher spending and higher taxation. Labour cannot promise that there will be higher growth, because its policies will lead in the future, as in the past, to lower growth.
I turn to the visible part of Labour's programme. To pay for Beckett's law—higher pensions and higher child benefit—higher tax rates will go up, we are told, and national insurance contributions will rise. Anyone earning more than £20,300 a year will therefore pay higher national insurance contributions. That may sound a high salary to Opposition Members; if it does, it shows how out of touch they are with what is going on. This year average male earnings will be slightly over £16,000. We are talking, therefore, about someone earning about 25 per cent. more. About one quarter of male workers already earn more than that. We are talking about a quarter of the population being asked to pay more in taxes.
Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
Mr. Maples: I should like to finish this point about what Beckett's law would cost us.
The promised higher rates would affect anyone earning more than £29,000 a year, which is less than twice average earnings. It is not a very high salary. It includes all Members of Parliament and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate pointed out, a good few people in the middle grades of the public services. That would affect 1·7 million people, and that is merely step one.
Mr. Brown: The Minister has foolishly been reading the Conservative research department's campaign guide. I shall offer him some detailed corrections to it when I make my speech. However, the Minister must not say that the Labour party is proposing to increase the employee's contribution to national insurance because we are proposing nothing of the sort. When he recalls that statement—that we intend to increase the rates, which we do not—he might also remind the House, in all humility, that the Conservative party clagged an extra 2·5 per cent. on employees' contributions to national insurance.
Mr. Maples: Is the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East now telling us that it is not his party's policy to remove the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions?
Mr. Brown: Removing the upper earnings limit is quite different from increasing the rate, as I should have thought the Economic Secretary would know.
Mr. Maples: Another fig leaf comes away, does it not? The marginal rate of tax will be increased by 9 per cent. for anyone earning more than £20,300 a year if there is a Labour Government. That is right, is it not?
Mr. Brown indicated assent.
Mr. Maples: That is a quarter of the working population whose marginal rate of tax will be raised from 25 to 34 per cent. if there is a Labour Government. The Opposition told us about this, but they obviously feel uncomfortable even about matters that they have confessed to.
British taxpayers cross the threshold for the top rate of income tax at a much lower level than in most other countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, we have the second lowest rate of marginal tax of the big seven economies. However, if Labour's rate of 59 per cent. were imposed, it would make it the second highest, pushing it slightly ahead of rates in other big European countries but well above the rate in America.
Mr. Brown: No.
Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman mutters that that is not true. He can give his own figures, but I usually find that the leading articles in The Economist are a pretty good source of information. The article says that these figures
"understate Britain's existing tax burden. The truth is that Britain is already a high income tax country. Its executives pay more income tax than most of their foreign counterparts because although the top marginal tax rate is low, the threshold at which they reach that rate … is much lower. A married man with two children enters the higher tax bracket at only about twice average earnings compared with four times earnings in America, and more than six times in Japan and the big European economies. Taking America's fatter allowances for mortgage interest relief into account the gap between America and Britain is even wider."
The truth of the matter is that the position would be much worse than it appears on the surface. However, these tax increases are simply to pay for Beckett's law—the two public spending promises that the Opposition have confessed to. We hear their spokesmen announce further public spending increases every day from the Front Bench—"We must spend more on this or that"—and say that the next Labour Government will sort out underfunding of the national health service, will uprate disability benefits and will improve capital spending on schools. There is a raft of promises that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) tries to pretend do not exist. However, we and the public know that they do. It is not possible to pay for them by milking the so-called rich—the 5 per cent. who pay the higher rate of tax.
The matter becomes interesting because the hon. Member for Derby, South, in "On the Record" on 19 May, stated:
"we've certainly said that we have no intention of raising the national insurance contribution rate"—
I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's point—
"or the VAT rate. We don't intend to raise the basic rate of corporation tax either".
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East recently said that there is no intention of raising the capital gains tax rate. I invite my hon. Friends to suggest whether there is any way to raise substantial revenue other than by raising the basic rate of income tax. There is no other way, and of course that is what will happen.
Mr. Brown: The Economic Secretary will have heard the speech—or at least read the press reports of it—made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who made it clear that our public expenditure pledges were predicated on economic growth.
Mr. Maples: That does not avoid the fact that the basic rate of tax will have to increase. If the hon. Gentleman is
1208
saying that anything has ever been made clear by a speech by the Leader of the Opposition, he is obviously capable of translating his speeches in a way that is not available to us.
The Leader of the Labour party has made a series of conflicting statements about whether spending will come from growth, from higher tax or from the rich, and every time he makes a speech his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has to hop up and put it right. It is very entertaining, from our point of view. We hope that the Leader of the Opposition continues the habit. We are getting a stereophonic view of what Labour's tax policy would be. We know that the burden of taxation would increase under Labour, either by bringing more people into tax or by raising one of the taxes that they have pledged to maintain, if they do not intend to raise the basic rate of tax. Perhaps this is the British version of "Read my lips".
The net income of a family consisting of a married man on average male earnings, with a wife and two children, has increased by about £70 a week, in real terms, since 1979. That is one of the benefits of the supply side policies and the lower rates of income tax that we have imposed. That rise of nearly 37 per cent. compares with a rise, under the last Labour Government, of 0·6 per cent., or £1 a week, in the real living standard of a man on average earnings. At half average earnings, the increase has been £33 a week, or 32 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. under the last Labour Government. Even on the lowest decile, the lowest 10 per cent. of male earnings, take-home pay since 1979 has gone up by 15 per cent.
This policy works. It raises people's living standards and raises public spending, with lower taxes and lower borrowing. When we look in the history books, we find that the Labour party's policies did not succeed in doing that in the past, and we do not believe that they will do so in the future.
Mr. Dalyell: At least under the last Labour Government universities, for example, did not have to sell their priceless assets. To repeat a question that I have asked the Treasury, do the Government approve of the universities being forced into such a position that they have to sell their treasures?
Mr. Maples: I dealt with the points raised in the debate by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friends who were here at the start of my speech. Now that the hon. Gentleman is here I shall deal with the points that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Heveningham hall, responsibility for which falls on the Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that, so I hope that he will take up that point with my right hon. Friend. As for Mar lodge and the difficulties of valuing ancient woodlands and forests, I shall make sure that his points are passed on to the Minister who is to reply to him next Wednesday. If it is possible to raise that point with the Valuation Office and obtain an answer for him by then, I shall do so. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the tax reduction for business gifts to education. We shall certainly want to monitor that and to keep the cost of the operation under review to make sure that it does not become too expensive, but it is not thought that there is any serious danger of its getting out of control.

1209
As for the universities, everyone in the public sector has to operate on a budget. When the hon. Gentleman's party was in power, it had to impose cash limits. We cannot allow a school, university or health authority that has overspent its budget to say to the Government, "If you don't give us £X million, we'll have to do something that's politically rather unattractive." The hon. Gentleman understands, I am sure, that higher education is not a subject on which I have specialist knowledge. We are all sorry to see treasures such as that sold, but it seems to me that as long as they remain in Scotland, which is an appropriate place for them to be, and as long as they are available for the public to see, no great loss will be incurred.
To return to my point, living standards have consistently risen faster under Conservative Governments. If one looks back not just at the period when this Government and the last Government were in power but at the whole of the post-war period, the real net income of the average family went up, on average, by 0·8 per cent. a year when Labour was in office, a total of 14 per cent. For every year that a Conservative Government were in office, that average family enjoyed a growth in income of 2 per cent.—a total rise of 82 per cent. For every 14 per cent. rise in living standards under Labour Governments there has been an 82 per cent. rise in living standards under Conservative Governments.
A pointer to what Labour really thinks about the basic rate of tax is that it voted against every tax cut that this Government made. Labour now asks the country to believe that it will not increase taxation, except for the two examples already given—the top rate of tax, and the national insurance contributions ceiling. That is incredible to us. I believe that it is incredible to the British public, too. Moreover, I do not think that Labour honestly believes it. What is more, I am certain that most Back-Bench Labour Members of Parliament hope fervently that it is not true. The hon. Member for Leeds, West—the authentic voice of the Labour party—said that he would like people to pay more tax. The Labour party likes to milk people whom it thinks are rich—as far as I can see, anyone earning more than 10,000 a year.
Mr. Battle: I recall that I said that we would prefer a fairer system of tax. Does the Minister agree with that?
Mr. Maples: We think that we have a reasonably fair system of tax. It is monstrously unfair that people should pay 98 per cent. of their income in tax. That is one of the big tax reductions that we made—
Mr. Battle: I did not suggest that.
Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had favoured the rich in their tax changes. That is bound to happen when correcting a monstrous injustice such as taking 98 per cent. of people's income from them. My hon. Friends understood from his speech that he hopes that the Labour party, if it ever takes office, will raise taxes to increase public spending. That is what he means by a fair tax system.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the tax changes being made is the abolition of the composite rate of tax for interest paid on bank and
1210
building society accounts? That would allow the poor to receive money without the wrong tax being deducted from them.
While my hon. Friend is considering that, will he say—if not now, next week—whether, if clause 50 of the Finance Bill is passed, and if the composite tax rate that has applied for the past four years begins to be undermined, that will expose the Government to judicial review, which may last a further five years?
Mr. Maples: I hope not, but I will think about it.
As we have shown in the past 10 years, a long-term reduction in the tax burden is not incompatible with increases in public spending. We believe that the Government will take the triple crown of higher real expenditure on public services, lower borrowing and lower tax rates. Labour offers only the wooden spoon of higher taxes, higher spending and lower growth.
1.41 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on his choice of subject. He follows in the steps of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who chose a similar subject on 14 May last year.
I do not know how much direct control the hon. Member for Kensington had over the wording of the motion, but I congratulate him on that, too, because it is a significant advance on last year's motion. I cannot say that I agree with its contents, but it comes closer to addressing the subject of debate than did last year's motion.
The motion makes four points: it congratulates the Government
"on achieving reductions in direct taxation".
The way in which that is phrased is an advance, because, last year, the word "direct" was missing from the self-congratulation on taxation policy. It mentions the
"consequent encouragement of initiative and enterprise"—
I shall mention that later—and
"urges the Government to continue its taxation policies of proven success"—
I assume that that is a reference to the poll tax—and goes on to be rude about the Labour party.
I shall deal with those points in order. The appropriate point to start is the congratulations that are offered to the Government on achieving reductions in direct taxation. It is true that the Government have reduced direct tax rates, particularly, as the Minister boasted, the top rates, but, as almost every hon. Member has said, it has been at a price—an increase in indirect taxation. The primary increases were in value added tax in 1981 and the extra 2·5 per cent. on national insurance rates.
The Government have had the benefit of that extra revenue, which has enabled them to take some 38 per cent. from the British economy—the gross domestic product—since 1981. When Labour left office, the total tax take from the British economy was 34·75 per cent.
We were told about workers being slaves to Her Majesty's Treasury. That argument applies not only to direct taxation but to all taxation, and if anybody has increased the tax burden—and thus, according to Conservative Members, enslaved the British people—it has been the Conservatives during the 1980s. When Conservative Members ask whether the Labour party is

1211
committing itself to reducing the tax burden the answer is no, but when they argue that we shall have to increase it, they forget that they have done precisely that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to refer to borrowing? Is he aware that borrowing is simply deferred taxation? It is easier to defer and let somebody else pay the tax, as the last Labour Government did. If borrowing were included in his equation, what would be the impact?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Reference was made during the debate to Lord Barnett's book entitled "Inside the Treasury", in which the noble Lord deals with the question of borrowing. I am a keen student of the book, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). We have taken the lessons contained in it very much to heart and a future Labour Government will not borrow for revenue expenditure, as happened in the past. That mistake was made by the last Labour Government, and it was a mistake which we do not intend to repeat.
In boasting in the motion about their successes in respect of direct taxation, it is understandable that the Government do not point out that the reduction in direct taxation and the increase in moneys available to the Exchequer have been wholly accommodated by the increase in indirect taxation, which has had an effect on the spread of the tax burden.
Data from "Economic Trends" show that in 1988, the poorest retired households—those in the bottom one fifth of the income distribution for pensioners—paid nearly 40 per cent. of their gross incomes in tax. That was a higher burden of tax than that carried by the richest one fifth of non-retired households—in other words, people who are economically active—who paid just 34 per cent. of their incomes in tax. I took that to be the main thrust of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), rather than any call for a dramatic increase in the basic rate of income tax. It is important to realise that that shift in the tax burden has been due almost entirely to the changing rates of VAT.
The Conservative campaign document "Campaign Guide 1991", produced by the Tory research department, contains a number of errors and statements of political wishful thinking rather than of fact. It says, for example, that the Labour party remains
"steeped in the politics of envy."
Nothing could be further from the truth, unless the Conservatives describe a yearning for social justice as envy. Most people in Britain do not see it that way. We wish to redistribute the tax burden and ensure that those on low and average incomes shoulder less of the burden and that those on higher incomes shoulder more of it, not least because they are able to do so.
The Conservative campaign guide goes on to say that most people now pay a smaller percentage of their earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions and that
"the crucial test for most individuals and families is not the balance of the tax system, but their real take-home levels of pay."
That is a gross distortion of the reality facing most of our fellow citizens. The poll tax, VAT and a wide range of other indirect taxes have had a major impact on the burden faced by all households. Such taxes are not as
1212
progressive as income tax, so it logically follows that that burden has been carried by the poorer rather than the wealthier citizens.
Mr. Maples rose—
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the Minister first and then I promise to give way to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
Mr. Maples: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House on the question of real take-home pay. The figures that I used—and I expect that they are also used in the campaign guide—are those for real take-home pay after adjustment by the retail prices index, which includes increases in indirect taxation. Therefore, the real increase in take-home pay is calculated after increases in indirect taxation.
Mr. Brown: That money must still be spent on a range of goods including, presumably, mortgages—
Mr. Bottomley: I suspect that the argument between the Minister and the hon. Gentleman will continue and that the Labour party will usually lose it, although the hon. Gentleman puts his case engagingly.
My question is less technical. The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about gross pay and the money that one keeps after taxation, especially direct taxation. I suggest that the people who went for a £500 snack in Park lane—they are all known to be Labour party supporters—should be asked what their gross income was last year and how much they paid in direct taxation. Then, we should have an idea of the effective tax rates of those who would like the Labour party to introduce higher rates not just for them, but for those on much lower incomes and for those who would not dream of paying £500 for a snack on Park lane.
Mr. Brown: I am willing to argue with the Minister about the shift from direct to indirect taxation and the fact that that places a heavier burden on poorer people than on others, but I am afraid that, perhaps for the first time in such a debate, I am unable to help the hon. Member for Eltham. That is not for want of trying, but because I cannot afford to attend dinners that cost £500 a head, as I do not have the necessary resources although I should like to have them. If I did have the resources, I should willingly give them to the Labour party. As for knowing millionaires and other wealthy contributors to our movement, I am grateful that such people exist, but I do not know them personally and know nothing of their affairs. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I should like to, but I have no direct responsibility for such matters, as Ministers say and as, I suppose, I must practise saying.
We discussed Labour's proposals for direct taxation and expecially that for a top rate of income tax of 50 per cent. but a higher marginal rate of 59 per cent. when one includes the removal of the ceiling on national insurance contributions. That proposal was denounced because it was said that it did not parallel the practices of our European competitors. Clearly there will be an argument about the figures.
I have a list of the top marginal tax rates of our European neighbours. Those rates include social security taxes. Of course, the structures differ in different countries, but if we include the 9 per cent. marginal adjustment in

1213
national insurance it is right to include the social security taxes of other countries. If we do so, the figures show that the top marginal tax rate in Austria is 60·35 per cent., in Belgium it is 67·07 per cent., in Denmark it is 68 per cent., and in France it is 65 per cent. Before anybody mentions it, I am aware that France relies more heavily on indirect taxation than on direct taxation. However, the argument is about the rates.
The German system is more like ours. The top marginal rate there is 60·5 per cent., in Greece it is 50 per cent. including 7·5 per cent. for social taxes, in Ireland it is 60·75 per cent. and in Italy it is 63·9 per cent. Although Japan is not a European country, it is worth pointing out that its top marginal rate including social taxes is 71 per cent. In the Netherlands it is 60 per cent., in Norway 57·8 per cent., in Spain 56 per cent. and in Sweden 50 per cent. The only two European countries where the rate is lower than that which we propose are Portugal, where it is 40 per cent., and Switzerland, where it is 30 per cent. I read those figures into the record because, compared with our European partners, our 50 per cent. plus 9 per cent. national insurance looks reasonable.
We intend to establish a consensus on top-rate taxation. We do not intend to ratchet the figure up. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has made absolutely clear, we expect the 50 per cent. rate to endure. Although I understand why Conservative Members attack us for it, it is the rate which endured under their Government for most of the 1980s. Indeed, when the rate was reduced in 1988, the consequences were not met with universal acclaim.
We have heard the old red or blue herring about cutting the top rates of tax to create more revenue income. That case has often been made and answered. The most significant single reason for an increase in income following a reduction in the top rates of income tax is fiscal drag. I do not have the figures before me, but, from memory, an extra 400,000 or 500,000 people dragged into the top rate tax band creates substantially more income. Since 1979—I have this figure with me—more than 1 million more taxpayers who would otherwise pay basic rate tax have been paying tax at the 40 per cent. rate.
A further argument is that lowering the top rate of income tax encourages those who can affect these matters for themselves to take their remuneration package in income rather than in executive perks. That process was happening anyway, but it has been accelerated by the Government's treatment of the major executive perk, the company car, which is less attractive now than it was. I have no quarrel with the Government about that. Over the past few years we have seen executive pay substantially outstrip the pay of the rest of the work force. It is self-evident that the amount of revenue due to the Exchequer is increased as a result. Nothing that we are suggesting in our modest realignment of the top rate of income tax should affect that unduly.
It is important to set alongside that issue the fact that we are not saying that the 50 per cent. top rate will sit at the current 40 per cent. band. We are saying that it will come into play at a much higher income level. It is important that Conservative Members realise that we seek to introduce a banded system with more than two rates, including a different rate at the higher end—
Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the virtues that the Government claimed for their cuts in top income tax rates was that they would provide incentives for entrepreneurs and people at the top of the tree? When such people have been asked, for surveys, what their motivation is, they have all said that they wished to build businesses and that money was a factor only at the margin. They are concerned about job satisfaction.
Did not the cuts in the top rates of income tax also feed, if only psychologically, into the Lawson boom and the terrible inflation from which we are now trying to escape?
Mr. Brown: I wholly agree with both points. It is not necessary to look for base motives when examining the remuneration of those who hold significant positions in private and nationalised industries. Such people are highly motivated and I do not think that modest adjustments to their salaries lie at the heart of that motivation. The Conservative party also argues in its campaign document that our increased top rate of tax proposal would cause a damaging brain drain as talented executives flee the country. We heard that argument again today. But I repeat that the top income tax rate in force for most of the years of this Government, until April 1988, was 60 per cent.—one percentage point higher than the top rate that we propose. The Daily Express, a source of much wisdom and learning for Tory Members, claims, however, that during the years when the top rate was one percentage point higher than the one we propose there was a net inflow of 30,000 high flyers to this country. The Conservatives seek the credit for that achievement, yet it took place under a higher rate than the one that we propose.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Surely the difference in those days was that this country was leading tax rates down? Rich people had nowhere else to go and they came here because our tax rates were falling. Now they have plenty of other places to go, and average tax rates are far lower than they would be under Labour's proposal.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is one of the very few Conservative Members whom I would employ as a professional adviser had I the resources to do so. I follow his contributions in the Finance Bill Committee and on the Floor of the House with considerable respect. The only possible intellectual argument to justify this seeming anomaly is the one that he has advanced. He says that people came back to Britain because they knew that the Conservative Government would further reduce top rates of tax later on. He says that people had nowhere else to go. I have already read into the record what happens in other countries. The Economic Secretary rightly pointed out that some of their marginal top rates of tax bite at higher levels than they do in the United Kingdom. If they wanted to remain in the first world the only places to which they could go are countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark and France, all of which have higher marginal top rates of taxation than Britain.
Mr. Paice: What about the United States?
Mr. Brown: It is difficult to arrive at a uniform figure for the United States because local income taxes differ from state to state, but the marginal rate in America is 38.65 per cent. That puts that great trading block against the trend of what is happening everywhere else, including Japan, which is a successful competitor of the United States.

1215
The motion deals not just with direct taxation but mentions
"consequent encouragement of initiative and enterprise;".
That has brought us a balance of payments deficit of £13 billion and, in spite of a deep recession, the forecast is for a deficit of £6 billion. In 1983 Britain had its first-ever deficit in manufacturing since the industrial revolution, and the Conservatives have maintained that deficit ever since.
The underlying rate of inflation is 8·7 per cent., although it depends on how one calculates the figure. I think that the Economic Secretary prefers 8·6 per cent. In either case there has been a reduction of only 0·2 per cent. The Government's only way of bearing down on inflation is to bring about a recession. Any fool can bring inflation down by increasing unemployment. The trick is to bear down on inflation while working towards full employment, and Labour is committed to doing that. The Government boast about encouraging initiative and enterprise, but 2·2 million people are unemployed and another 70,000 of our fellow citizens were yesterday added to that total.
Unemployment is still rising. About 3,000 people a day are losing their jobs, yet the Government have the gall to boast about encouraging initiative and enterprise. Making people unemployed is a harsh way to do that. Anyone who takes Conservative philosophy at face value and tries to start a small business would probably first approach a bank. He would quickly find that bank lending rates to small businesses can be as high as 18 per cent. and that a rate of 16 per cent. is common place. That does not encourage initiative and enterprise. The Government's remedy, expressed by the Chancellor, is to call in the bankers and talk to them. That might help, but we have yet to see the fruits of that exercise.
The economy is still suffering from underinvestment. There is a crisis in the national health service, a matter which is debated almost daily in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West spoke about the real and growing poverty in inner-city and rural areas.
Ms. Abbott: My hon. Friend has referred to the
"encouragement of initiative and enterprise".
Instead, we have seen the deskilling of the work force. I grew up in north-west London. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were manufacturing estates, light engineering and light manufacturing all round Park Royal and west London generally. That activity was swept away, to be replaced by warehouses and hypermarkets. The children of men who were skilled tradesmen or craftsmen are offered nothing more by the Government than the opportunity to work in Wimpy bars or in a MacDonald's. One of the Government's priorities has been the deskilling of the British work force.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It is a tragedy that the position of her constituents in Hackney and Stoke Newington is paralleled in the community that I represent on Tyneside. That is perhaps surprising, because Tyneside is a community with traditional engineering and shipbuilding skills. There have been massive redundancies over the past 13 years, yet the employers that remain say that there are skill shortages in traditional areas of employment. At the same time, the waiting list for unskilled labourers at Swan Hunter, for example, is about 2,000 strong. That is the scope of the problem. The solution is clear to everyone who applies common sense to
1216
it. The need for training and the repositioning of those who are unemployed seems to be self-evident. Everyone takes that view except, unfortunately, the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke of increasing congestion on our roads and, implicitly, in the railway system. What is the Government's response? Instead of taking the action that my hon. Friend outlined, they freeze British Rail's investment programme. At the same time, we have a continuing economic recession. Do the Government describe that as
"consequent encouragement of initiative and enterprise"?
The Government are kicking the guts out of people who want to show enterprise and initiative. They do so, in effect, by not taking the responsibility that the Labour party confidently asserts is the responsibility of government. The motion continues and urges
"the Government to continue its taxation policies of proven success".
The Government boast about the taxes that they abolished, and the Labour party has no intention of reinstating those forms of taxation when it forms a Government. However, the Government do not talk about the tax that they invented, the poll tax. I understand that it still has its supporters and adherents on the Conservative Benches, from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), onwards.
Mr. Battle: The Minister suggested that taxes had decreased for everyone. He referred to an average figure and gave the impression that everyone was better off under the Conservative Government. I was surprised that he did not refer to the written question that he answered on 13 May, which makes it plain that a one-wage-earner family with two children aged four years and six years is worse off in real terms than in 1987 at every level of gross earnings up to £170 a week. The position is the same for similar families with three children aged three years, eight years and 11 years. Those families are also worse off. I have referred to the Minister's answer, which came from the Government's tables, yet he tried to fob us off with the average figure. The fact is that the poor have become worse off.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The Economic Secretary has a tendency to try to slide away from his written answers. I remember his telling the House that the growth rate under this Government was 1·75 per cent. when averaged out over their period in office. Today, however, the Minister has tried to kid the House that economic growth has been higher under Conservative Governments than under Labour Governments. In fact, the reverse is the truth.
Mr. Maples: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the figures are crucially dependent on the dates that are selected and the periods that they embrace. The answer to the written question to which the hon. Member referred was 1·75 per cent. It was a conveniently contrived question to produce exactly that answer. The truth is that the rate of growth under this Government has been considerably higher than under Labour Governments.
Mr. Brown: That is nearer to the truth. These figures depend crucially on the dates that are included in the question. I understand the argument of the Conservative party that there is a residual with which they have to cope

1217
in the moves from Labour Governments to Conservative Governments. Presumably that also applies when there are moves from Conservative Governments to Labour Governments. If we take the historical periods for both Labour and Conservative Governments, growth rates have been higher under Labour Governments than under recent Conservative Governments. That is why we have asked the relevant questions.
I should be happy for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to confirm that previous Labour Governments achieved acceptable rates of economic growth that bear comparison with anything that Conservative Governments have done. As Conservative Members like to extrapolate from the past what will happen in the future, it seems reasonable for them to admit that a future Labour Government could expect to attain reasonable rates of economic growth.
Let us move on to the part of the motion which
"urges the Government to continue its taxation policies of proven success".
Clearly, that is a reference not to the poll tax, but presumably to the increase in value added tax. If it is a reference to increases in value added tax so far, the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) pointed us in the direction of future Conservative party policy. She said that, although Labour Members moan about VAT rates, this country has one of the lowest VAT regimes in Europe. What on earth is the point of drawing our attention to that important fact, if it is not to set the scene for increasing the rates of value added tax to bring us further into line with our European partners?
It is clear that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West, who has the affection of many Labour Members, is honestly and perhaps disingenuously pointing the way forward for Conservative taxation strategists. If they wish to bring direct rates down, they will put indirect rates up. That may advantage the better-off, who do not like paying high top rates of taxation, but it will not help—
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Brown: Let me finish my point, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) sought to raise a point of order.
Mr. Walker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that many of us have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has spoken for 40-odd minutes and it looks at though he will continue for some time. Is it in order for Front-Bench spokesmen to speak for so long and not allow those of us representing the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom—further north than Newcastle—the opportunity to put the Scottish view?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that the Chair has no control or authority over the time that hon. Members seek to speak. I have noted that a number of hon. Members have been in the Chamber throughout the debate, patiently waiting to speak, and I regret that I have not been able to call them.
Mr. Brown: It was my impression that I was winding up the debate following the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and that we were dividing the time between us. I did not notice any protest from Conservative Members during the Minister's speech. I am never churlish about such matters and if I am allowed, I will happily draw my remarks to a premature conclusion—if, regrettably, to their own disadvantage—so that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is able to put a few remarks of his own on the record, should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Among the issues that the hon. Gentleman may wish to discuss are the effects of the Conservative party's taxation policies on the very poorest section of our society who are retired. In 1979, the poorest fifth of pensioners paid 27·9 per cent. of their income in tax. In 1988, that fifth paid 40 per cent. of their income in tax.
The hon. Member for Kensington protested that British executives pay tax of 32 per cent., yet he said nothing about the poorest one fifth of pensioners who pay 40 per cent. from substantially less resources. It is a concomitant of Conservative tax policy that in 1979, the richest one fifth of non-pensioners paid 37·6 per cent. of their income in tax, and in 1988 the same people—individuals who are economically active—paid 33·7 per cent. of their income in tax. If Conservative Members can find the justice in that, I cannot.
On 6 March 1984, the future Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), summed up his personal taxation and economic policy with these words:
"A successful man is someone who can earn more than his wife can spend."—[Official Report, 6 March 1984: Vol. 55, c. 803–4.]
Ms. Abbott: I know the wife of the Economic Secretary, because I worked for her many years ago. She is both an economical and a high-earning lady in her own right. On her behalf, I much resent the tone of the Economic Secretary's remarks.
Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will draw the Economic Secretary's remarks to his wife's attention.
Mr. Maples: Just for the record, in case my wife reads it, I should point out that I was not married to her at the time that I made that remark. The second line to the joke is that a successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Mr. Brown: One is tempted to say that one is sorry that the Economic Secretary's wife did not, but although I can be fairly firm with Conservative Members, it is not my intention to wreck their marriages. Instead, I will remind the House of the taxation policy that the hon. Gentleman shared with right hon. and hon. Members on 1 May 1984:
"I did some simple calculations that showed that if one adopted such a broad brush approach—" —
to direct taxation—
"which would obviously be tempered to cope with various problems—a basic rate of tax of 10 per cent. levied up to average earnings, of 20 per cent. to twice average earnings and of 25 per cent. thereafter would yield more revenue than the present income tax system."
Addressing himself to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman added:
"I hope that he will consider the theory of removing deductions and lowering the rates when he reforms income tax. The result would be a fairer, simpler and more economically neutral tax system with a basic rate of 10 per cent." —[Official Report, 1 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 258–59.]

