Sitting of 7 March 1991

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

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991

  Standard Life Assurance Company Act 1991

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 14 March.

    MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second Time on Tuesday 12 March.
    Mr. Speaker: As Bills 2 to 12 have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
      HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)
        LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC) BILL (By Order)
          BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
            BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
              EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
                LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
                LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)
                REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
                BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Television Licences
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to review the regulations relating to concessionary television licences for pensioners in sheltered housing.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the need for legislation to provide free television licences for all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 28 February our intention to clarify and consolidate the wireless telegraphy regulations. The new ones will be laid very shortly. They will remove the "communal facility" condition for the concessionary television licence, which in practice has proved unnecessary to the operation of the more tightly defined scheme that we introduced in 1988. Since 1 January we have received 30 letters about free or reduced-price television licences for pensioners. We have no plans to review further or to extend the present concessionary scheme.
    Mr. McAllion: Concessionary licences are granted to some but not all pensioners who live in warden-controlled houses, they are granted to some whose incomes are well above income support levels, but denied to others whose incomes are on or below income support levels, and they are denied to those who need them most—single pensioners living alone without family or friends to visit them. Has not the time come to end such cruel contradictions? Will the Minister stop such random discrimination against pensioners and undertake to grant concessionary licences to all pensioners who need them?
    Mr. Lloyd: Our scheme is fair because it applies to all those in local authority or housing association homes that are clearly within an exclusive boundary and where there is a warden at work for 30 hours a week. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should extend that to all pensioners. If we did, many pensioners would be enjoying a benefit which is not enjoyed by others who are very much worse off. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) recognised that when he made it clear last week that the concessionary scheme should not apply to all pensioners. He was talking about a scheme that extends to those who are least well-off. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I hear chuntering, should address their questions to their own Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Mr. Skinner: I do not have any problem with that. I addressed questions to Members on my Front Bench when the Labour party was in power and I shall do it again when we return to power after the general election.
    There is nothing fair about the system when some pensioners do not get free television licences because there is a means test, some because they are not disabled in a

    441
    certain way and some because they do not live on the right side of the street. Now the Government have introduced another anomaly whereby pensioners have to have qualified before May 1988. Why cannot they be treated in the same way as those at Buckingham palace?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has shown why the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has such difficulty drawing up a scheme that he can agree with his Front Bench, let alone the rest of the Labour party. The scheme that we have is carefully constructed to enable people in the original scheme—those in local authority homes with some warden control—to have the concession, and there it remains.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To illustrate my question to my hon. Friend may I draw his attention to one of my constituents, Mr. Rushton? Perhaps he can visualise Mr. Rushton, who lives in a high-rise block of flats in the middle of Heathtown in Wolverhampton in which many other elderly people live. He has a concierge on duty to look after his needs. Next door——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we have a question about it, please?
    Mrs. Hicks: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Next door are two high-rise blocks of flats, Tremont house and Lincoln house, which have wardens. People in the two blocks of flats next door to Mr. Rushton have £5 television licences, but the elderly people in the adjacent building, Longfield house, have to pay the full price because they have no warden. Does not he think that there is a ridiculous anomaly in that system and will he investigate it?
    Mr. Lloyd: Whichever way one draws up a scheme, there will be someone on the wrong side of the rules. The rules enable local authorities so to organise their provision for the elderly that they can come into the scheme. That is why, since the scheme was introduced in 1988, more people enjoy the concessionary licence than before. It is quite possible for local authorities to organise themselves within the scheme.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of licence fees is directly related to the cost of the provision of broadcasting services by the BBC? Is he fully satisfied that we are getting the correct value for money from that organisation, or does he agree with some industrialists that the costs should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and some of the waste sorted out?
    Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary allowed the BBC to increase its licence fee by less than the retail prices index for the coming year, because he took on board suggestions that there was scope for the BBC to increase its efficiency. No doubt by addressing itself to that, the BBC will be able to make further savings in due course.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that in the coming changes in the regulations, which have been announced, he will deal with the case of my constituent who is in a block of properties that were otherwise council-tenanted? Under the right to buy, a flat was bought and then sold to someone under pensionable age, so all the people in the block lost that concession. Will the changes at least end that anomaly? Does the Minister understand that Labour will exempt low-income groups,
    442
    including pensioners, from the licence fee and raise the cash to do so by ensuring that the fee is paid for each set in a hotel or other commercial premises?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is the suggestion at the moment. I wonder whether it will be the same when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have done their figures, because he proposes to increase the take from the retail and hotel trade from £5 million to £100 million. I hope that the trade knows that this extra impost is being placed on it. Labour will do that only by a massive increase in the fee, but I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman has not yet fully thought out the policy.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would make the matter clear. Our rules are clear beyond peradventure. If a local authority sells a flat in a block that qualifies under the rules, it is being extremely foolish, because there is no obligation on an authority to sell in those conditions.
    Sir Anthony. Grant: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration pensioners—there are some in my constituency—who pay taxes but who absolutely loathe television and do not understand why they should be expected to subsidise it for others?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the regulations clearly say, those capable of receiving a British broadcasted programme must pay the licence fee, which goes to the BBC. That matter will come under review as we move towards the renewal of the BBC charter in 1996.

    Fire Cover, West Yorkshire
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will carry out an urgent review of fire cover in West Yorkshire, and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is for the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority to assess the fire risks in its area in the light of guidance issued by the Home Office. The authority must then determine what resources are necessary to meet those risks. The Government are concerned to ensure that all fire authorities conform to the minimum nationally recom-mended standards of fire cover and that they do so as efficiently and economically as possible. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services will pay particular attention to those points during its next inspection of West Yorkshire fire service, which is to take place very soon—during April this year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware of the damage that the poll tax is doing to authorities such as the West Yorkshire fire service? Does he realise that this year alone the authority—although it has wisely decided to save Sowerby Bridge fire station—faces cuts of £1·5 million, which will lead to the freezing of 100 posts and the axing of seven special firefighting appliances? Is not that disgraceful and does not it show that the Government are exercising double standards? When will they get rid of the poll tax, which is so damaging to both people and services?
    Mr. Patten: The authority has been allowed a 19 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment for next year. That shows the Government's considerable commitment to the provision of good fire cover in the interests of people in West Yorkshire and elsewhere.
    Mrs. Peacock: Why is the West Yorkshire fire authority being pressured by the Home Office to cut some of its services?
    Mr. Patten: Her Majesty's inspector of fire services will go to West Yorkshire in April to carry out a full inspection of efficiency, effectiveness and the cover and needs of the fire service. He will report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister also consider the problem of firefighting mains in West Yorkshire and other areas? Will he consider the possibility of an agreement between the fire service and the water authorities, so that the cost of an extra main does not fall on the poll tax payer?
    Mr. Patten: That point has not been made to me before, but I shall certainly pursue it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will request the Audit Commission to undertake a comparative study of the efficiency and effectiveness of magistrates courts.
    Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to an audit gap in the present arrangements for the management of the magistrates court service. We are considering how best to fill that gap, including the possible involvement of the Audit Commission, as part of the process of reaching decisions on the magistrates court scrutiny. At this stage, however, given the scrutiny findings, I do not think that a further value-for-money study would be helpful until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear his views on the scrutiny in an announcement which I expect not to be too long delayed.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a survey carried out recently by the Audit Commission showed that productivity in our courtrooms can vary by a factor of 10—from 250 summonses dealt with in one session to over 3,000? Will he take into account the importance of a survey of not only productivity but the efficiency and effectiveness with which our courtrooms conduct their business?
    Mr. Patten: It is perfectly true that the unit costs in magistrates courts vary widely from one place to another and that unit costs have risen considerably in recent years. The outcome of the scrutiny may lead to further value-for-money studies, possibly conducted by the Audit Commission, but at present there is no legislative provision, as my hon. Friend will know from the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that it is more than a year since the publication of the scrutiny report? Does he realise that the Government's slowness in deciding what to do about it is delaying the implementation of a number of proposals that could tackle, for example, the serious problem of inconsistency in sentencing and poor cost-effectiveness? Will he be more specific and tell us exactly when we can expect a decision about the report?
    Mr. Patten: With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems a little muddled. The scrutiny related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of the magistrates court system, which is a £280 million-a-year undertaking. It had nothing to do with sentencing issues. We are committed to preserving both local justice and magisterial independence in sentencing. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to make an announcement in the near future.
    Sir John Wheeler: When he is considering the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts service, will my right hon. Friend look again at the Home Affairs Select Committee report on the Crown prosecution service, in particular the recommendation that draws attention to the efficiency proved by the Hampshire experiment, in which the use of information technology enables the police, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates courts service to be more effectively used?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend, who is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, is aware that I keep all his distinguished reports next to my bed for reference in the evening. I shall certainly dig out the one on the Crown prosecution service and look at the point to which he referred. The Hampshire experiment is excellent. It is within our grasp to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts service.

    Anabolic Steriods
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to introduce legislation to make anabolic steroids controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): No, Sir. The Misuse of Drugs Act deals mainly with drugs of addiction. We have decided instead on a range of measures designed to prevent misuse, particularly among young people.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand that that is a most disappointing reply, in the light of the fact that as long ago as November 1988 the Home Office announced that it intended to make anabolic steroids prescribed drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act? Does he appreciate that these drugs are freely available throughout the United Kingdom, in gymnasia and fitness centres, that they are acknowledged to cause damage to health and that in at least one case they have caused death? In those circumstances, is not there ample justification for making it a criminal offence to possess the drugs, or to possess them with the intention of supplying them to others?
    Mr. Baker: I appreciate the great interest that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes in the subject. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has advised that the possession of anabolic steroids should not be an offence, since they are not addictive. That view is shared by our European Community partners. I am, however, concerned about the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that these drugs have dangerous side-effects, particularly for young people in training. We have decided, therefore, that the giving of anabolic steroids to minors—there is no trade in most of these drugs—shall be an offence. We are also undertaking additional research into the extent of steroid misuse and we intend to improve our testing and detecting

    445
    methods. In addition, we are increasing our educational efforts, the intention being to demonstrate to people that those drugs can be very harmful.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the national competition of the amateur powerlifting association will be held in Derby in June and that amateur powerlifters feel very strongly that further controls are needed for anabolic steroids? Will he guarantee to keep the issue under review and to take into account the views of such valuable bodies?
    Mr. Baker: Yes, indeed. It is irresponsible of those who are training youngsters to participate in such sports to provide them with these drugs. There is no doubt that they have harmful side-effects. We are taking strong action. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that as much publicity as possible should be given to their harmful effects.

    Juvenile Courts
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he intends to make in the way juvenile or youth courts are organised, particularly in relation to waiting room arrangements and supervision once the age limits are raised to 18 years.
    Mr. John Patten: Responsibility for listing arrangements in magistrates courts rests with justices' clerks. There are already statutory provisions to ensure that defendants attending juvenile courts are kept apart from adult defendants. The Justices' Clerks Society and the Magistrates Association are being consulted about ways of arranging youth court hearings and we have asked the best practice committee to consider practical best practice procedures for courts to adopt in future, if these are found to be necessary.
    Mr. Michael: But it is the Government who are changing the age limit upwards by a year in relation to the juvenile or youth courts. Does not the Minister accept that the message given to young people, particularly young offenders, in the waiting room and in the area around a court, is in some cases almost as important as the message given to them in the court about their activities and future behaviour? Does he agree that the message that they frequently get is entirely wrong and completely contrary to the one that society would like them to receive? Does he further agree that a mechanism should be devised—whether it be advice or instructions—to ensure that 18-year-olds and very young people appearing before such courts are separated, so that very young people do not get the messages that might be given to them by more sophisticated offenders?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with both points. The messages that juveniles get from rubbing shoulders with tougher and older accused people who are waiting outside a court can be very bad. That is why, as I pointed out in my initial answer to the hon. Gentleman, we wish to move as quickly as possible towards ensuring that we use the procedures drawn up by the best practice committee, under the Home Office magistrates courts adviser, to ensure that court clerks and others separate younger from older juveniles. We shall also be building into the guidance on the design of court houses exactly the points that cause concern to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's decision to create youth courts under the Criminal Justice Bill has been widely welcomed throughout the criminal justice system? On the likely bad impression on young offenders, does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible impression is made on them when they are held on remand in prison? Does he further agree that the arrangements that the Government have introduced to ensure that we have a better system of looking after young people—whether in bail hostels or in remand prisons, which the private sector might build—will be conducive to ensuring a much reduced rate of recidivism among young offenders?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. The provisions for the introduction of a youth court under the Criminal Justice Bill have been widely welcomed across the spectrum—from those who describe themselves as penal reformers to those who want young people to get the punishment that they think they deserve. I also agree that it is important to end as soon as possible the practice of remanding juveniles in custody in prisons. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published his consultation paper on the issue two or three weeks ago. That, too, has been widely welcomed.
    On the last part of the question, my hon. Friend has already carved out for himself a considerable reputation as a proponent of the involvement of the private sector in prison and remand issues and we listen carefully to what he has to say.

    Iraqi Nationals
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Amnesty International report on British treatment of Iraqi nationals.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have placed in the Library a copy of a reply sent to Amnesty International on 18 February. I am satisfied that the action taken against Iraqi nationals is in accordance with domestic law and our international obligations. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited all Iraqis detained and has stated that they are being treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the recent heavyweight criticism that current United Kingdom law, which allows people to be detained on grounds of national security without being given a reason for their detention, is in breach of international law, do the Government have plans in any way to synchronise United Kingdom arrangements and bring them into line with the proposed international arrangements?
    Mr. Baker: I appreciate the interest that the hon. Gentleman has shown in the matter in recent weeks. I do not accept that the action that we have taken is in breach of international standards. In certain other countries, Iraqis were bundled out very quickly indeed. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the procedures that operate in such cases. The advisory panel is headed by a lord justice of appeal and it has so far dealt with 54 cases. In his judgment on the Cheblak case, the Master of the Rolls examined the basis of the three advisers' procedures and

    447
    took the view that the arrangements struck a proper balance between the protection of individual rights and the requirements of national security.
    Mr. Alexander: Have not we behaved impeccably to the Iraqis during the Gulf conflict? My right hon. Friend mentioned, for example, the due judicial process which must be gone through before any of them is ejected. Does my right hon. Friend recollect the threats, emanating from Baghdad of increased terrorist activity? Were not we wise to be safe rather than sorry?
    Mr. Baker: I fully support what my hon. Friend says. At the outbreak of hostilities, Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis and other sympathisers across the world to take action to support him. We were absolutely right to follow the principle that it is better to be safe than sorry. Although hostilities in the Gulf have now ceased, it would be imprudent to believe that international terrorism, whether from the middle east or from other countries, will cease. We must therefore continue to be vigilant.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that I, for one, totally accept that while we were in military conflict with a notorious terrorist dictatorship it was necessary on national security grounds to take various actions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am not going to apologise for that —least of all to those who did not support the military conflict in any way.
    Is the Home Secretary aware, however, that I should like to see progess in one form of activity? Is not there a strong case for those who appear before the three advisers to have legal representation or some other form of representation so that our democratic process is not harmed?
    Mr. Baker: I have known the hon. Gentleman in the House for many years, dating back to when he represented another seat. I have always thought of him as an hon. Member who is not afraid to stand up and speak his mind on any subject, as he has done with great fearlessness in the past few weeks. I appreciate the concern that he and others have expressed about this matter. In practice, lawyers have made representations—sometimes directly to the three advisers, who have seen those lawyers if that was what was wanted. Representations have also been made to me by the lawyers. There is, therefore, some flexibility. I believe that those cases have been handled fairly—in fact, with impeccable fairness.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of people in this country will be gratified and relieved at the action that the Government have taken, which has ensured that no terrorist incident has taken place? Is he further aware that they will equally contrast what has happened to Iraqi nationals in this country with what happened to the Kuwaitis when Iraq moved into that country?
    Mr. Baker: The despicable behaviour of some Iraqis during their occupation of Kuwait is not a standard to be followed by any country. We have behaved according to the highest standards. I appreciate that the powers are unusual and as Home Secretary I have therefore been especially careful to ensure that everything has been done to give those people a fair hearing.

    South Yorkshire Police
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to review manning policy for the South Yorkshire police.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I announced on 20 December 1990 that I had approved 18 additional police posts for South Yorkshire with effect from 1 October 1991, subject to confirmation from the police authority that it is prepared to meet its share of the costs of those posts. Any application that the authority makes for our approval to further establishment increases will be most carefully considered.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Home Secretary confirm that those 18 posts did not meet the application of the South Yorkshire police? Given the findings of the Sheffield Star, which I conveyed to him through the post in recent days, about the erosion of the fabric of the South Yorkshire police force, does he agree that those 18 posts do not meet the needs of that police force either? Will he confirm that, during the November inspection, South Yorkshire came out as the least resourced but the most productive of the family of six forces? My hon. Friends and I know what the problem is—it is not the Home Secretary, but the Department of the Environment. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek a firm assurance from the Department of the Environment that it will not allow the capping criteria to prevent the South Yorkshire police from manning up to his standards?
    Mr. Baker: The South Yorkshire police asked for a further 50 police officers and we allocated a further 18. However, as I said in my main answer, it may be possible to increase that number later in the year. I am concerned that police services are maintained at a proper level. The level of budget of each authority is not my responsibility. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have set out the criteria according to which the police authorities should set their budgets. In a letter to Councillor Bundred on 18 February, I stated:
    "It is now for each authority to set its budget. In doing so, it should take into account all relevant considerations, including its statutory duties, the approved level of police manpower, the Government's intended capping criteria, the need, as appropriate, for expenditure restraint and the scope for greater efficiency."
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if South Yorkshire encounters difficulties over its police manpower, he will be willing to consider whatever representations South Yorkshire police authority may make on that important point?
    Mr. Baker: I will, of course, undertake to do that. As I have said to the House before, I have provided for an increase in police resources for the country as a whole in the coming year of 700 uniformed police officers and 1,100 civilians. However, I am well aware that hon. Members are interested in their own police forces and I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he has asked.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that the South Yorkshire police authority told me on Friday that, far from expanding to meet its new establishment, it will be cutting the number of officers because of poll tax capping? How many other police authorities are similarly afflicted? Will the Home Secretary confirm the estimate given by the

    449
    chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that poll tax capping is likely to mean 1,700 fewer police officers than last year?
    Mr. Baker: That is highly unlikely. It depends on whether the authority is a multi-purpose authority or a single service authority such as South Yorkshire. Within that context, I expect metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets to maintain operational police manpower at the level that I and my predecessors have approved. I do not expect that to be done by moving police officers into posts held by civilians. I expect police officers to pursue vigorously a policy of streamlining administration, cutting out waste and maximising value for money.