1219
There is the Conservative agenda clearly set out by an hon. Gentleman who, on the basis of that speech, was promoted to the Treasury Bench. We can see in which direction Government policy will go. How high will indirect taxation have to be? And how deep will be the cuts in public sector services to bring about such an economic miracle? The electorate can draw their own conclusions. It is not a question of a secret agenda. It is out in the open, spelt out for us in Hansard.
It was my intention to take Conservative Members through some aspects of Labour policy on which their own campaign guide misinforms them, but I would rather allow the hon. Member for Tayside, North participate in the debate—particularly as I can see that that is your personal wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I conclude by thanking the Government for having arranged this further training debate for Ministers. It helps to ensure an orderly transfer of power, and I am glad that the Government acknowledge the inevitability of what is to happen. The real difference between the Labour party and the Government is that the Government propose further cuts in direct taxation—they will put that policy to the electorate—but we make no such pledge. We believe that the fruits of economic growth should be spent on much-needed investment in public services. That issue forms the gulf between us. The electorate will have to make up their mind.
Since the Conservative party started its summer assault on the Labour party's economic policies, events in Monmouth and the opinion polls have moved steadily and remorselessly in our favour. I advise the Economic Secretary to quit while he is ahead.
Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members have been present during the debate. It is clear that they want to speak now rather than earlier so that we do not reach private Member's motion No. 3.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members are waiting to speak on motion No. 1.
2.25 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: What the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said is humbug. He spoke in the debate. If he wanted to deal with motion No. 3 he should have refrained from speaking and we would have had more time.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) spoke for 45 minutes. What did he tell us? He said that the Labour party proposed a modest realignment. He also said that it would not borrow to pay revenue expenditure and that it is committed to growth and full employment. Those were his words, not mine.
1220
I remind the hon. Gentleman what growth and full employment meant under a Labour Government. For the steel industry, it meant organisations running at massive losses, with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. For the car, coal, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, it meant organisations running at massive losses, with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. That was the Labour Government's record.
The Labour party talks about jobs, but it does not talk about job security or a tax regime that encourages British industries to compete effectively in the world. It has no new ideas; just tinsel dressing.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew attention to the tolls on the Forth road bridge. He did not tell the House that a quarter of those takings cover the cost of employing the collectors. That could be avoided by implementing a system of throwing coins into baskets. The hon. Gentleman is a splendid parliamentarian. He is honourable and has integrity, and I have always respected him. He would not attempt to discuss a tax-raising Scottish assembly, and I understand why.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) said when he introduced this worthwhile debate, massive problems are created if a country gets into a cul-de-sac of taxation that is at a higher level than that of its neighbours. That is what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and I know will happen to the country that we care deeply about—Scotland—if the mad proposal to have a talking-shop in Edinburgh that raises taxes is ever implemented. That has to be linked to the promises that have been made by every Labour Front-Bench spokesman for the spending departments. Every one of them stands up and makes promises about what they will add to expenditure. This morning the shadow Treasury Minister was unable to tell us how that would be paid for. The answer was that it could not be paid for, because the Opposition will not borrow to pay the revenue expenditure; they will merely have modest realignments. However, they will impose upon us in Edinburgh, an assembly with tax-raising powers, so that the Scots will suffer more than anyone else. That will be the obvious outcome of any future Labour Government.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office courteously coming to the House because the Government want to make a statement on the increasingly serious Iraqi nuclear situation, as we understand it from the BBC?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker has not been informed that any statement is to be made.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day

  HARE COURSING BILL
  Order read for consideration (not amended (in the Standing Committee)).
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Friday 21 June.

  MENTAL HEALTH (DETENTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 July.

  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  COAL IMPORTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  STREET FURNITURE (DESIGN AND PLANNING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Bill not printed. Not moved.

  ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  EDUCATION PROVISION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 June.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

  EDUCATION (SWIMMING AND WATER SAFETY) (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved—Bill not printed.

  EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
  Motion—
  That Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) be further amended as follows:
  in paragraph (8), leave out lines 64 to 66 and insert—
  "The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.'; an
  in paragraph (9), line 69, leave out 'a resolution has been reported' and insert 'a report has been made.'.
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: Not moved.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
2.33 pm
Mr. John Gorst: In July 1985, 18-year-old Anita Behal was one among thousands of British-born Indian girls to visit the Indian subcontinent, in her case for the first time since she was little more than a child. During the course of her stay she met and fell in love with a handsome 24-year-old Mr. Ramesh Kumar. A whirlwind romance ensued and they quickly became engaged.
Inevitable separations, compounded by ill health and other problems, delayed their eventual marriage by four or five years. Therefore, it was not until 1989 that Anita and Ramesh took their place among the 8,000 people whose applications to join their spouses had been turned down by an adjudicator, who doubted the sincerity of the so-called primary purpose of their marriage. Despite this sad placing in the growing statistics of disappointed newly-marrieds, Anita and Ramesh went ahead with their marriage, which took place about 16 months ago. Now, once again, Ramesh has applied to be with his wife and once again he has been consigned to the swelling ranks of the dismissed cases, subject to appeal.
To Ministers and officials, Anita and Ramesh are, and will remain, mere numbers in the unending battle against the unyielding pressure of immigration statistics. To Ministers, this couple are faceless, inanimate statistics on a sheet of cold white paper and evidence of a satisfactory effort to stem the flowing tide of a perpetual immigration problem. But to people who know the likes of Anita and Ramesh in the flesh it is a different matter altogether.
To those who know them better, the Anitas and Rameshes are bewildered young people with hopes, aspirations and plans for a family life. They have faces that light up with smiles, features that darken with disappointment, minds that are bemused by the misconstruction of their motives. They are real people. Policies are about, and must always be about, real people, not about ministerial statistics.
The purpose behind the debate is to try to bridge a gap that has been allowed to come into existence between policies and people, between a concern for the feelings of ordinary people on the one hand and the convenience of Ministers and the machinery of government on the other. It is common ground between parties on both sides of the House that unrestricted immigration cannot be permitted and that there must be curbs on it, but the means, the procedures by which curbs are implemented, are by no means generally accepted. Accountability has been shuffled away from Ministers. We are now at a point at which a two-tier system is in operation. Bureaucrats have been delegated the power to decide and determine, without political supervision, and quasi-judicial arbitrators either rubber-stamp or rescind these decisions. In 1989, for example, a mere 14 per cent. of appeals were allowed.
If this were a process analagous to the way in which we distance the police and the judiciary from the dangers of political interference, it might be unexceptionable, but it is not in any way like that. The fact is that there is no political accountability for anomalies and irregularities. There is no political inclination to examine or to exercise influence where exceptional or compassionate circumstances arise.
1224
Let me illustrate by reference to the case of Anita and Ramesh—an almost copybook example of passing the buck. Indeed, it is an enduring and archetypal monument to how a bureaucratic no-man's-land can emerge when politicians turn their backs on responsibility for officialdom.
Having learnt that right of residence had been refused to Ramesh, I sought an early meeting with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). It was to no avail. By the middle of January,Ramesh had lodged an appeal, but meanwhile I learnt that Anita's supposedly loveless, impermanent marriage had resulted in her becoming pregnant. That factor was deemed to be inadequate and was also ignored. Early in March, Anita was admitted to hospital in Delhi with a threatened miscarriage linked to the health problems that had dogged her visits to India in earlier days. From all sides she was urged to return to London. Again, I sought permission for Ramesh to be with her. Alas, this is when I first entered the twilight fantasy-like world so vividly portrayed by Franz Kafka. This is when the incredible no-man's-land of the Executive opened up before me.
The Home Office could not help: it was a Foreign Office matter. The Foreign Office could not help, even on compassionate grounds, because the "papers" for an appeal had by this time left Delhi. It was out of their hands; it was a matter for the Lord Chancellor, as his Department was responsible for the independent appellate authority. From further inquiries, I established that that paper travel could take weeks rather than days. In the event, the papers took 50 days—seven weeks—to arrive.
I sought a meeting with the Lord Chancellor, whose private office resisted my request—if the papers were still on their way to the independent appellate authority, the matter was not within the Lord Chancellor's responsibility. But I persisted, and an appointment was granted for two weeks later.
In the meantime, the urgent compassionate question foundered in an administrative vacuum—a sort of limbo existence in which decision or action could not be taken by anyone, anywhere, at any level, for an indeterminate period ahead that might be days but could be weeks. I am happy to say that the crisis sorted itself out, but the bleak, heartless, unsatisfactory anomaly remains.
Throughout this case, there could be no clearer indication, no more eloquent illustration, of ministerial indifference that the absence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary from this debate. As befits one of the most amiable and friendly products of Eton and Oxford, he has never been less than impeccably courteous when I have raised the case with him. Sadly, I must record that his courtesy has been more than surpassed by his readiness to distance himself from the possibilities for constructive intervention.
I must tell the House of one other disturbingly unsatisfactory aspect of the case. From the word go, Anita, with Ramesh, has followed my guidance about immigration procedures punctiliously, painstakingly and to the letter. In the distressing circumstances that I have outlined, the least that I could do was offer to represent Ramesh at his forthcoming appeal. First, however, I felt that I should meet him and satisfy myself of his complete bona fides.
On 16 April, in ample time for the deadline by which he needed to nominate me, I wrote to him in terms that I

1225
hoped would make it clear to the entry clearance officer in Delhi that this would be a purely temporary visit, irrespective of the outcome of any appeal, and that it could, if acceptable, serve a second and compassionate purpose of enabling Ramesh to be present at the birth of his child.
At his request, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary received a copy of the letter. He knew its purpose and I mistakenly assumed that I was receiving his co-operation. He notified me that he would write to me again. Judge, therefore, my surprise when 21 days later a letter from the migration and visa office, 4th floor—written by Miss M.L. Archer, signed somewhat indecipherably by J. Pilmore Bedford, dated 23 May and posted on 4 June, 12 days after it was written—eventually reached me on 5 June.
Judge my disappointment when Miss Archer informed me that Ramesh would not be allowed to come for the birth or to see me, as he might never return to India. I telephoned her, but the only information of substance that I could glean from her was that a Minister should have written a letter to me and that it was a mistake that she had done so.
I tabled a question asking whether Ramesh could have a visa so that I could meet him and whether there was any precedent for preventing Members of Parliament from seeing their constituents' spouses. This Monday, mindful of today's debate, the Minister informed me, cryptically, that he would write to me as soon as possible. Since then, nothing.
Why is the Minister avoiding saying that his office will stop at nothing to ensure that obstacles are put in the way of Ramesh getting the best-informed representation at his appeal? Why must he resort to such specious stratagems? Is it possible that this is merely an extension of the erection of barriers and difficulties that accompanied changes that were made in 1983?
At that time the burden of proof was, for the first time, placed on applicants to prove that entry into the United Kingdom was not the primary purpose of their marriage. With that change, and at a stroke, a foolproof obstacle had been invented. It was a handicap that simple folk would immediately find put them at a disadvantage. Many of those who would be interviewed could clearly be coaxed and beguiled into self-incriminatory statements.
The clever Roedean and Winchester-trained interviewers would thereafter smartly dress up those statements into flaws and discrepancies that disparaged their credibility and for ever ruined their prospect of admission into the United Kingdom. I say for ever because it is clear that once the file has been constructed, it is like a birthmark. It remains like a scar for ever.
As for the Minister's behaviour, I cannot help wondering why he is shirking his responsibility to the House by declining to reply personally to this debate. I have received no indication that pressing ministerial duties are involved in his absence. This is a regrettable and seemingly discourteous way of treating a debate in the House.
As I said, Anita and Ramesh's pleas to be allowed to live together are as yet unresolved. Those problems are embedded in the pipeline awaiting a bureaucratic, paper-based assessment of the genuineness of their
1226
marriage, a marriage which will already have produced its firstborn long before the pipeline will have coughed up its judgment.
This afternoon I do not intend to argue the pros and cons of the individual case. My concern is with the procedures that Parliament has sanctioned and the impact that they can have on the likes of this young father and mother-to-be. I am concerned with the anguished traumas that our procedures can induce, with the callousness to which they can subject mystified and confused young couples, with the hypocritical contradictions that they reveal in public statements, and with the way in which we are ducking our international obligations for the sake of purely administrative convenience.
I question the cost of this slow-moving and expensive system. But, more importantly, I question aspects of a more fundamental nature—its morality, its unfairness and whether it is worthy of a country that used to be proud of the essential decency on which its public policies were felt and believed to be based.
What else is wrong with the immigration procedures? To begin with, they breach the assumption enshrined in the European convention on human rights, article 8 of which states:
"Everyone has the right to respect his private and family life".
Article 12 states:
"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family."
Support for identical sentiments were echoed in an outburst of Victorian-style proportions by the Home Secretary when he was chairman of the party.
"Family values are the key issue of the 1990s"
he thundered and, warming to his theme, declared:
"The erosion of the natural family unit during the past 30 years has created serious consequences for the social and cultural fabric of the nation."
Burning with a mounting 19th century zeal, my right hon. Friend announced with all the flamboyance of a born-again Charles Darwin:
"Nature intended the raising of children to be the work of two people."
To round off his incontrovertible thoughts, my right hon. Friend thundered:
"Not only is it just that fathers should contribute to the upkeep of their children; it is also crucial that we begin to break the culture which views it as acceptable for a man to walk away from the consequences of his own actions".
Let us not, as the Government, walk away from the consequences of our immigration legislation. Let us break the culture that views it as acceptable to sunder new-born marriages and separate fathers from new-born children. In short, let us reflect on how British entry clearing officers, serving at the outposts of the former British empire, are being called on to interpret nobly moral and uplifting sentiments that have been strongly endorsed by the former Prime Minister. She said:
"For our society as a whole, and especially for the children, much depends on the family unit remaining secure and respected."
As I have already said, my former constituent Miss Anita Behal fell in love with young Mr. Ramesh Kumar during a lightning visit to the Indian sub-continent. They married, and that should be the end of their story except for me to add that they lived happily ever after. Sadly, that will not be the case. This unresolved matter is the subject of a second appeal and it is unnecessary for me today to go into the merits of the arguments surrounding it.

1227
However, the procedures and their implications are relevant because they run contrary to our international commitments. We are signatories to the European convention on human rights, and if it is objected that these quasi-legal procedures fall outside the convention because they are not formally part of our legal system, such an argument merely reinforces my point. I say merely that in any proper form, they could not have withstood objective scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights.
I reassert that the procedures are inconsistent with everything that the Conservative Government have said about the sanctity of family life. They are incompatible with practices within the European Community and within our country. Why should husbands from India but not Indian husbands from Canada or Australia have to go through those procedures? British practice should conform to international practice, especially to European Community rules, but it does not. Under European Community law the husband or wife of a citizen of the Community who is working in another Community country has a right of residence with a European Community spouse. That right terminates only if the marriage is dissolved or if the European Community spouse moves to another country. What is so wrong with that system? Surely it is better than ours.
Not the least of my objections to our immigration procedures is the protracted delay involved. The period of separation necessitated at the outset of a marriage is more likely to result in "intervening dislocation" of a marriage than in "intervening devotion". I regard the procedures as a violation of the institution of marriage, irrespective of any merit that they may have in curtailing immigration.
I reiterate the fact that the rules and procedures are not conducive to sound administration, to individual justice or to human happiness. They involve long delays, deep disappointments and untold resentment. The pernicious test of primary purpose combined with its later concomitant—the notion of "intervening devotion"—are presumptuous concepts. They show no regard for the essentially personal and private nature of marriage. The questions that they necessitate in order to enable a largely value judgment to be made of one of the most intimate personal relationships in a human being's life are at best an invasion of privacy and, at worst, a deeply humiliating affront. These procedures do not lend themselves to amendment or revision. The system should be scrapped. It discredits those who conceived it, it injures those who are forced to submit to it and it shames all those who sustain or operate it.
2.53 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) for the absence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. He is unavoidably detained and wishes me on his behalf to express his apologies to the House.
I have had the opportunity of looking at the file. I thought that it was prudent to do so before I made a speech. I am indeed struck by the tenacity and vigour with which my hon. Friend has advocated the case of his constituent and her husband. He has written many letters, arranged and had many meetings, given much good advice, offered to represent Mr. Kumar at the appeal
1228
debate, as he said, and initiated the debate this afternoon. I recognise that the events so far have been disappointing, but that should not obscure the conclusion that no constituent could have had a case more energetically advocated than this by my hon. Friend.
One of the advantages of having had a look at the papers is that I have been able to judge the degree of involvement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He has involved himself with the detail of the case. He called for a full report on the facts and studied it. It would be wrong and unjust to him to say that he has been guilty of ministerial indifference. He has taken a real, personal interest in the matter. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, and having studied the papers as I have, I simply cannot accept the criticisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North has made of him.
It may be helpful if I give the House some details of the entry clearance applications which Mr. Kumar has made over the past five years and how they have been handled. If I then have time, which I fear I will not, I shall say something about the immigration rules.
Mr. Gorst: I have scrupulously avoided going into those details in order not to prejudice the hearing that will subsequently take place. Indeed, I was advised that perhaps the debate should not take place for that reason. Therefore, I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should go into such details. Would he reconsider doing so?
Mr. Hogg: I shall not say anything that will prejudice the case. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should think otherwise.
Mr. Kumar first applied for settlement entry clearance, as a male fiance at the British high commission in New Delhi on 5 March 1986. His sponsor in the United Kingdom was Miss Bahal, now his wife, who is the constituent of my hon. Friend. Because of the very large number of settlement applications handled, the high commission operates a queueing system for interviews, which are an essential part of the entry clearance process in settlement cases. Mr. Kumar was given an interview date of 17 November 1986. Following this interview, the entry clearance officer was unable to make a decision on the evidence available to him. He, therefore, referred the application to the Home Office with the request that that Department arrange for the sponsor to be interviewed and then decide whether entry clearance should be granted. The Home Office refused the application on 15 October 1987, on the ground that the Home Secretary was not satisfied under the immigration rules that it was not the primary purpose of the proposed marriage to gain admission to the United Kingdom. Mr. Kumar exercised his right to appeal against the Home Office decision to an independent adjudicator of the immigration appellate authorities. That appeal was dismissed on 16 June 1989.
It is open to any applicant who has been refused a visa to reapply at any time. Each application is considered on its merits and in accordance with the immigration rules. Mr. Kumar lodged a second settlement application in February 1990, by when he had married the constituent of my hon. Friend. Following a further interview on 14 December 1990 at the high commission in New Delhi, Mr. Kumar's application was again refused, as the entry clearance officer was still not satisfied that it was not the primary purpose of the marriage to gain admission to the United Kingdom.

1229
My hon. Friend will recall the meeting that he had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 15 January this year, to discuss the refusal of Mr. Kumar's second settlement entry clearance application. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained the reasons for the refusal of entry clearance on primary purpose grounds. A number of discrepancies had emerged at the interview about the circumstances in which the couple had first met and about the marriage ceremony. There was also little evidence of intervening devotion between the time of the first and second applications. My hon. Friend explained that an appeal was the correct way forward and that Mrs. Kumar would have the opportunity to address the adjudicator and put forward any points in support of her husband's application. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was satisfied that the entry clearance officer had handled the application correctly and in accordance with the rules.
Mr. Kumar lodged an appeal against this second refusal decision with the High Commission on 22 January 1991. When she received this appeal the entry clearance officer reconsidered the application, taking full account of any new evidence or facts which may have come to light, but she was not persuaded to vary her decision. The entry clearance officer therefore sent the appeal, together with an explanatory statement setting out in full her reasons for refusal, to the independent appellate authority on 7 March 1991. A copy of this statement will be sent to the appellant
1230
or to his nominated representative in this country before the appeal hearing, the date and venue for which will be arranged by the appellate authority.
I remind the House that the independent appellate authority, which comes under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor, was set up by Parliament specifically to resolve disputed evidence and claims. It is therefore for the adjudicator to consider the merits of Mr. Kumar's case.
On 9 May 1991, Mr. Kumar lodged a visit visa application to enable him to meet my hon. Friend before the appeal hearing, at which, as my hon. Friend has said, he intends to represent him. In considering Mr. Kumar's application, the entry clearance officer took full account of the fact that Mrs. Kumar is now pregnant, but refused the application because he could not be satisfied, in view of Mr. Kumar's declared intention to settle in this country, that Mr. Kumar was a genuine short-term visitor who would leave the United Kingdom at the end of his permitted stay. He also noted that it is common practice for applicants to represent pregnancy as grounds for compassionate treatment. Although this ground is not ignored, the entry clearance officer is required to consider the application as a whole in the light of the applicant's circumstances and stated future intentions.
As my hon. Friend is aware, it is not a requirement—
The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at three minutes past Three o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Tyres
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations govern the manufacture of re-mould tyres used on commercial vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  The Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984 require all re-mould tyres to comply with British Standard BS AU 144b: 1977.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations govern the use of re-mould tyres fitted to commercial vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no regulations which refer specifically to the use of re-mould tyres, but all tyres are required by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to be suitable for the use to which a vehicle is put.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving commercial vehicles were attributable to defective re-mould tyres during the years 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  Statistics are not available for 1989 or 1990 on accidents attributable to failure of tyres on commercial vehicles. However, the Department is co-ordinating research into the incidence and causes of tyre failures among heavy goods vehicles on motorways.

  Supplementary Grants
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much transport supplementary grant was made available to West Sussex county council for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  Before 1985–86 transport supplementary grant was given for capital and current expenditure. Since then current expenditure has been subsumed in revenue support grant, so figures before 1985–86 are not comparable with later figures. Transport supplementary grant for the last 10 years has been:

  Settlement year

  £ million

  1982–83

  3·908

  1983–84

  3·475

  1984–85

  3·719

  1985–86

  3·241

  1986–87

  3·622

  1987–88

  3·089

  1988–89

  2·730

  1989–90

  1·526

  1990–91

  4·532

  1991–92

  4·126

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the Atkins report on the channel tunnel rail link and when he does so, if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail sent us a copy of the report yesterday. We shall study it alongside all the other material it has sent us. The report and other key documents will be published in due course when we are ready to announce our conclusion.

  DVLA Information Technology Directorate
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's information technology directorate.

  Mr. Chope
  I have recently reviewed the status of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's directorate of information technology, known as DVOIT (Drivers, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology). This is a separate unit within the agency, comprising some 500 staff, which provides IT support to DVLA and to a number of other customers within the Department of Transport.

  As a first step DVOIT will be established as a separate executive agency from next April. This will allow it to develop a more commercial style of operation and in particular to establish more formal contractual relationships with its customers. I hope this will pave the way for eventual privatisation in a few years' time.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Bromley and Kingston Education Authorities
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to introduce amending legislation in the light of the recent High Court decision concerning Bromley and Kingston education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the recent court cases involving the school admissions policies of Bromley and Kingston education authorities. He will be looking at the pattern of school admissions this September before deciding whether legislation to amend the law on admissions would be appropriate.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science 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.

  Mr. Eggar
  Until June 1990 information on public appointments was not held centrally within the Department, but is available in "Public Bodies" which is published annually and gives details of all such appointments together with salary details. Current appointments together with salary details and the date when each appointment is due for renewal are as follows:
  675

  Name of body

  Appointment and date of renewal

  Salary

  Business and Technician Education Council

  Chairman and all 12 members in December 1992

  Chairman part-time £10,000

  Members part-time unpaid

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  Chairman in 1993

  All part-time unpaid

  3 members in 1991

  4 members in 1992

  3 members in 1993

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  Chairman in March 1994

  All part-time unpaid

  4 members in August 1991

  1 member in December 1991

  4 members in August 1992

  1 member in January 1993

  2 members in December 1993

  Education Assets Board

  Chairman and all 6 members in July 1992

  Chairman part-time £20,515

  Members £111 sessional fee

  National Council for Educational Technology

  Chairman in March 1994

  All part-time unpaid

  4 members in March 1992

  5 members in March 1993

  8 members in March 1994

  Council for National Academic Awards

  Chairman in April 1994

  Chairman part-time £6,000

  25 members in September 1991

  Members part-time unpaid

  Further Education Unit Board of Management

  Chairman in April 1993

  All part-time unpaid

  11 members in December 1991

  Advisory Board for the Research Councils1

  Chairman in March 1993

  Chairman full-time £65,575

  1 member in March 1992

  Members part-time £4,340 honorarium

  2 members in March 1993

  1 member in September 1993

  2 members in March 1994

  1 member in September 1995

  1 member in December 1995

  Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

  Chairman in June 1993

  Chairman £19,000 part-time

  9 members in December 1991

  10 members in December 1992

  Members part-time unpaid

  Computer Board for Councils Universities and Research councils

  Chairman and all 10 members in 1991

  Chairman £4,100 honorarium

  Members part-time daily fee £65

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  Chairman in November 1991

  Chairman part-time £14,000

  13 members in March 1992

  Members part-time £2,300 honorarium

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  Chairman and Chief2 Executive in August 1993

  Chief Executive £54,900 Members part-time unpaid

  5 members in August 1991

  5 members in August 1992

  2 members in August 1993

  1 member in August 1994

  Sports Council

  Chairman and Vice-chairman in May 1992

  Chairman part-time £17,362

  6 members in October 1991

  Members part-time unpaid

  1 member in November 1991

  1 member in December 1991

  1 member in November 1992

  1 member in December 1992

  2 members in March 1993

  1 member in May 1993

  United States/United Kingdom Educational Commission (Fulbright Commission)

  2 members in December 1991

  Members part-time unpaid

  1 member in December 1992

  2 members in December 1994

  676 677

  Name of body

  Appointment and date of renewal

  Salary

  Universities Funding Council

  Chairman in October 1991

  Chairman part-time £14,000

  8 members in March 1992

  4 members in March 1994

  Members part-time £2,300 honorarium

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Chairman in August 1995

  Chairman part-time £11,580

  Secretary in December 19953

  5 members in July 1991

  Secretary £61,920 full-time Members part-time £4,340 honorarium

  3 members in July 1992

  7 members in July 1994

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Chairman in September 1992

  Chairman full-time £59,020 Members part-time £4,340 honorarium

  4 members in July 1991

  5 members in July 1992

  5 members in July 1993

  5 members in July 1994

  Medical Research Council

  Chairman in September 1994

  Chairman part-time £5,790 Members part-time honorarium £4,340

  6 members in July 1991

  3 members in July 1992

  2 members in July 1993

  4 members in July 1994

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Chairman in September 1993

  Chairman full-time £59,020 Members part-time £4,340 honorarium

  6 members in July 1992

  3 members in July 1993

  6 members in July 1994

  National Curriculum Council

  2Chairman and Chief Executive in August 1995

  Chief Executive full-time £69,120

  Deputy Chairman in August 1991

  Deputy Chairman and Members part-time unpaid

  6 members in August 1991

  4 members in August 1992

  3 members in August 1993

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Chairman in September 1995

  Chairman full-time £76,600

  2 members in July 1992

  Members part-time £4,240 —£5,790 honorarium

  8 members in July 1993

  4 members in July 1994

  4Inner London Staff Commission

  Chairman and 2 members in April 1993

  Chairman part-time minimum 5 day fee at £118 per day.

  Members part-time minimum 2·5 days at £102 per day.

  Yehudi Menuhin School Governing Body

  2 members in July 1991

  Unpaid

  Visiting Committee of Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Chairman in September 1991

  All part-time unpaid

  4 members in July 1991

  2 members in November 1992

  1 member in September 1993

  Visiting Committee of the Royal College of Art

  Chairman in June 1991

  All part-time unpaid

  1 member in June 1991

  1 member in July 1991

  1 member in June 1992

  2 members in November 1992

  1 member in March 1994

  The Staff College (FE) Staff College Governing Body

  Chairman in November 1991

  All part-time unpaid

  4 members in December 1991

  4 members in December 1992

  3 members in December 1993

  3 members in December 1994

  Visiting Committee of the Open University

  2 members in January 1992

  Part-time unpaid

  3 members in January 1993

  2 members in January 1994

  University Commissioners

  Chairman in July 1991

  Chairman part-time £383 daily fee

  4 members in July 1991

  Members part-time £198 daily fee

  678 679

  Name of body

  Appointment and date of renewal

  Salary

  Teaching as a Career Unit Board

  Chairman in March 1993

  All part-time unpaid

  Joint Secretaries in March 1993

  8 Members in March 1993

  School Management Task Force

  Leader in March 1992

  Leader and Members part-time paid5

  5 members in March 1992

  National Youth Agency Management Committee

  Chairman and 7 members in March 1994

  All part-time unpaid

  1 Includes the heads of the 5 research councils, who are also listed under their respective councils.

  2 The present chairman is also chief executive. The post of chairman is unpaid.

  3 The secretary of AFRC is also deputy chairman.

  4 The work of the commission will be concluded in April 1993.

  5 The Department makes a contribution towards salary costs.

  Schools (Budgetary Delegation)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which, in the most recent year for which information is available(a) had introduced full budgetary delegation to (i) all primary schools and (ii) all secondary schools and (b) had introduced school funding (i) fully in accordance with their published formula, (ii) partly in accordance with the formula and partly in accordance with historical principles and (iii) only in accordance with historical principles.