    Radio Stations
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed the future of incremental radio stations with the chairman of the Radio Authority.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Radio Authority from time to time to discuss a range of matters, but he has not specifically discussed with him the future of incremental radio stations.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he and the Secretary of State note the success and popularity of Sunrise Radio, an Asian radio station operating in west London and my constituency? Despite its popularity, it is rather hemmed in by an inadequate frequency on the medium wave, which means that people living within the reception area find it difficult to receive that station. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Radio Authority to see whether successful incremental radio stations which broadcast to a loyal audience, as Sunrise does, can move on to a better frequency so that people who want to enjoy it can do so?
    Mr. Lloyd: Sunrise Radio is to be congratulated on offering a varied programme which is proving particularly successful in attracting Asian listeners. It suffers from some interference, especially at night. Increasing broad-cast power might help, but it would be expensive. Sunrise should contact the Radio Authority—I understand that it has not yet done so—but I will draw my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of the Radio Authority.
    Mr. Darling: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Radio Authority, will he discuss the growing problem of local and smaller radio stations being increasingly acquired by larger conglomerates? The first casualty is often local output, especially local news, with increasing dependency on Independent Radio News which, however good it may be, is not a local news output. Does the Minister agree that local radio stations such as Sunrise should be encouraged? If concentration continues, it will create little more than another national radio station.
    Mr. Lloyd: Local stations should certainly be encouraged. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the licence is given to a broadcasting company to produce a particular
    450
    sort of broadcasting. If ownership changes, the licence does not change and the station is expected to continue the same output.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with chief constables about the law and domestic violence.
    Mr. John Patten: Chief officers were consulted over the drafting of a Home Office circular on domestic violence which was issued last July. It has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Ashley: I welcome the setting up of domestic violence units, but when will they be open at night, when many women need them? When will there be enough of them to give access to those who require them and when will social workers be attached to them?
    Mr. Patten: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in the subject. Domestic violence units exist in police force areas such as the Metropolitan area and West Yorkshire. There is none yet in the Greater Manchester area or in the right hon. Gentleman's area, although I am happy to report that the force general order states that all allegations of domestic violence should be treated as crimes—and quite right, too. There is also close co-ordination with other agencies, such as social workers and the probation service.
    By July, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will have visited exactly half the forces in this area, asking for a specific answer to the question, "What has been done so far on domestic violence?" I shall report back to the House at that stage, in July this year.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take five minutes to discuss with the chief constables the problem of young and juvenile crime in relation to the school leaving age? The highest crime level is currently among those in the year below the school leaving age and has been for 80 years. Would not a more flexible approach to the school leaving age allow those who wish to study to do so, those who wish to train to do that, while those who wish to play truant would not have the opportunity to do so? Our current rigid school leaving age is out of line with that of our colleagues in the European Community and should be looked at by the Government.
    Mr. Patten: The school leaving age is not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that we need to do more about truancy, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to make an announcement in the near future.

    Remand Prisoners
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to bring forward any new proposals for the treatment of remand prisoners.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): We intend to provide cardphones at all establishments holding unconvicted prisoners and we are abolishing routine censorship of the correspondence of unconvicted prisoners, except those in category A. In addition, planning is in hand for the provision of fuller

    451
    regimes for unconvicted prisoners as new accommodation comes on stream and overcrowding is reduced over the next two years.
    Ms. Quin: The Minister will be aware that the number of remand prisoners has risen dramatically during the Government's period of office. Is he aware that the Woolf report stated that conditions for remand prisoners. were often worse than those for convicted prisoners? That is disgraceful. Will the Government undertake to implement in full the recommendations of the Woolf inquiry in relation to remand prisoners?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in remand prisoners and I note her interest in the outcome of our deliberations on the Woolf inquiry. I am sure that she will join me in congratulating the Government on tackling the problem of provision for the unconvicted prisoner by providing 13 new prisons and 8,000 more places, and ensuring that bail hostels and bail information schemes are available to unconvicted prisoners.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that accommodation provision for remand prisoners could be allocated to the private sector and that the introduction of privatisation would be welcomed?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will know that the Criminal Justice Bill, which has just completed its passage through the House, contains provision for remand prisons to be contracted out to the private sector. I share my hon. Friend's optimism that they will provide adequate and good accommodation for unconvicted prisoners.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that police stations in South and West Yorkshire will have great difficulty in housing some of the young remand prisoners, which they have not done hitherto, because of the budgets set for South and West Yorkshire police? The budgets were set in accordance with the standard spending assessment, which means that hundreds of police officers will have to come off the beat to man police stations. Will the Home Secretary assure us that, at this late stage and bearing it in mind that the police budgets in South and West Yorkshire have been set outside the criteria given this afternoon, he will give further consideration to the prospect of meeting the authorities and will assist them in maintaining the force that he requires them to have?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that the problems of young offenders who are unconvicted prisoners in police cells will be alleviated in the West Yorkshire district by the opening of Moorland prison, which will provide accommodation for young remand prisoners. It will take out of police cells a number of the young offenders who are currently in them, and thus save money.

    Ashford Remand Centre
    Mr Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Ashford (Middlesex) remand centre site.
    Mrs. Rumbold: We are at present carrying out a review of the prison estate as a whole. The future of the Ashford site will be considered in the context of that review. In the
    452
    meantime, we plan to make the site suitable for recreation by local people and are discussing with Spelthorne borough council the detailed arrangements for this.
    Mr. Wilshire: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does she recall that at a meeting before Christmas she told Spelthorne borough council that the site could be made available for between five and 10 years? Is she aware of my recent letter pointing out that her local officials now say that it can be made available for one year? Will she please clear up the confusion once and for all?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that a letter is in the post to him, following my discussions with officials on that matter. I think that he will find the answer satisfactory.

    London Traffic
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about traffic in London: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have had no recent discussions with the Commissioner on that subject. Regular contact is, however, maintained by officials with the Metropolitan police on a number of traffic issues.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party is still the party of law and order? That being so, is he aware that in the Commissioner's view, the effect of coach deregulation on his police force has been "horrendous", with the proliferation of illegal parking and coaches leaving their engines running for hours on end? Will my right hon. Friend please have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether it is not too late to amend the Road Traffic Bill to deal with such serious considerations?
    Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that no resources are spared in dealing with the problems of keeping traffic moving in London: 2,500 police officers and traffic wardens are on traffic duty; in 1989, there were 2·5 million traffic and parking offences; in 1990, there were 160,493 wheel clamps, and special wheel clamps have been arranged for coaches. I assure my hon. Friend that we are busy in that area.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Colvin: The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being the first allied leader to visit the Gulf since the successful cessation of hostilities. When he spoke to our forces there, he spoke for the whole nation. Can he now tell the House when we can expect our forces home so that we may give them the heroes' welcome that they deserve? Does he agree that it

    453
    might not be a bad idea to send out to the Gulf 10 builders to assist with the reconstruction of Kuwait for every service man and service woman whom we welcome home?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friends that we are making plans for an appropriate welcome home when the majority of our troops are back. We hope to announce details of that quite soon. I am sure that the House will be pleased to have the excellent news that our forces will start to return home this weekend. The first to come back will be medical reservists, including 205 general hospital, which is returning to Glasgow. The first Tornados, their crews and support staff will also be starting for home in a few days' time. Some ships are already on their way home. The House will be especially pleased to know that 7th Armoured Brigade, which has been in the desert under the command of Brigadier Cordingley since last October, will begin to leave early next week and we hope that its withdrawal can be completed in two weeks or so. That brigade includes one of the Scottish regiments in the Gulf—the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will publish details later this afternoon.
    Mr. Hattersley: I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his visit to the Gulf yesterday, but may I now ask him to turn his mind to domestic politics? Why is Britain the only western European economy in which manufacturing exports are falling, manufacturing output is falling, manufacturing investment is falling and manufacturing employment is falling, all at the same time?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but less so for the rest. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—but, alas, neglected to mention—the United States and Canada are in recession and growth is slowing in France, Italy and a number of other major economies. In our own economy, inflation is falling and interest rates are beginning to fall. The effects of our policies are beginning to be felt benevolently.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister has not even attempted to answer my question. He will not be able to run away from these issues for ever. As he has failed to attempt an answer, I offer him the answer provided to my question by the House of Lords yesterday—that the problem for British manufacturing industry is doctrinaire Government policies and incompetent Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should read the report more carefully. If he does so, he will find a number of recommendations welcoming actions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken in recent months. They have advanced further since their report's publication and include, for example, the doubling of support for technology transfer and extra support for smaller firms. The right hon. Gentleman should be less selective and more accurate.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister must know that the two criticisms that I quoted are exactly the view of the House of Lords. I have no doubt that even the least literate members of the other place will regard the Prime Minister's answer as a bogus sham.
    The Prime Minister: I had not expected to find such a literate right hon. Gentleman guilty of such tautology. The
    454
    policies that we have followed are those which assist success in all sectors of the enterprise economy. The right hon. Gentleman forgets the reductions in inflation, on which his party had no policy, the change to one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the world, when his party would raise taxation, and a labour market surplus which has given this country the lowest number of days lost in strikes for 50 years.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a start cannot even begin to be made to bringing Iraq back into the peace-loving family of nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power in Baghdad?
    The Prime Minister: I can most certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. As I said in the House last week, and am happy to repeat, I believe that Iraq will remain a pariah among nations while Saddam Hussein is there and rules it.
    Mr. Leadbitter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Prime Minister now turn to some specifics of the highly critical report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was published this week? Is he aware that the report makes it clear that there has been no support for industry from the Government's policies? The report concludes that there is a grave risk of having no British owned and based manufacturing industry as a result of present policies. Does the Prime Minister agree with the final conclusion in the report—that the Government's policies show no commitment to industry and no commitment to the national interest?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why manufacturing productivity grew faster in this country in the past decade than in almost any other major industrialised country. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a great deal of the ground lost in previous decades has been made up. We still need to be better at implementing the scientific discoveries made in this country and we are determined to improve on that.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the victory parade will include British Army bands trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall in Twickenham?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard my hon. Friend, even if my right hon. Friend is not at the House.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the Gulf. Now that he has been able to see for himself the ecological consequences of the Gulf war, does he agree that it is necessary to mount an ecological task force almost on the same scale as the military task force that was needed to liberate Kuwait in order to deal

    455
    with those consequences? Will he do what he can to ensure that the United Nations takes an international initiative to deal quickly with the pollution in the Gulf?
    The Prime Minister: The action necessary to cure the pollution in the Gulf will require an international effort. Quite how that will be organised is a matter which is still open. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a cash donation yesterday towards clearance of the pollution.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the Government's economic policy and the fact that some people claim that credit controls represent a painless cure for inflation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on where, under such a system, home buyers might come in the queue for credit, and how, in any case, such a system could be effective without the reimposition of exchange controls?
    The Prime Minister: It is extremely unlikely that credit controls could make any worthwhile contribution to economic management. They are a legacy of the sort of economic management that existed in the 1950s, to which the Opposition seem keen to return.

    Unemployment (Scotland)
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss unemployment in Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister recall that during his last brief visit to Edinburgh he said that he would not forget Lanarkshire? Given the huge job losses that we have seen since then, including 3,000 in the steel industry, is not the Prime Minister appalled at the stage of employment training in Lanarkshire? Do a 32 per cent. reduction in funding, trainer job losses and lost trainee places, including places for those with special needs, represent the Government's commitment? Will the Prime Minister, tomorrow, meet real people with real problems or will his visit to Lanarkshire be simply a public relations charade?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Lanarkshire working group has been set up to co-ordinate action to tackle the problems facing Lanarkshire on the back of the steel job losses that have occurred. The working group met for the first time on 11 January and will report to me around the end of April.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the admittedly serious problems in Lanarkshire and elsewhere in Scotland would become much worse if the House of Commons were daft enough to accept the Labour party's proposal for an elected assembly with tax-raising powers? Does he agree that such an arrangement would simply scare jobs away from Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I am in no doubt about that Were Scotland to have a tax-raising assembly, it would undoubtedly become the highest taxed part of the United
    456
    Kingdom. That, in turn, would drive away the investment which in the last decade has increasingly made Scotland more efficient, effective and wealthy.

    Official Visits
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Nottingham.
    The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Nottingham among them.
    Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman will be very welcome. When he comes, will he make a point of meeting mothers and children who have been robbed of £2·30 per week by the Government's failure to link child benefit to inflation? Arising from the deceitful words in the Conservative manifesto, which said
    "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now",
    will the Prime Minister, first, answer a question— something he has not done so far today—and, secondly, will he tell the House, and mothers at home— [Interruption] May I continue, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making rather a meal of it.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Prime Minister tell mothers at home of his own complicity in the drafting of those very words in the 1987 manifesto—words which cheated mothers and their children?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have an obligation to review child benefit annually, and do so. On each occasion that child benefit has not been fully uprated, those on the lowest incomes have been fully compensated or more through other social security benefits.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under his outstanding leadership we have become a united party determined to defeat inflation and the Labour party when the general election comes? Does he approve of all of us on this side of the House paying our community charge, supporting the prevention of terrorism Act and supporting our troops in the Gulf? If so, is that not in stark contrast with that lot on the other side who are busy scheming to remove their leader and his deputy through supper clubs —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly hope to be in sharp contrast with Opposition Members on many issues. I am delighted to see that normal service has now been resumed.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY II MARCH—Until seven o'clock Estimates Day (1st Allotted Day, 2nd Part). There will be a debate on class VII, vote 3, transport industries, in so far as it relates to London Regional Transport, followed by a motion on the Northern Ireland (Appropriation) Order.
At ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding supplementary estimates and votes.
TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Second Reading of the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords], followed by a procedure motion relating to the War Crimes Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Opposition Day (9th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "The crisis in national health service hospitals". Afterwards there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to take note of the report by the European Court of Auditors for 1989. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 14 MARCH—Motion for the Easter Adjournment followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
FRIDAY 15 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 18 MARCH—Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 13 March to consider European Community Documents Nos. 9228/88 and 10333/90 relating to seat belt wearing.
European Standing Committee B will also meet at 10.30 am on the same day to consider European Commuity Document No. 9025/90 relating to nuclear fusion.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Easter recess on Thursday 28 March until Monday 15 April.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a matter which is not part of the business for next week. I understand. Mr. Speaker, that you have today announced that you do not propose to stand as a parliamentary candidate at the next general election, whenever that may be. This is not the occasion for tributes, and, indeed, since this is not part of next week's business, I run the risk of being called to order, Mr. Speaker, but as Leader of the House I should like to say on behalf of us all that we gladly acknowledge that since you were unanimously chosen Speaker you have presided over the proceedings of the House with distinction, fairness and impartiality in historic times. I would like particularly to draw attention to how well you have looked after the interests of Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
Your decision today, Mr. Speaker, means that you will not serve in the Chair in the next Parliament, and, as I have
458
said, the time for proper tributes will come later. Can I say now that we are all delighted to know that you will continue to preside over our proceedings until then.
[European Standing Committee A
Wednesday 13 March
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 9228/88

(b) 10333/90

}Compulsory use of seat belts in road vehicles
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-vi (1988–89), HC 15-xxxi (1988–89) and HC 29-xiii (1990–91)

(b) HC 29-viii ( 1990–91)

European Standing Committee B
Wednesday 13 March
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 9025/90 Nuclear Fusion Research

(b) 8305/90 Nuclear Fusion Programme

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-i ( 1990–91)

(b) HC 11-xxxiii (1989–90)

Floor of the House
Wednesday 13 March
Relevant European Community Document
Unnumbered Court of Auditors' Report for 1989
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xiii (1990–91)]
Dr. Cunningham: I begin by echoing the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government and associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with them. You have today, Mr. Speaker, announced the beginning of the end of a long and honourable career as a Member of the House, serving the people of Croydon for 27 years, and culminating in the distinguished holding of the historic office of Speaker of the House of Commons.
That election to the Chair by your colleagues must have been the highlight of your career, indicating the trust and confidence that Members in all parts of the House placed in you when they unanimously elected you the Speaker. I can well understand that, among other things, your ultimate retirement will allow you to devote more time to your hobbies, among which, I notice, you number your grandchildren.
May I ask the Leader of the House, who has announced an inordinately long Easter recess, why an important measure that completed its Committee stage more than a month ago, the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, has still not come to the Floor of the House for its Report stage and Third Reading? If the Government can find time for such a long recess, surely they can find time to complete the consideration of such an important measure. Why has the Bill suddenly disappeared down some black hole in the Department of Education and Science?
Frankly, if the Government can find time for such a long recess and are not interested in bringing business before the House, they should simply announce the dissolution, have a general election and let us bring more important business before the House for consideration.
The Leader of the House announced the Government's intention to employ provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1948 in respect of the War Crimes Bill. There is a certain irony in the Conservatives, of all Governments, invoking the provisions of that Act against their

459
colleagues, in the majority, in the other place. But for the moment, since we shall be debating the matter at length next week, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that he is following the normal processes and procedures in introducing the provisions of the Parliament Acts next Tuesday?
If the Government ever reach a conclusion about their review of the poll tax—we hope that they will, since each day we learn of further horrendous costs to local authorities and their poll tax payers—may we be assured that an oral statement about that matter will be made in the House and that an announcement will not be slipped out on Maundy Thursday as the House rises or at some time during the Easter recess?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): Don't you worry.
Dr. Cunningham: From a sedentary position, the Chairman of the Conservative party tells me not to worry. I suggest that right now he has more to worry about than I have—[Interruption.] We shall be first in the real election when it comes.
Has the Leader of the House seen the story on the front page of the Daily Mirror today about yet another increase in prescription charges? Does he recall the promise made to the nation by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in 1979, when she said,
"We have no intention of raising prescription charges"? There have been 13 increases in prescription charges under this Government.
Mr. Richard Holt: What has this got to do with next week's business?
Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House assure us that, if the Daily Mirror story is true, the Secretary of State for Health will face the House and make an oral statement about why, for the 14th time under this Government, the Government have ratted on their promise on prescription charges which hon. Members like the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) supported on every occasion?
Mr. MacGregor: It seems to me that most of the right hon. and hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have already left for the recess. They did not seem to complain very much about the length of the Easter recess.
The House will have completed a great deal of business in the 11 weeks that we will have been sitting by Maundy Thursday. We have dealt with a considerable amount of Government legislation and a great deal has been done in Standing Committees. We have also debated events in the Gulf at some length. I believe that the arrangements that I have announced will be for the general convenience of the House. Arrangements will be made for the private Members' day set down for. Friday 12 April to be rescheduled.
The hon. Member for Copeland must not become over-anxious about' the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. It is essential next week to pass the Northern Ireland (Appropriation) Order and the Consolidated Fund Bill and hence the allotted estimates day. Next week, there will be the Second Readings of two major Bills referred to in the Gracious Speech, as well as an Opposition Supply day. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is a few weeks since we had one of those. If
460
I had not come forward with one, I suspect that he would have criticised me. That is a full programme by any standards, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House will not rise until Thursday 28 March. He must contain his enthusiasm for the rest of the Government's programme for a little longer.
The hon. Member for Copeland is aware that the Gracious Speech contains reference to the War Crimes Bill. I can confirm that the procedure with regard to that Bill is consistent with the usual practice in these matters. Indeed, it is entirely consistent with the last time that it occurred. It may be for the convenience of the House to learn that the procedure motion that we are taking next week before the Bill's Second Reading is a procedural means to keep open the possibility of the use of the Parliament Acts if the Lords were to propose changes that the Commons could not accept; but of course the Government hope that we will end up with a Bill in a form that commands the support of the majority in both Houses.
As for the community charge, we always make statements where and when appropriate. It was hardly for the hon. Member for Copeland to complain about the comparative positions on prescription charges. I remind him that 70 per cent. of the population do not pay prescription charges and 80 per cent. of the items are dispensed free, compared with 60 per cent. in 1978 under the Labour Government at the time about which he was speaking. There is a big difference between us. We shall make an announcement on charges for 1991–92 at the proper time and in the usual way.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As, in his statement about the end of Mr. Speaker's tenure, my right hon. Friend, though saying that he was unanimously elected, omitted to state that he is the first Speaker in living memory to be elected against the wishes of the Government of the day by the House of Commons, can my right hon. Friend find time during this week to make a statement reminding the House that, for the first time in living memory, it has brought back to itself not only the fiction but the fact of electing its Speaker, and to give an undertaking that, while he is Leader of the House, no Government will again attempt to impose a Speaker upon the House?
Mr. MacGregor: It will be at least some time before that matter will have to be considered. I am sure that my hon. Friend will happily agree with all the tributes that I paid to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I am not suggesting that you, Mr. Speaker, do not have the right to make such an important personal decision, but it will be received with much regret not only on this Bench but by all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. The Leader of the House mentioned the next Parliament, which we fear will be very much poorer as a result of your retirement.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every Back Bencher will wish to be associated with the tributes that have been paid to you.
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider what he said about the War Crimes Bill? Is he aware that many people will think it grotesquely inappropriate that, while the butcher of Baghdad remains in power, we are turning our attention to aged men? I am not suggesting that some of

461
them may not have done terrible things, but will my right hon. Friend please at least guarantee a free vote on that Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend expresses his own view on the matter, but I know from the pressures on me that many hon. Members feel differently. The House should have another opportunity to debate the Bill. I confirm that there will be a free vote on it.
Sir David Steel: Mr. Speaker, may I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in expressing gratitude for your services in the Chair? Despite your somewhat shady past in a previous incarnation, you have been assiduous in dealing fairly with the minority parties, for which we are grateful.
Is the purpose of the two-week Easter recess to enable the Government to prepare for a general election? If so, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to give us the date of it as soon as possible—the sooner the better for most of us?
Before the election is held, will the right hon. Gentleman, as a Scotsman, pay attention to the scandal that the Scottish Office remains the only Department of State that is not scrutinised by a Select Committee? As the Government resist all wider constitutional change in Scotland, when will they respond to the comments of the Select Committee on Procedure on the issue?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about you, Mr. Speaker, having a shady past. I remember that period, which you will also well recall, with much affection.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you, Mr. Speaker, have acted in the interests of the whole House throughout the period in which you have served with such distinction as our Speaker. We look forward to you continuing for some time.
There is no connection between my announcement of the Easter recess and the date of the general election. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait patiently to decide where and when, and in what country, he wishes to stand. I have nothing to add to what I have already said many times about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Hostilities in the Gulf have ceased and the allied prisoners of war have begun to return, but is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Conservative Members are concerned to ensure that human rights abuses in Kuwait are properly investigated, and that they are concerned that the Iraqi Government seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that they are holding no fewer than 30,000 Kuwaiti civilians and soldiers, contrary to the Geneva convention and to United Nations resolution 686, which underpins the ceasefire? May we soon have a debate on those important issues?
Mr. MacGregor: As always, we must decide when it is appropriate to make statements or hold debates on the Gulf. I cannot comment on the number of detainees whom my hon. Friend mentioned, but he will know that both the points that concern him concern the whole House and are being pursued by the Government.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has the Leader of the House received a request from the Minister who has responsibility for the Stock Exchange for an opportunity to make a statement on the sale of the shares in Bioplan Ltd., which has built 10 hospitals on NHS land and which apparently is holding talks with a French company and an American health company about taking over those facilities? If it did so, American Medical International would have a monopoly of private health care, including facilities within the NHS. I trust that, by next week, his hon. Friend will come forward with a statement before the deal goes ahead, without any consultation with the NHS.
Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing of such a matter. The short answer to the question is no.
Sir Robert McCrindle: When we discuss transport votes on Monday in relation to London Regional Transport, can my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be within the restrictions of such a debate to refer to such matters as the deregulation of London buses, for example, and the possibility of road pricing in central London to discourage some commuters from bringing in their cars as they do at the moment?
Mr. MacGregor: I would think that it would be possible to discuss any matters that relate to London Regional Transport.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I shall hope to pay my respects to you, Sir, in due course. Those valuable words can wait a while.
Since it appears that it is my private Member's Bill to deal with the illegal sale of cigarettes to children under 16 that cannot be pursued now on 12 April, may I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that it will be dealt with on the first Friday after we come back, since I was No. 1 in the ballot?
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly we shall have to reschedule the business for that day, as I have already said. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously I have no wish to do anything that would upset the arrangements that were already in train.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of my hon. Friends are very concerned about the continued anti-Government bias shown by the BBC, especially through the agency of the "Today" programme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that view was also shared by the leader of the Liberal Democrat party in an article in The Sunday Times last weekend? Will he therefore arrange for us to have an urgent debate on the continuing anti-Government bias and invite the leader of the Liberal Democrat party to take part in that debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on the matter next week.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House will recognise that the House of Lords report on manufacturing industry, already referred to today, is of enormous importance. It is of sufficient importance to justify perhaps the unusual step of suggesting that this House, as well as the other place, debates it. If he will not agree to a debate on the broader issue, will he at least consider the urgent problem which is developing in heavy energy-using industries, not least in Rotherham

463
Engineering Steel, which faces enormous difficulty as a result of impending electricity price rises? Will he accept that our competitor countries will make jolly sure that they do not leave their similar industries at the mercy of market forces? Do we really have to see the remaining significant industry in my area being wiped out, along with coal, glass and everything else?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to get into the policy issues now, because that would be inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Budget statement will be made on 19 March and that there will be the usual Budget debates thereafter, when matters relating to the economy and to manufacturing industries can all be discussed.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend will have seen reports of President Bush's address to the joint session of Congress in which he referred to the importance of a major peace settlement in the middle east, including Israel, and referred to resolutions 242 and 338. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, having won the war, it is as important to win the peace, and that we should have an early debate to discuss the whole peace issue in the middle east while it is at the forefront of our minds?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has frequently talked about these matters. Certainly I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request. We shall have to consider at what appropriate time we should debate them.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on foreign affairs in relation to the middle east so that, among other things, the House can debate the recent report by UNICEF, which shows that tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq face death by cholera and typhoid because of the effects of bombing on the water supply, sewerage, communications and medical services?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Lady is even more concerned about what has happened in Kuwait as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression. Those matters are debated frequently. I have already said that we will have to find an appropriate time to debate affairs in the Gulf.
Mr. Richard Tracey: First, Mr. Speaker, I should say that London Members wish you well.
Is there any chance of a statement in the House next week on the management of the London borough of Lambeth, which seems to have singular difficulty in setting a fair community charge, and where there are thousands of uninhabited council houses and millions of pounds worth of uncollected rent? Even Labour Members of Parliament from that borough seem to be tearing their hair. As the situation there is almost as bad as it was in Liverpool a few years ago, should not something be done about it?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and others will wish to refer frequently in the House to the maladministration of the London borough of Lambeth and its proposed community charge. I myself referred to that during Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday. I understand that we are still waiting to hear what its community charge will be, but hon. Members will undoubtedly frequently refer to the contrast between Lambeth and Wandsworth, as well as to the fact that some members of Lambeth council are still not paying their community charge.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: May we have a statement next week on the poll tax, which apparently still has to be paid by members of the anned forces serving in the Gulf, a problem which I understand arises from a recent High Court ruling? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that members of the armed forces serving in the Gulf are more keen to know the Government's attitude on that than on war medals or victory parades?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. He will have heard the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already made about that in order to reassure service men and others serving in the Gulf. The Department of the Environment is currently working out proposals on how to ensure that all uniformed service personnel do not have to bear the cost of the personal community charge while serving in the Gulf.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is it not the case that the procedural motion on the War Crimes Bill will deprive the House of any chance of amending that Bill, whether in order to ensure a fair trial for defendants or in any way at all? Is that not deplorable, and will the vote be whipped?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already replied to the second part of my hon. Friend's question. As to the first part, we had a full debate on the Bill in the House in the last Session, and it was passed with a large majority. It is right to follow the procedures that have been adopted in the past in relation to the Parliament Acts, which is what we are doing; that is why we are having the procedural motion next week, when my hon. Friend can make his points. It will then be a matter for the other place to decide what to do. If it amends the Bill, it will come back to this House.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Has the Leader of the House yet had a chance to study the debate that we had this week after 10 o'clock on the tie-up order for the fishing fleet? Is he aware that that was a debate on an amending order, that the original order is still within time, and that, if the Government chose, they could have a debate on that order in the near future? Having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of this week's debate, will he consider carefully and with some sympathy an early debate on the original order some time next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that I cannot promise such a debate next week. We have already debated the matter twice recently in the House.
Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of strong evidence that his programme for the week's business tends to interfere with the Opposition's dining arrangements? Is he aware that, during the concluding session of debate on the Criminal Justice Bill last week, the shadow Home Secretary was addressing the "thousand club" of 1,000 lawyers paying £1,000 a time?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should relate to business next week, please.
Mr. King: Will my right hon. Friend arrange the business for next week so that it does not interfere with such arrangements?
Mr. MacGregor: It is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide his own programme. I am sure that he has a capable

465
and hard-working social secretary who will enable him to do that. I am afraid that I cannot adjust the business of the House around any hon. Member's programme.
Mr. Max Madden: Can the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the police? He was here during Home Office questions, when he heard colleagues from south and west Yorkshire mention the ludicrous situation whereby the Home Office recommends police levels, but if police authorities budget accordingly they are in danger of being poll tax-capped by the Department of the Environment. Will he urgently investigate that, because to many of our constituents it appears to be madness to take bobbies off the streets with crime soaring? Will he look into this matter so that we can provide proper protection for all parts of Yorkshire and for all our constituents?
Mr. MacGregor: We have been carrying through a heavy Government legislative programme and trying to ensure that a number of other issues of major importance, such as the Gulf, get full time in the House. I have also been endeavouring to give the Opposition every opportunity in Supply days, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, that is one way in which it can be done.
Mr. Roger Knapman: When the House debates the War Crimes Bill, will it be in order to volunteer an obvious candidate—Saddam Hussein? Is it not a peculiar religious creed which allows Saddam Hussein to say that the allies must not destroy the holy cities of Iraq when, now that there is civil war there, he seems to have no compunction about fighting in them?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has clearly made his point in relation to Saddam Hussein. He will know that there is no relationship between the War Crimes Bill and the recent conflict in the Gulf. Both are entirely separate. The measures that we are taking in the War Crimes Bill relate to the second world war, and are no longer necessary for any other conflict.
Mr. Harry Ewing: To avoid misunderstanding, I shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in paying my warm tribute to you at a later date, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that it will be worth waiting for.
After the announcement that troops will be returning from the Gulf in the early part of next week, and with particular reference to the Territorial units that will be returning, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made on Monday or Tuesday of next week about those members of the Territorial forces who were conscripted on the basis that their jobs would be protected and would be there when they returned home?
Clearly that will not be the case for many Scottish Territorial soldiers who volunteered for service in the Gulf. Before they start coming to Members' surgeries, could the Leader of the House arrange early next week for the House to be informed who will honour the commitment to these men—a commitment made by the Secretary of State for Defence to encourage them to join up?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon that our troops will start to
466
return shortly from the Gulf. Obviously, that will be phased over some time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, as I understand it, is making a statement about that later this afternoon. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Bowis: Those of us who were not in the House before the last election and were therefore not responsible for your election to your place of honour, Mr. Speaker, are grateful to those hon. Members who were responsible for enabling us to benefit from your unfailingly kind, courteous and patient care for new Back Benchers.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to Easter. One aspect of Easter is an area of transport which will not be covered by next week's debate—river transport. Will he bear in mind the anxiety about river safety, especially in Thameside constituencies? Although we cannot discuss the full report on the Marchioness until prosecution has taken place, nevertheless the recommendations of that report, especially regarding visibility of craft and the noise levels on such craft, are known, and it would be helpful if the House could have an early opportunity to discuss them.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has already pointed out the problem about the timing of a debate on the full report. I cannot promise him a debate in the near future, but I shall bear in mind what he has said.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time before the recess for a debate on housing? Is he aware that we are in the midst of the worst housing crisis since the war? People come to hon. Members' surgeries and tell us that their homes are being repossessed because of mortgage problems. They cannot obtain council housing; there are 7,000 people on the waiting list in my authority.
The past 11 years of Tory policies are responsible for all that. Do not the Government owe it to the thousands who have suffered under those dreadful policies to do something about it? Let us at least debate the matter in the House.
Mr. MacGregor: That is an extraordinary distortion of the true position. The progress is very much in the other direction. I am afraid that there will not be time for such a debate in the near future.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the possibility of a debate along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)? Would it not give him an opportunity to remind the House that there has been a 12 per cent. increase in the rent arrears owed to English housing associations, and that, while £361 million is now outstanding, the overwhelming majority of that arose under Labour? Is it not entirely wrong for the tenants who pay to have to carry the burden that that represents? Is it not about time that high-spending Labour authorities realised that no rent from some means no homes for others?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well. Many other points could be made on the subject, and I hope that they will be made continually at Question Time, in Adjournment debates and on other

467
occasions in the House. I cannot, however, envisage that a debate in Government time will be possible in the near future.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has already given us an extended Easter break. Yesterday, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill was passed, along with a Northern Ireland order. In future, may we legislate for Northern Ireland by means of Bills? Our debates would then proceed much faster than the arguments that go on in relation to orders.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot immediately promise any change in the procedure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have conducted a good deal of Northern Ireland business in the past few days.
Sir Bernard Braine: Unfortunately, owing to an appointment with the dentist, I was not present when an extremely important announcement was made about you, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to be given a special time at which to pay tribute to the urbanity and good will with which you have presided over our affairs throughout the current Parliament?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend speaks on behalf of the whole House from his distinguished position. I entirely share his view. I have already said that this afternoon is not the time for proper tributes to be paid, but I personally want an opportunity to say a great deal more than I have today.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be right if I said now that, although I am grateful to the whole House, I think that we should deal with next week's business. We have a busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on proportional representation and the first-past-the-post system, so that we can outline the virtues of the first-past-the-post system and the anti-democratic elements of proportional representation?
The Leader of the House has mentioned the Easter recess. Will he assure the House that he does not propose to introduce legislation after the recess to allow members of the royal family to resign their comfortable offices and take part in the political process, and that until then they should keep their mouths shut?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know what was said, so I shall not comment on the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question; but I am rather surprised to find myself in agreement with his comments about proportional representation.
Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the recent publication of reports by the core curriculum working parties on the teaching of music and history. He will also be aware that great interest and concern has been expressed both in this House and elsewhere about the implications of the reports. Does he have a sufficiently fond regard for his previous incarnation to put pressure on his right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science to arrange for a debate on those most important matters?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly do have a fond regard for my previous position. The matters that I dealt with then
468
and that my hon. Friend raises now relating to the teaching of history and music are extremely important. The House will certainly have an opportunity to discuss them when the appropriate orders come before the House.
Mr. Harry Cohen: When we debate London Regional Transport on Monday, will whatever is on the Order Paper be amendable? Will those hon. Members whose constituents have suffered from bus cuts be able to put on the agenda the fact that services should be restored, or that those who are responsible for the overcrowding and shabbiness of our public transport should be sacked? Alternatively, will we have to wait for the general election to do that to this Government?
Mr. MacGregor: It is simply to be a debate on part of the estimates.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Now that the community charges that are being set for the coming financial year are pouring out in a vast torrent from the town halls, will my right hon. Friend try to find time for the House to discuss the rapidly growing disparity between the low community charges set by Conservative authorities and the high ones set by Labour authorities?
Mr. MacGregor: Those matters will be raised frequently in the House and among the public at large. I am sure that the general public will draw their own conclusions—that the vast majority of prudent authorities with reasonable community charges are Conservative ones, and that the high-spending ones are Labour authorities.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: In view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, that we should confine our questions to debates that are to be held next week, may I ask the Leader of the House to arrange a debate next week on the role of Mr. Speaker in maintaining democracy within the House? In the context of that debate, does the right hon. Gentleman accept from our Bench our view that Mr. Speaker has ensured that the minorities in the House have been heard?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also recollect the statement of Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd when I first arrived here 17 years ago—that we are all minorities? In view of my impending retirement from the House, along with Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that I hope that parliamentary democracy and the recognition of minorities will continue in this Chamber long after we have both retired?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it will be necessary to have a debate. As I said at the beginning, there is general agreement in the House that you, Mr. Speaker, have behaved with great fairness and impartiality, apart from all your other qualities. The point is already well taken.
Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend, and many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, will have constituents who lost their savings as a result of the fraudulent and swindling way in which the savings bank on the Isle of Man operated. No one has yet been brought to justice for that. As a veneer of respectability is given to the Isle of Man by virtue of its allegiance to the Queen and by the fact that we supply its judiciary, is it not time that the House held a debate on the Isle of Man and its

469
relationship to this House and how we can get justice for our constituents who have lost their life savings as a result of fraud by the gangsters who run that island?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the points raised by my hon. Friend, because I do not know enough about them. However, I cannot foresee a debate being held in the near future in Government time on these matters.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Leader of the House is an Edinburgh man, he will understand that many of my constituents, particularly those with relatives in the Gulf, feel betrayed. The local comprehensive, Ainslie Park high school is about to close. They feel betrayed because they were never consulted. It has come to light that, several years ago, there was a secret deal with World Markets, a finance house. Telford college, which is nearby, sold ground to World Markets. Part of the kickback system was that Telford college benefited from the grounds owned by Ainslie Park high school.
We believe that the matter should be debated, because it is of vital importance. May we have an early debate— perhaps next week—so that we can go into the fine details of this complex matter? I know that that may upset the right hon. Gentleman's friends in high places—the financiers in Edinburgh, who have certainly benefited at the expense of the local community—but it is most important that we should have the facts. If the right hon. Gentleman believes in open government, I believe in open government. Let us get down to the nitty-gritty so that we can explain the issues to the people back home and to the returning soldiers, who are very angry about this matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I also believe in being precise, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman rambled a bit. Let me correct him on one point: I come from exactly halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to find his own opportunity to raise the matter.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on voluntary bodies as soon as possible so that Conservative Members can raise the question of the so-called "thousand club", which has been set up by the shadow Leader of the House to give wealthy socialists privileged access to the shadow Cabinet at £1,000 a time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that only under a Tory Government can people afford to join such a daft organisation, and that most people would require payment to meet the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?
Mr. MacGregor: For once, I am lost for words. My hon. Friend has made some good points most effectively, but I cannot think of a suitable reply. I hope that he will have opportunities to raise the matter again.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What are the exact plans for debates on the Gulf? Should we not have a series of debates—one on the setting up of a separate Palestinian state, one on the great humanitarian problems in both Iraq and Kuwait, which is covered by United Nations resolution 666, and one on the supply of arms in the area? We also need a debate on the
470
environmental problems in addition to the welcome debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. MacGregor: I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman that there will be a debate on environmental matters next Friday, on a motion tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and an appropriate Minister will take part. The hon. Gentleman has raised important matters, and the occasions on which we debate them should be a matter for discussion through the usual channels in the normal way. I am quite sure that these matters will be discussed quite often in the House in the months ahead.
Mr. David Trimble: Has the Leader of the House seen the reports in this morning's papers to the effect that the Lord Chancellor has said that he and the Attorney-General would be quite happy to have a Select Committee established to deal with their functions? Does the Leader of the House think that that happy precedent will be followed by the Northern Ireland Office and that that Department will now stop blocking the creation of a Select Committee to deal with Northern Ireland affairs?
Mr. MacGregor: I think I am right in saying that the recent Procedure Committee report on Select Committees deals with the Law Officers, and the Government will be responding to that report in due course.
Mr. George Howarth: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 538?
[That this House calls on the Government to provide parliamentary time at an early day for proceedings on the Veterans Bill.]
The motion has now been signed by nearly 200 hon. Members representing every shade of opinion in the House. Will the Leader of the House consider whether time can be found in the parliamentary schedule to allow the Bill to have its Second Reading at a proper time, when hon. Members can vote on it, as there is clearly some enthusiasm for it?
Mr. MacGregor: On the policy issues and the creation of a veterans' department, the Government's position has been made clear, and I want to concentrate on the procedural matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. As he knows, the allocation of private Members' time is agreed by the House at the beginning of the Session. It has not been the Government's practice to grant additional time, and I therefore cannot undertake to do so in this case.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the appropriate Minister about arms sales from this country to the middle east, which are continuing on a grand scale? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Iran, which is now flexing its muscles in the middle east, is receiving contracts and equipment for computer systems for its weapons technology and that, in spite of all the efforts made to raise the matter, those sales continue? In the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of talk about selling arms and about merchants of death, but arms are still being sold to other countries in the middle east, and it is time that we had a blanket assurance that the Government will stop the arms trade to dictators in any part of the world.
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made clear the position on arms sales to Iraq. The hon. Gentleman will know that all proposed arms exports beyond Iraq are considered case by case and are subject to stringent licensing procedures.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions, the Leader of the House said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would make a statement—he used those specific words—about the returning soldiers. This is an important topic and a statement would be welcome to the House, but I believe that the Leader of the House was referring to a planted parliamentary question, which is less than satisfactory. However, he used the word "statement".
Mr. MacGregor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was repeating what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon. I believe that he made clear what will happen in the early stages of the withdrawal of our troops from the Gulf and their repatriation. My right hon. Friend gave the main outline of what will happen in the near future.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
4.21 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on Thursday 14 March.
Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 12 March. The list showing the subjects and times will he published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half
472
hours, but I propose to exercise discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will appear on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