  Mr. Fallon
  The following table lists those local education authorities whose primary or secondary schools have full delegated management as of 1 April 1991.

  With regard to formula funding, the vast majority of LEAs have taken advantage of the transitional arrangements which allow for the change from historic to pure formula funding to take place gradually in the period up to 1 April 1994.

  The detailed information on each LEA is not immediately available. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  (1) Fully delegated budgets to primary schools by 1991–92

  Westminster

  Coventry

  Brent

  Solihull

  Harrow

  Bolton

  Hillingdon

  Bradford

  Merton

  Kent

  Richmond

  (2) Fully delegated budgets to secondary schools by 1991–92

  Westminster

  Bedfordshire

  Barking

  Berkshire

  Barnet

  Buckinghamshire

  Brent

  Cambridgeshire

  Bromley

  Cheshire

  Croydon

  Cornwall

  Ealing

  Cumbria

  Haringey

  Devon

  Harrow

  Dorset

  Hillingdon

  Durham

  Hounslow

  East Sussex

  Kingston

  Essex

  Merton

  Gloucestershire

  Redbridge

  Hampshire

  Richmond

  Humberside

  Sutton

  Isle of Wight

  Coventry

  Kent

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Sefton

  Lincolnshire

  Wirral

  North Yorkshire

  Bolton

  Nottinghamshire

  Manchester

  Oxfordshire

  Doncaster

  Somerset

  Sheffield

  Suffolk

  Bradford

  Surrey

  680

  Gateshead

  Warwickshire

  South Tyneside

  West Sussex

  Isles of Scilly

  Wiltshire

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list local education authorities from which a secondary school has(a) voted for and (b) achieved grant-maintained status showing what proportion of its secondary provision such schools represent.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table gives the number and proportion (in percentage terms) of secondary schools within a local education authority which have:(a) voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status; (b) voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status and been approved for GM status.

  (a)

  (b)

  Local education authority

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Hammersmith

  1

  10

  1

  10

  Kensington

  1

  20

  1

  20

  Southwark

  1

  6

  1

  6

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  7

  1

  7

  Wandsworth

  3

  25

  0

  —

  Barnet

  2

  9

  2

  9

  Brent

  3

  20

  1

  7

  Bromley

  7

  37

  1

  5

  Croydon

  1

  4

  0

  —

  Ealing

  6

  46

  0

  —

  Hillingdon

  10

  56

  4

  22

  Newham

  1

  7

  1

  7

  Sutton

  2

  14

  2

  14

  Waltham Forest

  1

  6

  1

  6

  Birmingham

  4

  5

  4

  5

  Dudley

  2

  8

  1

  4

  Sandwell

  1

  4

  1

  4

  Solihull

  1

  7

  0

  —

  Wolverhampton

  2

  10

  2

  10

  Bolton

  1

  6

  1

  6

  Liverpool

  1

  3

  1

  3

  Tameside

  1

  5

  1

  5

  Wigan

  1

  4

  0

  —

  Bradford

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Calderdale

  2

  12

  2

  12

  Kirkless

  2

  5

  2

  5

  Avon

  2

  3

  2

  3

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Berkshire

  4

  7

  3

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  7

  3

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  0

  —

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  4

  9

  1

  2

  Derbyshire

  2

  3

  2

  3

  Devon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dorset

  5

  8

  2

  3

  Essex

  5

  5

  2

  2

  681

  (a)

  (b)

  Local education authority

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Gloucestershire

  6

  14

  4

  9

  Hampshire

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Hertfordshire

  6

  6

  3

  4

  Kent

  22

  15

  5

  3

  Lancashire

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  12

  19

  7

  11

  Norfolk

  6

  11

  1

  2

  Northamptonshire

  5

  8

  3

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  0

  —

  Shropshire

  1

  3

  1

  3

  Somerset

  1

  3

  1

  3

  Surrey

  7

  12

  1

  2

  Warwickshire

  3

  8

  1

  3

  Wiltshire

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Total

  167

  85

  Notes:

  (1) Column (a) lists the total number of schools in an authority which have voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained (GM) status. Some of these schools have yet to publish proposals, others have published proposals which Ministers will be considering soon or which they have already either approved or rejected.

  (2) Column (b) lists the number of schools whose proposals have been approved. This includes schools which are already operating as GM schools and those which were approved for incorporation in September.

  School Premises
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in England do not meet the requirements laid down in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not held centrally. It is the duty of LEAs and others directly responsible for schools to ensure that school premises conform to the standards prescribed in the regulations.

  Higher Education (Salaries)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total number of teaching staff and the total salary bill, exclusive of the employers' insurance and superannuation contributions(a) for English universities, and (b) for polytechnics and colleges under the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council for 1984–85 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the numbers of universities' teaching staff and salaries inclusive of employers' insurance and superannuation contributions is contained in the annual volume "University Statistics Volume Three—Finance" table 9 published by the universities' statistical record. The latest edition is for financial year 1988–89. Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  Data on polytechnics and colleges are not available in the requested form.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the annual grants made to Bangladesh by the Bangladesh Aid Consortium in each year since 1972; what has been the United Kingdom's contribution within the same period; and what have been the sums devoted by the Bangladesh Aid Consortium to programmes designed (i) to protect coastal areas from cyclone damage and (ii) to pre vent flooding within Bangladesh.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Total net official development assistance to Bangladesh from all donors, and from the United Kingdom, is as follows:

  Total Net Official Development Assistance from all donors

  UK Net Bilateral Official Development Assistance

  £ million

  £ million

  1972

  89·45

  1972

  2·53

  1973

  171·98

  1973

  2·67

  1974

  208·09

  1974

  6·44

  1975

  430·47

  1975

  14·30

  1976

  288·49

  1976

  13·72

  1977

  334·41

  1977

  21·99

  1978

  501·06

  1978

  43·97

  1979

  533·61

  1979

  33·77

  1980

  512·96

  1980

  42·57

  1981

  494·45

  1981

  33·31

  1982

  766·20

  1982

  22·17

  1983

  691·51

  1983

  23·92

  1984

  898·30

  1984

  34·77

  1985

  888·37

  1985

  40·28

  1986

  992·11

  1986

  37·43

  1987

  998·12

  1987

  33·96

  1988

  893·85

  1988

  41·08

  1989

  1098·73

  1989

  51·96

  In the period 1972–81 the figures for the donor group include DAC donors and multilateral institutions. From 1982 the totals also include assistance from Arab donors.

  We do not maintain statistics on the sectoral breakdown of other donor countries' aid programmes and cannot therefore give details of financial support for cyclone protection and flood prevention.

  British Council
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries, and the towns or cities in these countries, where Overseas Development Administration work is sub-contracted to the British Council.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA has engaged the British Council to act as its agent in providing certain services in 106 countries. These services are normally available in the main towns and cities of these countries, which are as follows:

  Algeria

  Liberia

  Angola

  Madagascar

  Anguilla

  Malawi

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Malaysia

  Bangladesh

  Maldives

  Barbados

  Mali

  Belize

  Malta

  Benin

  Mauritania

  Bhutan

  Mauritius

  683

  Bolivia

  Mexico

  Botswana

  Montserrat

  Brazil

  Morocco

  British Virgin Islands

  Mozambique

  Burkino Faso

  Namibia

  Burundi

  Nepal

  Cameroon

  Nicaragua

  Cape Verde

  Niger

  Central African Republic

  Nigeria

  Chad

  Oman

  Chile

  Pakistan

  China

  Panama

  Colombia

  Papua New Guinea

  Congo

  Paraguay

  Costa Rica

  Peru

  Cote d'lvoire

  Philippines

  Cyprus

  Republic of Yemen

  Djibouti

  Rwanda

  Dominica

  Senegal

  Dominican Republic

  Seychelles

  Equador

  Sierra Leone

  Egypt

  Solomon Islands

  El Salvador

  Somalia

  Ethiopia

  South Africa

  Falkland Islands

  Sri Lanka

  Fiji

  St. Helena and Tristan Da Cunha

  Gabon

  St. Kitts/Nevis

  Gambia

  St. Lucia

  Ghana

  St. Vincent

  Gibraltar

  Sudan

  Grenada

  Swaziland

  Guatemala

  Tanzania

  Guinea

  Thailand

  Guinea Bissau

  Togo

  Guyana

  Tonga

  Haiti

  Tunisia

  Honduras

  Turkey

  India

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Indonesia

  Tuvalu

  Jamaica

  Uganda

  Jordan

  Vanuatu

  Kenya

  Zaire

  Kiribati

  Zambia

  Lesotho

  Zimbabwe

HEALTH

  Dental Health
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the water supply in England and Wales is now fluoridated artificially; and what is his policy for ensuring the optimum level of fluoridation in the interests of securing better dental health.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Some 12 per cent. of the population in England and Wales receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased. It is for health authorities to decide whether or not to ask water authorities to increase local fluoride levels. Where arrangements are made the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 requires that they should include provisions to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, the concentration of fluoride is maintained at 1 milligram per litre which is the optimal level for reducing dental caries.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy for improving the dental health of children in the ethnic minitory communities; what specific steps he is taking to ensure that children receive regular dental examinations and treatment and are encouraged to use toothpaste containing fluoride; what specific resources are being devoted by regional and district health authorities to implement any such programmes; and if he will make a statement.
  684
  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the responsibility of district health authorities to monitor the dental health of all age and ethnic groups in the population, to provide dental health education and preventive programmes and to screen the teeth of children in state-funded schools at least three times in each child's school life. Any advice on oral hygiene would include a description of the benefits of regular brushing of teeth and the use of toothpastes, the majority of which now contain fluoride.

  To meet these objectives district health authorities through the community dental services will need to monitor levels of dental health throughout the population, to identify special needs, to encourage the use of the general dental service and to provide a safety net service of treatment for those whose needs cannot be met in the general dental service.

  The resources devoted by any particular regional or district health authority to any programme will be a matter for the authority concerned; there will inevitably be variations between regions and districts reflecting the differences in the dental health of the population.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in tabular form details of the average number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-old children in England in each district health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The most recent dental caries prevalence surveys by health districts of 12-year-old children were carried out during 1988–89. Not all health districts were represented in the surveys, which were co-ordinated by the British Association for Community Dentistry (BASCD). The average number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth (DMFT) in each district surveyed is shown in the table.

  Table: Survey of 12-year-old children by health district 1988–89

  District

  DMFT

  Burnley et al

  3·09

  Tameside and Glossop

  2·73

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2·70

  Salford

  2·69

  Oldham

  2·63

  Central Manchester

  2·60

  North Manchester

  2·49

  Blackburn et al

  2·21

  Lancaster

  2·16

  Pontefract

  2·14

  Liverpool

  2 14

  Wigan

  2·11

  Airedale

  2·09

  Bolton

  2·03

  Blackpool et al

  2·03

  Bury

  2·02

  Barnsley

  2·02

  Halton

  2·01

  South Sefton

  1·98

  York

  1·96

  Sheffield

  1·95

  Cornwall

  1·93

  Trafford

  1·92

  Leeds Eastern

  1·92

  Ealing

  1·88

  Preston

  1·87

  Exeter

  1·86

  South Cumbria

  1·82

  Bradford

  1·81

  South Tees

  1·80

  West Lancashire

  1·79

  Wirral

  1·77

  Rotherham

  1·77

  Chester

  1·77

  685

  District

  DMFT

  Leeds Western

  1·74

  South Manchester

  1·73

  North Staffordshire

  1·72

  Stockport

  1·71

  Sandwell

  1·71

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  1·71

  Walsall

  1·69

  Richmond and Twickenham

  1·69

  Wakefield

  1·65

  Plymouth

  1·64

  North Tees

  1·64

  Macclesfield

  1·64

  North Derbyshire

  1·62

  Chorley and South Ribble

  1·59

  Wolverhampton

  1·58

  Nottingham

  1·58

  Northumberland

  1·55

  Rochdale

  1·54

  East Cumbria

  1·53

  Swindon

  1·52

  Bassetlaw

  1·52

  Leicestershire

  1·52

  West Berkshire

  1·51

  Scarborough

  1·50

  Herefordshire

  1·48

  Hillingdon

  1·47

  Mid Staffordshire

  1·46

  Central Nottinghamshire

  1·43

  East Berkshire

  1·43

  Cheltenham and Gloucester

  1·42

  Basildon and Thurrock

  1·41

  Crewe

  1·40

  Mid Surrey

  1·40

  Torbay

  1·39

  Darlington

  1·39

  South Tyneside

  1·38

  East Yorkshire

  1·38

  Durham

  1·38

  South Derbyshire

  1·37

  South West Durham

  1·36

  North West Surrey

  1·35

  Winchester

  1·34

  Dudley

  1·34

  Somerset

  1·33

  West Cumbria

  1·32

  Tower Hamlets

  1·32

  North West Durham

  1·32

  Coventry

  1·32

  West Dorset

  1·31

  Hull

  1·31

  Sunderland

  1·30

  Aylesbury Vale

  1·29

  Avon

  1·29

  Harrow

  1·28

  Merton and Sutton

  1·28

  Huddersfield

  1·28

  Islington

  1·27

  Warrington

  1·26

  South Lincolnshire

  1·26

  North Tyneside

  1·25

  Bath

  1·25

  Wandsworth

  1·25

  East Surrey

  1·24

  Calderdale

  1·24

  North West Hertfordshire

  1·23

  Hampstead

  1·23

  Scunthorpe

  1·22

  Newcastle

  1·22

  Northampton

  1·21

  Medway

  1·20

  East Birmingham

  1·20

  Shropshire

  1·19

  South West Surrey

  1·19

  Newham

  1·19

  North Warwickshire

  1·19

  Kidderminster

  1·17

  East Dorset

  1·17

  Southampton

  1·16

  686

  District

  DMFT

  South East Staffordshire

  1·16

  Kettering

  1·16

  Worcester

  1·16

  South Bedfordshire

  1·15

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  1·14

  Bloomsbury

  1·13

  Salisbury

  1·11

  Milton Keynes

  1·11

  Central Birmingham

  1·11

  Portsmouth

  1·09

  Camberwell

  1·06

  North Lincolnshire

  1·06

  North Hertfordshire

  1·05

  Grimsby

  1·04

  West Birmingham

  1·03

  Wycombe

  1·01

  Barking et al

  1·01

  Isle of Wight

  0·99

  Northallerton

  0·98

  Croydon

  0·97

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  0·97

  South Warwickshire

  0·95

  North Birmingham

  0·94

  Harrogate

  0·94

  Solihull

  0·93

  Barnet

  0·93

  East Hertfordshire

  0·92

  Gateshead

  0·91

  South Birmingham

  0·89

  Rugby

  0·88

  West Essex

  0·82

  North Bedfordshire

  0·71

  Hartlepool

  0·71

  Training
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the amounts allocated in England by each regional health authority in 1991–92 for(a) the training of managers in the national health service, (b) postgraduate medical education and (c) continuing medical education.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not at present held centrally. Separate budgets for postgraduate and continuing medical education will operate for the first time this year.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review the current policies of social services departments regarding the upper age limits for prospective inter-country adoptive parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no policy which places an upper age limit on prospective adoptive parents.

  Age is one of many factors considered by social services departments in each case before making their recommendation about the suitability of people to become adoptive parents.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what security grading is given to establishments in England and Wales providing secure accommodation for juvenile offenders in care; and if he will publish details of those which have the highest rating;
  687
  (2) if he will publish in tabular form a list of establishments in England and Wales providing secure accommodation for juvenile offenders in care together with the number of beds in each establishment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Secure accommodation provided by local authorities in community homes is for all children in care, both offenders and non-offenders. All such establishments are required to comply with the Department's design guidance in terms of safety and security.

  Secure accommodation by social service inspectorate regions 31 March 1991

  Regions

  Location

  Local authorities

  Number of places1

  Northern

  New Aycliffe (Royston House)

  Durham

  14M

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  Durham

  36M

  Netherton Park

  Northumberland

  5M

  Yorkshire and

  Kepples View

  Rotherham

  4M

  Humberside

  East Moor

  Leeds

  9B

  East Moor

  Leeds

  18B

  North Western

  Red Sands

  Cheshire

  6M

  Red Bank (Vardy House)

  Lancashire

  4B

  Red Bank Special Unit

  Lancashire

  26B

  Blackbrook House

  Liverpool

  5G

  Briars Hey (Orchard House)

  Lancashire

  8G

  Dyson Hall

  Liverpool

  8B

  Barton Moss (Park House)

  Salford

  7B

  West Midland

  Stoke House

  Coventry

  8M

  St. Johns

  Birmingham

  4M

  East Midlands

  Moorfield

  Derby

  2M

  Kesteven

  Lincoln

  4M

  Greenacres

  Derby

  5M

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  Cambridgeshire

  6G

  Woodside Young People's Centre

  Hertfordshire

  2M

  Thornbury House

  Oxfordshire

  3B

  Brookside

  Berkshire

  4M

  London

  Middlesex Lodge

  Hillingdon

  9G

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  6B

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  8B

  Frant Court

  Greenwich

  3G

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith

  16B

  Southern

  Landsdowne

  East Sussex

  5M

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  6M

  Fairfield

  Hampshire

  3G

  Glen House

  Hampshire

  8B

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  12M

  Kingswood

  Avon

  20B

  Note:

  1 G = Girls; B = Boys; M = Mixed Sex.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he can expect to receive a reply to his letter of 31 January to the Under-Secretary of State about proposed charges by the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Unfortunately the original correspondence went astray. I wrote to the hon. Member with a full reply including an apology for the delay yesterday.
  688
  Details of all local authority-provided secure units as at 31 March 1991 are given in the table.

  The same standards are applied administratively to the two youth treatment centres directly provided by the Department. The two youth treatment centres are at St. Charles, Brentwood (30 secure beds) and Glenthorne, Birmingham (30 secure beds).

  Information about secure accommodation in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Disabled Clothing Workshops
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received the report on disabled clothing workshops from Ms. Sally Guttrie; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report was received by the Department on 31 May. We expect to respond later in the summer.

  Mile End Hospital
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had about the proposed use of wards in the Mile End hospital by a private drug company; and if he will ensure that no decision will be made before the current consultation on the future of the hospital has been completed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Any decision will be a matter for the trust; the trust has given an assurance that under no circumstances would it undertake any agreement which would prejudice its services to patients.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date NHS trusts were required to submit their business plans to the NHS management executive; and how many trusts submitted their plans by the date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 June 1991, c. 490]: I regret that the number of business plans quoted as having been submitted to the NHS management executive by 8 March 1991 was incorrect. Four NHS trusts submitted their plans by this date and a further nine by 11 March.

PRIME MENISTER

  Japanese Cars
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will oppose the views expressed in the European Parliament that Japanese marque cars should be subject to a quota whether imported into the European Community or manufactured within its borders; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Cars manufactured in the European Community are European whatever the nationality of the manufacturer. I strongly oppose any attempt to restrict the circulation of such cars within the Community, for example, by incorporating them in a single quota with imports from Japan as suggested in the European Parliament debate. The Government's position on this question has been made quite clear to the EC Commission.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) males and (b) females who are serving sentences on conviction of murder under the age of (i) 14 years, (ii) 16 years and (iii) 18 years in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The numbers of young people in those age groups serving sentences for murder on 31 May this year were as follows:

  Males

  Females

  Aged under 14

  0

  0

  Aged under 16

  1

  0

  Aged under 18

  14

  0

  1 Excluding the one under 16

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

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Following is the information about my Department's expenditure on hospitality:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  28,630

  1990–91

  229,447

  11991–92

  6,665

  1 To 12 June.

  2 Provisional figure.

  Bail
  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 Metropolitan police area during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available by persons after they have been released on bail either by the courts or by the police.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 30/90 "Reasons for refusing unconditional bail January to February 1989" estimates that 19 per cent. of those remanded in custody had previously reoffended on bail. A copy of this bulletin is in the Library.

  Interpol
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what constraints the Data Protection Act 1984 imposes on information about convictions sustained by British citizens being passed to Interpol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The police national computer is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Under these provisions, information on convictions held on the PNC may be disclosed to member countries of Interpol for policing purposes.

  Refugees
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political refugee status there have been in each year and from which countries of birth since 1980; how many were admitted in each year; how many rejected and how many left the country; and how long it took to process each application on average.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on asylum applications and decisions, by nationality, is contained in tables 2–5 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 22/90 "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom 1989", and in the provisional estimates for 1990 provided to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on 22 April. Copies of both these documents are in the Library of the House. The 1990 estimates are likely to understate because of delays in recording. Information on the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for total decisions in each of the years 1983–90, is given in the
  691
  table. A reliable analysis of this information by nationality, and corresponding data for 1980–82, are not available.

  Estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application for refugee status or asylum, and the decision, for cases decided in the years 1983–90.1

  Years in which decision made

  Months

  1983

  6

  1984

  8—

  1985

  12—

  1986

  14

  1987

  14

  1988

  17

  1989

  12

  21990

  12

  1 Excludes south-east Asian refugees given settlement on arrival.

  2 Provisional.

  Prisoners (Northern Ireland Conflict)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for each year since 1980 of the numbers of prisoners convicted in England and Wales for offences arising out of the Northern Ireland conflict.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prisoners serving sentences in Britain for offences arising out of the Northern Ireland conflict.

  Table A

  Permanent transfers to Northern Ireland1

  Number Requests

  Number Transferred

  Number Refused

  Withdrawn

  Outstanding

  Others2

  1985

  35

  3

  23

  2

  —

  —

  1986

  17

  2

  17

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  7

  3

  5

  1

  —

  —

  1988

  56

  6

  33

  1

  —

  2

  1989

  55

  15

  40

  3

  —

  1

  1990

  59

  3

  36

  6

  24

  2

  1991 (to 31 May)

  31

  —

  18

  2

  11

  —

  Totals

  260

  32

  172

  16

  35

  5

  Table B

  Permanent transfers to Northern Ireland1

  Number Requests

  Number Transferred

  Number Refused

  Withdrawn

  Outstanding

  Others2

  1985

  11

  1

  7

  1

  —

  —

  1986

  4

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  6

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  19

  7

  7

  2

  —

  —

  1989

  18

  2

  15

  —

  —

  2

  1990

  26

  12

  6

  —

  11

  2

  1991 (to 31 May)

  11

  —

  2

  —

  9

  —

  Totals

  95

  25

  42

  4

  20

  4

  1 Requests made in any given year may have been decided in a later year.

  2 Includes requests where inmates have been released on appeal or on parole etc. before a decision was reached on the transfer request.

  Table C

  Number of requests referred to the Northern Ireland Office3

  Permanent transfer

  Temporary transfer

  1980

  2

  2

  1981

  6

  2

  1982

  1

  2

  1983

  6

  4

  692
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Readily available information on the number of prisoners in England and Wales whose offences were related to terrorism in the quoted context is limited to those classified as category A. Thirty-eight such prisoners were in custody on 7 June 1991.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the number of requests by prisoners for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland and the outcome of these requests in each year since 1985; and whether these requests came from loyalists, republicans or prisoners whose offences were unconnected to the Northern Ireland conflict;

  (2) what are the figures for each year since 1985 of the number of requests by prisoners for transfer to Northern Ireland for accumulated visits and the outcome of these requests; and whether these requests came from loyalists, republicans or prisoners whose offences were unconnected to the Northern Ireland conflict;

  (3) what are the figures of the number of requests by prisoners for transfer to Northern Ireland which he notified to the Northern Ireland Office in each year since 1980 broken down on the basis of permanent and temporary transfers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not kept on the political background of inmates seeking transfers to Northern Ireland. The other information requested is given in the tables.

  Permanent transfer

  Temporary transfer

  1984

  3

  3

  1985

  6

  6

  1986

  2

  —

  1987

  14

  6

  1988

  17

  10

  1989

  24

  2

  693

  Permanent transfer

  Temporary transfer

  1990

  28

  11

  1991 (to 31 May)

  12

  8

  3 Referrals made in any given year may include requests made in previous years.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether requests by prisoners from Northern Ireland for permanent transfer are initially processed by the prison governor and may be rejected at this stage;

  (2) whether requests by prisoners from Northern Ireland for temporary transfer to take advantage of accumulated visits are initially processed by the prison governor and may be rejected at this stage.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. All such requests are referred to prison service headquarters for consideration.

  Trespass
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision exists for compensating landowners who incur costs in obtaining repossession orders against trespassers.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is open to a landowner who incurs costs in obtaining a repossession order against a trespasser to apply to the court for an order for costs against the trespasser.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Avon and Somerset constabulary on enforcing section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to deal with unlawful occupation of land by travellers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is entirely an operational matter for the police to decide, in the light of all the circumstances, whether or not to exercise the powers available to them under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22 May at columns 487–88 that guidance on the use of section 39 had been issued to the police. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about trespassers at Charmy Down, near Bath and other sites in the area.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review the adequacy of funding for police forces to apply section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The basis on which police forces are funded is set out in the Police Act 1964. There are no special provisions for funding police action under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received representations from the Welsh Language Board on the difficulties 694
  experienced by the family of the late Mrs. Mair Irene Davies in having the inquest proceedings conducted in Welsh; on what date he sent a substantive reply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Representations from the Welsh Language Board about the inquest into the death of Mrs. Mair Irene Davies were first received on 31 October 1990. Following consultations with the coroner concerned, a substantive reply was sent on 28 January 1991. Further correspondence from the board was received on 6 February, which was again passed on to the coroner concerned for comments. We hope to reply shortly.

  Animal Experiments
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what review he has undertaken of the provisions affecting the number of non–human primates used as laboratory animals which are kept in single cages in isolation from their fellows; and whether there are any proposals to phase out such housing;

  (2) how many project licences have been granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which would necessitate the keeping of primates in isolation;

  (3) what information is collected on the number of designated places under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involving the use of larger primates in the United Kingdom which provide any kind of environmental enrichment; and what proportion of the total this number represents.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: Statistics on the housing of non-human primates are not routinely collected centrally, although the Home Office inspectorate carried out a special survey of large non-human holding facilities in 1988. A further review of establishments using larger primates is planned for next year and one of its aims will be to examine progress made in improving facilities since the 1988 review.

  The special needs of non-human primates are recognised in the Home Office "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals used in Scientific Procedures", HC107, published in 1989, which was based closely upon guidelines drawn up by the Royal Society and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Paragraphs 3.43 to 3.59 of the code set out the general considerations which should be taken into account for housing non-human primates. Chapter 5 of the code gives details of the recommended cage dimensions for non-human primates.

  As the code makes clear, non-human primates should be housed so that they have the opportunity for social interaction. Single housing, which may allow animals such interaction through seeing and hearing one another but without physical contact, is not the preferred option but may be necessary in some cases for animal welfare or scientific reasons. We are aware of no current project licences which require the housing of non-human primates in isolation away from the sight and sound of other animals of the same species.

  Since the code was published there has been a marked improvement in the standard of facilities for non-human primates in designated establishments. There has also been an encouraging increase in awareness within establishments of the desirability of providing environmental enrichment. Home Office inspectors continue to pay

  695
  particular attention to the way in which non-human primates are housed and cared for. They will continue to monitor the progress being made by establishments in upgrading their non-human primate facilities to the standards set out in the code and encourage the provision of environmental enrichment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Booklets
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his Department's benefit booklets to ensure that if receipt of a benefit is dependent on entitlement to another benefit this is made explicit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is the Department's policy to make this interdependance clear whenever possible in our leaflets. However, leaflets cannot cover every possible combination of circumstances without loss of clarity.

  We will of course continue to check new or revised editions of leaflets to ensure that they explain the connection between benefits. If the hon. Member has a particular booklet in mind, I would be happy to look at it.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for rounding the retirement pension to the nearest 5p and the war disablement pension to the nearest 10p.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Rounding is done for administrative simplicity. In any one year an individual beneficiary may gain or lose very marginally, but even this effect will tend to balance out in the longer term. Disablement awards are expressed in mutliples of 10 per cent. Rounding the 100 per cent. pension to 10p ensures that individual awards are whole numbers of pence.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount by which the retirement pension has been rounded up or down in each year from November 1979 to April 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is provided in the table. Figures relate to the single rate of basic retirement pension. Roundings are in pence rounded to one place of decimals.