BILLS PRESENTED
  WAR CRIMES
  Mr. Secretary Baker, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. John Patten, presented a Bill to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
  OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Ron Brown, Mrs. Audrey Wise and Mr. Dave Nellist, presented a Bill to provide for the trade union representation, security of employment, health and safety, and training, of personnel serving on offshore installations and in vessels and other craft working in conjunction with such installations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 March, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

  Piper Alpha (Cullen Report)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  4.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I am very grateful that time has been found for a full debate on this important subject. There are, as always, a great many demands on the time of the House, but this is a matter which deserves our particular attention, involvement and action.
  I received a letter last week from the widow of one of the victims of the Piper disaster. She said that, two and a half years later, his family and friends miss him as much as ever; but they felt that the issue of North sea safety was in danger of being forgotten by the press, the public and Parliament. I said to her, and I say to the House today, that the Government have not forgotten. On the contrary, we are pressing ahead in the endeavour for better arrangements for safety, not least through the prompt and effective implementation of the Cullen report.
  The House will recall that I announced on 12 November the Government's immediate acceptance of Lord Cullen's conclusions and recommendations. Since then, the reputation of Lord Cullen's report has grown, and there is no danger of exaggeration in saying that it has won acclaim and respect from all sides.
  The report confirms where responsibilities for safety should, and must, lie; and reformulates those responsibilities in a way which will have far-reaching effects on the way in which offshore safety will be organised in the future. It amounts to a fundamentally new regulatory system centring on requirements for operators of offshore installations to carry out formal and comprehensive safety assessments of their operations. These should be presented to the regulatory body as a safety case, demonstrating the adequacy of the company's safety management system; the identification and control of risks to personnel from potential major hazards; and the provision, in the event of a major emergency, of temporary safe refuge for the personnel on an installation, and of means for their safe and full evacuation, escape and rescue.
  In the light of those far-reaching recommendations, Lord Cullen considered the most appropriate location of regulatory responsibility. He concluded, on balance, that it would be best located in a separate and identifiable division within the Health and Safety Executive.
  Many Members will be particularly interested in this transfer of responsibility, and I think it right to mention at this point that the transfer has been an urgent priority since the publication of the report. Excellent progress has been made on the large number of organisational changes and agreements that are necessary. Subject to the agreement of the Health and Safety Commission, I hope to announce shortly the date on which the transfer will take effect. I hope that that date will be before the end of April.
  That transfer to the HSE of the day-to-day responsibility for regulating safety on offshore installa-tions on behalf of the HSC can be effected by administrative action. Consideration has also been given to the legislative implications of Lord Cullen's report, and a package of necessary changes has been identified. I hope those can be introduced as soon as practicable. However, they are mainly technical changes to existing statutes to
  474
  reflect the intended reallocation of responsibilities, and to lay the foundations for a future programme of new regulations in line with Lord Cullen's recommendations.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the likely location of the health and safety inspectorate? Is he aware of the strong feeling among Scottish Members that it should be located in north-east Scotland, with the front end of the industry? It is not just a question of geography but of oil industry psychology. A health and safety inspectorate located in north-east Scotland, where the oil workers are, would have more contact with and knowledge of the industry than if it were located in London, where the oil company executives and headquarters are.
  Mr. Wakeham: I understand that view—it has been put to me several times—but the location of the new offshore safety division is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has said that he sees the need for a substantial increase in present staff numbers in Aberdeen but that a comprehensive relocation of existing staff at present would cause serious difficulties. It is he who will have the responsibility of deciding.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall return to this question later, but before the Secretary of State leaves the issue of transfer of responsibility from his Department, will he say whether agreement has been reached about extra costs necessary to provide the safety regime? Can he confirm that the total amount sought by the Health and Safety Executive has been made available?
  Mr. Wakeham: Satisfactory progress has been made on all the negotiations, which has enabled me to say what I said about making transfers next month. A few minor matters are still to be finalised, but I understand that they do not involve any dispute about money. Therefore, there is broad agreement on all those matters, but there are procedures to deal with them.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) need not be concerned. The Government have made it abundantly clear that those arrangements will not be held back through lack of resources; adequate resources for the purpose will be found. I have also said that the other matter that could delay the arrangements—the legislative implications of Lord Cullen's report—affected mainly technical issues, and will not delay the transfer to the HSC.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: I think that I had better make a little more progress. I shall give way in a moment.
  Safety in offshore petroleum operations is, of course, and always has been, the responsibility of the operators themselves. Lord Cullen makes it clear that a regulator cannot be expected to assume direct responsibility for the ongoing management of safety. There may be circumstan-ces in which inspectors can and should take direct enforcement action, but those are the exception. He says that, for all practical purposes, the management of safety is and remains in the hands of the operators.
  Lord Cullen's conclusions draw on, and confirm, the conclusions of many eminent committees and inquiries, not least those of the Robens committee, whose recommendations formed the basis of the Health and

  475
  Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Lord Cullen goes on, however, to propose a sharpening of the operators' responsibilities. He says that specific duties should be laid upon them to organise their operations in a systematic way; management should structure and document their systems for securing safety, analyse the hazards present or foreseeable, and implement the necessary controls. Most crucially, they should monitor their own performance in every aspect of the system. The role of the regulatory organisation should be to probe the adequacy of the assessments and the controls, audit the monitoring and test the actual results.
  The essence of such an approach is not that the regulatory organisation should produce minutely detailed rules prescribing for every necessary safety procedure and every situation. That would in practical terms be impossible, because of the enormous variety and complexity of the actual working situations on offshore installations. Worse, it would be self-defeating, because it would obstruct the flexibility which is necessary to make use of new technology and advances in safety techniques.
  The oil industry is one of our most dynamic industries. It has shown great inventiveness and resourcefulness. It ought to have the freedom to apply that drive and ingenuity to providing the best resolution of safety problems.
  It is tempting to say that there must be detailed rules and a clearly prescribed approach, but in real life—not least in the very complex and closely packed circumstances of offshore installations—safety objectives often conflict with each other. Achieving a better standard of safety depends on finding the best balance between different approaches or aims, not on some prescriptive, rule-book approach. The right role for Government is to provide a broad framework to ensure that the operator fully discharges his responsibilities for securing safety.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I think that it is right to make the companies responsible for their own safety. However, does not the Secretary of State acknowledge that one problem on offshore installations is the division between the employees of oil companies as operators and contractors? Is there not a case for making oil companies or the operators legally responsible for all personnel on their platforms and for the conditions under which they operate, including their working conditions and their pay?
  Mr. Wakeham: That question is not exactly correct— the employer has considerable legal responsibilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If he expands on his case, we shall listen to it with interest and take note of what he says.
  Effective safety depends on the active involvement of every worker. Each must know what his role is and what is expected of him, and he must be able to contribute from his experience and have a voice.
  Where I think that there is a difference between the Government's approach and that of the Opposition is in the necessity that they see for trade union recognition. They believe that there is an inevitable equation between involvement of the work force and representation of trade unions, and that only recognised trade unions can effectively represent the work force in these matters
  Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue a little longer, I shall then give way.
  The Government's approach is based on the conviction that effective involvement of the whole offshore work force is essential to the promotion and improvement of safety. Every employee working offshore has a right to be represented on a safety committee and to make a positive contribution to improving health and safety in his workplace, whether or not he is a member of a trade union.
  Mr. Strang: No member of the Opposition would say that an offshore oil worker who is not in a trade union is not concerned about his safety. We are saying that if an independent safety representative has the backing of a trade union, he is more likely, on average, to be effective and to have power where it matters when compared to one who does not have the backing of a trade union. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Cullen report was not as clear-cut on that issue as we might have wanted, as was made clear in our exchanges on 12 November. I suggest that there is a strong case for extending the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to give offshore oil workers the same rights as onshore oil workers. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least say that the Government are prepared to continue a dialogue on the issue?
  Mr. Wakeham: I understand the strength of the hon. Gentleman's views, and he has a perfect right to them, but they are not supported in Lord Cullen's report. The Government's position is closer to Lord Cullen's.
  Mr. Strang: I shall not intervene again.
  Constituents come to our surgeries who are blacklisted by the oil companies or who know that the oil companies have secret information about them from the first day that they start working for them. We know that the companies pursue that policy; that is why it is essential that trade unions should be a countervailing force as, for example, they are in the Norwegian sector.
  Mr. Wakeham: Those people should produce evidence to back their allegations. We will not tolerate victimisation, and we should take a serious view of it if it were proved.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is a climate of fear among contract workers in the offshore industry. They live in the knowledge that, if they ask questions—even about safety—they will have "not required back" put on their file. That makes people sceptical about the possibility of raising safety issues. Many people who come to my surgery —and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)—live in such a climate. Some are faced with the prospect of long periods of unemployment simply because they raised their head above the parapet on issues such as safety.
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman speaks with much conviction. Almost every hon. Member has constituents employed in the offshore industry. I believe that, if anybody had evidence of victimisation, he would produce it. Somebody must have some evidence if the allegations are true. It should be sent to us, and we shall deal with it.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter, and his reply can be summarised as, "It is nothing to do with me: it is a matter for the employers."
  Mr. Wakeham: That is not necessarily an accurate summary of either my reply or of the question. I am trying to be as conciliatory as I can. I do not deny that trade unions can have a valuable contribution to make in improving safety. I had a useful discussion with Mr. Norman Willis and a delegation from the Trades Union Congress safety committee the other day in which we had a fruitful exchange of views. The trade unions already play a role at the highest level through their representation on the Health and Safety Commission.
  Dr. Michael Clark: I have never worked offshore on a platform, but I have worked in the chemical industry for many years, operating the type of plant on land that the platforms use offshore. Will my right hon. Friend therefore accept from me that safety represen-tatives, when putting their case to the employer, want not power but common sense? Their employer wants to listen with good will, and both need to take a responsible attitude.
  Mr. Wakeham: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We also believe that representatives offshore should have the added authority of being elected by all the staff who work offshore. That is the best way in which to do it.
  I referred to the valuable role that the trade unions play in improving safety. Some unions have drawn together real expertise on these matters, and many have relevant expertise to contribute. They can make representations on health and safety matters to the offshore employers at any time and there are established channels of discussion through, for example, the oil industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission. If these unions make genuine representations, there and elsewhere, on behalf of their members, they will have my full support. If they make representations on behalf of offshore workers who are not their members, they will also have my admiration.
  As Opposition Members have regularly quoted Lord Cullen in support of their views, I have refreshed my memory on just what he has to say. At paragraph 21.83 of his report he explains that his remit did not extend to matters of industrial relations and that he was therefore not concerned with the merits of the recognition of trade unions offshore. He thought that the appointment of offshore safety representatives by trade unions—I quote his precise words—
  "could be of some benefit".
  However, he went on to recognise, in paragraph 21.85, that the position offshore is complicated by a number of factors: the limited extent of trade union membership in relation to the total offshore work force, the limited recognition of trade unions and the complex structure of offshore employment.
  Lord Cullen did not favour replacing the 1989 regulations with the extension offshore of the 1977 regulations. That would remove safety representatives from a large part of the work force and would undo the progress that was achieved by the making of the 1989 regulations. He endorses the Government's intention to review their effectiveness two years after their coming into force. I think that it is fair to say that that is a pragmatic and balanced view. The Government's approach to the appointment of safety representatives and the constitution of safety committees in this industry is no less pragmatic and balanced. Under the 1989 regulations, safety representatives are elected by the whole work force. That
  478
  ensures their effective involvement in the development and improvement of health and safety procedures, and promotes co-operation between management and work force towards the common goal of a safer offshore environment. The regulations mark a significant advance towards the greater involvement of the work force, which Lord Cullen's report recommends. The trade unions will have a full opportunity to present their views during the review.
  I now turn to the steps that the Government have taken to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations and to the way in which we see this going forward. I have already mentioned progress with the transfer of regulatory responsibilities to the HSE. Lord Cullen commented that this change would take time to implement and would inevitably involve disruption. That is only realistic, but I must point out that we are doing all we can to keep the necessary time, and the extent of disruption, to the minimum.
  Intensive and urgent discussions have been going on between my Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the other bodies concerned on the best strategy for taking forward the implementation of the report and on the resources that this will require. We have also been doing all that we can to strengthen and expand the safety directorate. Safety has been upgraded to a full division to reflect the importance of its work. That will also help to pave the way for the transfer.
  Mr. Tony Barrell, lately head of the HSE's technology division, has been appointed to head the new offshore safety division. Proposals will shortly be put to the Commission on its organisation. Further staff have been recruited to strengthen the division in its existing tasks and to tackle the new responsibilities recommended by Lord Cullen. A major recruitment programme is under way to provide the right mix of skills in a further strengthening of the division. Urgent steps are also being taken to expand the training and instruction of the inspectors, and to reinforce the capacity to probe and assess management's arrangements to secure safety in their operations.
  Those important steps have involved close co-operation between the Departments involved, with my Department taking the overall lead. Once the transfer takes place, it will, of course, be for the Commission and the executive to consider the priorities for the work of the offshore safety division and for the broader implementation of the report.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for showing his characteristic courtesy.
  Will the inspectors he mentioned a few seconds ago be concerned with the assessment of standby vessels? Surely the Secretary of State will recall that one of the major criticisms of Lord Cullen's report was directed against the inadequacy of the aging side trawler Silver Pit. It should never have been used as a standby vessel.
  How many similar aging side trawlers are still engaged in the operation of standby vessels in both the southern and northern sectors of the North sea? How many purpose-built standby vessels have been ordered by the companies in addition to the one that is to be built in my constituency at the Ferguson shipyard? I suspect that the single vessel ordered at Ferguson is the only new standby vessel that has been ordered since this terrible tragedy.
  Mr. Wakeham: Yes, standby vessels will be of concern to the Health and Safety Executive. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of its first tasks will be a full review of the standby vessels. The hon. Gentleman makes some points that are highly relevant to that review, but I do not have the detailed answers, which will come up in the review, which has not taken place yet. I have some expert advisers near at hand, but they cannot tell me the answers to a review that has not taken place. That is beyond even them. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and the matters are of concern.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State described how the transfer will go ahead and how his Department and other departments—he mentioned the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive—are involved. He will know that Lord Cullen specifically identified one individual—Mr. Rimington, the director-general of the Commission—as responsible for ensuring that sufficient funds are available so that he, as director-general, can carry out his new responsibilities. However, the director-general reports to a different Secretary of State.
  Does the Secretary of State accept Lord Cullen's directive that Mr. Rimington will be responsible, as he does not negotiate with the Treasury? The Secretary of State for Employment will have to negotiate with the Treasury. If the Secretary of State for Employment does not find enough money from the Treasury for Mr. Rimington to carry out his responsibilities, how can he be held responsible? Is the Secretary of State for Employment involved in the continuing dialogue during the transfer period?
  Mr. Wakeham: Mr. Rimington, who is a senior and experienced man, and I have had discussions, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that there should be adequate finance for the tasks that the Health and Safety Executive will have to carry out. Obviously, Mr. Rimington would not accept responsibility for carrying out tasks if he did not have adequate finance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that adequate resources will be made available. When all the loose ends have been tied up, the transfer will be made. There is no problem about dealing with these matters.
  Mr. Ross: Either the Secretary of State does not want to answer the question, or he does not understand it. Lord Cullen identified Mr. Rimington specifically as the person whom he will hold responsible if there are not sufficient funds. If the Secretary of State for Employment is to negotiate with the Treasury, how can Mr. Rimington be held responsible?
  Mr. Wakeham: Mr. Rimington is a very senior person in the Health and Safety Executive, but as he does not have resources, the Government will have to ensure that he is given sufficient funds for his task. He and the Health and Safety Commission must be satisfied that they have adequate resources. Those are the arrangements that we are making. There will not be a shortage of finance. This is not a personal responsibility of anybody.
  Mr. Ross: That is not what Mr. Rimington told the Select Committee on Employment.
  Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman were to listen, he would realise that I am giving a very satisfactory answer to the question whether there will be sufficient resources to implement the recommendations of the Cullen report, which the Government have accepted. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no problem about finding adequate resources—no problem for Mr. Rimington, no problem for me, no problem for the Secretary of State for Employment, and no problem for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We all agree on the arrangements that should be made.
  The hon. Gentleman can phrase his question 15 different ways, but he will get the same answer. As the Secretary of State who will be responsible for these matters until they have been transferred, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that proper arrangements have been made.
  It will be for the Commission and the executive to consider the priorities for the work of the offshore safety division and the broader implementation of the report. I understand that strategy proposals are to be put to them, in parallel with the detailed proposals for the transfer of responsibilities. Clearly it would not be right for me to anticipate any of that strategy in detail until they have been able to consider it. I can say, however, that priority is being given to developing the centrepiece of the new regulatory system—that is, the new requirement for safety cases—with a view to putting forward early drafts of the necessary regulations and guidance.
  I should like to conclude by saying a few words about two particular aspects of the new regulatory system, and specifically about what should be expected of the companies. These two aspects are the safety cases and the process of learning from experience.
  What the safety cases really require is that each operator should assess the risks of its operation, ensure that every measure has been taken to reduce these risks, and demonstrate that it has discharged its responsibilities properly. A safety case should identify all major accidents that could pose a threat to human life, and analyse the causes and consequences of these accidents. Our objective itself is enough to enable all operators to put work in hand straight away towards the preparation of future safety cases. Indeed, I should be very surprised if any operator on the United Kingdom continental shelf had not already initiated work in this direction.
  By assessing the risks, companies can then carefully consider ways in which they will control and minimise those risks, and ensure that safety measures and operational procedures are adequate to secure safety in operations and are carefully monitored. Although drawn up and submitted at one point in time—in particular, in the case of a new offshore installation, it will be required that a submission should be made before operations start —a safety case will not be a one-off exercise, an exercise that is carried out once, put on the shelf and forgotten. It should be a live document that develops as the operations, the techniques and the potential control systems, and the men and management themselves, change and evolve. It should reflect a continuing process of improving the controls and reducing the risks in the light of practical experience.
  This feedback should come from many sources. It should come from the operator's auditing and monitoring of his own systems, on which Lord Cullen has placed particular stress. That auditing should not be merely a

  481
  routine check, but should include serious probing of the earlier thinking. One of the most important sources of feedback should be the analysis of incidents.
  For every serious accident, there are many minor accidents or dangerous occurrences, which, although they may not themselves have serious outcomes, can be analysed to uncover weaknesses in the systems, which on some other occasion might lead to serious injury or even fatalities. But the largest and broadest resource out of which lessons can be learned is the work force itself. Every operator should have arrangements for gathering and making use of the experience and observation of the work force. Every worker should have something to contribute, and should have, albeit in a small way, a role as safety inspector.
  In conclusion, I again welcome the opportunity for the House to debate a matter of absolutely central importance to the deeply felt issue of offshore safety. I have to own that the timing of the opportunity is not quite ideal for me, in that I am not quite at the point of being able to announce the final details of the agreement on the transfer of regulatory responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive. But hon. Members will make good use of the chance to put their concerns to the Government before the arrangements for the transfer are fixed. I shall consider carefully the matters that have been raised by hon. Members before giving final approval to the necessary arrangements.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: On the night of 6 July 1988 there were 226 men on the Piper Alpha platform, where they earned their living. At 10 o'clock that night 62 men were working, and 164 men were off duty. Just after 10 o'clock there was an explosion and a fire. Further explosions followed, and the platform became an inferno as gas from other installations continued to be pumped to Piper Alpha. Only 61 of those men survived —scrambling and leaping to safety as best they could. Of those who died, 14 perished while trying to escape. The fire was so intense that it melted the structural steel of parts of the platform, and literally laid waste the fire protection that was intended to help survival.
  No words can describe the horror of the explosions and the fire, but the horror can perhaps be gauged by the fact that some of the survivors, and, indeed, some of those who died, jumped into the sea from high up on the platform, although, in training, they had been warned that this would mean almost certain death. Five people even jumped from the heli-deck 175 feet above the water. Great courage was displayed by many on the platform, and this was matched by the bravery and self-sacrifice of the crews of the rescue vessels, some of whom laid down their lives attempting to save people from Piper Alpha.
  Lord Cullen's inquiry set out to answer two questions. First, why did the disaster happen? Secondly, how do we try to avoid a future disaster? Lord Cullen's report catalogues fatal shortcomings in the design and operation of the Piper Alpha platform; unforgivable negligence on the part of the operators, Occidental Petroleum; and equally unforgivable failure on the part of the Department of Energy to do its job properly.
  482
  The immediate blame rests with Occidental Petroleum. In law and in practice, the primary responsibility for safety rested with it. It failed to discharge that responsibility. Piper Alpha was not a safe place to work. On the fatal night of 6 July, the night shift did not know what the day shift had been doing. The result was a gas leak and the first explosion. The automatic fire pumps did not work because they were switched to manual control. Piper Alpha had no means of stopping gas from being pumped on to the platform. Other installations continued to pump gas to Piper Alpha and so discharged yet more gas on to the already blazing platform.
  Safety and rescue equipment on Piper Alpha did not work. Life rafts did not inflate. Lifeboats could not be launched. Practice emergency drills had not been carried out. Staff were not properly trained for the emergency. The standby vessel Silver Pit was, in the words of Lord Cullen,
  "essentially unsuitable for the purpose of effecting the rescue of survivors."
  The searchlight was not working. The Silver Pit was not sufficiently manoeuvrable. Its bow thruster broke down within five minutes, making manoeuvring it even more difficult. Its layout was unsuitable for handling the injured. The Department of Trade and Industry boat was unsuitable, unserviceable and could not be launched and the crew was seriously undermanned.
  I have a question for the Secretary of State: is it true that the Silver Pit, found by Lord Cullen to be essentially unsuitable for effecting the rescue of survivors and for handling the injured, was subsequently bought by Cam Shipping of Grimsby, was renamed the Cam Spirit, and is once again on standby duty in the North sea? Has the Cam Spirit been surveyed? If so, does it meet the standards which Lord Cullen said should be required of standby vessels? In other words, does it meet the standards that he laid down in recommendation 89?
  Is the vessel highly manoeuvrable and able to maintain its position? Is it rigged out is such a way that it provides full visibility from the bridge of the water line in all directions? Does it have at least 360 degree searchlights, capable of being remotely controlled? Does it have two fast rescue craft fitted with VHF radio and an adequate portable searchlight? Is there a means of rapidly launching those fast rescue craft? Are there adequate means of communication by radio between the Cam Spirit and its fast rescue craft, the installation, nearby vessels and the shore? Does the newly rigged Cam Spirit have at least two methods of retrieving survivors from the sea?
  If the Cam Spirit does not meet all those requirements, it makes a mockery of the Government's claim to have accepted all Lord Cullen's recommendations. I am not in a position to answer the question myself because when I approached the Cam Shipping company yesterday, one of its staff was eventually told by the boss that he could not talk to my office. But above and beyond those individual items, however important, Occidental Petroleum was responsible for safe operation, safety training and the arrangements for dealing with an emergency.
  Lord Cullen's report referred to failures in training, failures to resolve technical problems, superficial attitudes and deficient practice. He said that the system for coping with an emergency was almost entirely inoperative and little command control was exercised over the movements of personnel. The importance of that is highlighted by the fact that most of those who followed the emergency procedures laid down perished in the fire. Most of those

  483
  who survived are alive because they decided instead to chance it. There can be no greater indictment of those responsible for the safety of the platform than that the emergency arrangements led to mortal danger and almost certain death.
  In the light of that fact, the Secretary of State was right last November to refer Lord Cullen's report to the Lord Advocate for him to decide whether to prosecute Occidental Petroleum. Almost four months have passed but the Lord Advocate has not yet taken action. I only hope that the delay means that he is building up an unanswerable case and that Occidental will be brought to book. Is a company which runs a rig in the way in which Occidental ran Piper Alpha fit to continue operating in the North sea?
  Occidental does not bear all the responsibility for the disaster. Some of the blame lies at the door of the Department of Energy because of its abject failure to establish and monitor a safe system of working in the North sea. Responsibility for that failure does not lie only with the safety directorate or other officials of the Department. It also lies with successive Secretaries of State for Energy and other Ministers at the Department.
  Under our system of ministerial accountability, it is Ministers who take the credit when things go well and it is they who must take the blame when things go wrong. According to the Government's own figures, at the time of the Piper Alpha disaster there were 217 installations in the North sea. To inspect those 217 gigantic and complex structures, the Department of Energy employed just six professional full-time field inspectors. Lord Cullen found that their inspections were
  "superficial to the point of being little use … the inspectors were inadequately trained, guided and led … Persistent under-manning had affected not only the frequency but also the depth of their inspections."
  Only 40 per cent. of fatal and serious accidents were investigated because, in Lord Cullen's words,
  "Limitations on manpower prevented the Department from investigating all accidents."
  He went on even to doubt whether the type of inspection practised by the Department was in any case an effective means of assessing or monitoring the management of safety by the operators.
  Since Lord Cullen reported, questions that I and others have tabled have revealed further inadequacies in the Department of Energy as a supervisory body for offshore safety. For example, the Department cannot say how many prosecutions of operators have followed accidents and how many have resulted from routine inspections. We know that no prosecutions resulted from routine inspections in 1987, 1988 or 1989 but that seven accidents in that time led to prosecutions.
  The Department's statistics currently do not distinguish between accidents to operator staff and accidents to contractor staff, information which everyone recognises as vital to any assessment of the state of offshore safety. The Department does not even seem able to distinguish between the number of serious accidents and the number of casualties. It holds no information on the hours spent on each inspection, whether routine or following an accident. No record has been kept of prohibitions issued under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. All that we know is that only 13 such notices have been issued offshore under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in the past 12 years.
  484
  Lord Cullen's criticisms go much deeper than that. In 1980, the Burgoyne committee reported on offshore safety. It was dissatisfied with
  "The current arrangements for offshore safety"
  which had
  "become a tangle of divided responsibility."
  It laid down that the role of the Government—I emphasise this—was to
  "set objectives designed to achieve a uniformly high standard of safety throughout the Industry and to ensure their achievement through monitoring and enforcement procedures."
  It recommended that the Government should discharge that responsibility for offshore safety via a single agency, whose task would be to set standards and to ensure their achievement.
  The only dispute on the committee was about the role of trade unions and whether that single agency should be the Department of Energy or the Health and Safety Executive. All the members of the committee agreed that the tasks laid down for the agency were so important and immediate that no delay in dealing with them could be allowed.
  Lord Cullen took a hard look at what had happened to the Burgoyne committee's recommendations and com-pared the development of safety offshore with the development of safety onshore during the last decade. He concluded harshly that the Department of Energy policy over the last decade had
  "set back the development of the offshore safety regime by many years."
  He found that, although Burgoyne had recommended that future regulations should specify objectives, there had been
  "virtually no progress towards the creation of new goal-setting regulations since the publication of the report of the Burgoyne Committee."
  Lord Cullen went on to say that the effect of the policy of the Department of Energy had been to distance offshore regulation from the influence of the mainstream of practice in modern regulations on health and safety. He also concluded that nothing appeared to have been learnt from the experience of the Norwegian Government's petroleum department, with which the Department of Energy was in regular contact. Despite all that, the present Secretary of State was reported by the Financial Times as denying that the Cullen report was an indictment of his Department and inspectors.
  Lord Cullen endorsed the main recommendations of the Burgoyne committee and accepted the view of the minority report to the Burgoyne committee that the single offshore safety agency should be the Health and Safety Executive and not the Department of Energy. That is the policy of the trade unions involved and the Labour party —a policy for which we voted on 6 November 1980, and which five of the present Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, voted against. I am glad to report that on that occasion, before you reached your present elevated position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you voted with us for what Lord Cullen said was the right thing.
  Why, despite the eminently sensible recommendations of the Burgoyne committee, did the safety directorate of the Department of Energy fall so far short of the standards required? Some blame must attach to some of the officials concerned, but more blame attaches to the politicians. Clearly, none of the succession of Tory Secretaries of State for Energy gave offshore safety the priority it deserved.

  485
  Four people served as Secretary of State for Energy between the publication of the Burgoyne report and the Piper Alpha disaster—Messrs Howell, Lawson, Walker and Parkinson. All must take some share of the blame. So must the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the present Secretary of State for Wales, all of whom served in the Department of Energy at what the lawyers would call the material time. None of them gave top priority to offshore safety.
  When we last debated Piper Alpha—on the day of the statement in November—I asked the Secretary of State what was given a higher priority by his predecessor than offshore safety. Answer came there none. Since then, I have discovered a public insight into what those priorities were. In May 1983, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was asked what had been the principal achievements of his Department. Similar questions were put to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in May 1984 and March 1985. Reams of self-congratulation followed—2,405 words in total—but one word was missing, and that word was "safety."
  There was much crowing about privatisation, much talk of market forces and whole paragraphs were devoted to oil exploration and development and its benefits to the British economy, but there was not a word about the safety of the 30,000 people whose hard and dangerous work make it all possible. Implementing the recommendations of the Burgyone committee on offshore safety got no mention.
  Similarly, no priority was given to safety by other Government Departments. Part of the responsibility for that lies with Lord Young, now discredited as a liar by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. At his instigation, the Government produced the scruffy document that I hold in my hand, a White Paper published in July 1985 entitled "Lifting the Burden." Its stated object was to reduce what it called
  "burdens on business imposed by Government regulations."
  All that contributed to the atmosphere in which those civil servants responsible for safety, including those at the Department of Energy, had to do their work. In relation to safety, that document encouraged employers to question inspectors' decisions and called for employers to be advised on how to question inspectors. It also called for clearer guidance on the law governing the onus of proof. That was intended not to stimulate the zeal of the inspectors but to stiffen the resistance of the inspected. It was all part of the atmosphere which allowed the development of an ineffective offshore safety directorate.
  It is said that when a fish deteriorates, the rot sets in at the head. It is the same with Government Departments. Lord Cullen exposed all of that. He answered the first question about why the disaster happened. He dealt equally incisively with what must be done to try to stop it happening again. He rightly placed great emphasis on the requirement to prepare a safety case—the approach that has been applied successfully onshore and which, to their credit, has been developed by some offshore operators.
  Each operator would be required to produce a safety case for each installation, detailing how specified safety objectives have been met in the design and construction, and how they will be met in the operation of the installation and all its equipment, identifying potential
  486
  major hazards and risks to personnel and providing for measures to protect staff in the event of a major emergency.
  That will require a great deal of expertise and effort by the contractors and the regulatory body, now to be the Health and Safety Executive. The report makes a large number of recommendations, but the shift of approach to the safety case and the shift of responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive are probably the most important.
  The Government say that they accept all the recommendations, but we must be vigilant. They said the same about the recommendations of the Burgoyne committee in 1980. In 1989, the year after Piper Alpha, the number of serious accidents per 1,000 employees in the North sea fell only from 2·9 to 2·8, and the number of dangerous occurrences per 1,000 employees shot up from 7·7 to 10·2, the highest level ever. There is clearly a long way to go.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) will deal at length with the future arrangements for offshore safety, so I shall confine my remarks to what I see as a number of especially important points. The offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive will have an enormous task on its hands. North sea safety arrangements have been shown by Lord Cullen to be a mess. A massive amount of work needs to be done in three spheres—safety cases submitted by operators will need to be assessed, accepted, amended or rejected; new and improved regulations and guidance will have to be drafted; and much more, and better quality, inspection must be carried out.
  Mr. Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even after the Cullen report, things have not changed much on some rigs? I was contacted in January of this year by someone on Brent Bravo who had inquired about how long it would take to allocate the 150 men on his shift to lifeboats in the event of an alert. He was told that it would take between one and a half and two hours. When he said that that was not satisfactory, he was told that the matter was being considered. He made repeated representations to everyone in authority over many days, but he received more or less the same answer, which was capped by, "We're not breaking any law." On 12 January, there was an alert on the Brent Bravo, when about 150 men were stranded for many hours because there was no way to get them off. Is that satisfactory in the light of what we now know?
  Mr. Dobson: The situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is clearly unsatisfactory. I hope that Ministers and those who are here to advise them will have heard what is happening and will ensure that a special visit is paid to that platform to discover exactly what is happening and to ensure that standards are improved.
  There is an enormous amount of work to be done. The decision to require the submission of a safety case—which is the correct decision—for all existing and new installations has created an instant backlog that will take a long time to clear. That will be bad enough for the operators responsible only for their own installations, but it will be a truly awesome task for the safety directorate, which will have to cope with all the installations. The likely top priorities will be the oldest installations and those currently being built.

  487
  The high level of activity in the North sea will also create additional demands on the time of the offshore safety directorate. The task is enormous and of immense importance. It must be done well, thoroughly and as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The death of one of my young constituents, to whom I have referred before in the House, demonstrates the need for that job to be done properly. However, would it not be odd and inconsistent for the Government, the Department of Employment and the Health and Safety Executive to be undertaking that task offshore while they were at the same time relaxing, dangerously and excessively, the safety regulations in the mining industry onshore?
  Mr. Dobson: I have made it clear to the management and to the workers and their representatives in the offshore industry that I regard the transfer of responsibility for safety from the Department of Energy to the HSE as a necessary, but insufficient, change. The HSE is conniving with British Coal to reduce in British coal mines safety standards which at present are the highest in the world. I want those standards to remain the highest in the world, and so do the miners. Apparently the HSE does not.
  There are no guarantees of North sea safety simply because of the transfer of responsibility to the HSE. There must be commitments, one of which must be a Treasury guarantee that the HSE will be given the financial resources to recruit, train and, equally important, retain the staff necessary for the job. Such a guarantee must be made in public before the HSE takes on the job.
  However, money may not prove to be the biggest problem. The biggest problem is likely to be finding enough staff with the experience and qualifications to perform the various tasks required. The tasks demand the application of complicated analytical techniques which will have to be applied to every installation. In the light of recent history, it is vital to the restoration of confidence among the work force in the North sea that the HSE adopts a high-profile approach to offshore safety.
  That would be assisted if the main office of the offshore safety division was located in Aberdeen. That would also have obvious practical advantages. Equally, it will be necessary not to ignore the needs of the southern-basin gasfields and the interests of the staff involved must also be borne in mind.
  People with some or all of the expertise will have to be drawn from the chemical and nuclear industries and their inspectorates, and possibly from the Norwegian sector if they can be spared. They must be drawn from anywhere that the best people are available. It is important riot to forget the contribution that can be made by those who earn their daily living in the North sea and who know what they are talking about.
  The general principle behind Lord Cullen's report is to apply offshore the safety regime which has been applied onshore. We believe that that will be assisted by the application offshore of the trade union rights to recognition and involvement in safety that apply onshore. Whatever this Government may decide, that is what the incoming Labour Government will ensure.
  Good industrial relations are good for safety. Bad industrial relations are bad for safety. Industrial relations in the North sea are bedevilled by the multitide of
  488
  contractors whose employees do most of the work on the rigs, barges and platforms, and whose relationship with the operators is at times somewhat strange.
  The difficulties of organising trade unions on so many separate, distinct and distant workplaces are made worse by the varying interrelationships between the seven unions involved, and between them and the offshore industry liaison committee.
  In November, we urged the Secretary of State to take the opportunity presented by Lord Cullen's report to make a fresh start, to call together all involved and to end the blacklisting. He has done little or nothing. Indeed, he denied that there was any blacklisting. The blacklisting, which was admitted by those who were doing it, was ended but more as a result of representations to the oil companies by me and some of my hon. Friends than by anything that the Government did. We have been promoting meetings and discussions between all concerned, and we hope that they will bear fruit.
  Our country needs the oil and gas in the North sea, but we do not need it so badly, or so cheaply, that our fellow citizens have to die to get it for us. Lord Cullen has done a fine job in producing his report. We must ensure that those who contributed to the disaster are rightly punished. We must also ensure that future accidents are not allowed to turn into disasters through the fatal combination of poor design, faulty operation and equipment failure revealed in this case.
  Dr. Godman: On the basis of his negotiations with the Secretary of State and other Ministers, can my hon. Friend confirm whether a copy of the Cullen report has been sent to the European Commission? Has not the Commission drawn up a draft directive on the health and safety of offshore installation workers as well as for miners and others? Surely that draft directive must take cognisance of the very important recommendations contained in the Cullen report.
  Mr. Dobson: I hope that the Secretary of State or officials at the Department of Energy have done what my hon. Friend has suggested is necessary to ensure that the Commission and ultimately the European Parliament are fully aware of Lord Cullen's excellent report and first-class recommendations. I assume that that has happened. However, I have not had talks and negotiations about blacklisting and such matters with the Secretary of State and his colleagues, because it is difficult to have discussions about something with people who deny that it exists. We had discussions with leading people in the oil industry who have actually done something to get rid of the blacklisting.
  Mr. David Porter: With regard to trade union membership, when the hon. Gentleman raised the mythical spectre of the incoming Labour Government, did he mean to imply that he would force all offshore workers to be members of trade unions?
  Mr. Dobson: We could do without such clownish interventions. The hon. Gentleman should know that onshore workers have the right to join a trade union but are not obliged to do so. We agree with Lord Cullen that onshore safety measures should also apply offshore, and the right to trade union recognition and the involvement of trade unions in safety measures onshore and offshore— [Interruption.] There seems to be some deafness among Ministers. I am not attributing those remarks to Lord