  Uprating Date

  Amount of Rounding

  November 1979

  down 0·3p

  November 1980

  up 0·6p

  November 1981

  up 0·7p

  November 1982

  down 0·6p

  November 1983

  down 1·5p

  November 1984

  up 1·3p

  November 1985

  down 0·6p

  July 1986

  down 2·1p

  April 1987

  down 1·3p

  April 1988

  down 0·9p

  April 1989

  up 2·2p

  April 1990

  down 1·3p

  April 1991

  down 1·2p

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average weekly income for(a) single pensioners, (b) pensioner couples and (c) all
  696
  pensioners, for 1988 and for 1990; and what was the cash and percentage change in income (i) 1979–1988 and (ii) since 1988.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not currently available. The most recent data available from the "Family Expenditure Survey" show that in 1987 the average net weekly income for single pensioners was £75·10 and for pensioner couples was £140·70. Single pensioners' net weekly income increased by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987 and for pensioner couples the increase was 31 per cent.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the effect of the water metering trials on people on benefit and on low-income households.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The water metering trials are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that the final report upon them will not be available until their completion at the end of 1993. Nevertheless, some information will become available in 1992, as a result of the survey into the impact of water metering announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside on 30 April.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has any plans to make an additional winter payment to all pensioners throughout the winter months from October to March;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that elderly people can meet the costs for heating their homes;

  (3) whether he has sought the views of pensioner forums and other pensioner organisations in making his review of the cold weather payments;

  (4) what plans he has to raise the current £6 per week cold weather payment;

  (5) whether he will extend entitlement to cold weather payments to all pensioners, including those with incomes above the income support level; and whether he will change the cold weather payment system to make automatic payments without any need to claim;

  (6) if he will express the value of the cold weather payment as a percentage of its real terms value when the payments were first introduced;

  (7) what representations he has received on the current level of cold weather payments;

  (8) if he will extend entitlement to cold weather payments to all pensioners, including those with incomes above the income support level;

  (9) if he will change the cold weather payment system to make automatic payments without any need to claim.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him earlier today. I have received representations from a number of organisations, including Age Concern. There was no standard amount payable for extreme cold weather when payments were first introduced.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Social Security what progress he is making in his review of the cold weather payments system.
  697
  Mr. Scott
  Following my review of the cold weather payments scheme, I now propose some significant enhancements to the scheme.

  The cold weather payments scheme provides additional payments to help vulnerable people with their extra costs of heating in periods of very cold weather and we have already introduced significant improvements to the scheme including a standard payment on a regulated basis; raising the trigger temperature from - 1·5°C to 0°C for all regions, and for any consecutive seven days; extending entitlement to households on income support with a child under five or a person over 60 or a disabled person; doubling of the capital limit for the elderly from £500 to £1,000; and increasing the weekly payment from £5 to £6.

  These major improvements have increased the numbers eligible to 2·2 million and have also increased the cash amount and the frequency with which it becomes payable.

  The substantial improvements I am now proposing are as follows:

  First, we will abolish the present special capital rule governing eligibility for these payments. The £1,000 limit for those over 60 (£500 for others) will be abolished. All will be covered by the £3,000 rule which applies generally for income support. We estimate that the numbers eligible will, as a result of this measure, rise from about 2·2 million to about 2·6 million.

  Secondly, in future, payments will be made automatically to all those who are eligible. The abolition of the special capital rule will enable us to do that. Subject to consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee, I shall lay regulations abolishing the need for people to make a separate claim. The information already available about people on income support will identify those eligible, and they will then be paid automatically.

  Thirdly, I propose to assure eligible people that if very cold weather arrives, they can turn up their heating. The Meteorological Office can now supply daily a forecast for each of the weather stations which we use which will indicate, with sufficient accuracy, the likely average temperature over the next seven days. Accordingly I propose to introduce a new regulation to provide for payments to be made for a seven-day period if the forecast for the local weather station shows that the temperature is likely to average 0°C or below.

  This will be an enhancement, not a replacement, of the existing scheme. If there is no such forecast, but nevertheless 0°C or below is subsequently recorded for a seven-day period, payments will still be made.

  Finally, I propose to make regulations further refining the ways in which the weather stations are linked to individual areas, details of which will be announced before the recess.

  Corresponding changes will also be proposed for cold weather payments in Northern Ireland.

  Community Care Grants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total community care grants paid for(a) the north Tees area and (b) the south Tees area in (i) 1990–91 and (ii) 1991–92; what is the percentage change in each case; and what undertakings he has given on the minimum levels of increase in these grants.
  698
  Mr. Scott
  Expenditure on community care grants in 1990–91 was £435,998 in north Tees and £760,975 in south Tees. Expenditure in 1991–92 will not be known until the year is over.

  Notes explaining the basis on which social fund allocations were made for each year from 1988–89 to 1991–92 have been placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has commissioned into the adequacy of income support to meet the basic living costs when deductions are being made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have commissioned no such research, but there are limits on deductions for arrears and some deductions are to cover current expenditure.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show the effects of reducing the community charge benefit taper to(a) 12·5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent., (c) 8 per cent., (d) 6 per cent., and (e) 5 per cent., by showing for each of these tapers the cost. at 1990–91 prices of paying community charge benefit to each of the following categories of income units, showing for each category how many income units he estimates would receive community charge benefit (i) all income units, (ii) single people over pensionable age, (iii) pensioner couples, (iv) single people with dependent children, (v) single people without dependent children, (vi) a married or cohabiting couple without dependent children, (vii) a married or cohabiting couple with dependent children, and (viii) any income units not included in the categories above.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: The information requested is in the tables.

  Estimated community charge benefit caseload and expenditure with various levels of the community charge benefit taper (1991–92 benefit levels with expenditure estimates revalued to 1990–91 prices)

  Total cost £ million

  Caseload number

  15 per cent. benefit taper

  Single pensioners

  360

  2,160,000

  Pensioner couples

  220

  870,000

  Lone parents

  140

  740,000

  Single, no children

  290

  1,700,000

  Couple, no children

  70

  270,000

  Couple with children

  180

  540,000

  TOTAL

  1,260

  6,270,000

  12·5 per cent. benefit taper

  Single pensioners

  380

  2,180,000

  Pensioner couples

  240

  900,000

  Lone parents

  140

  740,000

  Single, no children

  300

  1,710,000

  Couple, no children

  80

  270,000

  Couple with children

  190

  560,000

  TOTAL

  1,330

  6,360,000

  10 per cent benefit taper

  Single pensioners

  390

  2,220,000

  Pensioner couples

  270

  950,000

  Lone parents

  140

  750,000

  Single no children

  310

  1,740,000

  Couple no children

  80

  290,000

  699

  Total cost £ million

  Caseload number

  Couple with children

  200

  600,000

  Total

  1,410

  6,550,000

  8 per cent benefit taper

  Single pensioners

  410

  2,270,000

  Pensioner couples

  300

  1,010,000

  Lone parents

  150

  770,000

  Single no children

  320

  1,800,000

  Couple no children

  90

  310,000

  Couple with children

  230

  670,000

  Total

  1,490

  6,830,000

  6 per cent. benefit taper

  Single pensioners

  430

  2,340,000

  Pensioner couples

  330

  1,090,000

  Lone parents

  150

  800,000

  Single no children

  340

  1,920,000

  Couple no children

  100

  360,000

  Couple with children

  270

  840,000

  Total

  1,630

  7,350,000

  5 per cent. benefit taper

  Single pensioners

  440

  2,380,000

  Pensioner couples

  360

  1,150,000

  Lone parents

  160

  810,000

  Single no children

  360

  2,050,000

  Couple no children

  120

  410,000

  Couple with children

  310

  1,000,000

  Total

  1,750

  7,800,000

  Notes:

  (1) Information is derived from benefit levels on a 1991–92 basis but expenditure estimates have been revalued to 1990–91 prices.

  Estimates also take account of the Community Charge Reductions scheme for 1991–92 and the general reduction of £140 in Community Charge levels.

  Source:

  Modelled using data drawn from the 1986/7/8 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  The definition of "pensioner" is in line with that used by the income related benefits.

  Caseload figures include benefit units, and count benefit cases for couples as one.

  Retired People
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest year-on-year estimate for the number of people who are retired before the state retirement age as a result of invalidity.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: Information is not available on the number of people who retire early on grounds of invalidity.

  However, the table shows the number of people receiving invalidity benefit on 31 March 1990 who at the time were within five years of state retirement age.

  Age

  Men thousands

  Age

  Women thousands

  60

  43·2

  55

  12·1

  61

  49·2

  56

  13·5

  62

  50·7

  57

  13·8

  63

  56·9

  58

  13·8

  64

  66·2

  59

  14·2

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Details of the public appointments for which my Department is responsible together with salary details and when these appointments are due for renewal are contained in the publications "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: a Handbook for Women's Organisations" which are published annually. Copies of both publications are in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Government Employees (Sickness)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days were lost through sickness among central Government employees in the last year for which figures are available; and what is the number of statutory sick days allowed in each sector.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The most recent figures available are for 1989 when about 4·7 million days were lost due to sickness absence in the non-industrial civil service, (accounting for about 4 per cent. of days available in the year). The statutory sick pay (SSP) scheme extends to Government employees. SSP is payable for up to 28 weeks for a period of incapacity for work.

  VAT
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that zero rating of children's clothes and footwear remains as a permanent feature of VAT harmonisation in the European Community.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Goverment are pledged to retain zero-rating for children's clothing and footwear. In discussions with the European Commission and other member states the Government have made it clear that they could not accept any proposal which would restrict our ability to retain current zero-rated items. The United Kingdom's position is ultimately safeguarded, in that changes to EC tax law require the unanimous agreement of member states.

  Duty-Free Allowances
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the impact on revenue from taxes and duties on the sale of(a) alcoholic drinks, (b) tobacco products, (c) perfumery and (d) other taxable or dutiable items from the ending of duty-free allowances for travellers between member states of the European Community;

  (2) what is his estimate of the revenue forgone by the Treasury as a result of the sale of duty-free (a) alcoholic drinks, (b) tobacco products, (c) perfumery and (d) other taxable or dutiable items for travellers between the United Kingdom and (i) other member states of the European Community and (ii) elsewhere.
  701
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: Reliable estimates cannot be provided because there is no detailed information on the amount of duty free goods brought into the United Kingdom.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England concerning the provision of information to the United States federal prosecution authorities regarding documents covering the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: My right hon. Friend meets the governor regularly and they discuss a wide range of subjects.

WALES

  Hostel Deficit Grant
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total number of units of accommodation provided for from hostel deficit grant in each of the past five years;

  (2) what was the amount of hostel deficit grant paid to housing associations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of special needs units and the amount of hostel deficit grant provided towards operating costs in each of the last five years is given in the following table:

  Bedspaces

  £

  1986–87

  133

  32,227

  1987–88

  163

  54,324

  1988–89

  203

  94,996

  1989–90

  485

  338,497

  1990–91

  569

  754,080

  Special needs management allowance replaced hostel deficit grant for 234 bedspaces special needs schemes beginning operation in 1990–91 at a cost of £945,180.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many court summonses were issued by Welsh local authorities in relation to poll tax payments in 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of court summonses for non-payment of community charge in Wales to 31 March 1991 was 297,019.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average percentage of the total of the poll tax bills collected by Welsh local authorities for the last financial year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Local authorities in Wales currently estimate that, in respect of community charges for 1990–91, they will collect 94 per cent. of the full amount due.

  School Premises
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Wales do not meet the requirements laid down in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981.
  702
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally. It is the duty of LEAs and others directly responsible for schools to ensure that school premises conform to the standards prescribed in the regulations.

  Housing Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his parliamentary replies of 23 May,Official Report, column 571, and 6 June, Official Report, column 311, whether the earlier contracts awarded to Miss C. Lesley Andrews and Aldbourne Associates were won subsequent to competitive tender after open advertisement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing consultancy contracts have been awarded to Aldbourne Associates Ltd. by(a) competitive tendering and (b) fixed fee; and if he will list the appropriate financial years and financial commitments for such contracts.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None: I take it that the lion. Gentleman uses the term "fixed fee" to denote a contract under which the payments made will in all circumstances conform to the total established for the contract at the outset.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for-Wales pursuant to his parliamentary answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 311, (1) if the housing consultancy contract with Miss C. Lesley Andrews was renegotiated when Aldbourne Associates Ltd. took over responsibility for it;

  (2) when Aldbourne Associates Ltd. took over responsibility for the housing consultancy contract given initially to Miss C. Lesley Andrews.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The contracts were not taken over in the sense the questions imply. The initial contract was made with Miss Andrews trading under her own name. The 1985 contract was made with Aldbourne Associates, under which name she then traded and on whose behalf she signed. The 1988 and 1989 contracts were made with Miss Andrews trading as Aldbourne Associates, and the 1990 and 1991 contracts with Miss Andrews trading as Aldbourne Associates Ltd. Negotiations have preceded the making of each contract.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his parliamentary replies of 23 May,Official Report, column 571, and 6 June, Official Report, column 311, if he will list the full business name and address of Aldbourne Associates.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The full business name and address of Aldbourne Associates is as follows:

  Aldbourne Associates Ltd.

  Ulmus

  Ogbourne St. George Road

  Aldbourne

  Wiltshire SN8 2LD

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to Welsh health authorities on the supply of nebulisers on prescription or on loan from hospital dispensaries to patients discharged from hospital after treatment for chest diseases.
  703
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue such guidelines. Although nebulising equipment is not available on the NHS on the prescription of a general practitioner, it may be prescribed under the NHS by a hospital consultant if he or she considers it to be clinically necessary for the patient. Nebulisers are normally provided on loan free of charge for as long as is considered necessary.

  Further Education
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which six colleges of further education failed to respond to the questionnaire sent by Her Majesty's inspectors in connection with their survey of communication skills, numeracy and information technology in further education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are a number of reasons why certain colleges did not respond and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

EMPLOYMENT

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Jackson
  No central record of videos purchased by the Department is held. This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Jackson
  The total expenditure by the Department of Employment on official hospitality was £97,000 in 1989–90 and £100,000 in 1990–91. The amount spent in 1991–92 will be reported to Parliament in the usual way.

  Sick Building Syndrome
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 502, when he expects the Health and Safety Executive to make a decision regarding a possible epidemiological study on sick building syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In accordance with its annual planning cycle, the Health and Safety Executive will reach a decision in the autumn on whether to fund an epidemiological study on sick building syndrome.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Private Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many patients(a) in total and (b) from hospitals and homes owned by the Eastern and
  704
  Southern health and social services boards were referred to private residential and nursing homes in each of the past five years;

  (2) what hospitals and other institutions within the national health service referred patients to private residential and nursing homes in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards in each year since 1 April 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Fergal Carraher
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the grounds for refusing access to the autopsy report on Mr. Fergal Carraher by the representatives of the Carraher family.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the Coroners (Practice and Procedures) Rules (NI) 1963, the decision whether and, if so, when to make available to properly interested persons a report of a post-mortem examination of the body of a person whose death has been reported to a coroner, is entirely a matter for the coroner concerned. He is an independent judicial officer.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what animals it is permissible to graze on set-aside land; and whether such animals may be sold for slaughter for human consumption;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the grazing of horses on set-aside land.

  Mr. Curry
  The grazed fallow option of the set-aside scheme allows for agricultural animals, defined as cattle, sheep, goats, deer and horses, to be grazed on set-aside land, subject to certain conditions. Agricultural animals can be grazed under the non-agricultural use option, provided they do not form part of an agricultural production process.

  GATT and Export Refunds
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had recently with the European Commission on GATT and export refunds; and when he will be resuming these negotiations.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Ministers regularly takes stock of the GATT agriculture negotiations with the Commission, most recently at the Council meeting on 20–25 May. The Commission negotiates on behalf of the Community in the negotiations which are still proceeding.

  Food and Agriculture (Trade Balance)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whom he has consulted so far in his review of the United Kingdom balance of trade in food and agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  I have spoken to a wide range of individuals and organisations in the agriculture and horticulture, food and drink manufacturing, food retailing and consumer fields.

  Animal Deaths
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number and species of animals deaths suspected to be caused by pesticides for each available year since 1979; and what proportion of the deaths were suspected to be caused by(a) deliberate abuse of pesticides, (b) illegal poison of baits, (c) legitimate use of pesticides and (d) other causes.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information from 1985 onwards is contained in published reports on "Investigations of Suspected Poisoning of Animals by Pesticides in Great Britain," copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The report for 1990 will be issued very shortly.

  Veterinary Products
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average length of time taken to test and approve a veterinary compound for use on livestock; and what was the time taken for the most recently licensed sheep dip compound.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following its establishment as a next steps agency in April 1990, one of the veterinary medicines directorate's published 1991 targets is for 100 per cent. of assessments to be completed within 120 days clock time—that is, excluding time when an application is referred back to the applicant for further information—of acceptance.

  The most recently licensed sheep dip compound was approved in 1988 and its assessment took 498 days clock time to complete.

  New Forest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food whether the Forestry Commission intends to pay the council tax contributions of its employees, the New Forest keepers.

  Mr. Curry
  The Forestry Commission will follow guidance that the Treasury will be issuing to Government Departments generally on this matter when the tax is implemented.

  Pesticides
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the dates of commencement of the review of pesticide active ingredients for all those that are currently under review.

  Mr. Gummer
  The dates when the reviews started of the pesticide active ingredients currently under review are detailed as follows.

  Pesticide active ingredient

  Date of review

  Alachlor

  January 1990

  Atrazine

  November 1990

  Benomyl

  December 1989

  Bromoxynil

  November 1989

  Captan

  March 1988

  Carbendazim

  December 1989

  Chlorothalonil

  April 1990

  Demeton-S-methyl

  June 1989

  Demeton-S-methyl-sulphone

  June 1989

  Diazinon

  April 1991

  Dichlorvos

  February 1990

  706

  Pesticide active ingredient

  Date of review

  Dithiocarbamates:

  Ferbam

  April 1991

  Mancozeb

  Maneb

  Nabam

  Propineb

  Thiram

  Zineb

  Zineb-ethylene-thiuram-disulphide adduct

  Ziram

  Dinocap

  January 1990

  Ioxynil

  November 1990

  Isoproturon

  November 1990

  Lindane

  March 1989

  Linuron

  November 1989

  Methyl bromide

  May 1988

  Monolinuron

  November 1990

  Oxydemeton-methyl

  June 1989

  Simazine

  November 1990

  Synthetic Pyrethroids:

  Cypermethrin

  April 1989

  Deltamethrin

  Permethrin

  8 post-1981 compounds

  Thiophanate methyl

  December 1989

  Thiabendazole

  December 1989

  Tecnazene

  February 1989

  2-Aminobutane

  August 1990

  2,4,D

  November 1989

  Vinclozolin

  April 1991

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the pesticide active ingredients which he has decided not to review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The pesticide active ingredients which are not yet subject to routine review by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides are those which have been approved from 1981 onwards.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answers to the hon. Member for South Shields of 6 June,Official Report, columns 340–43, if he will make a statement on the reasons for including some pesticide active ingredients in the list for having had the reviews completed and also on a list of those currently under review.

  Mr. Gummer
  The list of pesticide active ingredients in my previous answer was annotated with "P" for partial and "F" for full reviews. Those pesticides for which a partial review has been concluded, but which are nevertheless due for full review, still appear as "under review".

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 6 June,Official Report, columns 340–43, concerning the review of active ingredients of pesticides; if he will give the dates when the review of each pesticide listed was completed.

  Mr. Gummer
  The dates when the reviews were completed of the active ingredients listed in the answer given to the hon. Member for South Shields on 6 June,Official Report, columns 340–43, are detailed as follows:

  Active ingredient

  Date of review

  TBTO1

  May 1990

  Alphachloralose1

  March 1991

  Secanol1

  March 1991

  707

  Active ingredient

  Date of review

  Vinclozolin1

  March 1991

  Diazinon

  April 1991

  Ioxynil

  May 1991

  Bromoxynil

  May 1991

  2-Aminobutane1

  November 1990

  Maneb

  April 1991

  Mancozeb

  April 1991

  Nabam

  April 1991

  Zineb

  April 1991

  Aineb-ethylene-thiuram disulphide adduct

  April 1991

  1 Partial review only.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pesticide active ingredients were awaiting review in June, for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Blue-ear Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances he would issue licences for the movement of pigs which have been subject to movement restrictions due to blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 13 June 1991.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences he has issued for the movement of pigs, giving the locations, date and number of pigs affected in each case from farms which have been subject to movement restrictions due to blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Up to the 14 June 735 movement licences have been issued. The rest of the information is not held centrally.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the names of the farms which have been subject to movement restrictions as a result of blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not normal practice to release this information.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs out of the total infected with blue-ear disease have died as a result of the infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The nature of the disease means that it is impossible to be precise about the number of deaths. One of the symptoms of the infection is an increase in the number of still births and abortions but the number of deaths among adult animals is very small.

  Sweeteners
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the sweeteners approved for consumption in the United Kingdom, giving the acceptable level of daily intake; and if he will make a statement on the role of the Committee on the Toxicity of Foodstuffs in such approvals and the criteria used in such approvals.
  708
  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Sweeteners in Food Regulations 1983, as amended, the following sweeteners have been approved for use; the intense sweeteners Acesulfame K, Aspartame, Saccharin and Thaumatin; and the bulk sweeteners hydrogenated glucose syrup, Isomalt, Mannitol, Sorbitol, Xylitol and Lactitol. All have been cleared for need by the Food Advisory Committee and for safety by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), which has allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–5 mg per k bodyweight per day for saccharin. The COT takes account of all available toxicological evidence from the manufacturers of the additives and elsewhere including any evidence that some people may suffer adverse reactions from eating a particular substance. The criteria for this are set out in the guidelines for the testing of chemicals for toxicity produced by the committee and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. A copy is in the Library. Similar guidelines have been produced for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity testing.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the views of other European Community countries and the European Community Scientific Committee for Food on the acceptability of cyclamate and neohesperidine as sweeteners; what advice he has received from the Committee on the Toxicity of Foodstuffs on these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  On cyclamate, France, Greece and the United Kingdom have reserved their position pending discussion of a further review of the safety data by the Scientific Committee for Food which the United Kingdom requested as a result of advice from the Committee on Toxicity. No objections have been raised to the inclusion of neohesperidine in the draft directive of sweeteners.

  Fish Farming
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding is allocated for research and development in fish farming for 1991–92; how much was allocated for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure on research and development in fish-farming by this Department and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department under the joint Fish Cultivation Commission is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1980–81

  12·3

  1981–82

  12·5

  1982–83

  2·6

  1983–84

  2·6

  1984–85

  2·6

  1985–86

  2·5

  1986–87

  2·8

  1987–88

  2·9

  1988–89

  2·9

  1989–90

  2·7

  1990–91

  23·0

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provisional.

  The exact allocation for 1991–92 has still to be finalised but it is expected to be similar to that for 1990–91.
  709
  The figures relate to both in-house and external projects, including those dealing with the investigation and control of fish and shellfish diseases. A figure for 1979–1980 is not readily available.

  Salmon (Antibiotics)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Ministry is giving to United Kingdom salmon farmers to purchase antibiotics; and if he will made a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No assistance is being given by the Ministry to the purchase of antibiotics by United Kingdom salmon farmers.

  Pharmaceutical Products
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all pharmaceutical products for use in agriculture and aquaculture known to be used by EC countries but banned in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are reports from some member states of the illegal use of certain hormonal growth-promoting substances which are banned throughout the Community. In the United Kingdom, there are no bans on any other pharmaceutical products for use in agriculture and aquaculture. Decisions on whether they should be licensed or not are based on an assessment of the scientific criteria of safety, quality and efficacy laid down in the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the costs of product certification for new pharmaceutical products for use in agriculture and aquaculture in pounds sterling for each member state in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table. This is based on information circulated by the EC Commission in November 1990 to provide an approximate estimate of the fees payable in each member state. The pounds sterling rates have been converted from ecus at the rate prevailing on 30 November 1990.

  Fees payable for authorisation of veterinary medicinal products in EC member states: 1990–91

  Country

  Product with new active ingredient(£)

  Product with established active ingredient (£)

  Belgium

  1,079

  1,079

  Denmark

  1,915

  1,915

  Germany

  8,202

  2,563

  Greece

  204

  204

  Spain

  8

  8

  France

  155

  155

  Ireland

  1,468

  296

  Italy

  525

  525

  Luxembourg

  49

  49

  Netherlands

  834

  303

  Portugal

  310

  310

  United Kingdom

  12,000

  3,000

  Fish Fanning (Medicines)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken in response to the British Veterinary Association recommendations 710
  concerning a simplified scheme of licensing for medicines used in fish farming; if he will introduce a generic licensing scheme for animal medicines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A simplified scheme for the licensing of veterinary medicines in general, not just for fish, where limited claims for use are made, was introduced in February 1990. Two simplified licences have subsequently been granted, one of which was for an antibiotic for use in fish.

  Veterinary generics may also be licensed if an applicant can demonstrate bioequivalence to a product which is off patent and has been fully licensed in accordance with directive 81/851 for 10 years. Because the directive did not come into effect until 1983 there are currently no such products, although their number will increase rapidly over the next decade.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has held with representatives of the World Health Organisation regarding the use of canthaxanthin in commercially produced eggs.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. But I am aware that the monograph published recently by the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives takes a similar position to the independent scientific committees which have advised the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to provide funds for the development of alternatives to use of canthaxanthin in food and animal feedstuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that acceptable alternatives to the use of canthaxanthin in food and animal feedstuffs are already available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the use of canthaxanthin in commercially produced eggs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a small number of representations on the use of canthaxanthin in commercially produced eggs from egg producers, trade associations and colour manufacturers. Most were in response to the formal consultation on the Food Advisory Committee's report on the review of colours in food regulations.

  Sow and Penk Internal Drainage District
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors he will take into account when making his decision on the re-establishment of an independent board for the Sow and Penk internal drainage district; and when he expects to make an announcement.

  Mr. Curry
  We expect to consider the views expressed by the National Rivers Authority and the representations made to the Department about the proposed reconstitution of the Sow and Penk internal drainage board and to reach a decision shortly; we will inform those concerned as soon as possible.

  River Catchment Management
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now initiate discussions between his Department and the National Rivers Authority about the steps required to implement the recommendations of the Salmon Advisory Committee on integrated river catchment management in England and Wales, with particular reference to the creation of riparian buffer zones for the protection of fish stocks, as a part of his forthcoming review of the countryside premium scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is already in contact with the National Rivers Authority about aspects of the latest report and recommendations of the Salmon Advisory Committee. As my colleagues and I said on the day of publication, this wide-ranging report clearly warrants careful consideration both within and outside the fisheries departments. We are already considering a number of ways of improving and maintaining wildlife habitats and the committee's views will be taken into account during the forthcoming reviews of the countryside premium scheme, the extensification schemes, the environmentally sensitive area schemes and in the revision of the code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water.

SCOTLAND

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of the milk marketing board in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for the three milk marketing boards in Scotland to decide on the way forward for their industry. I welcome the current debate on the possibility of change to a co-operative structure which will, I am sure, provide the best means of meeting the challenges ahead and will be in the best interests of all sides of the dairy industry and of consumers.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage increase of child abuse cases for the last available five years in the constituency of Paisley, North; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local information about cases of child abuse referred to social work departments is not collected centrally.

  Agricultural Advisory Services
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budget for the agricultural advisory services in Scotland in each year since 1974, in real terms; and if he will make a statement on his plans for the service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The college budget for the agricultural advisory services in Scotland since 1974, expressed in real terms, is as indicated in the table. It is intended that support for advice which contains elements of public good will continue, but will be kept subject to periodic review. For other kinds of advice, the level of public funding is planned to decrease progressively, as the industry increases the contribution towards the cost of the services from which it derives direct benefit.
  712

  SAC—Advisory Services

  College budget 1974–75 to 1991–92 expressed in real terms against 1974–75 baseline

  £ million

  AFD grant

  Commercial income

  Total

  1974–75

  1·221

  0·073

  1·294

  1975–76

  1·248

  0059

  1·307

  1976–77

  1·377

  0·066

  1·443

  1977–78

  1·443

  0·081

  1·524

  1978–79

  1·559

  0·065

  1·624

  1979–80

  1·537

  0·115

  1·652

  1980–81

  1·585

  0·149

  1·734

  1981–82

  1·929

  0·206

  2·135

  1982–83

  2·077

  0·221

  2·298

  1983–84

  2·144

  0·236

  2·380

  1984–85

  2·126

  0·224

  2·350

  1985–86

  2·189

  0·207

  2·396

  1986–87

  2·162

  0·222

  2·384

  1987–88

  1·878

  0·430

  2·308

  1988–89

  1·646

  0·508

  2·154

  1989–90

  1·508

  0·612

  2·120

  1990–91

  1·442

  10·651

  2·093

  1991–92

  1·356

  10·707

  2·063

  1 Estimate—Assumes 15 per cent. annual growth (in cash terms) over 1989–90 figure.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in tabular form details of the average number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-old children in Scotland in each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of the 1988–89 survey of 12-year-old children, published in June 1990 as part of the Scottish health boards' dental epidemiological programme provides details of the average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth in 12-year-old children, and this is as follows:

  Health Board

  Average Number per 12 year old Child

  Decayed

  Missing

  Filled

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·51

  0·27

  1·49

  2·27

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·25

  0·15

  1·99

  2·39

  Borders

  0·33

  0·04

  1·32

  1·69

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·42

  0·24

  1·35

  2·01

  Fife

  0·43

  0·23

  1·61

  2·27

  Forth Valley

  0·33

  0·32

  1·69

  2·34

  Grampian

  0·39

  0·23

  1·38

  2·00

  Greater Glasgow

  0·58

  0·34

  1·70

  2·62

  Highland

  0·37

  0·17

  1·26

  1·80

  Lanarkshire

  0·46

  0·31

  2·21

  2·98

  Lothian

  0·22

  0·11

  1·01

  1·34

  Orkney

  0·06

  0·32

  1·34

  1·72

  Shetland

  0·07

  0·07

  2·40

  2·54

  Tayside

  0·27

  0·23

  1·64

  2·14

  Western Isles

  0·51

  0·44

  2·18

  3·13

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the water supply in Scotland is now fluoridated artificially; and what is his policy for ensuring the optimum level of fluoridation in the interests of securing better dental health.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At present there is no artificial fluoridation of water supplies in Scotland, but I shall shortly be issuing guidance to health boards and water authorities, encouraging the introduction of fluoridation schemes. The improvement of dental and oral health is among our health priorities in Scotland as set out in
  713
  "Health Education in Scotland: A National Policy Statement" which I published on 25 March. Our target is that by the year 2000, 60 per cent. of five-year-old school entrants should neither have cavities nor have had fillings or extractions and that of adults in the 45 to 54 years age group, less than 10 per cent. should be edentulous. Fluoridation of the water supply will facilitate the attainment of these targets.

  Hospital Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the standards of waste incinerators in Scotland's national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The standards of clinical waste incinerators in the national health service in Scotland are expected to comply with current pollution control legislation.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether waste from hospitals in Scotland is entering water supplies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As far as I am aware no hospital waste enters potable water supplies in Scotland.

  Health Service Employees
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses, doctors and others involved in treatment are employed in Sottish hospitals; and how many officials not involved in treatment are employed by health boards and on site to run those hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The locations at which staff are based can be identified but it cannot be determined how many of them provide treatment in the hospitals and how many provide treatment in the community using the hospital as a base. Equally staff not providing treatment may be based in hospitals but work in support of those involved in treatment in the community.

  As at 30 September 1990 there were 141,888 employed in the NHS in Scotland. This equates to 118,025·2 whole-time equivalent staff of whom 82,721·4 were involved in treatment and 35,303·8 were support staff. The latter category includes administrative and clerical, catering, laundry, domestic, portering, maintenance and works staff.

  Prisoners (Northern Ireland Conflict)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the figures for each year since 1980 of the numbers of prisoners convicted in Scotland for offences arising out of the Northern Ireland conflict;

  (2) what is the total number of prisoners serving sentences in Scotland for offences arising out of the Northern Ireland conflict.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of requests by prisoners for transfer to Northern Ireland and the 714
  outcome of these requests in each year since 1985; and whether these requests came from loyalists, republicans or prisoners whose offences were unconnected to the Northern Ireland conflict.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Outcome

  Number of requests

  Agreed

  Not agreed

  Request withdrawn by prisoner

  1985

  3

  2

  1

  —

  1986

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  3

  —

  3

  —

  1988

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1989

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1990

  5

  2

  2

  1

  Prisoners are not classified by reference to the political or other motivation of their offences.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether requests by prisoners for permanent transfer from Northern Ireland are processed by the prison governor and may be rejected at this stage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures for each year since 1985 of the number of requests by prisoners for transfer to Northern Ireland for accumulated visits; if he will give the outcome of these requests; and whether these requests came from loyalists, republicans or prisoners whose offences were unconnected to the Northern Ireland conflict.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Number of requests

  Outcome

  Agreed

  Not agreed

  1985

  1

  —

  1

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  1

  1

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  1

  —

  1

  Prisoners are not classified by reference to the political or other motivation of their offences.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether requests by prisoners from Northern Ireland for temporary transfer to take advantage of accumulated visits are initially processed by the prison governor and may be rejected at this stage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Industries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the benefits to the United Kingdom of the European Community Perifra programme on defence industry diversification.
  715
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: The Government have applied to the Commission for grant of £4 million from the Perifra initiative. The initiative includes, but is not confined to, the purpose indicated by the hon. Member.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to reach a decision regarding possible action against police officers involved in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  The Attorney-General
  The Devon and Cornwall police are carrying out further inquiries at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will not be in a position to make a decision on what action, if any, should be taken until after he has considered the report on these inquiries.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total cost to public funds of fees paid(a) to Crown counsel and (b) to counsel for the appellants for their services in relation to the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  Records of the amounts paid to counsel in respect of the 1976 application for leave to appeal are no longer available. For the 1987 appeal a total of £222,484 was paid to the three Crown counsel and a total of £546,084 was paid to counsel for the appellants. No figures are yet available for the 1991 appeal.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to public funds of(a) the trial of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings (b) each of their appeals in 1976, 1987 and 1991 and (c) their civil action against the West Midlands and Lancashire police forces.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of the original trial at the Crown court at Lancaster in 1975 amounted to £237,683, in respect of fees paid to both prosecution and defence lawyers and witness expenses.

  The cost of the 1976 application for leave to appeal was approximately £7,361 excluding Crown costs, records of which are no longer available. The costs of the 1987 appeal total £1,084,557. Complete figures are not at present available for the 1991 appeal.

  Figures for the civil actions are no longer available.

  Civil Legal Aid
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the number of successful applicants for civil legal aid and total spending on civil legal aid for each year since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of individuals obtaining civil legal aid and total spending are detailed in tables published in legal aid annual reports (to 1988–89) and the Legal Aid Board annual report for 1989–90, copies of which are held in the library. The number of successful applicants for civil (non-matrimonial) legal aid for the year 1990–91 was 159,729. Total spending on civil (non-matrimonial) legal aid for this period was £191,157,000.

  Small Claims Courts
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases coming before the small claims courts in the last year were(a) both parties represented by solicitors, (b) one party represented by solicitors and (c) neither party represented by solicitors.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not collected.

  Lloyd's Syndicates
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has received any progress report from the Serious Fraud Office on the investigation into Lloyd's syndicates announced by the hon. Member for Warwicksire, North (Mr. Maude) on 25 March.

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office has today issued a press notice in the following terms:"As indicated by the Minister for Corporate Affairs in the House of Commons on the 25th March 1991, the Serious Fraud Office has been examining a matter at Lloyd's to see whether there is a case that it should take on.
  The SFO has decided, in the light of its initial enquiries, that no further investigation is warranted."

ENVIRONMENT

  East Quayside Development
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain transcripts of the Tyne Tees TV and BBC North interviews with the chief executive of the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation on 18 February relating to contracts for the East Quayside development.

  Mr. Key
  I have no plans to do so.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to monitor the implementation of relevant sections of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Implementation of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be monitored primarily through the Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution/local authority liaison committee (IPLA), which was established in December 1989 and which will in future meet three times a year, and by means of the regular statistical returns that local authorities have been asked to make.

  Section 68 of the Act will require my right hon. Friend to keep under review the discharge by waste regulation authorities of their functions under part II. That review will be undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which will carry out regular audits of waste regulation authorities' performance. Section 67 of the Act will also require waste regulation authorities to publish annual reports on the discharge of their functions.

  To monitor the implementation of part IV, my Department is planning an annual survey, in selected parts of the country, to assess levels of street cleanliness. We also intend to set up a database of information on the implementation of part IV by local authorities, based on regular data collected by the Tidy Britain Group.
  717
  Section 143 of the Act concerns registers of land which may be contaminated. The Government intend to require local authorities to open section 143 registers to the public in April 1993. We will ask authorities at that time to provide a summary of the information held on the registers.

  The Government will be discussing with the local authority associations both the need for and the practicality of monitoring the implementation of sections 149–151 relating to control of stray dogs and enforcement of collar and tag identification.

  The operation of regulations under section 152 of the Act to ban the burning of all crop residues; to permit exemptions to the ban and to control permitted burning will be monitored by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Housing Associations
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation serve the area covered by the Hackney, North and Stoke Newington constituency; what are their names; how many tenants they have; how many units they manage; and what level of overall financial support they receive from the Housing Corporation;

  (2) how many housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation which serve the area covered by the Hackney, North and Stoke Newington constituency are black and ethnic minority associations; what are their names; how many tenants they have; how many units they manage; and what level of overall financial support they receive from the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Housing Corporation has responsibility for keeping a statutory register of housing associations and allocating public funds to them. In this capacity, the corporation holds most of the information sought by the hon. Member. However, the information is classed according to local authority areas, rather than parliamentary constituencies. I have therefore asked the corporation to write to the hon. Member with information relating to the London borough of Hackney. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Library.

  Mobile Homes
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his mobile homes research; when he expects to publish its conclusions; and how.

  Sir George Young
  The report on the first stage of the research, a postal survey of local authorities entitled "Mobile Homes in England and Wales", was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in March. The researchers at Birmingham university are now concluding their work on the main physical and social survey of mobile home sites. We expect to publish a final report later this year.

  Gas Control Projects
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount available to local authorities via supplementary credit approvals for gas control projects; and if he will list the applications received from local authorities for those credit approvals.
  718
  Mr. Baldry
  A total of £28 million supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) have been set aside for remedial gas control projects at closed landfill sites in the financial year 1991–92. The following applications from local authorities for SCAs have been received so far:

  Authority

  Bid £

  South Bedfordshire DC

  12,465

  Buckinghamshire CC

  20,000

  South Buckinghamshire DC

  6,180

  Cambridgeshire CC

  272,000

  Cheshire CC

  1,300,000

  Chester City

  1,575

  Cornwall CC

  814,000

  Cumbria CC

  123,000

  Derbyshire CC

  307,435

  Devon CC

  106,000

  East Devon DC

  30,000

  Torbay BC

  39,700

  Dorset CC

  715,000

  Durham CC

  407,000

  Basildon DC

  200,000

  Hampshire CC

  167,000

  Eastleigh BC

  3,000

  New Forest DC

  1,555

  Hereford and Worcester CC

  4,500

  Hertfordshire CC

  356,000

  Three Rivers DC

  112,400

  Humberside CC

  26,500

  East Yorkshire BC

  12,000

  Scunthorpe BC

  80,000

  Tonbridge and Mailing BC

  4,550

  Lancashire CC

  435,000

  Leicestershire CC

  409,000

  Blaby DC

  235,000

  Hinckley and Bosworth BC

  118,000

  Leicester City

  230,000

  Northamptonshire CC

  1,382,287

  Northampton BC

  322,500

  North Yorkshire CC

  399,050

  Nottingham City

  78,000

  Rushcliffe BC

  31,500

  Oxfordshire CC

  493,000

  Vale of White Horse DC

  95,000

  Shropshire CC

  359,300

  South Shropshire DC

  205,000

  Somerset CC

  460,000

  Suffolk CC

  618,282

  Guildford BC

  55,000

  Nuneaton and Bedford BC

  35,000

  West Sussex CC

  491,000

  Mid Sussex DC

  20,000

  West Wiltshire DC

  18,000

  Hillingdon LB

  1,000,000

  Hounslow LB

  69,202

  Bexley LB

  2,272,103

  Greater Manchester WDA

  142,000

  Bury MBC

  318,000

  Oldham MBC

  183,000

  Rochdale MBC

  60,000

  Stockport MBC

  133,420

  Wigan MBC

  165,000

  Merseyside WDA

  665,000

  Barnsley MBC

  173,300

  Doncaster MBC

  82,300

  Rotherham MBC

  249,000

  Sheffield City

  97,500

  Gateshead MBC

  116,000

  Birmingham City

  81,000

  Coventry City

  700,000

  Dudley MBC

  974,731

  Sandwell MBC

  1,606,400

  Solihull MBC

  470,000

  Walsall MBC

  1,805,660

  Wolverhampton MBC

  671,000

  Total

  23,646,395

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions have been placed on the use of petroleum coke in areas covered by the Smoke Control Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Only fuel authorised by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 34(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 may be used or supplied in smoke control areas unless it is burnt on an appliance exempted for that purpose by regulations under section 11(4). Existing regulations do not provide for the use of petroleum coke or exempt an appliance for its use. Regulations, due to come into force on 1 July this year, will permit the use of one product which is a blend of petroleum coke and coal. Enforcement of the provisions of the Act to prevent the use or supply of unauthorised fuel rests with local authorities.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have been held with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution about the use of orimulsion in Richborough and Ince power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Proposals by PowerGen to burn the fuel orimulsion at Richborough and Ince power stations were discussed in considerable detail with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to ensure that releases of pollutants to the atmosphere were kept within limits approved by the inspectorate. In both cases the requirements laid down by the inspectorate have been set out in registration certificates which have been placed on public registers. These registers are available for inspection by any member of the general public at the relevant HMIP and local authority offices.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what housing consultancy contracts his Department has with Aldbourne Associates Ltd.; in what year they were awarded; what is their value; and whether they were awarded by open competition.

  Mr. Tim Yeo
  The Department has no housing consultancy contracts with Aldbourne Associates Ltd.

  Renaval
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent by way of the European Community's Renaval programme in(a) the Plymouth area and (b) north-east England; what kind of projects received sums of money in each of the two localities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No ERDF grant has yet been paid to participants in the Renaval programmes in Plymouth nor the north-east of England due to their recent approval. However, within the programmes so far one project to the value of £1·6 million has been approved under the Plymouth programme for the development of industrial land. In north-east England eight projects have been approved to the value of £2·4 million. These are related to the development of land and industrial premises, and improving the environment and image of the area.

  Shopping Centre, Trafford
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment has the ultimate responsibility for deciding the planning application for a regional shopping centre in Trafford, announced by him in July 1989 and confirmed in May 1991 as the preferred choice; with which Government Department interested parties should negotiate; and when a final decision is expected to be given.

  Mr. Yeo
  A decision on the planning application for the Trafford centre will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who is currently considering representations about the centre's implications for the M63. He will inform parties of the results of his consideration as soon as possible. I cannot forecast when a final decision may be given.

  Arrangements for any works which may need to be made to the motorway are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the progress of water company improvements for sewage treatment works; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest figures available from the National Rivers Authority demonstrate further improvements in the operational performance of sewage treatment works. In 1990 the proportion of works complying with their current consents, including the time-limited consents granted in 1989–90 in connection with the water industry's current £1·2 billion improvement programme, was 92 per cent. Time-limited consent conditions are superseded by long-term performance measures as the improvements work through. The authority believes that the proportion of works which already meet these long-term measures has risen from 77 per cent. in 1986, and 83 per cent. in 1988, to some 88 per cent. in 1990. The water industry's enhanced investment programme is therefore making good progress. The Director General of Water Services is continuing to monitor the programme.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by water company area(a) the date by which he expects the drinking water standards set in the EC drinking water quality directive to be met and (b) the number of people currently supplied from non-complying sources.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: The current programme of improvements is incorporated in undertakings under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 and in conditions attached to authorisations under regulation 4 of the Water Quality Regulations, all of which are in the Library. Most breaches of the standards will have been remedied by the end of 1995. Statistics of the number of people currently supplied from non-complying sources are not readily available. All public water supplies already comply with the great majority of the standards in the EC drinking water directive.

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring in legislation to remove the means test from housing renovation grants for the disabled.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: By applying a test of resources it is possible to ensure that public expenditure is directed towards those people who are in greatest need. There are no plans for legislative changes at present. The new arrangements for house renovation and disabled facilities grants introduced last year will be reviewed later this year. We will consider the need for changes in the light of this review.

  Housing Benefits Regulations
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of subsidy payments made under schedule 1(F) of the Housing Benefits General Regulations 1987, (SI, 1987, No. 1971) are to be paid to the local authority; how many payments have been made to the landlord; and what is the average payment over the last four years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Authorities are not required to identify separately to this Department payments of housing benefit which are eligible for subsidy under the provisions of paragraph 1(f) of part I of schedule 1 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the statutory provisions for establishing the authority responsible for deciding if the water supply should be fluoridated artifically as a dental health measure; and if he will publish in tabular form a list of water companies, showing which of them do and do not add fluoride.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 provides that at the request of a health authority a water undertaker may increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by it to a specified area.

  Table 1 lists the water companies in England. Table 2 lists companies with which it is known that arrangements have been made to increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by them.

  Water Fluoridation
    TABLE 1

      WATER COMPANIES
      Water Service Companies

      Anglian Water Services Limited

      North West Water Limited

      Northumbrian Water Limited

      Severn Trent Water Limited

      South West Water Services Limited

      Southern Water Services Limited

      Thames Water Utilities Limited

      Wessex Water Services Limited

      Yorkshire Water Services Limited

      Statutory Water Companies

      Bournemouth and District Water Company

      Bristol Waterworks Company

      Cambridge Water Company

      Chester Waterworks Company

      Cholderton and District Water Company

      Colne Valley Water Company

      East Anglian Water Company

      Eastbourne Water Company

      East Surrey Water Company

      East Worcestershire Waterworks Company

      Essex Water Company

      Folkestone and District Water Company

      Hartlepools Water Company

      Lee Valley Water Company

      Mid Kent Water Company

      Mid Southern Water Company

      Mid Sussex Water Company

      Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company

      North Surrey Water Company

      Portsmouth Water Company

      Rickmansworth Water Company

      South Staffordshire Water Company

      Sunderland and South Shields Water Company

      Sutton and District Water Company

      Tendring Hundred Water Company

      West Hampshire Water Company

      West Kent Water Company

      York Waterworks Company

    TABLE 2

      WATER COMPANIES WITH WHOM ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO INCREASE THE FLUORIDE LEVELS OF WATER SUPPLIED BY THEM
      Water Service Companies

      Anglian Water Services Limited

      North West Water Limited

      Northumbrian Water Limited

      Severn Trent Water Limited

      Thames Water Utilities Limited

      Statutory Water Companies

      Colne Valley Water Company

      East Worcestershire Water Company

      Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company

      South Staffordshire Water Company

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The most recent information available for public appointments for which the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible is contained in the table. Information on appointments for each of the past five years is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I also refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  723

  Public body

  Number of appointments

  Full/Part time

  Salary

  Renewal date

  Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  5

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between March 1992 and May 1995

  Imperial War Museum (Board of Trustees)

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  1991 and 1993

  British Council Board

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  Indefinite

  Imperial College of Science and Technology (Governing Body)

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  Great Britain China Centre

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  Great Britain East Europe Centre

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  Great Britain USSR Association

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent Observer Status

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  10

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between 1991 and 1994

  Universities China Committee

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  School of Oriental and African Studies (Governing Body)

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  1995

  Advisory Board to the Wilson Chair of International Politics: University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  1

  Part-Time

  Nil

  November 1992

  Irish Pensions Appeals Tribunal

  2

  Part-Time

  Per diem Expenses

  Permanent

  Commonwealth Institute: Chairman of the Scottish Committee

  1

  Part-Time

  Nil

  November 1992

  Commonwealth Institute: Director General

  1

  Full-Time

  Salary by Negotiation between the public body and individuals concerned

  September 1991

  Commonwealth Institute: Chairman of Board of Governors

  1

  Part-Time

  Not salaried, incumbent paid honorarium

  January 1993

  Commonwealth Institute: Vice Chairman of Board of Governors

  1

  Part-Time

  Nil

  May 1992

  Commonwealth Institute: Member of Board of Governors

  12

  Part-Time

  Nil

  Various dates between June 1991 and May 1994

  Sightsavers

  2

  Part-Time

  Nil

  April 1992

  Commonwealth Foundation

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  February 1993

  Diplomatic Service Appeals Boards

  8

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Various dates between July 1992 and January 1994

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  18

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between 1992 and 1993

  Anglo-Irish Encounter

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  Indefinite

  Lloyd Foundation

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent (ex officio)

  Economic and Social Committee for Overseas Research

  18

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates in 1991 and 1992

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  15

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between July 1991 and August 1993

  Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases

  6

  Part-time

  Nil

  Indefinite

  724 725

  Public body

  Number of appointments

  Full/Part time

  Salary

  Renewal date

  Overseas Service Pension Scheme

  4

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Indefinite

  Indian Family Pension Scheme

  8

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Indefinite

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  7

  Part-time

  Salaries by negotiation

  Various dates in 1991 and 1992

  Crown Agents

  8

  1 full-time 7 part-time

  Salaries by negotiation

  Various dates in 1991 and 1992

  Institute of Development Studies

  22

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  1992

  Hospitality
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Lennox-Boyd
  Expenditure by both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on hospitality for the financial year 1989–90 was £6,428,000. The provisional outturn for 1990–91 is £6,358,000 and the spend to date for 1991–92 is £900,000.

  These figures include the grant in aid to the Government hospitality fund, which meets the costs of ministerial entertainment and guest of Government visits for all Government Departments, the cost of other official entertainment by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and diplomatic missions overseas.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Lennox-Boyd
  The following recordings were purchased, either for internal training purposes or for use by posts overseas in support of their information or commercial objectives:

  Financial year 1990–91

  Trooping the Colour

  Bank of England

  Physics Means Business

  The New London

  Kingdom of the Seas

  You can't do it all

  The Dreaded Appraisal

  Can You Spare a Moment

  Stress

  This is Going to Hurt Me More Than it Hurts You

  Budgeting

  I'll be in Touch

  Oh What the Hell (parts 1 and 2)

  Decisions, Decisions

  Where There's a Will

  Speak for Yourself

  CCTV Training (series of 8)

  Lets be Fair

  Viruses on Personal Computers

  Financial year 1991–92 to date

  On the Waterfront

  Development through Science

  Sue Lawley interviews the Prime Minister

  726

  90 Glorious Years

  Earth in Balance

  The Energy Alternative

  In Public in Private

  An Inside Job

  Britain and the European Community

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions between the United Kingdom, United States of America and Hong Kong Governments on the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the press release of 5 June entitled "Vietnamese asylum seekers", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people detained in the camps in Hong Kong are under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Because of the way statistics are collected, no exact figures are readily available on the numbers of Vietnamese boat people in camps in Hong Kong under 18 years of age. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to his question of 10 June 1991 at column 412.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the amount spent on maintaining the detention centres for boat people in Hong Kong, together with the sum for providing food for detainees for the last year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  From 1979 to 1991, Her Majesty's Government, the Hong Kong Government and the UNHCR spent approximately £343 million on maintaining those in the detention centres in Hong Kong. The cost of food for the financial year 1989–90 was £8·14 million.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has of the number of deaths of Vietnamese boat people during their journey to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Neither the Hong Kong Government nor UNHCR has any reliable estimate of the number of Vietnamese migrants who have died travelling to Hong Kong.
  727
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which voluntary agencies run education programmes in detention centres in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Save the Children, International Social Service and Caritas.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many well baby clinics are operated in Hong Kong detention centres; and by which agencies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Each of the 10 detention centres has a well baby clinic, operated by Save the Children and Medecins Sans Frontieres.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the criteria used for determining political refugee status in the screening process used for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The criterion used is that contained in the 1951 United Nations convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees which states that a person is a refugee if he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and who, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country of nationality.

  Screening procedures in Hong Kong were evolved in co-operation with UNHCR which monitors their application.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to China regarding the treatment of boat people travelling to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have on a number of occasions asked the Chinese Government to treat all undocumented Vietnamese found illegally in China in accordance with the comprehensive plan of action.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call for a report on why Lee Bun and her husband were refused asylum in Hong Kong; and what information he has over their fate after they had returned to China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Hong Kong Government have informed us that Li Bin and her husband, Li Qing-Ming, entered Hong Kong illegally on 2 September 1989. They did not seek asylum. They first came into contact with the Hong Kong authorities on 6 December when they were arrested, trying to buy forged Thai passports. They had in their possession US$77,000 and HK$28,000 in cash. The couple subsequently claimed that they had been involved in the political protests in China from April to June 1989 and feared that they would be persecuted if returned to China. This claim was carefully examined by Hong Kong Government officials.

  As stated in court it appeared that there were material shortcomings and suspected fabrications in their account, particularly in Mr. Li's account of his alleged medical qualifications and experience, the couple's alleged involvement in the student movement and protests, and
  728
  their failure to account adequately for the large sums of money in their possession. The Lis went through the whole legal appeals procedure in Hong Kong and following the dismissal of the couple's case by the immigration tribunal, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, they returned voluntarily to China in July 1990.

  We have no information on the couple after their return to China. The Hong Kong Government have asked the Chinese authorities for information on them.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of his Department on repatriation of orphaned children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The policy agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is that no child will be repatriated to Vietnam unless he/she has a family to return to.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many returnees have been contacted by the British embassy in Hanoi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Hanoi makes regular visits to areas where significant numbers of migrants have returned from Hong Kong but does not maintain precise details of numbers of returnees seen. Since December 1989, 11 such visits have been made. Many of the 51 returnees sent back on 12 December 1989 have been contacted more than once.

  Soviet Research Vessels
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what general information he has on the technical capabilities of the Soviet research vessel Akademik Boris Petrov in British waters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that this vessel is equipped for the detection of radioactivity levels.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what security considerations apply to visits by Soviet research vessels to British waters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Each application is considered on its merits in relation to the proposed programme of research and the nature of our security interests in the area concerned.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his Soviet counterpart regarding the visit of the Soviet research vessel Akademik Boris Petrov to British waters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. An application was received from the Soviet embassy and dealt with by this Department in the normal way.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to carry out a review of the high incidence of low-flying helicopter activity in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are currently no plans to carry out a review of low-flying helicopter activity in the
  729
  South Down area. Flights by military helicopters are carried out for operational reasons, in order to support the RUC in the fight against terrorism. Helicopters are an essential element of the security forces' effort to counter the terrorist threat, which in South Down resulted in the murder of seven soldiers between 1989 and 1990. Helicopters may need to fly low for operational or weather reasons. I regret the inconvenience that this may cause some of the hon. Member's constituents but I can assure him that the amount of flying is kept to a minimum consistent with operational needs.

  Military Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the deciding factor in awarding the contract to Steyr of Austria for small arms;

  (2) if he will list the weapons included in the contract awarded by his Department to the Steyr company of Austria.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The MOD has no current contract with Steyr of Austria for the supply of small arms.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the percentage of British military contracts awarded to foreign companies in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The percentage by value of contracts placed with companies located overseas during 1990–91 was approximately 6 per cent. These figures exclude expenditure related to collaborative projects and contracts placed locally overseas. Figures for 1991–92 are not yet available.

  International Military Service
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with British Aerospace about the future of IMS.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  International Signal Corporation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department provided to the management of Ferranti plc relating to the activities of International Signal Corporation prior to its acquisition by Ferranti plc.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence was informed of the impending acquisition which was a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies involved.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department provided to the management of Ferranti plc relating to the activities of International Signal Corporation after its acquisition by Ferranti plc.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  MOD officials had communication with the then chairman and chief executive of Ferranti 730
  from the summer of 1988. The nature of the communications are confidential to the Department and the company.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he had with his United States counterpart relating to the activities of International Signal Corporation prior to its acquisition by Ferranti plc.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he had with his United States counterpart relating to the activities of International Signal Corporation after its acquisition by Ferranti plc.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Army Manpower
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the latest available figures on the total numbers of regular service personnel in each of the different ranks of the British Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest available figures, as at 31 March 1991, for the strength of the regular Army by rank are set out in the table.