  489
  Cullen, but they follow the principle that he enunciated. Lord Cullen's impeccable logic would lead all but the prejudiced buffoons on the Government Front Bench to conclude that trade union recognition is good for safety.
  The least that we can do for the memory of those who died unnecessarily on Piper Alpha is to ensure that the safety motto of du Pont de Nemours, the owners of Conoco, is applied on every North sea installation:
  "Nothing is so important that it can't be done safely."
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have a considerable and direct interest in this subject. As I have declared previously, I have some interests in the offshore industry, the most important of which, especially in the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), is that I was responsible for it in the early 1980s. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I do not duck any responsibility that I may have had. By accepting all the recommendations of the Cullen report, he has shown beyond peradventure that there is no question of anyone trying to duck their responsibilities.
  I was a little disappointed by some of the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There have already been many interventions, and I should like to get on with the debate.
  I should not like to let the opportunity pass without recording my sympathy, and I believe that of the whole House, for those who were involved in the Piper Alpha accident. I visited all the families in my constituency who were affected by it, so no one is more conscious than I am of what the tragedy meant in human terms.
  I add my praise for those who were involved in the rescue. I pay tribute to the crew of the Silver Pit, regardless of the deficiencies in its vessel that were identified. I am sure that I express the view of the whole House when I say that I recognise the gallantry of those who were involved, which was recognised in the recent honours list, and the involvement of those on the shore. Those who have been recognised represent only a tiny fraction of the number who showed gallantry and total disregard for their personal safety in the operation that followed this tragic incident.
  Once the moments of emotion and publicity of accidents such as Piper Alpha and the Chinook accident, in which families in my constituency were involved, have passed, there is an understandable feeling among the families of the victims that they have been forgotten. The Piper Alpha support group in Aberdeen was outstanding in supporting the families of the victims. Its work has become an example for others and was copied in the Lockerbie air disaster. The Rev. Andrew Wylie, industrial chaplain to the North sea installations, made a tremendous contribution during and after the accident. The services that he conducted and his continuing commitment to the interests of offshore workers are an example to everyone.
  I pay tribute to Lord Cullen not only for the way in which he conducted the inquiry but for the lucidity of the
  490
  report and its findings. The report will go down in the annals of public inquiries as one of the best conducted and presented. I have heard no criticism of it, and I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to him.
  Everyone shares the objective of ensuring safety onshore and offshore. There will be times, alas, when deficiencies arise, but the Government, the industry, offshore workers and the unions have a common interest in ensuring that safety is paramount. We must always ensure that that interest is shared. We must make the North sea a safer place in which to live and work. To that extent, I welcome my right hon. Friend's immediate acceptance of all the recommendations.
  There is no question but that the Cullen report revealed deficiencies, but I suggest that they related more to the safety structure rather than to those in the Department of Energy who had the daily task of carrying out safety functions. The Burgoyne committee was set up to examine and to make recommendations on safety. The fact that 69 of its 70 recommendations were adopted shows that, on the basis of the best knowledge and experience available at the beginning of the 1980s, the Government set up what was thought to be the correct structure to ensure safety in the North sea.
  Perhaps insufficient attention was paid to the fact that safety is a continuing consideration. With the benefit of hindsight and the Cullen recommendations, perhaps steps should have been taken in the mid-1980s—I accept responsibility for this as much as anyone else—to see whether the Burgoyne recommendations were working properly. That is a fair criticism.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is insufficient distance between the regulatory body and the body that was responsible for safety? Those who carried out the investigations into safety were subject to the same pressures as those in the Department to achieve the maximum extraction and finance, which the Treasury wanted to use for a range of matters. The oil companies themselves wanted to exploit the extraction rate. We argue that the control of the examination of safety should be within another Department.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I disagree totally with the hon. Member. He is wrong. I shall deal now with objectivity, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Burgoyne committee—with a minority report, which I acknowledge, from only two members—recommended that responsibility for safety should rest with the Department of Energy. Therefore, the Government acted on a clear recommenda-tion. At a meeting in the House a few months ago, Dr. Burgoyne said that he did not move subsequently from the original recommendations. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that basic but important historical fact. There are reasons now for a change, which I shall deal with, but that was the basis of the best recommendation and the best advice available at that time.
  Mr. John Greenway: Is not the real issue the fact that the Government have twice been faced with majority recommendations—first by Burgoyne and then by Lord Cullen—and that on both occasions they have accepted the recommendations?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is significant. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

  491
  I might point out that, in the Department of Energy, I worked with staff in the inspectorate who dealt with safety. I want to make it clear that I have rarely worked with a body who, as individuals, showed greater integrity or higher objectivity. When it came to the crunch, and prosecution was under consideration, I never found any of them with any fear of pursuing prosecution if they felt that it was necessary. It would be unfair if criticism were directed at any of those individuals.
  I should like to comment on the main thrust of the report. The most important point identified by the report is the importance of human motivation and human involvement in safety. If Lord Cullen has done one service beyond any other, it is to establish that fact, which many people acknowledged and to which many people paid lip service before, but which has never been enunciated so clearly or with so much authority as it was by Lord Cullen.
  We can have the best equipment, the highest technology and the safest in terms of hardware and everything else, as many of our platforms had, yet the installation is only as safe as the weakest operator or the weakest individual on it. That will always remain the case. We can never legislate totally for human or individual failure.
  The report recommends, and my right hon. Friend is implementing, the safety case approach of Lord Cullen. That is the right approach. Working through a safety management system should ensure that safety becomes a philosophy and a major motivation of every individual, not just from the offshore installation manager right down to the most junior operative on the platform, but also right up to the senior management of the oil company.
  Given the safety case approach that Lord Cullen advocates, we must make certain that it is comprehensive and involves everyone. When I say "everyone", I mean not only those employed by the oil company but also contractors, subcontractors and their staff who work on an installation. I am glad that many offshore operators have already adopted much greater vetting of contractors. With new arrangements for longer contracts, the operator is taking much more responsibility for contractors and the conditions of work of contractors' staff, rather than being concerned just with oil company staff.
  I regret that on some installations there has been too much of the culture of "them and us"—the oil company staff on the one hand and the contractors' staff on the other. Once people are offshore, no matter who their ultimate employer is, they must belong to one team, with the same responsibilities. Let us never forget that the buck stops with the operator. Therefore, it is on the operator that responsibility must be placed to make sure that every individual is involved. If contractors or subcontractors are not prepared to comply with that, I hope that operators will get rid of their services and ensure that there is co-operation.
  The safety case approach must not be a once-and-for-all new idea. It must be continuing, and it must develop as experience develops in future.
  I wish to make two other points of substance.
  Mr. Mullin rose——
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would rather not give way, because many hon. Members wish to speak, and I have spoken for long enough.
  We do not want to underestimate the importance of the establishment on installations of safety committees. The
  492
  possible role of unions in safety committees is a central point in the debate. There may be a role for unions, but I am not convinced that it has to be prescribed in legislation.
  Coming back to the main thrust of Cullen, I do not believe that the involvement of unions would mean that everyone on a platform would be involved. There will always be on platforms individuals who are not members of unions. The current system of the election of safety committees, which thankfully has been developed since Cullen, gives the opportunity to anyone, whatever his interest, to become involved in the safety of the installation.
  Victimisation is a question that we cannot ignore. Although I have heard many allegations, I have seen very little substantiation of them. There has to be a system, such as was set up following Cullen, whereby individuals can make complaints anonymously, through a telephone number or whatever, so that the authorities have the opportunity to investigate whether there is substance behind a complaint. Victimisation may be overdone, but I do not think that it can be ignored.
  Transfer of responsibility for safety to the Health and Safety Executive has been raised. Here I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). Experience post-Cullen shows that it is important that whoever is responsible for offshore safety is objective —having worked with the staff of the safety inspectorate within the Department of Energy I know that they were objective—but Cullen underlined the need for them to be seen to be objective as well. That is important for credibility. That is one thing which Cullen brought out, and I endorse his recommendation on it.
  The new offshore safety division will be only as effective as the quality of its staff and the skills that they have. I say to my right hon. Friend, and through him to the Health and Safety Executive, that they must be people with technical skills equal to those of the inspectorate staff who have to deal with safety in the oil companies. They must be able to deal on equal terms with the oil companies. To use the analogy of the petroleum engineering division of the Department of Energy, its strength, recognised by oil companies around the world, is that its staff match the quality of staff in the oil companies. We must ensure that in the inspectorate there is the same matching of staff both in quality and in technical qualifications. That will mean paying salaries equivalent to those in the oil companies. There must be no economies in acquiring staff of the right quality and number.
  The offshore safety division should be situated in Aberdeen because the interplay between those involved in the regulation of the industry and those who are working at its sharp end is important if those in the inspectorate are to know and understand what is happening in the industry. I am not pleading for one particular area of Britain against another; I am seeking to make the inspectorate more effective than it might otherwise be. I beg that that be given the most serious consideration possible.
  I am glad to have been able to contribute to the debate. Again I emphasise that I hope that we have a continuing interest in offshore safety. Even one accident offshore is one too many. If it is humanly possible, it must be our objective to eliminate such accidents altogether.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I am most grateful for being called to speak today. This is one of the most serious debates that there has been in the House for many a long year.
  It is appropriate for me to declare my interest as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and honorary secretary of the AEU parliamentary group, although I receive no funding or considerations. Nevertheless, I have an interest in the engineering industry and a feeling for the people who perished on the night of the terrible disaster.
  First, I want to pay tribute to Lord Cullen. He has produced in a highly professional way two of the most detailed volumes that I have ever seen. I think that all hon. Members will agree that it was well worth waiting the 18 months that it took to prepare them.
  I also want to pay tribute to the television companies. They made a valuable contribution in bringing home to the general public the danger faced by our engineers and the contribution that they make on offshore oil rigs. I am sure that many hon. Members saw the documentary that was made about the disaster, which showed the horrendous conditions that existed and the horrendous mistakes that were made on that night, from which all the consequential suffering ensued.
  The Piper Alpha disaster occurred in July 1988. Only the other day I found myself comparing the 167 fatalities which resulted from that disaster, probably within one hour, with the number of British fatalities in the Gulf war. During the Gulf war, people have been glued to their television sets, watching events day by day and worrying about our casualties, but, thankfully, British fatalities, after all those weeks, were only one quarter of those that resulted from the Piper Alpha disaster.
  It is recognised that Piper Alpha was the biggest offshore oil disaster that the world has ever known. It left many dead. It also left survivors, some of whom are still under medication. They will be haunted by the disaster for the rest of their days. The disaster also left widows and orphans, and no financial compensation will replace the loss of their husbands and fathers.
  The report is a complete catalogue of sloppy and indifferent management, even wilful neglect bordering on sheer wickedness. People who read the report of this debate will not necessarily appreciate the contents of that document. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that everyone was doing his best and that there were some of the best conditions and the best safety possible. I contend that that was not the case. There is no doubt in my mind that the evidence shows that that is not the case, and that view is confirmed by the Cullen report.
  For the sake of the record, therefore, it is important that I, as an engineer, extract one or two references from the report rather than simply say that we have the document, that nothing was wrong, that nothing could be done and that it was a pure accident. Many of us do not feel that it was a pure accident at all. It was partly due to wilful neglect.
  Page after page of the report refers to the permit to work system. The system being used—or not used—regarding the issuing of permits when there was a change of shift from one group of engineers to another became the big issue.
  494
  It is important to note that most of the dead—79 out of a total of 167—died in the accommodation as a result of being overcome by smoke. The death toll could have been lessened had safety training been more effective. The report says that, as those men innocently waited in the accommodation for their instructions, their chances of survival were diminished and they perished.
  Chapter 6, page 121, says that the contractor responsible for carrying out the maintenance on the valve had not received training in the permit to work system from his own company. Cullen finds that the failure of the permit to work system led directly to the accident, particularly in the light of the fact that a fatality had already resulted from a breakdown of that system in 1987.
  In chapter 7, Lord Cullen states:
  "The strong impression with which I was left after hearing the evidence as to the response of Claymore and Tartan was that the type of emergency with which the senior personnel of each platform was confronted was something for which they had not been prepared."
  He then talked about poor Occidental management.
  Chapter 11 again refers to the permit to work system and shift takeovers. On pages 194 and 195, Lord Cullen concludes that there was no adequate training procedure for the permit to work system, that much reliance was placed on ad hoc methods and/or "on the job" training and that the permit to work system was not adequately monitored by the rig's safety department. The deficiencies in the permit to work system are constantly mentioned.
  Page 196 of the report states that the system of shift handovers was a major factor in the disaster, and mentions critical comments by a Mr. Clark, who was a survivor of the disaster, and criticised the operation of the permit to work system in a meeting with senior Occidental management in early 1988. No action was taken.
  Page 197 of the report mentions the death of Mr. Sutherland, in 1987. He was a rigger who died after falling from a canopy above a pump while carrying out maintenance. Occidental was prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 for failing to ensure that persons in its employ were not exposed to unnecessary risks. Occidental pleaded guilty and was fined £400. The crucial factors in that incident were shortcomings in the permit to work system. The report states:
  "The complaint to which Occidental pleaded guilty also specified 'inadequate communication of information from the … day-shift to the night-shift'."
  So, once again, the permit to work system is mentioned.
  Dr. Michael Clark: I agree with the hon. Member about the permit to work regulations. As a practical engineer who has worked in plant and on shift, does he agree that if a company cannot get its permit to work handovers working satisfactorily, and if it cannot get shift handovers organised, it is right at the bottom of the safety league?
  Mr. Eastham: I certainly do. I am trying to demonstrate that this was not a one-off mistake. There was case after case of sloppy management. The company was not administering or managing the rigs as they should be operated, even though the permit to work procedure was laid down to establish that a certain valve was safe, or had been disconnected, so that at the beginning of his 12-hour shift the next operator knew what was going on. I am trying to show the importance of the Cullen report and to shoot down any idea that everything was good and that

  495
  the report says that the accident was an act of God. It was not an act of God—it was management neglect, and as Members of Parliament we must do something about it.
  I do not want to bore the House, and I apologise for going on, but it is important to deal with the parts of the report which examine emergencies, fatalities and the seriousness of the situation. Chapter 13 deals with training for emergencies. Page 214 mentions
  "understanding on the part of all personnel as to how to react in the event of an emergency."
  The significance of that is that it appeared that people who died in the rig's accommodation were waiting to be rescued by helicopter, unaware that smoke from the fire made such a rescue impossible. Cullen believes that, if more of them had tried to make their way out of the rig, more could have survived—that assumes that they knew how to escape.
  Chapter 14 concerns Occidental's management of safety and is so critical of the company that it should be re-titled Occidental's "mismanagement" of safety. I am giving chapter and verse because this is important and I do not want hon. Members to think that it is all in my imagination.
  Page 227 of the report states that Occidental Commissioned a report on the risk of riser ruptures and the effects that they might have on rigs. Mr. Saldana prepared a report which states that ruptures represented a more serious hazard than Occidental had thought. Occidental's senior management responded by questioning Mr. Saldana's qualifications and experience. That provokes the question, why was he Commissioned to write the report in the first place if the management intended to ignore it because it did not like some of his conclusions? That is a complete contradiction. Occidental nominated him to undertake the study.
  On page 235, the report mentions that a large maintenance programme was being carried out on Piper Alpha at the time of the disaster and yet oil production continued at the maximum. Lord Cullen describes that as "puzzling". Some people might call it reckless, and I might even call it sheer greed—the company could not even turn the taps down during a major maintenance operation to ensure that less fuel was flowing. The company was extracting the maximum amount of fuel, even though a vital valve was being worked on when the horrendous accident happened.
  On page 251, the report says that there was a shortfall in the number of safety inspectors in the North sea. Two out of five inspectors' jobs had remained unfilled for two years before the disaster. The report says that safety inspectors were, and are, inadequately trained and that persistent undermanning has affected the frequency and the depth of inspections.
  Chapter 20 refers to evacuation, escape and rescue, and says that it is a statutory requirement for every rig to have a standby vessel. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described the type and quality of standby vessels, sp I shall not bore hon. Members with the details, but it is all there, chapter and verse, in the report.
  Lord Cullen considers union involvement in the offshore oil industry in chapter 21. Although he recognises that industrial relations are outside his remit, he makes a number of statements which could be used to show the benefits for safety of a well organised union structure.
  496
  The Director-General of the Health and Safety Executive said that in the onshore industry union-appointed
  "safety representatives could play a valuable part in the promotion of safety and in relation to inspections".
  The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, however resisted the appointment of similar personnel offshore on the ground that there were very few installations with recognised trade unions. That prompts a reasonable question—why were those unions not recognised?
  The remains of Piper Alpha are still at the bottom of the North sea, despite protests by environmentalists, the Royal Navy and local fishermen. Leaving those remains rotting in the sea may even violate the 1958 Geneva convention.
  Anyone who considers the tone of the Cullen report to be less than scathing must not have read the same document as me. It is critical from start to finish, and tonight no Minister will be able to avoid making a commitment about the Government's future conduct.
  The offshore oilfields have experienced major difficul-ties for some time. The Amalgamated Engineering Union —my union, and a very responsible one—has used its best endeavours to be helpful and co-operative. In the months following the disaster I was contacted by the engineers' executive council, which seemed alarmed about the indifference of the employers. As secretary of the AEU parliamentary group, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy; he was courteous and co-operative, and I was grateful for that. We had two meetings. The Secretary of State invited three members of the executive to join us at the first meeting, and two attended the second. I took the minutes. The Secretary of State said that he had accepted all the recommendations in the report, and that good progress was being made. He also mentioned the transfer of responsibilities to the Health and Safety Executive, and told us that Mr. A. Barrell had been appointed head of that organisation.
  One of the executive councillors, Mr. James Airlie, said that he recognised the difficulties relating to, for instance, resources and training. He also inquired about visits to installations, and about the location of the HSE in Aberdeen and Morecambe. The question of health and safety committees on individual sites was raised, as were the issues of victimisation and short-term contracts. As we explained to the Secretary of State, the position was ludicrous: many engineers were on two-week contracts, and any engineer who complained about matters of safety could be sure that his contract would not be renewed.
  Mr. James Lamond: My hon. Friend gained day-to-day experience of the trade union movement before he came to the House. Does he agree that such attitudes on the part of these firms were greatly encouraged by legislation enacted not only in the past 11 years, but by the 1970–74 Government, who seemed to regard the union movement as a group of extremists determined to bring down British industry if they could? The Government entirely ignored the daily bread-and-butter work done by the unions every week of the year, which is of such value not only to union members but to all the workers in the oilfields and elsewhere—and, indeed, to the country as a whole.
  Mr. Eastham: I entirely agree. We observe the Government's anti-union attitude day in, day out. They

  497
  seem to hate trade unionists, and not even to consider them British. That attitude changes only in times of emergency. When there is a war and they want engineers to work in munitions, it is all shoulders to the wheel, and trade unionists suddenly become good workers—people with whom the Government can negotiate and do business.
  At the meeting, the Secretary of State made three points. First, he assured us that there would be no lack of resources. Secondly, on personnel, he said that a practical regime would be introduced, and that its organisation would be left to the HSE. Thirdly, he accepted Lord Cullen's recommendations about safety representation. Mr. Tom MacLean, a member of the executive, mentioned inspector understaffing and the quality of staff. The Secretary of State said that he had already improved pay and that he "was not hanging about", which pleased us greatly.
  I mentioned the excessive hours worked by the men on the rigs, and the consequent risks to safety and efficiency. The Secretary of State said that he too considered that important. When he made his first statement about the disaster, I told him that engineers on the North sea oil rigs were working far more hours per year than those in the Norwegian fields. That still requires earnest consideration. Later, the Secretary of State wrote to me privately, saying that directives were being issued containing work guidelines.
  We appreciated what seemed to be co-operation from the Secretary of State, and felt that the exercise had been useful. Since then, I have received some encouraging letters, but I hope that we shall soon get down to practicalities.
  I made some other approaches, again with the help of the executive of the AEU. I received a letter that concerned me greatly. It did not make good reading. The executive referred to continuing anxieties long after the Piper Alpha disaster.
  In February 1990, I received a letter from Mr. Tom MacLean, who has responsibility for the construction industry in the AEU, in which he drew attention to correspondence relating to the Montrose platform and asked me to note an enclosed copy of a fax dated 26 February 1990 from the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee. It said that there were deficiencies in Amoco's working practices which were a source of great concern and that the committee called on the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who was then the Minister with responsibility for oil installations, im-mediately to shut down the Montrose platform until Amoco's fitness to manage had been reassessed. It also argued that new fireproof accommodation should be installed.
  That was picked up by the newspapers. On 25 February 1990, there was a report in Observer Scotland under the headline
  "Rig gas leak 'a whisper away' from second Piper".
  I thought that I ought to approach the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to see whether we could get together to talk about these serious matters. On 7 March 1990 I wrote to Dr. Hughes and said:
  "we are now wondering whether it would be possible to convene a meeting at your offices to discuss further some of the issues which are seriously concerning our members. We
  498
  have also exchanged correspondence with our Executive Council who obviously are most interested in the pursuit of some better arrangements. Ideally, from our point of view, I should like to suggest a deputation of 3 AEU MPs plus 3 Executive Council members with a special interest in the subject."
  Although some organisations profess that they want to co-operate, the message that came back to me from UKOOA was that it would meet the three AEU Members of Parliament but it refused point blank to meet the three AEU executive council members.
  Despite UKOOA's refusal, the three AEU Members of Parliament thought that it would be wise to meet UKOOA at its offices. The three hon. Members were my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and me. No trade union officials were allowed to be present for the discussion. We were received courteously. Dr. Harold Hughes is the chairman. Mr. Christopher Ryan, a director, said that there are 36 companies in the industry, all of which are members of UKOOA. The companies are members of an association; I wonder whether the engineers on the oil rigs would have been regarded as more acceptable if they had been members of an association rather than a trade union. UKOOA might then have been prepared to meet them. An association does just the same work as a trade union. We were told that there are 160 platforms and that the total investment amounts to £166 billion. That is a lot of money. We recognise how important the industry is to the United Kingdom.
  We gave notice to Dr. Hughes that the engineering group intended to raise the profile of this very serious problem. I told Dr. Hughes—it is quoted in the Glasgow Herald of 28 February 1990, long after the Piper Alpha incident—that certain rigs were working with faulty electrics and that a survey had revealed that 95 per cent. of the explosive-proof equipment in the Brent field had faults. The article also referred to the fact that workers were convinced that faults had shut down Cormorant Alpha and Brent Charlie and that similar electrical faults were to be found on at least three other Shell installations.
  The issue rumbled on in the House of Commons for a long time after that. One of my hon. Friends tabled an early-day motion on North sea safety and trade union recognition, after which I received a letter from UKOOA. I was told that all workers offshore had the right to elect their own safety representatives and that there were safety committees on every platform. The letter also pointed out that a recent study by the Institute of Offshore Engineering, an independent body, had reported similar accident rates in both Norway and the United Kingdom. The implication was that the number of fatalities and accidents was just as great in Norway as in the United Kingdom. According to the information that we have received, that is nowhere near the truth. The letter said that £750 million was being invested to redress some of the problems. In an important paragraph, UKOOA said:
  "As far as trade union recognition is concerned, all workers have equal rights offshore—including the right to join a trade union and join safety committees. Recognition is a matter between workers and their employers, the contractors. You may be interested to know that there is an obligation under every licence for the operator to provide facilities for trade union officers to go offshore for the purposes of recruitment."

  499
  That is a bit rich when we know what happens if full-time trade union officers attempt to get to the rigs, even to speak to the workers.
  When I replied to Mr. Ryan's letter I referred him to an article in The Scotsman dated 26 October under the heading
  "North sea men face worst death risk in the world."
  An independent team of analysts—Smith Rea Energy—calculate that the average cost to United Kingdom-based companies in lost production and compensation amounts to £180 million a year. That was before the Piper Alpha disaster, which raised the 1988 total to £1·2 million. Surely there must be something wrong with the rigs if so much money is lost, if there are so many fatalities and injuries, if so many rigs are closed down and if so much energy is lost. I base my argument not on my assumptions or calculations but on those of so-called experts.
  The House will appreciate that my correspondence with UKOOA has been going on for some time. In November 1990, I received a letter saying:
  "Since Lord Cullen reported, all engaged in the offshore industry have adopted a very positive approach to the recommendations made and there is a common desire to implement the report in the interest of North Sea safety … Therefore UKOOA would be pleased to host a farther meeting with you and your AEU colleagues."
  That was a breakthrough; it was the first time that UKOOA had said that it was prepared to meet members of the executive as well as AEU-sponsored Members of Parliament. The letter concluded:
  "I will telephone you upon your receipt of this letter."
  UKOOA never telephoned me; I am still waiting for the call.
  A letter from the AEU executive illustrates the brutality of what was happening in the oilfield. [Laughter]. I know that this seems a bit of a joke to those who do not work in the oilfields, who simply do not understand. Perhaps if they got themselves a boiler suit, rolled up their sleeves and did six months' work in the North sea, they would appreciate how much engineers contribute to oil companies' wealth.
  The letter from the executive, dated 3 December 1990, illustrates the brutal hire-and-fire policy in operation in the North sea. One can hardly say that 3 December 1990 is a long time ago and that matters have improved. The letter refers to dismissals following the dispute about safety on oil rigs. It gives a breakdown of dismissals following the stoppages. Apparently 534 Offshore Construction Contractors employees were dismissed. There was no mutuality and there were no negotiations. It seems that the companies have returned to their old ways—the practices that we have tried so hard to leave behind us. They merely say, "There is no job for you. Too bad, you're off." To this day, there is no consideration and no understanding.
  In January, I received another letter from UKOOA, in which Mr. Ryan wrote:
  "My purpose in writing is to invite you and your colleagues to meet us … when we could brief you on UKOOA's reaction to the current recommendations and discuss other matters of mutual interest. You may recall that we were of a mind to suggest a meeting with appropriate AEU national officials".
  UKOOA was "of a mind" to do that and said that it would call me. The last sentence of the letter reads:
  "I will get in touch with you on your receipt of this letter."
  Once again, I never received the call. Perhaps UKOOA keeps that line on its computer—"We will get in touch with
  500
  you after you have received this letter." I want to make it public, therefore, that the AEU Members of Parliament and the union's executive council would very much appreciate a meeting. It is not difficult to get in touch with me. Everyone else seems to be able to get in touch with me and I can always be left a message. If I receive that call, I shall be only too pleased to meet UKOOA's representatives.
  Allegations of blacklisting have sometimes been denied. Hon. Members may be aware that the Select Committee on Employment undertook an inquiry into recruitment practices. We dealt with the employment of the disabled and minority groups and decided to have a look at the Economic League and at blacklisting. I have a letter here —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no."] This is important. I am trying to illustrate that this is fact; it is not in my mind. The Employment Select Committee received a letter from one of the unions about blacklisting of anyone who dares to complain about safety on the oil rigs.
  Those who complain get worked off. The Select Committee was sent a transcript of some of the communications that such people had received. The unions are getting a bit more skilled at recording these things and, in this case, they also recorded telephone conversations. The transcript proves that on North sea oil rigs, blacklisting continues apace.
  I know that people say that blacklisting does not exist but we know that it does. Paragraph 30, on page 392 of the Cullen report, says:
  "Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to … the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978".
  Even Lord Cullen, who said that he did not propose to become involved in discussions of blacklisting or the trade unions, recognises that it is going on and thinks that the workers should have some protection.
  I refuse to believe that nobody is to blame for the disaster. The Cullen report certainly concluded that people were to blame. We need better management. North sea oil workers are entitled to full trade union rights. We want less secrecy regarding safety problems and adequate health and safety resources. Above all, we ask for increased co-operation, despite Conservative Members' laughing and tittering about the livelihoods and working conditions of those who work on the rigs.
  There is nothing irresponsible about our desire for more co-operation. We are trade unionists and we are far more responsible than some of the hooligans on the Conservative Benches when it comes to dealing with the serious matter of the loss of hundreds of lives. None of those on the Conservative Benches will die on the oil rigs because none of them wear boiler suits and none of them have ever taken such jobs. It is the workers who do that, and that is why we want more co-operation in future. Trade unionists are entitled to work in dignity, and the whole House should be determined not to allow a repeat of Piper Alpha.
  This afternoon I was passed information by a colleague who has a relative in a senior position in the oilfields from which I discovered that compensation has still not been paid to all the survivors of the disaster, which occurred in July 1988. We are now in March 1991. I was also horrified to learn that it is believed that the new replacement platform is of the same design as the original Piper Alpha platform, yet one of the main criticisms concerned the type

  501
  of accommodation on the platform. If that is the case, it is a complete disgrace and the Minister should do something about it.
  There is no doubt that Occidental has a dreadful record. It is interesting that, although some of the other oil companies, such as Esso, have already held one-day conferences on safety, Occidental has still to hold its first safety conference.
  I could talk about many things. I could speak for about two hours on some of the deficiencies and scandals in the North sea oilfields. It is time that we put a stop to all that.
  6.40 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: I shall certainly follow what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has said, but I shall do so later because I too must begin by saying that that few disasters have had more impact on us or have been more distressing than that which occurred on 6 July 1988 in the North sea and in which, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, 167 men died. The hon. Member for Blackley put that number in the context of the casualties of the Gulf war.
  It may surprise the hon. Member for Blackley to know that I have worked in a boiler suit and have worked shifts. I have not done so offshore—I doubt if I ever will now because what is left of my hair is too grey—
  Mr. Eastham: I am grateful to learn that and I am greatly encouraged by it because as a result of that experience the hon. Gentleman's understanding of this matter will be very different from that of his hon. Friends sitting beside him.
  Dr. Clark: As I have said, I have worked in boiler suits and have worked shifts in the chemical industry onshore, but not offshore, and I should like to take up some of the time of the House to describe two accidents of which I have knowledge. I was not responsible for them, but I was involved, in the aftermath. Neither was anything like Piper Alpha—the results were a fraction of what happened on Piper Alpha—but I know something of the distress that any accident causes to the surviving work force, the managers and, above all, the relatives.
  In 1965 on Teesside, there was an accident at an ICI plant when a pressure vessel was about to be cleaned out. It had been used for the polymerisation of hydrocarbons and for making polymers. As it was known that some hydrocarbon would be left in the vessel, permit-to-work chits were issued so that men could go inside it with bronze spades to clear it out. The spades were bronze because it was known that a metal spade would cause sparks and that a spark would probably cause an accident. To show that it was thought to be a safe procedure, the manager of the plant went in the vessel first. He cleared out some of the debris from the bottom of the vessel for an hour before any other man went in—[Interruption.] I am sorry that those Opposition Members who have accused Conservative Members of not having any industrial experience do not wish to listen to an account of the little industrial experience that we have had—it would encourage us to gain more such experience if Opposition Members would listen when we talk about it.
  502
  After the manager had tested the vessel by working in it himself for an hour, two members of the work force went in, using the proper equipment and following the proper procedures, but they disturbed a pile of highly unstable peroxides which immediately exploded. One man was blown out of the vessel dead. The other was blown out on fire, severely hurt, and was in hospital for a long time recovering from appalling injuries.
  I was not the manager of the plant at the time, but I became the manager three months later and I know of the effect that that accident had—three months later—on the rest of the work force. They were dispirited and demoralised. There was also compassion for the relatives and sadness about the incident.
  What happened there is a classic example of what Lord Cullen described in his report. I refer to the difference between safety through regulation and safety through having a safety case. On that plant, everything had been done right by regulation. All the permits had been signed, all the working methods had been approved, and all the regulations had been abided by, but a proper safety case had not been made for working inside that vessel. After the accident, the scientists and chemists at ICI investigated how it could have happened and found a type of chemical —a highly unstable peroxide—which had not been known about before the accident and which exploded when it was simply disturbed. The work that was carried out after finding that highly unstable peroxide showed that men should never have entered that vessel at any time.
  Some people talk about being wise after the event, but I do not think that that is a correct analysis. Instead, we learn after the event. We do research and carry out investigations after the event which, if we had safety case procedures, we would carry out before the event. We should investigate all possibilities. All the scientific research and engineering possibilities should be carried out and ascertained before the event—and they would be if a safety case procedure were in existence instead of a regime of regulation which simply tells people, "You will work in a certain safe way", or in a way that is presumed to be safe. That is one of the main points of Lord Cullen's report.
  Immediately after the Piper Alpha disaster, the Government set up a technical investigation. The Government, the Department of Energy and the Secretary of State at the time are to be commended for the speed at which they set up that technical investigation and for the speed at which it reported—in September the same year, just over two months after the incident. Although the inquiry reported quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it reported in a slipshod way. In fact, the evidence shows that it reported as professionally and as thoroughly as it could in the time available. In his own painstaking report, Lord Cullen praised that technical inquiry.
  Lord Cullen's report became available to us on 12 November. He concluded that an initial explosion set in train an escalating series of fires. He showed how there was a series of events, happenings or situations, each of which on its own might have allowed a certain amount of occupational leeway which would not have led to the accident. However, as was stated by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras when he went through the series of events involving negligence, neglect or forgetfulness, that combination and series of events allowed the fire to escalate and the explosion to take place. And so it is with most accidents. One event on its own can probably be

  503
  accommodated by the safety procedures, by individuals, and by experienced operators, but accidents happen when several things occur simultaneously—as with Piper Alpha.
  I will give the House an example of another accident, which occurred 10 years after the one that I have already described. Although I like to think that I was not directly responsible for it, I have to take some responsibility because I was the plant manager at the time. A man started working on a mixer which was used to mix plastic materials. He did so without permission. The fuse had not been withdrawn from the electric motor. Unknown to him, the mixer blade had jammed the last time it was used and the motor was switched on with the blade in that jammed position. The man broke all regulations by placing his hand in the mixer to try to make the blade go round, and it started to go round because the motor was still switched on and the fuse had not been withdrawn. The man was not wearing gloves and when the blade went round, instead of the gloves taking the shock of the mixer, his hand took the shock and he lost fingers from his right hand.
  Had any one of those five things not occurred, the accident would not have happened. If the man had applied for permission to work, he would not have got it, so he would not have had the accident. If he had been granted permission to work, the fuse would have been withdrawn from the motor. If, by chance, the blade had not jammed when the last person used it, the mixer would not have been jammed with the motor still switched on. If he had not placed his hand in the mixer, there would have been no accident. Had he been wearing thick leather gloves, the blades would have taken the gloves into the mixer and his hand would have been bruised but he would not have lost his fingers. Five separate incidents happened in that accident. If any one of them had not occurred, the man would not have lost his fingers.
  Lord Cullen described many such accidents in his report. Procedures can be made to work to a degree and must be made to work so far as they are relevant. We must not work on probability, with a safety ethos to the effect that the probability of an accident is only 0·1 per cent., so if three mechanisms are operated and there is a 0·1 per cent. risk on any one of them the probability of an accident is negligible. At some time, the combination will occur —if one spins a coin enough times it may come down heads 10 times in succession. We want safety not by probability but by safety-case analysis—safety by design and by engineering. In the last resort, we want safety by regulation and procedure--but built into equipment, not worked into it by human and fallible operators.
  There are three roles on any operating platform or in any factory—those of operators or employers, those of employees, and collective responsibility. The Government do not have a monopoly on the role of collective responsibility. It applies to many places of work and, in some ways, applies least of all to the Government.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, the operators or employers know that the buck stops with them and that we cannot legislate to prevent accidents. We can legislate to ensure that certain types of equipment are available on a platform but we cannot legislate for its reliability. We can legislate that there should be systems, such as alarms, safety systems or fire systems, on a platform, but not for their complexity. We can legislate that manuals must be written—even that they should be read—but we cannot legislate for their quality, nor for the quality of the
  504
  teaching when their contents are transferred to the minds of the employees and plant operators. Furthermore, we can legislate, through the Department of Energy or the Health and Safety Executive, that checks should be carried out on all equipment, but not for the enthusiasm with which the checks are carried out. In other words, we cannot legislate for safety culture, which is so important if we are to have safe working practices, not only in the North sea but in the use of complex equipment on any plant.
  In his report, Lord Cullen says that operators should sharpen their responsibilities for analysing hazards and documentation of systems—and so they should. Operators in the North sea should never forget that 36,000 people work offshore there. The Government can provide a framework for the employment of those people, but it will be a broad framework and there can be no alternative to operators sharpening their procedures, awareness and responsibilities. The Government must be responsible and diligent in pursuing the analysis of documentation and equipment, but the quality of both and the responsibility for the employees who work on the platforms must rest well and truly with the operators.
  The employees, whether they are platform managers or those who prepare food in the mess room, are entitled to trade union recognition if they so wish, but trade unions should not necessarily represent employees with regard to safety.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman says that he is prepared to support workers' rights to trade union recognition. How does he think that that could be brought into effect? How could workers' opinions on the matter be properly tested, and what legislation or moves does he suggest should be made to put that theoretical right to trade union recognition into practice?
  Dr. Clark: Recognition must be twofold. First, the work force must be organised; secondly, it must seek recognition from the employer. I support everyone's right to trade union membership, but recognition is a matter between the trade union and the employer. The trade union would probably find it difficult to achieve recognition if the number of its members was well below the majority of those working on the platform. All workers have a right to trade union membership, but recognition depends on the size of the representation and will be negotiated between those who belong to the union and the employer on whose premises they work.
  When I worked for ICI in County Durham and north Yorkshire, way back in the early 1960s, we had a successful system of safety committees. ICI's safety record was second to none. When the Health and Safety Executive was established some years ago, ICI's model was taken into account, as it was considered to be the best practice at that time. As a manager, I had regular meetings with the trade unions—especially the Transport and General Workers Union—and with the safety committee. There were sometimes trade union shop stewards on the safety committee. I found that their style and presentation were more appropriate to trade unions which deal with terms and conditions of employment. They enabled them, as trade union representatives, to present their case in a manner best able to achieve what they sought, and with a negotiating stance generally understood by the manager. Some shop stewards were robust and could put a case