  Army

  Ranks strengths

  Number

  Officers

  Lieutenant General and above

  20

  Major General

  62

  Brigadier

  240

  Colonel

  649

  Lieutenant Colonel

  1,949

  Major

  5,330

  Captain

  5,220

  Subalterns1

  3,410

  Officer Designate

  629

  Total Officers

  17,509

  Soldiers

  Warrant Officer I

  2,272

  Warrant Officer II

  5,963

  Staff Sergeant

  7,970

  Sergeant

  14,750

  Corporal

  22,588

  Lance Corporal

  23,120

  Private1

  48,463

  Junior Soldiers

  5,004

  Total Soldiers

  130,130

  TOTAL OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS

  147,639

  1 Includes basic trainees; excludes Brigade of Gurkhas.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average rate of recruitment and outflow in(a) the armoured regiments and (b) the infantry regiments in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average rate of recruitment and outflow is set out in the table:
  731

  Officers

  Recruits

  Outflow

  Average per year

  Rate

  Average per year

  Rate

  Household Cavalry

  13

  9·1

  15

  10·5

  Royal Armoured Corps

  80

  7·1

  99

  8·7

  Infantry

  202

  6·3

  251

  7·8

  1. Rate is per 100 trained officers.

  2. Infantry figures exclude Parachute Regiment.

  3. Excludes intakes from other ranks.

  Soldiers

  Recruits

  Outflow

  Average per year

  Rate

  Average per year

  Rate

  Household Cavalry

  174

  11·7

  212

  14·2

  Royal Armoured Corps

  961

  11·1

  1,034

  11·9

  Infantry

  5,447

  15·2

  6,136

  17·1

  1. Recruits exclude rejoined reservists.

  2. Rate is per 100 soldiers and juniors.

  3. Infantry figures exclude Parachute Regiment.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what has been the average rate of recruitment and outflow in(a) the Household Cavalry, (b) the Royal Armoured Corps, (c) the Guards Division, (d) the Scottish Division,

  Officers

  Recruits

  Outflow

  Average per year

  Rate

  Average per year

  Rate

  Household Cavalry

  13

  9·1

  15

  10·5

  Royal Armoured Corps

  80

  7·1

  99

  8·7

  Guards Division

  34

  7·2

  45

  9·6

  Scottish Division

  29

  6·1

  34

  7·1

  Queen's Division

  38

  6·1

  52

  8·3

  King's Division

  34

  5·8

  40

  6·8

  Prince of Wales's Division

  42

  6·4

  44

  6·8

  Light Division

  25

  6·1

  36

  8·7

  1. Rate is per 100 trained officers.

  2. Excludes intakes from other ranks.

  Soldiers

  Recruits

  Outflow

  Average per year

  Rate

  Average per year

  Rate

  Household Cavalry

  174

  11·7

  212

  14·2

  Royal Armoured Corps

  961

  11·1

  1,034

  11·9

  Guards Division

  991

  16·0

  1,095

  17·6

  Scottish Division

  724

  13·4

  803

  14·9

  Queen's Division

  1,112

  16·6

  1,281

  19·1

  King's Division

  915

  14·9

  1,020

  16·7

  Prince of Wales's Division

  999

  14·7

  1,123

  16·5

  Light Division

  706

  15·2

  814

  17·6

  1. Recruits exclude rejoined reservists.

  2. Rate is per 100 soldiers and juniors.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the latest available figures on the total numbers of regular service personnel in each of the different ranks in(a) the Household Cavalry, (b) the Royal Armoured Corps, (c) the Guards Division, (d) the
  732
  (e) the Queen's Division, (f) the King's Division, (g) the Prince of Wales's Division and (h) the Light Division in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average rate of recruitment and outflow is set out in the table:

  Scottish Division, (e) the Queen's Division, (f) the King's Division, (g) the Prince of Wales's Division and (h) the Light Division.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest available figures, as at 31 March 1991, for the strength of the regular Army by rank in each of the divisions are set out in the table:
  733

  Ranks strengths

  Household Cavalry

  RAC

  Guards

  Scots

  Queens

  Kings

  PoW

  Light

  Officers

  Lieutenant General and above

  —

  4

  1

  3

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Major General

  1

  6

  7

  3

  2

  4

  2

  3

  Brigadier

  4

  22

  9

  9

  9

  7

  11

  12

  Colonel

  6

  42

  18

  12

  30

  23

  23

  16

  Lieutenant Colonel

  10

  125

  55

  60

  74

  69

  78

  53

  Major

  32

  328

  114

  151

  197

  189

  215

  121

  Captain

  50

  322

  163

  140

  173

  187

  193

  114

  Subalterns1

  63

  355

  147

  141

  157

  156

  178

  107

  Total Officers

  166

  1,204

  514

  519

  642

  636

  702

  430

  Soldiers

  Warrant Officer I

  9

  80

  43

  40

  41

  42

  48

  29

  Warrant Officer II

  37

  275

  185

  152

  198

  185

  194

  142

  Staff Sergeant

  46

  341

  242

  197

  255

  238

  256

  179

  Sergeant

  123

  813

  461

  393

  493

  429

  500

  361

  Corporal

  197

  1,502

  808

  693

  863

  806

  862

  604

  Lance Corporal

  185

  1,502

  901

  751

  929

  877

  954

  618

  Private1

  631

  3,459

  2,695

  2,522

  2,548

  2,750

  3,011

  1,823

  Junior Soldiers

  54

  200

  234

  197

  227

  216

  203

  159

  Total Soldiers

  1,282

  8,172

  5,569

  4,945

  5,554

  5,543

  6,028

  3,915

  Total Officers and Soldiers

  1,448

  9,376

  6,083

  5,464

  6,196

  6,179

  6,730

  4,345

  1 Includes basic trainees

  2 Staff Officers shown in late arm corps.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will provide the latest available figures on the average rate of recruitment and outflow over the last 10 years, giving details for each individual infantry, armoured, artillery and engineer regiment named in the Army list;

  (2) if he will provide the currently available figures on the total numbers of regular service personnel in each of the different ranks, giving details for each individual infantry, armoured, artillery and engineer regiment named in the Army list.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Army Running Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the approximate average annual running costs of(a) the Household Cavalry, (b) the Royal Armoured Corps, (c) the Guards Division, (d) the Scottish Division, (e) the Queen's Division, (f) the King's Division, (g) the Prince of Wales's Division and (h) the Light Division;

  (2) if he will provide the latest available figures on the approximate average annual running costs of each individual infantry, armoured, artillery and engineer regiment named in the Army list.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information regarding the running costs of individual units, divisions or corps is not held centrally and could be provided only with disproportionate time and effort.

  NATO Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British contribution will be made to the reaction force planning staff at SHAPE.
  734
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Respective national contributions to the multinational reaction forces planning staff will be the subject of discussion within the alliance.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what role the RAF will have in(a) the new NATO rapid reaction force, (b) the new NATO main defence forces and (c) the new NATO augmentation forces;

  (2) what will be the approximate size of (a) the new NATO rapid reaction force, (b) the new NATO main defence forces and (c) the new NATO augmentation forces;

  (3) what British forces will be committed to (a) the new NATO rapid reaction force, (b) the new NATO main defence forces and (c) the new NATO augmentation forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed discussions are continuing on NATO's new force structures.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will be made for funding the new NATO rapid reaction force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The detailed arrangements for rapid reaction forces are still being developed in NATO. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, our contribution will be funded from the defence budget agreed in the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Allied Command Europe mobile force will have in the new NATO rapid reaction force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO's new force structures will include both immediate and rapid reaction forces. The Allied Command Europe mobile force will form part of the immediate reaction forces. Details are still under discussion.

  Armed Forces (Redundancies)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place with the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmens' Families Association regarding possible redundancies from the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are in daily contact with the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association on a wide range of issues, including the implications of "Options for Change". Where redundancies from the armed forces are required and are relevant to the work of the Soldiers', Sailors and Airmen's Families Association we will of course discuss the implications with it.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional maintenance costs have been incurred for British military equipment that was used during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed information on the additional maintenance costs for equipment resulting from use on Operation Granby is still being gathered.

  RAF Reserves
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the number and type of ex-RAF pilots who have joined(a) the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and (b) the RAF Volunteer Reserve.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ten ex-RAF pilots are currently serving in the RAF volunteer reserve forces: numbers and specialisations are as follows:

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  3 Nimrod MR

  1 Hunter/Hawk

  1 Andover

  RAF Volunteer Reserve

  1 Harrier

  1 Lightning

  1 Chipmunk

  1 Devon

  1 Vulcan

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Series No. 6 Regulations 1985, as amended in 1990, in the safety procedures drawn up by Her Majesty's Government to cover the land, sea and air transport, respectively, of nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In formulating safety procedures for nuclear warhead transport, full account is taken of national and international civil regulations on transport of radioactive materials, where relevant.

  Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the number of claims settled by his Department and the value of compensation award in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available; what was the average value of claims settled at constant prices(a) prior to the repeal of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, (b) during ex-gratia period and (c) post
  736
  repeal; and what estimates of the total annual payments post-repeal were made by Ministers during the passage of the Act through Parliament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Invalidity Pensions
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total annual pension paid to(a) a private and (b) a sergeant, with five years' service, invalided out of the services in 1945 with (i) 30 per cent. disability, (ii) 60 per cent. disability and (iii) 100 per cent. disability, respectively.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows the current rates of war disability pension paid by the Department of Social Security.

  Percentage disability Per cent.

  Private weekly pension £

  Annual equivalent £

  Sergeant weekly pension £

  Annual equivalent £

  30

  25·47

  1,328·00

  25·57

  1,333·22

  60

  50·94

  2,656·00

  51·14

  2,666·44

  100

  84·90

  4,426·69

  85·24

  4,444·41

  In addition, there is a range of supplementary allowances which may be payable under the war pension scheme depending upon the circumstances of the individual case; such as unemployability supplement or allowance for lowered standard of occupation, constant attendance allowance, mobility supplement, age allowance, clothing allowance.

ENERGY

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what fees are to be paid to N. M. Rothschild in its capacity as adviser on the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Fees paid to Government advisers are commercially confidential. Total expenditure on coal privatisation will be reported to Parliament in the usual way through the publication of departmental estimates and the annual appropriation accounts.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what type of consultation is proposed with employees' organisations before firm plans are laid for the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No decisions about the form or timing of privatisation will be taken until after the election, when all interested parties, including employees and their representatives, will have an opportunity to express their views.

  Sizewell B Power Station
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 424, if he will make a further statement on the computer software system chosen for Sizewell B nuclear power station.
  737
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following a comprehensive review of the difficulties encountered by Cegelec's P20 software system, Nuclear Electric has announced the award of a contract to Westinghouse who will provide a replacement software system for Sizewell B. The Westinghouse equipment is tried and tested, and is already used in PWRs in Europe and the United States of America.

  Nuclear Electric has told us that they are confident that this action will keep the project on course for completion on the existing timetable.

  Nuclear Installations (Security)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 7 June,Official Report, columns 383–84, concerning the apprehension of two demonstrators at Sellafield, if he will now hold an inquiry into the practicality of fail-safe security at nuclear installations; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Security at all civil nuclear installations is kept under continuous review. It would not be in the public interest if the results of any inquiry into security were to be published.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Azerbaijan and Armenia: Human Rights
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent increases in violations of human rights in Azerbaijan and Armenia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have made our anxieties about recent events known to the Soviet authorities. We look to them to preserve law and order in an even-handed way. We continue to urge all concerned to refrain from intimidation and violence and to act in accordance with the principles of the CSCE.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which is encouraging in its principled firmness.
Is my noble friend aware that the recent events to which he refers are continuing? Attacks by Azerbaijan forces on innocent Armenian villagers continue, with killing;, abductions and forced deportations. As recently as last weekend there were further reports of continuing atrocities. Will the Government consider making their response to the Soviet Union's request for massive economic assistance conditional upon the Soviet Government's genuine commitment to respect and protect the human rights of all its citizens?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are indeed aware of the current troubled situation in the area. We have constant reports from our embassy in the Soviet Union that it is looking at the matter. We have had an up-to-date report from my noble friend Lady Cox, who has just led a delegation. Her report has indeed been useful to us.
I confirm that in calling on the Soviet authorities to live up to their undertakings made in the Paris Charter and the; CSCE documents we have made it perfectly clear that assistance will depend on continued commitment to reform.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the recent established position of Mr. Boris Yeltsin in the Russian Federation, and his desire to make direct contact with some of the more important countries of the world, will my noble friend approach Mr. Yeltsin with a view to obtaining his support over the atrocities in Azerbaijan against the Armenians?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, for this reason. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who has recently visited Russia, had a meeting with Mr. Yeltsin. He was one of the first Western leaders to meet Mr. Yeltsin on more than one
1278
occasion. He has made perfectly plain to Mr. Yeltsin our great concern about the human rights condition and other reforms in the Soviet Union. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that such an approach would come much better from my right honourable friend than from me.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, when Members of the Government—the point also applies to members of the United States Administration—meet the leaders of the troubled republics of the Soviet Union, what conversation do they have about the fact that under the Soviet constitution of 1977 those people have an absolute and undoubted right to secede from the Union provided that they go through all the legal hoops?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I have said on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House, events in the future of the Soviet Union must be a matter for the people themselves to decide in their own way. We have always said that it is best done by negotiation, not by armed intervention of any kind.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, while we welcome such bland generalisations as those we have just heard, does my noble friend agree that they do not go very far? Is he aware that some 70 years ago the world was shamed by the Armenian atrocities? We do not wish that history repeated. Would not a safe haven policy make sense? Will the Government take up the issue with Mr. Gorbachev when he is our guest in a few weeks' time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, more than once my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has certainly made clear to Mr. Gorbachev our great anxiety in that regard. On reconsideration, I hope that my noble friend will not consider that my answers have been bland on this or any other subject.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the breakup of the Soviet Union would not be of international advantage? It would certainly not be of advantage to the people of the Soviet Union, and would be of doubtful advantage to the various nationalities who make up the Soviet Union.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will surely agree with me that it is up to the people of the Soviet Union to decide the future for themselves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl inform the House of the effect of the recent intervention of Soviet troops? A number of people think that those troops too have been responsible for violation of human rights, apparently destroying at least three villages and committing serious human rights violations. What is the effect of that in an already complicated situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that the situation is complicated. That is borne out by the report of my noble friend Lady Cox. There is internal strife between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Soviet authorities have assured us that they are trying to restore law and order on an

1279
even-handed basis. However, the noble Lord is right in saying that some reports indicate that it has not been as even-handed as some of us would have liked.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, in view of the current violations of human rights in these republics as observed by my noble friend Lady Cox, will the Government make a formal request to the Soviet Government under the agreed CSCE procedures for further information about what is happening there?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are requesting the Soviet Union to act in accordance with the principles of the CSCE not only in respect of these two republics but of all those in the Soviet Union.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is not the situation similar to that pertaining in Tibet, where there are beatings, tortures and killings? My noble friend will be aware that recently we boycotted Chinese celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the occupation of Tibet. Can we not take similar robust action next month when Mr. Gorbachev meets our right honourable friend the Prime Minister?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I expected my noble friend to raise the subject of Tibet. That is another Question.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, in view of the excellent report of the noble Baroness, will the Minister, through our embassy and the United Nations, ensure that the gallant Marshal Yazov does what he said that he would do and does not conveniently forget about it? Will the Minister bear in mind that in many cases a friendly nation nearby will draw attention to the deplorable, callous and irresponsible behaviour of many national authorities in that part of the world? For example, the Iranians did so in respect of the Shi'ite Moslems in Iraq. Will the Minister also bear in mind that as this is an orthodox Christian enclave in the middle of a hostile Moslem environment there are no friendly nations nearby to draw attention to the situation? Therefore, unless Western nations take action through their embassies and through the United Nations the matter will be conveniently forgotten.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the matter will certainly not be forgotten because I know that while your Lordships remain concerned it will be raised regularly in this House. I have already conveyed to the Soviet Union the anxiety that has been expressed and the fact that continued Western assistance—that is, not only from Britain but from the whole of the West—will depend on it carrying out its reforms.

Common Agricultural Policy
11.16 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What new initiatives they propose to take within the EC Council of Ministers to secure a radical reform of the common agricultural policy, and in
1280
particular whether they will ensure that a Treasury Minister is present at the next and all succeeding meetings of the Agricultural Council at which price-fixing deliberations take place.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has clearly stated the Government's views on reform of the CAP. We are now awaiting proposals from the Commission. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question is, no.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, bearing in mind that the highly protectionist nature of the common agricultural policy is already causing difficulties in the GATT negotiations and is costing the average British family of four an extra £15 or £16 a week according to the Government's figures, will the Minister undertake that radical negotiations on the whole nature of the CAP will be initiated by the Government in order to ensure that the GATT negotiations that are due to take place later this year will not be further impeded?
As regards the answer to the second part of my Question, will the Minister at least ensure that the guidelines given by the Treasury to the Minister of Agriculture for use at the Agricultural Council are published not necessarily before the negotiations are concluded but afterwards in order that the British people may know what degree of Treasury control there is over the outrageously large expenditure by the United Kingdom on the common agricultural policy resulting in an annual deficit to the UK of some £2 billion of Exchequer funds?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for having given me an indication of what he intended to ask in his supplementary question. The Commission pro-posals are not specifically linked to the GATT negotiations and are unlikely to address key issues for the round; for instance, import access and export subsidies. Agreement in the Community will not be reached quickly. A GATT settlement is likely to be reached first and will provide a framework in which CAP reform will have to be negotiated. The figures which the noble Lord gave for the cost to an average British family are OECD figures. They clearly over-state the cost of the CAP as they are based on static world prices. World prices apply only to the small proportion of world food production which is traded internationally, often at subsidised prices. If the CAP did not exist, EC consumers would certainly not be able to purchase their food at those prices.
As regards the last part of the noble Lord's question, internal documents are never published.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend referred to proposals awaited from the Commission. However, is there any reason to believe, on past form, that the Commission will bring forward proposals which are sufficiently drastic to deal with the scandalous working of the common agricultural policy? Is she further aware that to an old Treasury

1281
hand, it was a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, advocating strict Treasury control?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Kingdom welcomes the Commission's acceptance that reform of the CAP is needed. However, we do not favour the Commission's approach. In particular, we reject the emphasis on safeguarding small farms which would tend to make EC agriculture less able to adapt to market forces, would severely disadvantage UK farmers and would probably increase the cost of the CAP.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the last time there was a free market—between 1926 and 1935—a working man had to work three times longer to buy the same food (for example, bread, milk and butter) than would be the case today? Therefore, we must be very careful as regard; what action we take on the food market.
Baroness 'Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful 1 to the noble Lord for his trip down memory lane.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the publication of negotiating guidelilnes could only prejudice the course of future negotiations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the fact is that we do not publish internal documents.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the present initiative by Commissioner MacSharry for radical reform of the CAP, to which Her Majesty's Government are opposed, will be discussed in this House and in the other place in government time before any final decisions are taken by the United Kingdom about its attitude to those proposals?
As regards prices, will the noble Baroness confirm that the 1991–92 CAP price settlement, announced in another place on 3rd June, was described as being within budget guidelines?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has announced and always does announce any decisions taken by the 12 countries involved in taking those decisiors. The point is that it is a decision by all 12 countries. Therefore, there would be little point in discussing what we hope to achieve. Indeed, my right honourable friend has had enormous success in his achievements.
As to the guidelines, they have not been increased and, therefore. the Commission is legally required to keep expenditure in 1991 and 1992 within the existing guidelines.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's reply to the first supplementary question, does she agree that while the linkage between GATT and CAP may not be formal, it is actual and real? Does she agree that the failure of GATT would have far more lasting and severe consequences for this country than the continuation of CAP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government are working for a solution to GATT. They hope very much that agreement will be reached among all nations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether food surpluses are increasing or decreasing and whether it is true that the Irish Government have now hired grain ships for storing wheat because they have run out of storage space on land?
Will she also confirm that the CAP has resulted in many British farmers going out of business? Thousands of small farmers have gone out of business? in this country and in the Commonwealth. Is that to be the continuing result of our adherence to an absurd agricultural policy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should love to answer questions about what the Irish do, but that must be for another day and for the Irish to answer. With regard to farmers going out of business, many reasons have led to the difficult times which farmers are experiencing at present. Those reasons include falling world prices, difficult markets and sometimes lack of marketing on the part of our farmers. There are a variety of reasons. One cannot lay the full blame at the door of the CAP.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness cast doubt on the figures which I cited in regard to the extra cost borne by the average family of four in this country as a result of the CAP. Is she aware that the figures I cited were taken directly from the Treasury's bulletin, which I assume has been read by her department?
Is the noble Baroness further aware that publication of the guidelines would in no way affect the negotiations which take place on the price review because my question specifically stipulated that they should be published after the negotiations have taken place? It would be in the public interest to know the Treasury's attitude towards such outrageously high expenditure.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, any Minister speaks on behalf of the entire Government. It happens in this House. The latest OECD figures which I have imply for 1990 a consumer cost for the CAP of approximately £11.20 per week per family of four and a total cost—that is, including the cost to the taxpayer of CAP expenditure—of £17.50 per week.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if recommendations of this House to reduce fraud against the Community were accepted, the cost of the CAP would be reduced by something like 20 per cent.? That involves both the Commission and member states.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, very high figures have been quoted by newspapers; for example, £6 billion or 20 per cent. of the Community's budget. By its nature fraud cannot be reliably quantified but such figures are exaggerated. However, fraud is clearly a serious problem and must be tackled vigorously.

The Gulf: Stability
11.27 a.m.
Lord Mellish Lord Mellish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they are proposing to take to prevent Saddam Hussein continuing to exercise a destabilising influence in the Gulf region and to persuade the Iraqis that he is not the "saviour of his people".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are vigorously supporting measures set out in Security Council resolutions, including the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, a general arms embargo and sanctions, to prevent Saddam Hussein destabilising the region in any way. Recent events have shown the Iraqi people that he is not their saviour.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that obvious Foreign Office reply. Is he aware that the British public and most Members of this House are amazed at the situation? Saddam Hussein is supposed to have lost the Gulf war and yet he has left behind a Kuwait which is still burning. Millions of pounds have been spent and thousands of lives have been lost. Since the Gulf war he has tried to destroy the Kurds and has killed thousands of them. Local papers suggest that he is now turning his attentions to southern Iraq and is intending to cause damage there. Is the Minister telling the House that there is nothing to be done save compliance with a United Nations' resolution. What are we going to do about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord based his original comment on a misapprehension; namely, the reason for the Gulf war. Our aim was never to get rid of Saddam Hussein but, as we made clear at the time, to bring about the liberation of Kuwait. It is true that we should welcome the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq who respect the rights of all people.
I believe that the sanctions on Iraq are underestimated by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. With regard to Security Council Resolution No. 687, that instructs the Security Council to review sanctions in the light of the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq. Clearly the Government of Iraq have not, by any stretch of the imagination, met the required standards and, therefore, sanctions will not be lifted.
Lord Granville of Eye: My Lords, in view of our long experience—over 90 years—concerning the security of the Gulf, are we being fully consulted by the United States on the next steps to be taken?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly, as are the other countries in Europe, like France, which also took an active part. That is one of the benefits of the increased co-operation and close liaison that is taking place.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, in view of today's reports and the continued presence of nuclear
1284
components in Iraq, will Her Majesty's Government put pressure on the United Nations to ensure that they are found and removed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the United Nations is aware of its obligation regarding weapons of mass destruction. I also heard the report; it has been carefully noted and investigations will be made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I could draw attention to the clock which should read "25" rather than "18". We have spent rather a long time on the first three Questions.
Can the Minister say whether or not there is any truth in the rumour that the Iraqis are massing forces to attack the Shia minority in the South?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, neither we nor the UN representatives in southern Iraq have any evidence to substantiate reports of a major Iraqi offensive against the Shias.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, when I was in the border area of Iraq and Iran 10 days ago the people in the Shia refugee camps believed that their friends and relatives remaining in the south of Iraq were greatly threatened by Saddam Hussein. Will the Government give an assurance to the Kurds who are returning to the safe haven that we will not withdraw our forces from that area unless and until we are convinced that they are genuinely in a safe haven?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that people in the south of Iraq may feel that their relatives in the area are greatly threatened. That is why we are closely monitoring the situation. We have underlined to the Iraqis our anxiety concerning not only what they could potentially be doing in that area, but also in respect of all the population of Iraq. As regards the question of the removal of troops, great credit is due to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for the success of his initiative. The safety of the Kurds is something that we shall certainly take into account when we finalise our thoughts on the matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what information Her Majesty's Government have regarding the fate of the 3,000 Kuwaiti civilians who were abducted by the Iraqis at the beginning of the war soon after their invasion and who have not yet been returned to Kuwait? Are they still alive or have they all been murdered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not have the answer to that question.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has frequently referred to Kuwait? However, some of us are completely bewildered. He has left behind a nation—Kuwait—in which 600 fires are burning, thousands of lives have been lost and we have just heard of a further 3,000 people unaccounted for. The Minister has said nothing in that regard except that the question is not on the Order Paper. The Minister must know something about it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am always unhappy when I cannot answer a question in your

1285
Lordships' House. I do not have the answer to that specific question. We have great concern for Kuwait and that is the reason we launched the offensive to drive out Saddam Hussein. I know that was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, although not by some noble Lords on his Benches. We continue to take an interest in improving the environment for those living in Kuwait and helping to put out the fires.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, we must move on and take the hint given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I do not know how long Question Time has taken because the clock is behaving erratically. However, it has been far longer than it should have been.

TWA: Union Recognition
11.35 a.m.
Bareness Turner of Camden Bareness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that industrial action may be taken from 1st July as a result of the threatened withdrawal of bargaining rights from unions representing the United Kingdom employees of the airline TWA; and, if so, what action they intend to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government firmly believe that it is for individual employers to decide, in the light of their own business needs and circumstances, whether to introduce or continue collective bargaining arrangements with a particular trades union or unions. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the conduct of industrial relations in any specific company or organisation.
Baroness Turner: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the circumstances that Answer is totally unsatisfactory? Does he not know that the Minister of Transport allowed American Airlines to take over the TWA slot at Heathrow without ascertaining whether the company would honour existing agreements? Is there not a government responsibility in that regard? What are employees to do in that situation? A ballot was held with a majority vote in favour of action. Do the Government feel no responsibility either to the employees or to the travelling public in such circumstances?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, under existing legislation the question of whether or not to recognise a trades union is a voluntary matter to be determined by employers having regard to their specific needs and circumstances. The law does not provide employees with a specific right to be represented by their union in negotiations with their employer. Where recognition and/or bargaining arrangements are withdrawn, trades unions and their members remain free to organise and take industrial action if they see fit, provided it complies with the relevant statutory requirements.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are the Government not concerned in the matter in that they facilitated the effective change of employer in regard to the people in dispute? In the circumstances, although the Government may not be able to take official action, is it not possible for them to do a bit of leaning on people here and there? Something which should not take place is taking place.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we firmly believe that those are matters for the company and its staff and not for heavy-handed state intervention. Government intervention in the airline industry does not work. I am sure that noble Lords will recall that under state ownership in the 1970s British Airways recorded huge losses, while since privatisation it has become the most profitable airline in the world.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount saying that it is heavy-handed for the Government to insist, as part of the condition for the transfer of the route from one company to another, that the rights enjoyed by trades unionists with the outgoing company should be honoured by the new company? Surely that is fair. Should not the Government exercise, on behalf of the trades unions, the same kind of persuasion that they often exercise on behalf of corporate power which provides most of the funds for his party?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, indeed not. The Government do not insist on recognition agreements being transferred. As I said, it is for the company to determine with which union, if any, they wish to have a recognition agreement. It comes as no surprise that the Opposition are seeking to turn the clock hack to help their pay-masters, the trades unions, to achieve by force what they cannot achieve by persuasion.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the Government take the same disinterested line if the Conservative Party also was paid for by the unions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are only interested in good industrial relations.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it not the position that the Government are enthusiastic about Europe and like to spend our money there? Surely that will contravene one of the social policies of the European Community. It must be watched, otherwise the Government may be in contravention.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are not contravening any European statutory regulation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, some of us on these Benches will be pleased that the Government have changed their policy—one can only presume that that is a result of Majorism—and they will not be involved in industrial disputes on one side or the other, given the previous history of involvement in industrial disputes on the side of employers. Will not the Government go a little further and try to improve the industrial relations climate by encouraging employers to recognise the democratically expressed will of their employees in terms of the recognition of unions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be entirely wrong to force companies to recognise unions if they do not wish to do so.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that on these Benches we are not asking for heavy-handed intervention on the industrial relations scene, but simply that the Government should accept some responsibility in a dispute that would have great public repercussions and where the Government themselves have had some responsibility as regards the American Airlines agreement?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that it is right to put back the clock.

Highland Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Bill
11.40 a.m.
Report received.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 6:
In the Schedule:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("1889") and insert ("1989").
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("1889") and insert ("1989").
Page 10. line 43, leave out ("64") and insert ("62").
Page 12, line 35, leave out subsection (7).
Page 25, line 46, leave out ("board") and insert ("company").
Page 26, line 26, leave out ("board") and insert ("company").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I move the amendments en bloc. I can assure your Lordships that these amendments in no way affect the content of the Bill. They are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
11.42 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) is this country's only source of nuclear weapons. It is responsible not only for research and development, but also for the production of these weapons, for maintaining them, and ultimately for dismantling them. AWE is based at four sites—Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness—and employs several thousand civil servants, who are mostly industrial personnel, scientists and engineers. The majority of these are employed at Aldermaston, although several hundred work at each of the other three sites.
AWE has developed, and is currently producing, the nuclear warheads which will be deployed in the Trident system which is due to enter service in the mid-1990s. I should add that it is only the nuclear weapons which are the responsibility of AWE. It does
1288
not deal with delivery systems; in this case, the Trident D5 missile which is being bought from the United States. The submarines, which in turn will carry the missiles, are being built in the Vickers' shipyard at Barrow.
The Trident warhead programme is making considerable demands of AWE. The establishment has done well so far and we expect it to achieve the initial production of nuclear warheads to meet the in-service date of the mid-1990s for the first Trident submarine. However, the later stages of the Trident programme require a much faster rate of production. AWE's ability to meet this increasing challenge has been hampered by difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in the highly competitive Thames Valley area, led by a shortage of production management expertise.
Against that background the Government looked carefully at the question of how AWE should be managed, not only in order to resolve the current problems but also to secure a sound and efficient future for the establishment and to preserve its exemplary safety record and its excellence as a research establishment.
Our conclusion was that the best solution was for the operation of AWE to be transferred to a private sector contractor. In any other field a complex industrial enterprise such as AWE, including a major production operation, would be carried out in the private sector. The industrial management expertise which AWE needs is readily available in the private sector and a private sector contractor would have greater flexibility to offer the terms and conditions of service necessary to deal with AWE's recruitment and retention difficulties.
We do not intend, however, to sell off the AWE sites or the vital facilities which they contain. It is important that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence should remain ultimately responsible for the establishment and that in the last resort it should always be possible for him to take back direct responsibility for operating it. Therefore, we are not privatising AWE; we are "contractorising" it. A company will run the establishment under contract with MoD and the workforce will be employees of a separate employing company which the contractor will acquire. This is essentially the same arrangement which operates at the Royal Dockyards in Devonport and Rosyth.
The transfer of AWE's activities to a private sector contractor does not itself require legislation. Indeed, many activities in the defence field and elsewhere have been contracted-out without legislation. The function of this Bill therefore is a narrow one: it is not to put into effect the introduction of contractor operation at AWE, but to deal with certain specific matters which arise in connection with this process.
Clause 2 of the Bill ensures that the transfer of AWE activities, and with them its staff, to the contractor will be governed by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, or TUPE 81, which protect the interests of staff by preserving conditions of service at the time of transfer. TUPE 81 does not preserve

1289
pension arrangements, although it does make clear that there should be no overall detrimental change in workers' terms and conditions of service, including pensions, as a result of the transfer. Under the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and the UKA EA Principal Non-industrial Superannuation Scheme, AWE staff will no longer be able to remain members of those schemes. MoD will therefore introduce a new, private sector pension scheme at AWE which will mirror the provisions of the PCSPS and UKAEA Principal Non-industrial Superannuation Scheme as closely as possible. The new scheme will provide benefits which are at least as good as under existing schemes. Employees will have the option of freezing their Civil Service pensions or transferring the accumulated benefits to the new schemes. No individual will be made to suffer detriment to his or her pension benefits following the introduction of contractor operation at AWE.
A new redundancy payments scheme will also be set up which will, when taken together with pension scheme benefits, provide redundancy payments of an equivalent value to those payable under the PCSPS and UKAEA Principal Non-industrial Superannuation Scheme. I must stress, however, that we do not expect redundancies among AWE's workforce as a result of the introduction of contractor operation. Indeed, as I have already said, one of the main reasons we are proceeding in this is that AWE has had difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. However, any redundancies which should arise in the future would be fully funded under the new scheme.
Clause 2 also ensures that AWE staff will not be treated as having been made redundant when they transfer from the Civil Service to the employing company, with the same jobs and the same conditions of service.
Clause 3 of the Bill, together with the schedule, deals with the application to AWE of certain items of legislation. After vesting day, AWE land, facilities and other assets will remain the property of the Crown but will be operated by the contractor. It will be necessary for certain privileges related to Crown status to remain in force for security and, in some cases, for practical reasons.
I am sure that your Lordships will not need reminding of the paramount security considerations which are associated with nuclear weapons and their manufacture. Some of the provisions in the schedule are there to ensure that rights of access to classified nuclear weapon information, and to the highly sensitive AWE sites themselves, remain restricted to personnel who can pass our rigorous security vetting procedures.
In some cases there are also practical reasons invoked. For instance, so that MoD will have the flexibility to change the AWE contractor in the future it will be necessary to prevent a contractor from acquiring security of tenure at the AWE sites. Accordingly. there is provision for AWE to be exempt from the section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 which deals with security of tenure for business tenants.
1290
Where, for the reasons given above, AWE remains exempt from legislation which has a bearing on safety, we shall ensure that it meets standards at least as good as those required by statute. A compliance office reporting to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will monitor the contractor's activities thoroughly, with particular attention to safety. It is the Government's policy, however, that immunities and exemptions from legislation should only exist where absolutely necessary. The schedule to the Bill was examined in detail during its passage through another place and a number of amendments were passed which reduced its provisions considerably. Clause 3 also gives the Secretary of State power to repeal or reduce any of the remaining provisions of the schedule, should it be possible to do so in due course.
Clause 4 ensures that the Ministry of Defence police will continue to fulfil its existing roles with respect to AWE. These include not only its vital guarding role at AWE sites, but also criminal investigation. The Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of security at AWE. The Ministry of Defence will continue to be responsible for setting security standards, and for the vetting of AWE staff, who will have to meet the same stringent security requirements that apply now.
Clause 5 provides for certain expenses which might arise in connection with the employing company to be paid for out of money provided by Parliament. This includes any costs involved in setting up the company (which are unlikely to be significant). It would also cover any financial liabilities incurred by the Secretary of State in the event of his assuming responsibility for the liabilities of a company: he may, for example, wish to take back control of the employing company. That could happen in wartime or in the event of a gap between the end of one contract and the beginning of another.
This is a short and simple Bill. During the debates in another place, attempts were made to expand the Bill to include all kinds of extra provisions. In some cases the Government had no quarrel with the motives behind the proposed additions—for example, those which were intended to protect safety or security, or pension and redundancy arrangements. However, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to include such provisions in this Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State already has all the powers he needs to safeguard those important priorities. Defence Ministers have given repeated undertakings that we will not compromise on safety and security, and that the pension and redundancy rights of staff will be protected. I repeat those undertakings once again, and I remind your Lordships that a compliance office reporting to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will monitor the contractor's performance rigorously in order to ensure that he complies fully with our standards.
The Government firmly believe that the introduction of contractor operation should not be rushed. Thus, we do not intend to let the full AWE contract until 1st October 1992 at the earliest. As an interim step, a management contract was let on 1st October 1990 to Hunting-BRAE; a consortium led by Hunting

1291
Engineering Ltd. and including Brown and Root (UK) and AEA Technology. Hunting-BRAE has seconded 20 experienced managers into AWE to strengthen the establishment in the period leading up to vesting day. The early stages of this Phase 1 contract are progressing well. Subject to your Lordships' approval of the Bill, we hope to issue invitations to tender for the full AWE contract during the fourth quarter of 1991.
I should emphasise that the contractor will be most carefully chosen and, once installed, most carefully controlled. We shall let the contract, after competition, to a UK prime contractor who will have to meet our stringent security requirements. I can assure noble Lords that we shall not be required by European Community rules to install a contractor from elsewhere in the Community. The Community's authority does not extend to defence matters and, in any case, there could never be any question of a country being made to use another country's nationals for the production of nuclear weapons. Nor will the contractor have the freedom to market nuclear weapon information or hardware abroad, or in this country for that matter, to terrorists or anyone else apart from the Government.
In conclusion, we are convinced that the Government's plans for the introduction of full contractor operation at the Atomic Weapons Establishment offer the best way forward, not just for the requirements of the Trident programme but also for the longer-term future of the establishment as a whole. Contractor operation will enable AWE to recruit and retain the high quality manpower which it needs, and will also ensure that manpower and other resources are used as efficiently as possible. It thus offers the best prospects for the defence nuclear programme, for the taxpayer, and for the hardworking and capable staff at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness. The Bill provides the framework within which that important change can be made. It therefore deserves your Lordships' support. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Arran.)
11.55 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill. However, I have to tell him at the outset that we believe the whole Bill to be misconceived. Two major principles appear to be involved. The first is whether the research and development and manufacture of nuclear weapons should not properly remain fairly and squarely in the public sector with those most directly concerned being Crown servants responsible to Ministers who are responsible to Parliament. That seems a fundamental principle which should be upheld and which the Government, through this Bill, are attempting to give away. The second is whether contractorisation—to use that horrible word—is an appropriate solution. We do not believe that it is. Why do I say that? First, because the staff of AWE will be forced to move out of the Civil Service. Many of them
1292
joined the Ministry of Defence in order to pursue a career with that Ministry. They happen, at this point in time, to be at Aldermaston or Burghfield, or one of the other establishments. Why, just because on vesting they happen to be in one particular place, should they be forced to move out of the Civil Service, away from their careers with the Ministry of Defence and into the private sector?
Secondly, TUPE 1981, to which the noble Earl referred, applies certainly to the first contractors. Special pension arrangements apply to the first contractors. But nothing can bind subsequent contractors. Indeed, once the contract has been let there appears to be no reason at all why the original contractors should not change the arrangements the day after.
Thirdly, as the noble Earl mentioned, the experiences of government-owned contracted out operations in the United Kingdom, at Rosyth and Devonport, have not been particularly good. They have certainly not been particularly good as far as concerns job security for those working there. There have been serious redundancies. I know the noble Earl told us that the Government did not expect any redundancies as a result of vesting and of contracting out these operations. We shall have to wait and see. The experience so far with this type of operation in the UK is not good.
Fourthly, there are, in spite of all the noble Earl says, doubts about safety, particularly after the Drell Report in the United States on the safety of nuclear weapons revealed that in the case of US designed nuclear warheads some serious safety problems had been encountered which involved the redesign of the whole Trident warhead.
It is uncertain —because we are waiting for the noble Earl's reply—how far US technology was drawn on in the British design of British nuclear warheads. If the same kind of faults exist in British warheads as Drell discovered in the US warheads, there is a serious safety problem which the Government must address.
Lastly, there is the American experience. It appears that the Government's contractorisation programme is based on what they believe is the successful American experience. Rocky Flats at Golden Colorado, which makes plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads, has had to be closed down because of plutonium leaks which have polluted a large part of the state of Colorado. Los Alamos, in the state of California, has come under severe criticism in a Congressional report. I need only refer to Admiral Watkins, President Bush's Energy Secretary, who drew attention to the,
"years of inattention to changing standards and demands regarding the environment, safety and health".
He went on to announce a 10-point reform programme, saying that one important change would hinge at least 51 per cent. of the annual fees earned by the companies running the weapons plants on compliance with federal and state environmental, safety and health requirements. It is all a bit of a mess.
We all admit that there have been problems at AWE. As the noble Earl quite rightly pointed out, Aldermaston and Burghfield are in the Thames Valley,

1293
a rich area of high pay. The problem is that the pay has not been adequate to allow AWE to compete for skilled labour. It is nothing more than a question of whether the Treasury will allow proper pay scales for people working there so that AWE can compete. The result has been staff shortages.
I am not as convinced as the noble Earl that the management has been badly at fault. If the management has been badly at fault, or at fault, by all mean; let us put in better management. There is no problem about that. Rather more of a problem has been the failure adequately to police subcontractors at Aldermaston and Burghfield. By all means bring in from outside whatever is required, but for goodness sake—I come back to my original point— keep this activity fully, fairly and squarely within the public sector. By all means convert it into an executive agency under the "next steps" model; by all means let us have a defence services agency, if that is the appropriate mechanism. In that case legislation would be wholly necessary. The noble Earl could take away his Bill quite happily, and we could get on with what is a heavy business programme in the House.
I reiterate a fundamental principle. There should be no dilution of ministerial responsibility. It is the duty of the Government and of no one else to ensure the defence of the realm.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is common ground that there are serious management problems at AWE and that radical change is needed. The question is whether the changes should take the well tried course of a Defence Services Agency or whether they should take the extreme path of contractorisation recommended by the Government. It is plain to my noble friend; and myself that the Government have made the wrong choice on this point.
It is a little significant that the noble Earl did not spell out in any detail the practical problems with which AWE is now faced. One hazards a guess that if one becomes involved with detailed practical problems, one comes to the conclusion before long that what is needed is a practical solution. The trouble is that the Government have approached this not from the practical point of view but from the ideological point of view. We get the impression that the Government have two strong motives in presenting the Bill. The first is to hand over responsibility for the mess to somebody else as soon as possible. The second is to pay homage to the Thatcherite doctrine of privatisation. As a result we have a proposal which is drastic and doctrinaire.
I notice that at the Report stage of the Bill in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Carlisle, argued from first principles, rather as the noble Earl did in introducing the Bill. Mr. Carlisle said:
"Thy; Atomic Weapons Establishment is involved in research and development and in manufacturing. In our view, such an establishment belongs in industry and not in government".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/91; col. 1103.]
That is a clear statement of Conservative ideology. I am reminded of the clear statement of socialist
1294
ideology which I preached as a boy. It was that the means of production, distribution and exchange belonged in government and not in industry. I confess that I was wrong, but in mitigation I can say that, unlike Conservative ideologists, I have since grown up. I have learnt that sweeping generalisations often lead to disaster in particular cases. If ever there was a particular case, it is the production of nuclear weapons.
This is a particular case which needs to be handled on its particular merits and not shoved through the sausage machine of Thatcherite ideology. The Atomic Weapons Establishment is of such importance and of such potential danger that Ministers have no right to shuffle it off on to other people. The noble Earl said that the Government are not doing that. He said that the contract will give full powers of control to the Secretary of State and that the contractors can be taken to court and the contract annulled. That is true on paper but it is not true in practice. In practice, contractors will have considerable powers against the Government. They will know that the last thing the Government want is to take the contractor to court. The very idea seems absurdly difficult and embarrassing for the Government. How will they look if there is a dispute in the courts about, for example, the safety and production of nuclear weapons? How will they look on "Panorama" or "This Week" in those circumstances? How will they look if they annul the contract? That would delay and disrupt everything.
In another place the Minister gave an assurance that parliamentary Questions will continue on the subject of the production of nuclear weapons. In what form will they continue? Let us suppose that a parliamentary Question is put down about a hold up in the production of these weapons. Today the Minister would reply, "Yes or no, there is a hold up; yes or no, we will take this or that action to correct it". But under the new dispensation the answer will be different. The answer will be, "I have consulted the contractors and they assure me that they are taking this or that action". If there are supplementary questions the Minister may reply, "I shall draw the attention of the contractors to the point which the honourable Member makes"; or, "I do not think it is the business of a Minister to interfere in day-to-day questions of management".
The fact is that the Bill dilutes ministerial responsibility. The assurances about ministerial control and about Ministers taking to court the contractors and annulling the contracts are in practice, to those with experience of these matters, meaningless. I reject the Bill on this ground alone—that the production of nuclear weapons is not a fit matter for privatisation. It is not right that the Government should shuffle off their responsibility for largely ideological reasons.
There are other reasons too—we can deal with some of those in Committee—but one specific objection mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should to be discussed now. No matter what incentives the Government may give, and no matter how admirable the intentions of everyone concerned, the requirements of safety directly oppose the

1295
contractor's desire for profit. That is a fact. By implication the Government admit it. They admit that they will give financial incentives to the contractor to maintain high standards of safety. Thus the Government agree with what I am saying; that there is a basic conflict between the requirements of safety and the contractor's hopes of profit.
Safety in the production of nuclear weapons is an incredibly expensive business. Huge sums must be spent on emergency facilities, on back up and on duplicating men and materials. Huge sums must be spent on contingencies which almost certainly will never occur. What will be the attitude of a profit-making concern to expenditure of that kind? Its first aim will be to get the Government to pay. If the Government pay, that will be all well and good—except, that is, for the taxpayers. However, let us suppose that the Government refuse to pay. What will the contractors do then? Will they pay it themselves or will they argue that the expenditure is unreasonable. If they do so argue and say that the Government should pay, what will happen then? Either the Government will pay up—and in my judgment they certainly would —or the contractors will take the Government to court and argue the details and meanings of the contract, with all the embarrassing and disastrous consequences which I have already described.
It was not necessary to take an extremist view. After all, let us take, for example, the House of Commons Defence Committee. On this subject, it has shown itself to be extremely alert and informed. Indeed, it was a Defence Committee of the other place which originally blew the whistle and which led the Government to take action over the production of nuclear weapons. We should respect the committee's opinion that the Government are going too far. In my view, the Government are going too far. The measure is too extremist and too ideological. We should reject it.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, contractorising the production of nuclear warheads is not a new idea. In fact, it was mooted at the very beginning of our nuclear age when the recommendation of the Maud Committee that we should proceed in this country to the manufacture of nuclear weapons was considered and rejected. That was the time when Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, said that he was satisfied with ordinary explosives. Nor is the association of manufacturing industry with the production of nuclear warheads anything new.
During the war the organisation called Tube Investments which was run by Wallace Akers, as I seem to recall, was responsible for a number of contracts with industry. When the war ended the Ministry of Supply, up to the year 1954 when the Atomic Energy Authority was created, was responsible and also contracted out practically all of its work to industry. The Atomic Energy Authority, about which my noble friend Lord Sherfield will be able to talk much better than I can, has also had numerous contracts with industry.
1296
I believe that it was in 1964 that the Ministry of Technology was created. It became responsible to Parliament for the Atomic Energy Authority. It, too, had numerous contacts with industry. It then handed over its responsibility for the weapons sphere to the Ministry of Defence. As I understand it, those arrangements still continue. When it was handed over to the Ministry of Defence, if I remember correctly, it was handed over to what was then called the procurement executive. Today, it is the defence procurement department.
I do not know exactly what is the position now, following on from Mr. Heseltine's changes in the chain of command in the ministry in 1988. However, I know that Aldermaston and the associated installations really belong to the defence procurement side of the ministry. That to me is somewhat important.
We all know that the main reason for the Bill is the difficulty or, if I may put it this way, the hope that the transfer of the management of Aldermaston and the associated departments and laboratories will overcome some of the staff and management problems with which Aldermaston is at present contending. It is assumed that contractualisation will allow greater flexibility to deal with such problems, especially as regards recruiting and retaining good staff. That was precisely the same reason why the Atomic Energy Authority was set up in 1954. It was set up in order to ensure that the people concerned were not constrained in their activities by unnecessary bureaucratic controls.
There was another issue concerning the retention of staff. I refer to the intellectual isolation of really good people who became involved in the business of Aldermaston. It was quite different in other aspects of military procurement where there were links with the outside world.
Perhaps I may say now that I do not think any complaint could have been made at that time about the managerial competence of the people who were chiefly concerned. I refer here to the late Lord Hinton who was one of the most brilliant managers that this country has ever had. The Government will be lucky if they find a contractor which had staff of his level of competence or staff with the competence of Sir John Cockcroft, of our late colleague who has recently died, Lord Penney, or of one of the present Members of your Lordship' House, who is unfortunately not on the speakers' list today but who was involved, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. If by any chance there is a company in the country which has staff with the competence of those men, we will have nothing about which to complain.
We understand from the noble Earl's exposition of the Bill that contractorisation does not mean privatisation. Clearly there is no place for competition in the marketplace in the production of nuclear warheads. We also know from Clause 1 of the Bill that the contractor will be given his orders and that he will carry out a series of "designated activities". We also know that there is no transfer of land or assets and that security of employment will be assured by the formation of the second company which will act as an

1297
employment agency. All that sounds very good. But, as we have heard in the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Mayhew, there are questions of principle involved.
I do not wish to pursue that particular theme. There are two matters which concern me and which cause me a little disquiet. But I am sure that the Minister will be able to allay my fears. Clause 1(2) gives the contracting company very wide responsibilities,
"connected with the development, production or maintenance of nuclear devices or with research into such devices or their effects".
Those are pretty wide responsibilities. As I understand it, for that reason the Government will be setting up a "compliance office" which will ensure that the responsibilities of the contracting company are properly and safely discharged. That matter was referred to most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. The responsibilities of that office will relate not just to safety but to design and manufacture all of which must be in accordance with the designated activities. The Secretary of State's responsibility remains all the time, and, as was said, there can be no dilution of that responsibility, but how will it be assured? Who will define the designated activities? It is not easy to ensure contractorisation in that field. It is a field sui generis; it always has been. It has always created difficulties. How big will the compliance office be? What will be the qualifications of its staff? Will they have the competence critically to comment upon changes that may be made in the design of warheads, or the purpose and progress of research and development being carried out?
Reference has been made to a parallel with the United States. It is a parallel which fills me with unease. The industrial companies and the two major laboratories, which are now contracted to the Department of Energy in the United States (the institutions which correspond to Aldermaston) have a free hand. The result is that they are free to produce ideas which are transformed into weapons systems and operational requirements for which there is no military authority. They fuel the arms race. I merely mention that because the US parallel is not a parallel to which I would recommend any noble Lord to pay attention. It is not one which could operate in this country with only one contractor taking over, as I understand it, with its staff undertaking only designaited activities.
I should like to know what the Government's response is to the point made in the red booklet which I believe most noble Lords will have received from the staff organisation at Aldermaston. It claims that the compliance office will add to costs because if it is to oversee all the work being done it will have an enormous task on its hands. I assume that there will be enough people in the compliance office to undertake that task. To whom in the vast MoD will the compliance office report? From whom will the Secretary of State take advice? I understood the Minister to say that he would take his advice from the compliance office. Alternatively, will he take advice from the defence procurement department, which is
1298
responsible for and, in effect, owns Aldermaston and its associated institutions, from the military or from the Chief Scientific Adviser?
That brings me to the last point to which I wish to refer. It is the only one of which I have personal experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will remember from his ministerial career in the Ministry of Defence. From 1958, when we concluded a defence agreement with the United States, the department of the MoD responsible for the exchanges which took place under that agreement was that of the Chief Scientific Adviser. In those days he worked hand in hand and perfectly happily with the Director of Aldermaston who in my time was mainly Sir William Penney. My staff was small. It included at its top Sir William Cook, a man who had almost as much experience as Sir William Penney. They worked hand in glove. Every year there was a stock-take exchange with the Americans. I chaired that exchange. During the course of a year there were any number of small exchanges on specialist problems.
I understand that that agreement and those arrangements still continue. I understand that a stock-take meeting is due to take place in the near future. If the Chief Scientific Adviser still chairs those meetings, from where does he obtain his information? Will he have a staff to oversee what is being done by the contractor so that he can answer any questions about any deviation from design and so on?
In my time too, arms control was a part of defence policy. I obtained my information from my personal contacts with top scientists in the United States, but I was directly answerable to the Minister, who became Secretary of State, and to the Prime Minister. Sir William Penney was brought in by the Prime Minister. He was head of Aldermaston and knew what was going on.
At the behest of the Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, Bill Penney and I had to go to the United States more than once to clear up matters relating to the political aspects of our nuclear policy. What will happen in the future? Who will take care of the close relations that we must have with the United States in accordance with the 1958 agreement which took a considerable amount of trouble to get through? Will it be the head of the contracting company? Will it be the head of the monitoring body which is to be set up? To put the question in another way, under the Bill if it becomes an Act, will the Secretary of State for Defence in future exercise his ministerial control of the new organisation through one channel or three channels? Will it be through the defence procurement department; the military, who came into the picture in a different way as I understand it as a result of the 1988 changes made by Mr. Heseltine; or through the Chief Scientific Adviser's small department?
I believe that at present there is divided responsibility in what is being put forward by the Bill. This is not a field in which we can afford to have any divided responsibility. In my time it was held together by the Chief Scientific Adviser's department. I should like to be assured that the Chief Scientific Adviser still has a major part to play in nuclear policy and by that I mean a part that he can play independently and in

1299
general. Let us remember that nuclear policy is not fixed in tablets of stone, wherever the stone comes from, be it Whitehall or other countries.
12.31 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as this Bill paves the way for the full contractorisation of AWE, we must, if possible, look at the issues in the round. It is somewhat difficult to do that when the nuclear weapons culture has been wrapped up in safety and secrecy for something over 40 years now. But I am glad to see that the levels of secrecy are coming down and the levels of safety are going up.
Our cue for today can be taken from last Wednesday's debate on defence. In that debate my noble friend the Leader of the House confirmed the Government's intention to keep a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons to provide effective deterrence. Therefore any alternatives for AWE are hypothetical for the moment. If policy changes, we shall have to think again. However, I believe that it makes sense for the Government to take the present course, where AWE becomes what amounts virtually to an agency operating under the GOCO umbrella. That surely provides flexibility to make policy adjustments and meet changing operational requirements. There is parliamentary accountability because the Select Committees in another place can always call evidence on the subject at any time that they wish to do so.
We ploughed through the contractorisation principles when we debated the commercial management of the Royal Dockyards. The management contractors are now into their fifth year of working the system, which includes nuclear platforms, nuclear propulsion and the nuclear weapons element of fleet support. As the House is aware, I have an interest to declare closely connected with the Vanguard/TridentD5 support arrangements. I believe that the experience of the contractors at Devonport and Rosyth is an important leader for the Government in drawing up the contract at AWE.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for arranging for members of the All Party Defence Study Group to visit Devonport and Rosyth to see the Royal Dockyards at work. I was particularly impressed by the way in which the flag officer and naval base commander at Devonport work so closely with Devonport Management Limited to support our high-tech low-manned fleet of surface combatants and nuclear submarines. Perhaps I may say that that massive and busy RN complex is something to be proud of I believe that it owes its success to the enthusiasm of the Flag Officer Plymouth, Vice-Admiral Sir Alan Grose, with the nuclear contractorised refit complex having such an important part to play in support of the underwater fleet, which is now predominantly nuclear.
I was glad to have an insight into the thoughts of Devonport Management Limited, the contractor which is proposing ways to develop nuclear fleet support for the future, bringing valuable industrial experience into the defence field. Equally, I believe
1300
that when he is chosen, the contractor at AWE will also bring valuable industrial experience to that field and will make investments in the management of establishments of this kind. Therefore I do not have any fears of commercial management at AWE. In fact, it is a logical follow-on to my way of thinking.
There are particular points that I want to make in relation to the Bill. First, the Secretary of State's powers to designate the activities for the contractor are good, as we are still learning from US experience and our own current experience at Devonport and Rosyth. To determine the scope and extent of the contractual plans, one has to sieve through the Government's statements and Select Committee evidence. I have done it and there is a mass of it.
Because of the desperate need to beef-up the manufacturing base for Trident warheads, I believe that it is absolutely right to seek industrial help, drawing on the expertise that exists in the companies that make up the National Nuclear Corporation. As the report of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is for ministerial eyes only, we cannot assess whether or not the Government are taking the right course completely or know whether they accept all his recommendations. However, I guess that his recommendations centre on overcoming the weaknesses in production management expertise in a way that does not upset the research function at AWE.
However, what can be said is that the A90 building investment is timely as the existing and very ageing manufacturing facilities which are now something like 25 years old are being replaced by the new advanced production facilities which are needed to support research manufacturing needs as well as the volume production of warheads. The contractor can therefore manage the research functions as well as production functions as designated to the best of his ability, and can confidently make investments there as well.
My second point concerns the compliance office which was set up in the middle of last year as the customer watchdog staffed with civil servants. As well as ensuring contractor compliance, it provides a quality assurance audit function and will log up the safety record—or, one might say, the safety miles—of the contractor for incentive points in respect of the environmental safety and health standards on which he will be assessed during the currency of the contract and at the end of it. But herein lies a difficulty. The MoD has a firm commitment with its contractors to achieve the highest standards of radiological protection for service and civilian personnel, which predates the Gardner Report. My noble friend Lord Arran has confirmed that the Government will continue to keep up the highest standards of safety.
The safety division at AWE provides the radiological protection services. Dr. David Glue the director of the compliance office, is faced with the fact that health physicists are in short supply. As my noble friend Lord Arran said, there has been and still is a shortage of recruits at AWE and the defence radiological protection service has introduced a graduate entry training scheme at Greenwich to overcome that problem. This scheme is said to be

1301
partially successful. However, good graduates do not make good health physicists until they have built up considerable experience.
The Defence Select Committee stated in its report:
"It is essential that the commitment to radiological protection at AWE is maintained following contractorisation and we therefore recommend that a duty to keep health physics; staffing up to strength should be included in the relevant contract".
Does that mean that the compliance office will eventually be contractorised? The safety division at AWE has been contracting out tasks already. Why should it not: do so if it is short of staff and can seek help from industry? I believe therefore that there is a good case, in view of the staff pressures, for Dr. Glue to sub-contract the work of the safety division completely. Will my noble friend therefore clarify the position and say whether Dr. Glue can be encouraged to consider the option I have suggested which would be immediately helpful, whether or not the compliance office is contractorised?
I support the Government in taking these steps to contractorise AWE. Those powers will provide the Secretary of State with a flexible means of meeting operational needs in the future in the most cost-effective way.
12.41 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I do not think it is going too fat to say that the Bill has already been destroyed in this debate. I have been extremely struck, as other noble Lords must have been, by the contributions made by those who have direct experience in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has experience in a ministerial capacity. I was above all struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in which he raised grave doubts. It only remains for us to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, to see whether he can find anything to say for the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, introduced this Bill for one reason and one reason only; namely, to counteract the difficulty of obtaining appropriate managerial staff in the Thames Valley region. Are we really to legislate on a matter that profoundly affects national sovereignty because of the difficulty of obtaining good managerial staff in a particular region? If by chance the Atomic Weapons Establishment had been established in the North of England where there is less difficulty in recruiting appropriate staff, would the Bill not then have been introduced? If we are not to surmise that, we should be given some other reasons why the Bill has been introduced.
Public ownership and control of the manufacture of nuclear weapons does not have all that brilliant a history. I am the first to concede that fact. In the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1960 the main nuclear weapons production plant in the southern Urals released more than 20 times the emissions of Chernobyl in the way of environmental pollution. The French nuclear weapons facility at Saint Aubin near Paris is considered by the well-informed to be staffed by people who are either alarmingly over-complacent in this matter or who may be covering up unacceptable levels of pollution. Aldermaston, too,
1302
has had its accidents and exposures. I know that my noble friend Lord Stoddart is well informed about that plant and will perhaps discuss it. Aldermaston did not even introduce whole-body monitoring for years after its introduction was made compulsory in civil nuclear establishments.
However, in the United States production management has been in private sector hands throughout. If we compare the situation here with that in the United States a pretty startling picture emerges. When Admiral Watkins became the Secretary for Energy he sacked one lot of private operators because of their appalling record on safety, pollution, cover-ups and plain fraud. He closed down one whole plant immediately—the Feeds Materials Production Center. He closed several facilities at the Savannah River plant on safety grounds despite the fact that tritium was produced nowhere else. The Savannah River facilities remain closed down two years later. Proposed new constructions that were to have been paid for by the taxpayer were cancelled as they were deemed to be needless. However, they were of course lucrative to those who conceived them.
At some places, for example Hanford and at Rocky Flats—and my noble friend Lord Williams spoke about Hanford—which are also under commercial management, ever more widespread soil contamination is being discovered. That contamination threatens groundwater over a vast area. According to the US Department of Energy, many tens of billions of public dollars will have to be spent on cleaning up. Even then the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress believes the department is still understating the problems. Outsiders estimate the figure may finally run into hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars. There are also many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people entitled to compensation. That compensation is not included in the figures I have already mentioned.
The Washington Post recently described the environmental clean-up as the,
"fastest growing part of a declining military budget".
We should note that the firms involved were household names. For example, Westinghouse, du Pont, and Bechtel. The other day I was astonished to hear that the Minister who replies for the Government on these matters appeared to know nothing at all about this appalling record of private management in the United States.
I wish now to discuss the matter of the inspectorate. Perhaps I should refer to the compliance office in this connection as I believe that office will undertake the work that is carried out by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate elsewhere in British industry. I noted the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that the compliance office should be contracted out, or placed in private hands. That would be a neat solution finally absolving Ministers of all control and the Government of all responsibility to Parliament.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I did not propose that that should happen. I was asking the Minister to clarify the position.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I stand corrected. If one were feeling paranoid, one could easily suppose that there was a hidden Conservative agenda behind this matter as that was an extraordinary comment to make from the Government Back-Benches.
We should note that the Bill exempts the contractorised processes at Aldermaston from the operation of the nuclear installations legislation of 1985. Therefore those processes are free of the ordinary controls. They will be solely under the control of the compliance office. How will sufficiently qualified inspectors be found? Who will pay them? They will have to look after public health and security in the sense of national security. They will have to look after safety as regards the operation of the plant. Their duties will cover an enormous range. Above all, I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that the inspectors will be sufficiently well paid to maintain their integrity. Let us not be naive about this matter. If one does not pay inspectors enough, they can be bought by those whose plants they are inspecting. Examples of that have been rife in our administration for years.
Will the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors be allowed in? Unfortunately it is a fact that the cutting of corners to achieve what is required is even more of a temptation in the private sector than in the public sector. Production will always take precedence over safety. That has been happening in the United States and is still happening despite the efforts of Admiral Watkins over two years to put a stop to bad practices. What will be the situation with regard to insurance? The Government are exempting the private operators from industrial rates. This is not a true privatisation; it is an example of a privatisation which merely looks good. The exemption I have just referred to involves a huge state subsidy in itself. Will the private operators carry the cost of insurance, or is this another case of the taxpayer carrying the cost while the company carries off the profits that it will be so sorely tempted to produce? I see that the Government are providing ECGD with 100 per cent. re-insurance cover after it has been privatised. Is something similar envisaged in this case?
There remain jurisdiction problems over what was to have been the first permanent waste repository in this country. Where is the radioactive waste from Aldermaston to go in future? Who will run the disposal site? Will it be public property or private property?
Lastly, and perhaps most serious of all, in the United States a Japanese firm has been proposing to buy a 40 per cent. interest in a Connecticut firm which makes precision tools for machining nuclear warhead components. In Congress the proposal has been criticised but the Administration approves. That particular Japanese firm is said now to have withdrawn, but no doubt there could be others. I gather that here the Government are not proposing to exclude, debar or rule out in advance the holding of a stake in the contracting firm at Aldermaston, etc., by foreign firms. Can we have a statement about that?
Finally, that aspect and others make me wonder whether the Bill is in keeping with the Nuclear
1304
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Noble Lords who are not of purer eyes than to behold iniquity will know that the Israeli nuclear weapons programme has been very largely made possible by private contractors who are engaged in building nuclear weapons in the United States. There is an unavoidable conflict between on the one hand the interests of public health, national security and international security, and on the other hand the accumulation of private profit. I do not want to be dogmatic or doctrinaire; profit is good in its place, but not at the heart of national sovereignty and the construction of weapons capable of destroying a large proportion of the human race.
I come back to the question which everybody must surely be asking: if the only reason for this measure is the difficulty of getting good managers in the Thames Valley area, why on earth did the Government not simply increase the pay of managers and provide their own?
12.52 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I rise to support the principle of the Bill, which in my view is long overdue. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I live within three miles of the establishment.
When I first knew the AWRE (as it was then known) it was run by Dr. William Penney, (as he then was) who went on to render such great service to the nation and whose death, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, we mourned recently. It was a centre of excellence. When the long period of non co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States in nuclear technology was finally ended in 1958 and full and complete exchange of information was re-established, it emerged that in the nuclear weapons field while the United States was miles ahead in engineering, in research and development we had kept up with the Americans and in some areas were ahead of them. That was AWRE's achievement.
That standard was fully maintained up to the time when the establishment was transferred from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence. Although I was then no longer chairman of the AEA, I was sure that that was a mistake and would damage morale and performance at Aldermaston. So it proved. After a time this was recognised by the Ministry of Defence, which wanted control of Aldermaston to revert to the Atomic Energy Authority. However, by that time the responsibility for the establishment had been transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Department of Energy and the move was blocked by bureaucratic bickering.
From then on the situation deteriorated. The Government refused to allow the AWRE management to pay the going rates for highly skilled craftsmen in the high-tech. Berkshire area—as has been pointed out by other speakers—with the result that AWRE lost most of them and had to resort to unusual expedients in order to keep the rest.
That was not the only difficulty that arose. The Civil Service does most things extraordinarily well but it cannot run an industrial establishment. The belated realisation of that has finally led to the introduction of

1305
this Bill. The language of the Bill itself as an enabling Bill is not illuminating. I have had to rely for much of my in formation on the seemingly endless deliberations in another place and a reference sheet supplied by the Library of another place.
As I knew it, AWRE was not only directly involved in research and development on nuclear warheads but also in research in related fields. It also had a first-rate apprentice school. In these transfers of responsibility and control it is the level of research and related activities, such as the apprentice school, which usually suffer,
There is no mention of research in this enabling Bill. Perhaps such a reference would be out of place. If so, some assurances on that point are essential. I understand that some such assurances have already been given in Committee in another place, though I could not find the reference in the Standing Committee's voluminous records. The point was raised again in another place on Third Reading by the honourable Member for Canterbury, who made a most effective speech which I shall not endeavour to summarise. He pertinently pointed out that contractors normally do very little work on pure research, and that Provision must therefore be made for it in the contract. He did not receive an answer. I consider it most important that assurances about research should be en again in this House and I hope that the Minister will respond to this request.
I have only one other main point. I understand that Nuclear Technology (formerly AEA) is a member of the consortium which at present holds a management contract for some aspects of the operation. Its participation is much to be welcomed. It is essential that whoever is awarded the substantive contract should have full knowledge and experience of dealing with the production, fabrication and handling of plutonium and the other ingredients of nuclear warheads.
On the issues of safety and security, I do not share the anxieties which were expressed at great length in another place and which have been raised again today. The responsibilities in those areas will remain with the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has quite rightly drawn attention to the importance of the competence of the compliance office and of the monitoring of the scientific side of the operations. That is of the first importance, but I think that we can rely on the assurances that the department and Ministers will enforce the necessary standards. Assurances on these points have been given again and again and I am sure that the Minister will be able to reiterate them when he comes to reply.
1 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Kennet, I listened carefully to the Minister's opening remarks and found it quite incredible that one of the major reasons for bringing forward the Bill was the difficulty of recruiting staff in the Thames Valley. As I live in the Thames Valley I understand that staff are in short supply and that wages ire relatively high, but it should surely not have
1306
been beyond the wit of the Government to deal with that problem, particularly as the trade unions offered to help them to solve it. They could have solved it without this Bill and I am surprised that they saw fit to bring forward such a Bill.
I seem to have had quite a long association with the Atomic Weapons Establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield. I took part in those early marches from Aldermaston to London. Those were the days when people spat at you and hurled insults, and sometimes missiles, at marchers; but since then people have become more understanding and tolerant of a point of view different from their own. Indeed—I might as well say this—the proportion of the population which favours unilateral nuclear disarmament is probably greater now than it used to be. However, we must accept that all parties are now wedded to the retention of Britain's nuclear weapons. The Labour Party has declared its intention to continue with the Trident programme when it gains office. The Atomic Weapons Establishments are therefore likely to be with us for a long time and it is essential that we get their control and management right on a long-term basis.
In my view, the Government are taking the wrong road through the Bill. It will not bring about the efficient, effective, safe and accountable management which is essential and which should be the aim of all of us. I support the alternative that was put forward from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. There are alternatives which the Government have clearly not considered, or have rejected for some dogmatic reason.
I also had quite a lot to do with people working at AWRE, as it then was, during the years that I nursed the Newbury constituency, in which Aldermaston and Burghfield are situated, as a Labour candidate. I fought the seat twice—once in 1959, when I lost by 10,500 votes, and again in 1964 when the majority against me was under 5,000, so I did make some progress at that stage. I met many of the people who worked at AWRE Aldermaston and ROF Burghfield. My agent himself worked as an engineer at Aldermaston. I found the people first class. Many were highly skilled, but, above all, they were highly responsible and conscious of the duty that lay with them to ensure the safety of the people who worked inside the plants and of those who lived in the surrounding areas. At that time Labour candidates were regarded with some suspicion by the authorities. I am not at all sure whether the career of my agent, Mr. Spiller, was enhanced by his loyalty to the Labour Party and to myself. However, times have changed and the Labour Party is now so respectable that it probably outranks the Tories in that respect.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that times have changed or that the Labour Party has changed?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that perhaps both have changed, but I shall not go into that matter any further.
Security is a serious and difficult subject which will not be made any easier by contractorisation. The House is entitled to have detailed assurances that

1307
security will not suffer under the new arrangements. I hope that those assurances will be forthcoming and will be underlined by the noble Earl when he winds up.
As I live within 14 miles of Aldermaston and six miles from Burghfield I have, as have thousands of other people living in the area surrounding those establishments, a keen interest in how they are managed, who manages them, how they are staffed and whether they will maintain or improve the safety of the operations. People in the vicinity are bound to be concerned as there are risks from radioactive discharges to the environment from both Aldermaston and Burghfield. It is not only a question of the risk of airborne contamination but of water contamination through liquid discharges to the River Thames and the River Kennet. That is serious as a significant proportion of drinking water is now obtained by extraction from the River Kennet. People are naturally anxious to have firm assurances that there will be no additional risks from the privatisation of management.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Kennet that the problems to date have been few. Radioactive leakages are rare and small and the people, although concerned and wary of such establishments in their midst, especially when their operations are shrouded in the tightest security, have accepted them without much demur because they have been managed by government, whom they have trusted to take all possible safety precautions regardless of cost and without the requirement to make a profit. People in the area have not been consulted about the new arrangements regarding management, but they are bound to be anxious about contractorisation, which they will see as a means by which the Government can reduce their costs and private firms make a profit. That is certain. The Government obviously wish to reduce their costs and no private organisation will manage those establishments unless it sees a profit at the end of it. Those twin aims are bound to have an effect on the organisation and there is bound to be a suspicion that corners will be cut to achieve those aims with the possibility that safety arrangements will suffer, as has apparently happened in other countries where private management has been introduced—a point to which my noble friend Lord Kennet referred.
I have no doubt that the monitoring of radioactive discharges will continue to be of a high order, but unfortunately such monitoring can tell us only what has happened, not what will happen. Once they are let loose, radioactive discharges cannot be rounded up and put back where they belong. They are like the contents of Pandora's Box.
I turn now to the position of the people who work in those establishments. All kinds of assurances have been given about their pay, conditions of service, pensions and job security. We are told that no redundancies are envisaged and that no one will be sacked, but we have heard it all before in one case after another. When the crunch comes and the Government turn the financial screw, or the contractor wishes to
1308
maintain his profit, it is the employees who will suffer and those lowest down the seniority scale will, as usual, suffer first and most.
The trade unions have done everything possible to help and have offered to co-operate with the Government in the setting up of a new government agency to manage the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but to no avail. The Government apparently are determined to press ahead regardless of any other consideration than to pursue their privatisation dogma and, by sleight of hand, to massage the Civil Service numbers. I do not believe that that is a good reason for bringing forward this Bill. I hope that in Committee my noble friend Lord Williams, and other Members of the House, will be able at least to improve the Bill even if we cannot throw it out.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the speeches made during the debate. As I explained at the beginning of the proceedings, the purpose of the Bill is a narrow one. We do not need legislation in order to contract out the activities of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, nor would it be sensible to attempt to incorporate in the Bill all the detailed arrangements which will cover the introduction of contractor operation. Those arrangements will be worked out with great care and in great detail over the next year and a half during the drafting of the contract, the selection of the contractor and the negotiations with the successful bidder. The Bill covers those matters which can only be addressed by legislation. It regulates the transfer of AWE staff from the Civil Service to an employing company. It preserves the role of the MoD police. And, finally, it deals with the application to AWE of certain items of legislation.
It is natural, however, that in debating the Bill your Lordships should wish to discuss a wider range of issues which bear on the introduction of contractor operation at AWE and related matters as well as those which relate directly to the content of the Bill itself.
The debate has indeed been full and wide-ranging, and I would now like to answer some of the points which your Lordships raised. If there are further points on which it would be helpful for me to write to noble Lords, I shall certainly do so if I fail to cover them fully today.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked: why contractorise? The proposals arose from a full review carried out in 1989 of the way forward which took into account the points raised by the Select Committee for Defence in its fifth report on the Trident programme, 1988-89. The review demonstrated clearly that no other solution could offer the combination of access to private sector production management expertise and the fullest flexibility to deal with manpower shortages. Those are essential features of the Government's plans to ensure that AWE meets the future requirement of the Trident programme.
The noble Lord also asked this question: if pay is a problem, why is it not possible to increase it without full contractorisation? To some extent that has

1309
already been done by special pay additions (SPA). However, it is too simplistic to say that pay is the only consideration. We believe that the long-term solution is to couple freedom from Civil Service grade structures with full private sector efficiency and flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, too was concerned on that point.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Sherfield, asked: why contractorise research and development as well as production activities? Research at AWE is not a stand-alone activity. It is focused towards existing and future production requirements. We consider the integration of research development and production to be fundamental to the maintenance of the United Kingdom's nuclear warhead capability.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was worried about —to use his term—the changing terms and conditions of service. I can assure your Lordships' House that the protection of TUPE does not cease on day two. The terms and conditions to which the workforce are entitled must not be changed as a result of the transfer either then or later, or on any subsequent transfer. In between terms and conditions can be changed only by negotiation.
The noble Lord asked: in that case why not have an agency option rather than contractorisation? We have seriously considered the arguments in favour of a "Next Steps" agency at AWE. Such arrangements have considerable attractions for those organisations which must remain within the Civil Service. However, AWE is not such an organisation. It is involved in research, development and large scale manufacturing. We believe that such industrial enterprises are generally run more efficiently in the private sector. Agency status would in any event be only a partial solution to the problems at AWE. It would not involve the full and early introduction of private sector production and management expertise. Nor would t allow access to the corporate back-up of a large industrial concern. It is only full contractorisation that can give full private sector management flexibility together with pay flexibility without reference to Whitehall.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Williams, referred to the contractors' susceptibility to foreign control. Although we shall indeed be looking for a UK-based prime contractor, the underlying point—that of security is wider than the question of foreign shareholdings. There may be UK companies or individuals who would not meet our high security standards and whom we would find unacceptable as our operator contractor at AWE. Conversely, AWE experts have always co-operated closely with their counterparts in the United States; and we cannot conceive of any objection in principle to a degree of involvement from companies based in the US.
We intend therefore to address the ownership question at tender and contract stages and not by legislation. We shall ensure that the choice of contractor and the terms of the contract take full account of all security considerations. The contractor will have to comply fully with our security
1310
requirements. That includes satisfying my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the ownership of the contracting company. We shall also take measures to ensure that once the contract has been let there is no possibility of national security being compromised through shares changing hands.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Earl on the question of foreign ownership. Hunting-BRAE has part foreign ownership from Brown and Root. Brown and Root is a United States company. As I quite understand, the noble Earl says that the United States is one source where the Government may admit foreign participation in the prime contractor. Does that mean that the Government wish to exclude all other countries? For instance, would all countries of the European Community be excluded from part ownership of the prime contractor? Is that what he is saying?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a somewhat detailed point which perhaps I may answer at the end of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the possibility of civil servants being thrown out, as he called it. The majority of civil servants at AWE have spent all or most of their careers at the establishment. It is not true to say that we are drastically altering their career paths by separating AWE from MoD. We shall, however, be holding a preference exercise during which staff will have the opportunity to say whether they prefer to remain at AWE after vesting day or move to another post elsewhere in MoD. If a suitable post is available, we shall do our best to meet such preferences although our first priority must be to maintain the available workforce at AWE.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, expressed anxiety about safety versus profit. We shall draft the AWE contract in such a way that it is not in the contractor's interest to cut corners on safety. His performance will be thoroughly monitored by the compliance office to ensure that it meets our standards. The compliance office has the ultimate sanction of terminating contracts if safety is not acceptable. It can also shut down any facility not operating safely. There will also be financial sanctions to protect safety. Not only will some payments be reserved for achievement of safety targets, but a contractor is unlikely to achieve incentive payments in other areas if he fails to meet the safety requirements.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the safety criteria to be imposed on the contractors be published?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not certain whether it will be published. As has been said continually in this House and in another place, safety will be of the highest standard all the time. I shall try to let the noble Lord know before the end of the debate whether the criteria will be published.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Minister will agree that safety in the production of nuclear weapons is extremely expensive. Huge sums of money are spent on contingencies which are almost certain never to

1311
happen. What will happen if there is a difference of opinion between the contractor and the Government about what is reasonable in that respect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in such a situation the Government must have the last word. If the situation arises the last word will be had by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Safety standards are of paramount importance.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my point is that the contractor is in a position to claim that his contract does not permit the Government to overrule him and he can take the Government to court.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, at the end of the debate. The noble Lord also asked about the courts. We cannot guarantee that there will never be a court case involving the AWE contractor and the MoD. We can guarantee that we shall be able to veto his operations and if necessary sack him. Any court consequence will follow later. Similarly, we shall have financial sanctions in respect of the amount and timing of contract payments. Perhaps the contractor would wish to argue in court and perhaps he could: it would depend upon the circumstances. However, that would take time and in the meantime our financial sanctions would bite. Let no one imagine that the AWE contractor would be able to ignore our safety or other requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, gave the House a most useful resume of the AWE and the changes that have taken place during the years. I can assure him that the change of status of AWE employees from Civil Service to contractor operation is no threat to the scientific and research aspects of AWE nor to the important role of the chief scientific adviser in nuclear policy matters. Furthermore, CSA remains the UK focus under the 1958 Anglo-American agreement. At the same time AWE is a Ministry of Defence procurement executive establishment. The chief of defence procurement is and remains the accounting office for defence procurement expenditure including MoD's expenditure on nuclear research production and development at AWE. There is obviously a military interest, the military being the people who will receive and deploy AWE's products. All those aspects will be taken into account in the arrangements for the contractorisation of AWE.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, expressed anxiety about the size of the compliance office. It is as yet too early to attempt to predict the eventual size of the compliance office. The optimum size and structure is one of the issues that will be considered with great care during the run-up to vesting day which will probably be in late 1992. However, I can give a categorical assurance that the office will receive the staff and resources necessary to fulfil its role effectively.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, the noble Earl has not fully answered my question. To whom does the compliance chief report? Where does total responsibility rest in advising the Secretary of State about all
1312
matters relating to nuclear policy? The Minister's remarks have confirmed my belief that at present the military procurement office and the scientific side are operating independently in this field.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a detailed question that I shall answer before the end of the debate if the noble Lord will be patient. My noble friend Lord Ironside asked whether the compliance office will be contractorised. The compliance director will be a senior and experienced civil servant. His staff will be Ministry of Defence civil servants. The compliance office as a body will not be contractorised but it could obtain contractor support or contractor assistance if necessary drawing on industry. Obviously that would be separate from the contractorisation of AWE.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, spoke of the protection of research. I assure him that the Government fully share his desire that AWE's excellence as a research establishment must be protected. We shall draft the contract for the operation of AWE in such a way as to achieve that aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was right to be concerned about security. The Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of security at AWE. The MDP will continue at AWE after contractorisation as at present. I confirm that the Ministry of Defence will continue to be responsible for security at AWE. It will be responsible for security standards and for the vetting of AWE staff who must meet the same stringent security requirements that currently apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about radioactive waste disposal and in particular about post-contractorisation. There is no reason why contractorisation should change the arrangements and it is our intention that they should be continued. The noble Lord also spoke of his anxieties about redundancy, saying that this has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Recruitment and retention are long-standing problems at AWE and therefore no redundancies are expected. The facts are that while AWE has a continuing and high workload, the establishment has for some time been short of staff and turnover is high. The Government's commitment to the defence nuclear programme is well known. That commitment is the best guarantee of the future of AWE and its staff. However, it is likely that we shall be able to reduce the number of vacancies requiring to be filled at AWE. Instead of needing several hundred more staff we may be able to manage with roughly the same numbers as there are now and have been for some years. If we can do that without affecting AWE's work programme or safety standards, then we shall do so
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl understand that the anxiety of some of us as regards security is that there will be a different relationship? At present, because it is a government-owned establishment, it is responsible to MoD. However, when there is privatisation or contractorisation of management, that private firm may have other

1313
irons in the fire. It may manage other firms and interests. Somewhere along the line, the management and what goes on at the Atomic Weapons Establishment may come into contact with the non-security activities of such a firm. Will there be additional safeguards to ensure that there is no security leakage?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I give a total assurance to the noble Lord that after vesting day the safeguards which exist will be of paramount and total importance. I shall write further to the noble Lord about the details so that he fully understands the position. I accept that it is an important point.
The. noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked several questions about foreign ownership. I wish to make two points. The key point is that the company must be able to meet our security requirements. Secondly, we shall not rule out any company on grounds of nationality in itself. However, given AWE's close co-operation with the US, it is more likely that US companies will meet our rigorous security requirements than companies from other countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, asked about the compliance director. He will be responsible to the Secretary of State for Defence. He is already in post under the interim management arrangements at AWE. His immediate superior is the deputy controller nuclear, a very senior official in the MoD procurement executive. At present we have no plans to change that, but I emphasise that the compliance director can also draw on expertise from elsewhere.
The Government are convinced that contractor operation offers not only the best solution for AWE's current difficulties but also the soundest basis for its long term future. The Bill provides the legal framework within which the introduction of contractor operation may take place. It provides safeguards for the United Kingdom's defence interests by helping to protect national security considerations and also for AWE staff by ensuring that they will keep their existing jobs without detriment to their conditions of service when the contractor is introduced. The vigorous safeguards which will be imposed through the provisions of the contract and the close and continuous scrutiny of the establishments by MoD through 1 the compliance office will ensure that the considerable benefits of contractor operation are achieved without detriment to safety or AWE's world class reputation as a research establishment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I asked about the safety criteria and whether they will be published. I understand that he may not be able to reply to that question today. If he is unable to do so, will he write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I willingly undertake to do that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may throw one last question to him about the non-proliferation treaty which I should like him to answer now, if possible. Let us suppose that the Government appoint a foreign firm to manage
1314
Aldermaston and that that firm is based in a non-nuclear weapons country; perhaps Japan or Germany. How will the Government defend themselves against the charge of infringing the non-proliferation treaty which states that no nuclear weapon state may do anything to impart knowledge about nuclear weapons to, or assist in the obtaining of nuclear weapons by, any non-nuclear weapon state?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord would prefer an answer to that question in writing. It is a detailed and rather technical question. I shall respond to it in writing and I shall place a copy in your Lordships' Library. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Companies (Fees) Regulations 1991
1.36 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the regulations laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations set out amendments to certain of the fees for the statutory activities of Companies House executive agency. The main changes are to the annual return fee, which is increased from £25 to £32, and to the search fee, which rises from £2.75 to £3. In addition, the fee for registering a change of name is increased from £40 to £50. I am pleased to say that there is no change to the incorporation fee, which remains at £50, the level set in 1973.
As an executive agency, Companies House is committed to providing its many customers with a high quality service which represents good value for money. However, the agency has a duty to recover all the costs involved in running the system of regulating companies and developing company law. It is necessary to make these changes in order to achieve a broad balance between income and the relevant costs.
This is only the second increase in the annual return fee since 1975, when the fee was set at £20, which is equivalent to around £80 today. The increase is necessary mainly to meet the higher cost of investigations under the Companies Act, which have become increasingly complex and expensive in recent years. The higher search fee is necessary to ensure that the Companies House search service fully covers its costs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Williams from the Chamber, he has asked me to say on his behalf that on this side of the House we recognise the necessity of the regulations and the reasonableness of the increase. We shall not oppose their passage through this House.
I note that the increase is from £25 to £32 which is an increase of 28 per cent. Is there a raison d'être for

1315
that? Is it related to the increase in the cost of living? It is three years since the fees were raised. Are we to take it that that figure is reached by multiplying three by seven? How long does the Minister expect the increases to be in place? The registration of a company name has increased from £40 to £50, which is an increase of 25 per cent. The fee for the inspection of records has increased from £2.75 to £3, which is an increase of 25 pence or one-eleventh, which is less than 10 per cent. I know that it is difficult to uplift charges by the same amount but perhaps the Minister will tell me and those outside the House who may be interested what is the rationale for the increases.
I am surprised to see that the cost of a photocopy of a document is the subject of secondary legislation. One sees reference to paper copies of records, which means photocopies. The cost is itemised as 10p, 20p, 50p and so on. Is it necessary for the photocopying costs of documents of this kind—we all appreciate their importance—to appear? That surprises me.
These are not nit-picking points; they are points of interest which I picked up while sitting for a few moments after my noble friend Lord Williams asked me to take up the matter. That is the best that I can do on a Friday afternoon.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has been extremely astute in instantly picking up that the increases vary for the various fees.
1316
It is nothing to do with percentage increases. It reflects the amount of work involved and the costs that have arisen in certain areas. For example, the increase in the annual return fee is due to the increased wider costs of regulating companies, particularly the higher costs of inspections under the Companies Act. In recent years there has been a trend towards increasingly complex and expensive cases. It therefore reflects the costs involved of the separate matters.
I make the same point in regard to photocopying. I do not know how many documents are copied but all the amounts of money add up. We are attempting in some way to balance the books so that everything Companies House is required to do returns an adequate fee that relates to the costs involved.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I cannot think of a better source from which the costs of this service—a service provided by the Government—should come than from companies and those involved in company legislation. I am grateful to the Minister. I entirely accept that we are attempting to recover the costs of the service and not match them to anything. Perhaps in two or three years' time when costs have increased we may be faced with a similar order. I am well satisfied.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before two o'clock.

  EC LEGISLATION: COMPLIANCE
  EC LEGISLATION: COMPLIANCE
  SOUTH AFRICA: SPORTING LINKS
  SOUTH AFRICA: SPORTING LINKS
  CAYMAN ISLANDS CONSTITUTION: REPORT
  CAYMAN ISLANDS CONSTITUTION: REPORT
  ERITREA
  ERITREA