  505
  forcefully. They often asked for more than they expected to receive and a compromise would be reached. However, such a negotiating method is not always a suitable tactic when seeking to achieve safety.
  When one asks for safety, it should be because it is needed and it should not be negotiable. Even if, in the debate, it is found that there is a better way to overcome a safety hazard or problem, the person asking for the safety of himself and his colleagues must believe that it is needed and will not be watered down through negotiation. The type and style of negotiating that would usually be expected from a health and safety committee representa-tive and a trade union representative may thus be quite different. Therefore, I do not regard it as essential to have safety representation through trade unions, but I believe that it is essential to have such representations through safety councils, with people who are diligent, known for their common sense, trusted by their fellow employees and respected by the management at their workplace.
  The third category is collective responsibility. In my place of work I always tried to get rid of the feeling of "us" and "them" and to create a feeling of "we". There is no issue on which a feeling of "we" is more important than safety, especially on a platform in the North sea where everyone is together. People may have different coloured boilersuits, hard hats, salaries and jobs, but on the safety issue we must think in terms of "we" because everyone is in the same boat—literally, if there is a disaster such as the Piper Alpha. Collective responsibility is of paramount importance. The Government have told us that they believe that every employee has a right to be represented on a safety committee, and the committee members should be elected.
  Several letters have been read out to us and discussed by the hon. Member for Blackley. I, too, received a letter from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and found parts of it distressing. The letter is dated 6 March and was sent not only to me, but to all hon. Members, although the copy that I have here has my name at the top, as it was sent to me.
  I realise that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association is a trade association, representing most of the companies which operate in the North sea. The letter states, as though it were something to be proud of:
  "as at December some 900 elected safety representatives were involved"—
  in safety committees—
  "of which over two-thirds had already received formal training to help them in their responsibilities."
  The Piper Alpha disaster was two and a half years ago, but only two-thirds of the 900 safety representatives are properly trained. If we accept, as I think we probably can, that more than half of them were trained before the disaster because some operators would have sent safety representatives on training courses, there have been only an extra one-sixth trained during the past two and a half years. I say to UKOOA and, more importantly, to its members, "What have you been doing for the past two and a half years? Why have not 100 per cent. of the people been trained and a further 10 per cent. held in reserve ready to go on the safety committees if anyone drops out or resigns from the company?" It is not good enough.
  The letter also states:
  "Chief among these"—
  506
  the Cullen recommendations—
  "is the systematic use of the Safety Case and Formal Safety Assessment, the full acceptance by the Operator of his responsibility for the safety of his installation and of the workforce, and the change away from the present prescriptive regulation to goal-setting regulations."
  That is fine—those are Lord Cullen's recommendations, which we all applaud—but the letter then state:
  "All these had been UKOOA recommendations in evidence to Lord Cullen."
  It is incredible that when Lord Cullen set up his inquiry, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association was able to make to him—or so it claims—three recommendations which are now acknowledged as the main recommendations of the Cullen report. If it was able to do that after 167 men had died, what were UKOOA and its member companies doing before July 1988 and before 167 men died? It is not something to be proud of to be able to say, two and a half years after such an accident, "Those are the recommendations that Lord Cullen made, we made them to him and we are proud that we did so." The association should have made them five years earlier. If it had, we probably would not be having today's debate and, hopefully, the men would not have been killed.
  Phrases such as "safety cases" and "formal safety assessments" sound like, and probably are, new phrases, but the ideas are not new. The North sea is a hostile environment, the technology is sophisticated and the consequences of failure are severe. But there are other industries with those characteristics—the space and nuclear industries. I know from experience that the nuclear industry has safety cases, safety assessments and designed-in safety. Although I do not have personal experience of it, I have no doubt that the space industry has the same features. Why has it taken so long for the safety case assessment to be brought to North sea platforms, when so many characteristics of work in the North sea are similar to those of the nuclear and space industries? Thank God—and I really mean that—that we have brought pressure to bear now, but what a shame that we did not bring it to bear some time before.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The concluding comments of the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, are pertinent to the issue not only of where we are now, but of where we are going. By way of introduction, it is important to say that the fact that the Cullen report is excellent and the Government have accepted all its recommendations can, in some ways, be a danger rather than a benefit. There is a tendency for people to think that we have looked at the safety issue, that it is all there in the book—we have agreed to it. When the debate continues, some people, for example in the media, often ask why we are asking for this and pressing for that, because surely all has been taken care of by the Cullen report. The answer is that such matters will be taken care of only when the industry gets it all together. That will not happen overnight—we must ensure that as much is done as fast as possible and the regime is brought up to a higher standard than existed before.
  It is not surprising that no fewer than five Members from Grampian region are seeking to speak in the debate, of which I am the second to have spoken, when we consider the basic importance of the industry to our district. When I checked the most recently available figures, I found that, in Grampian region, 51,200 people

  507
  are employed in the oil and gas industry and a further 18,400 in related jobs—a total of 69,000, or 33 per cent. of the total work force. Therefore, the issue is in the minds of a high proportion of that region's population, because they are directly or indirectly involved in and concerned about what goes on offshore and the safety standards that operate.
  I shall not make general accusations, but until the moment that Piper Alpha went up there was a general belief that the safety regime, while not perfect, was good. There were incidental accidents, but nobody believed that the Piper Alpha disaster could happen, and nobody went offshore worrying about it. However, now that it has happened, nobody can go offshore again without being aware that it has happened and that, no matter what the regime, it could conceivably happen again. Such thoughts concentrate the mind, but it is an awful way to have it concentrated.
  In my intervention in the speech of the Secretary of State, I said that I wholly supported the idea of the safety case. I was aware that it was promoted in the industry before the Piper Alpha disaster—I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochford. It is a pity that the procedure was not established earlier, but it is the right approach to say that operators must look at every aspect of the design and operation of their platforms and imagine all possible events to ensure that all factors have been taken into account. That does not preclude the modification of design factors and regulations.
  It is still a matter of concern to me that I have not yet received a satisfactory answer to a question that I raised as a direct consequence of the disaster. The Piper Alpha platform was substantially modified from its original installation, and it appears that the modifications contributed to the scale of the disaster. It has not been satisfactorily explained who approved the modifications and why. Those questions were not asked, but I am sure that a safety case regime would have demonstrated that the modifications were risky and unsatisfactory. That led to questions about escape mechanisms from platforms.
  I asked a senior executive of Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Ltd. why no downward escape routes, as well as escape routes via the heli-deck, were incorporated into the design and into evacuation procedures from the platform. I was amazed to hear him say that he thought there were. That shows some of the problems that existed before the disaster. I believe that the safety case approach is correct.
  I want to speak briefly, and perhaps predictably, about the case for locating the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive in the north-east of Scotland. I have believed for a long time—before the Piper Alpha disaster—that there was a case for separating the offshore safety role from the Department of Energy. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) acknowledged that point towards the end of his speech. He said that the real point was not necessarily that the Department of Energy was compromised—although it may have been, and some people say that it was even though the right hon. Gentleman, who held office in that Department, said categorically that it was not—but that it was seen to be compromised. The offshore safety role should be taken away to ensure that such confusion does not arise.
  The case for putting the centre of gravity of the offshore safety division in the north-east should not be lost. The
  508
  arguments that I hear suggest strongly that the centre of gravity is likely to be in London, with subsidiary operations in Bootle and Aberdeen, but I am not convinced that the case has been made properly.
  In a reply to me on 21 January 1991, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), while suggesting that he would not preclude the decision and that it was a matter for the HSE, nevertheless wrote:
  "The need to recruit scarce specialist staff and the location in London and the South East of most oil companies will require that a major part of the operation will continue to be based in London".
  I wholly refute that. I do not understand why, if executives have to travel to London, they cannot be expected to travel to Aberdeen. The fact that the oil companies have a substantial part of their headquarters in London does not negate the fact that the operational headquarters—which is what we are considering—are in Aberdeen. That is where most of the people concerned with safety in the industry are based.
  That idea is reinforced by the survey Commissioned by the Aberdeen centre for offshore safety, of which I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister are aware. The centre was recently set up by a number of bodies, including Grampian regional council, the trades council, the chamber of commerce and Aberdeen city council. It is a fairly representative body, which has, I accept, a clear objective—to persuade the HSE to make Aberdeen its location. It has asked most operators in Aberdeen for their views and preferences and, bearing in mind what the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said, there seems to be a contradiction.
  The survey states:
  "71 per cent. of the sample … confirmed that the key leadership locus for the Formal Safety Assessment Task Force structure is, or will be, in Aberdeen."
  In addition, 67 per cent. of the sample reported that the previous interface in Aberdeen with the Department of Energy was inadequate because of inadequate levels of skill and the inadequate seniority of the Aberdeen staff. If we are to be told that the HSE must locate its operations in London because the Department of Energy has not transferred its key personnel to Aberdeen, then we have the cart the wrong way round in relation to the horse.
  There is a supposed commitment to move civil servants and jobs out of London to the regions and provincial centres. Logic dictates that that is the way it should be done, and that it is a practical way of improving the efficiency of the operation in every sense, as well as transferring the centre of gravity from London. The Secretary of State has already said that it is a matter for the HSE, but I hope that it will read the report of the debate and take on board what has been said.
  We accept the role of the skilled people in Bootle and the role of London, but I for one am wholly unconvinced that that means that the centre of gravity must be in London rather than in Aberdeen. I believe that we are entitled to press the case, as we in the north-east are doing.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would it not enhance the operating level of those who work in the oil companies in Aberdeen if the senior level of control of the offshore installations were in Aberdeen too? Would not that contribute to a greater commitment to safety at senior levels in the oil companies?
  Mr. Bruce: I wholly agree. My point is that, if the Department of Energy and the HSE inspectorate were to make a move, the oil companies would be forced to follow through. Some already have, and are complaining that that is where their centre of gravity is and that too many people have to travel south. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that a move would bring everything together. The efficiency of the industry would be enhanced, and it would seem to be in everyone's interest. The industry could concentrate on developing particular aspects of the safety regimes.
  Another relevant issue is the relationship between oil company workers and workers in the contracting companies, which has become a major bone of contention. I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Energy say in Aberdeen that we needed to ensure that the status of all offshore workers was indistinguishable. That was the purpose of my intervention on the Secretary of State. There is considerable worry about the way in which the relationship between the oil companies and the offshore contractors has developed and its effect on the morale of the workers, which I am sure has implications for safety as well as for efficiency.
  When the previous downturn in oil prices took effect the oil companies put a real squeeze on the contractors, which had several consequences. They invited contractors to make bids for maintenance work, for example. A price may be based on man hours or it may be fixed—there are various ways in which to proceed, but the prices are very hard fought. In such circumstances, the contractors are often forced to change the working conditions of offshore workers. They often made the workers self-employed so that they would not enjoy holiday pay or sickness benefits in full or, if they did, they had to pay for them themselves.
  That caused considerable resentment among many of those people. When they found that the oil companies were looking after their own and putting on the squeeze further down the line, it created a real problem. It made blacklisting, which arose in the industrial dispute last year, a particularly offensive issue. Shell ultimately realised that it was counter-productive for its corporate image. Companies told contractors, "We invite you to provide a competitive tender to do a job on our platform. You must determine the parameters of that contract, whom and how many you employ, as long as you meet our price and conditions." Then they said, "However, you cannot employ certain named individuals because we don't regard them as desirable."
  Apart from the very dubious legality of such behaviour, the morality and ethics are extremely questionable. That is beside the point, in a sense. The effect on the relationship, on the climate and on the way in which different workers see themselves is negative and has contributed to a deterioration of morale and industrial relations offshore, which must be sorted out.
  I want to mention an issue which may seem tangential, but which is of concern to me and relevant to offshore safety as it relates to helicopters. The House will be aware that there is a severe shortage of air traffic controllers throughout the country, which has led to some pressure on staffing levels. I accept that that has happened to try to ensure that training is carried out to bring the level up to acceptable standards. However, I represent Aberdeen airport and I am not at all happy about the cuts that have been imposed there. I have had extended correspondence with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on the
  510
  matter. Suffice it to say that we are now agreed on the facts. We have 28 controllers out of a full complement of 32—in other words, we are four short in practical terms, without going into the details.
  That shortage affects helicopter training at the airport. The air traffic controller in charge has to say to helicopter companies, "You may not be able to carry out training at certain times of the day, because we do not have enough air traffic control cover to do it." I am not suggesting that there is an immediate safety problem at Aberdeen airport. I am assured that there is not and I accept that assurance. However, if, by definition, helicopter companies are having to cut training activity, safety in the offshore environment must be affected. I know that colleagues who represent neighbouring constituencies are well aware of people's concern that the means of transport to work offshore is helicopters.
  Helicopters are an inherently less safe method of travel than fixed-wing aircraft are. It is interesting that the experiment with the idea of long-haul helicopters, embarked on a few years ago, has been substantially abandoned in favour of going back to using Sumburgh and Unst for the northern field, with fixed-wing aircraft and transfers. That minimises the time that has to be spent in helicopters.
  I am anxious that there should be no compromise on helicopter training at Aberdeen airport as a result of general cuts in air traffic controllers. It is unfortunate that that should happen at a time when Aberdeen is the only airport in the United Kingdom that is enjoying a growth in traffic. Yet it gets a share of the cuts, which does not seem to take account of that growth.
  My most important point is to suggest that, given that the safety regime will continue to change and that the implications of the Cullen report will take some time to put in place, we need some other body to try to ensure that offshore safety is monitored, developed and advanced continually. I should like further consideration to be given to the recommendation, which I have made before, of establishing an independent offshore safety trust. I put forward that idea some months ago.
  I have written to a number of interested bodies, such as the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, the trade unions and oil companies, to suggest that the idea should be given serious consideration. The response has been by no means hostile. It has led to a certain grinding of axes—perhaps predictably. Trade union interests have tended to say, "We believe that offshore trade union recognition is the determinant of offshore safety. That is what we are campaigning for, and we do not wish to be sidetracked from that." I must make it clear that I support the campaign for trade union recognition. My idea would not get in the way of that. However, I do not accept that trade union recognition could be the sole determinant of the offshore safety regime, although I believe that it could make a contribution.
  By the same token, the employers have tended to say, "We think that the offshore safety committees are the answer." Again, there is some doubt about the full role of offshore safety committees. The hon. Member for Rochford has pointed out that such committees have not yet been fully implemented.
  The idea of an offshore safety trust, located in Aberdeen, which would draw representation from across the spectrum—from oil companies, from trade unions, from local authorities and from the Health and Safety

  511
  Executive—would provide a useful focus for monitoring offshore safety. Any individual or company could report concerns about safety, whether they related to design, or to operating standards and practices, with absolute anonymity and knowing that there was protection. Concerns could be investigated and people could be identified if they wished, but only at their discretion— anonymity would be guaranteed otherwise.
  The avenue of the Department of Energy has not wholly worked, and the Department is not seen to be sufficiently detached. The body that I suggest could produce a quarterly report which would summarise the issues that had been raised with it. That would help to identify the areas of concern, raise standards and ensure a focus of debate. It is a constructive suggestion. The cost would be minimal in relation to the industry and it could be financed by all those who took part.
  I want to anticipate any questions. The fact that we have had the Cullen report, that its recommendations have been accepted and that various measures are in hand is not enough. We need another vehicle through which safety can be channelled and to which people feel that they have absolute security to report concerns. They will know that those concerns will be investigated and that their own position will be protected. I commend that idea to the House.
  In one sense, this debate is overdue. However, I accept that, from the point of view of the Secretary of State, other matters need to be reported as we go on. It has been established that regulation does not solve the problem, and that everyone involved in the industry must accept total responsibility for safety. That requires a degree of trust across the board. I have raised some of the issues that undermine that trust and that must be addressed if full trust is to be established. It is not healthy to have continuing industrial disputes, to have low morale and to have inequality between oil company representatives and contractors. All those issues need to be resolved, and they will not be resolved quickly. I have made some constructive suggestions about how we can advance safety and ensure that we have a continuing and dynamic debate so that we never experience such a catastrophe again.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. David Porter: The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to north-east Scotland as the front line of the United Kingdom oil industry. I am sure that Ministers will not accept that as the whole picture. Clearly, north-east Scotland is the front line, but I hope that hon. Members do not mean to imply that the southern North sea sector is only the back end of the industry. As with the fishing industry, Scottish Members surely recognise that other parts of the United Kingdom are involved in similar activities. The oil industry is an example of that. The lesson of the Cullen report is vital to every part of the North sea sector.
  It has been suggested that Aberdeen should be the base for the Health and Safety Executive. Although I represent an East Anglian constituency, I have no objection to it being sited in Aberdeen, provided that it is borne in mind that the field extends to take in most of East Anglia as well. It is important that I contribute to this debate to put the view of the southern North sea sector.
  512
  In my own constituency and in Great Yarmouth, the oil industry has been one of the biggest employers for many years. In addition to the point made in the Cullen report, it must be said over and over again that for many people, often in the comfort and safety of their armchairs, the North sea is just a sea—an attractive asset to an east coast seaside holiday, or a tiresome hurdle to be crossed before one can enjoy a European holiday.
  From time to time, however, there is a dramatic and devastating tragedy in the North sea. Those of us who live by it and work by it, or who live on it and work on it, have learnt a healthy respect for that sea. Whether we are talking about fishing in it, defending our shores from its ravages, or extracting gas and oil from it, we must realise that the North sea is, as has been said, a very hostile environment. In that environment, safety can never be absolutely guaranteed. It is right that we bring the matter to public attention today.
  A new safety culture is abroad in the population at large. It rightly pervades much public thinking. However, there has always been a certain safety culture and a strong safety incentive among those who work offshore. It has been, and must continue to be, a mutual incentive. In effect, if a working practice endangers one man, it endangers all men. That covers every aspect of the operation—from the helicopter out, to the use of the accommodation modules once the men are at sea. However, there is never an ultimate level of safety. Safety can always be improved. The lessons from Piper Alpha have been an important lever with regard to all aspects of the industry.
  Shell UK has had an exploration base at Lowestoft in my constituency for 25 years. Its contribution to the local economy has been immeasurable—running into millions of pounds, directly and indirectly. Its contribution to the social, cultural and educational fabric of the area is equally immeasurable—running into hundreds of thousands of pounds over the years. I am not here as the mouthpiece of Shell UK, or any of its partners in EXPRO, but I have to say that I am very grateful to it and am impressed by its commitment to the local community and to the wellbeing of its work force, among other things. Shell UK made a submission to the Select Committee on Energy in connection with that Committee's inquiry into the management of offshore safety. The submission opened with the following words:
  "The nature of the regulatory regime, as envisaged by Lord Cullen, in our view, correctly places responsibility upon the operator to competently conduct his operations, utilising appropriate procedures and equipment, together with appropriately trained people, to design, construct and operate the facility."
  The key phrase is "places responsibility upon the operator"—in Cullen, as before Cullen.
  The preparation of the comprehensive safety case—of which mention had been made—with regular reviews, will widen confidence in the safety regime for all men who venture offshore. To that end, EXPRO has set about implementing the recommendations with some gusto. Management has taken a direct interest in ensuring that the company, at all its levels, meets all its operator's requirements. It has highlighted a key conclusion in Cullen —that flawed procedures and practices were a greater contributor to the Piper Alpha disaster than was hardware. With total commitment of staff, and with training, it is possible to improve procedures faster than to finalise hardware modifications. The respective roles of the

  513
  safety committee, the safety representatives and super-vision are recognised as vital, and all contractors must have easy access to that chain.
  I am not persuaded by the argument about victimisation. I have had no evidence presented to me, but I have heard the remarks of hon. Members in this debate. It has been said that people have been victimised for raising a genuine safety worry. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) mentioned the so-called climate of fear. As I have already said, safety is interconnected. It is not in the interests of management that any plant should cease production for any reason whatever—and that includes a disaster. I believe that EXPRO itself will have implemented all recommendations in due course, and without any regard to cost.
  In this context, recognition of the links in the safety chain are essential for every person. To this end, I welcome the advent of a single regulatory body—the Health and Safety Executive. I am a great believer in the principle of one body, one buck-stop. I take every opportunity to promote one body—the National Rivers Authority—to take full responsibility for national sea defence. However, returning to the question of offshore safety, I should like to put something to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Does not relative confusion sometimes inevitably arise over safety and general regulatory functions? I refer to the fact that the Department of Energy, the HSE, the Department of Employment, the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Trade and Industry all have their fingers in the North sea pie.
  A large number of jobs in Waveney depend on the standby-vessel aspect of the industry. Boston Putford Offshore Safety, which markets the safety services of shipping companies, Britannia Marine, Putford Enterprises, Warble Shipping and Breydon Marine have just won a £10 milion three-year safety contract with Shell UK. It is a welcome deal, on which they are to be congratulated, and it will secure the jobs of about 100 seamen. Under this contract, there will be three main mother ships capable of launching fast daughter craft for close in-cover work next to the platforms. The mother ships are all highly manoeuvrable converted supply boats, in line with the Cullen recommendations. Three conventional former trawlers will provide additional standby cover.
  We heard about converted trawlers earlier in the debate. In recent months, a spate of mishaps and unhappy experiences involving other converted trawlers for standby work culminated in the loss, around Christmas, of one Lowestoft-based vessel in heavy seas. This all now raises the question of the validity of old fishing boats being used, and the need for purpose-built standby vessels. In view of the fact that there are shipbuilding facilities in my constituency, I certainly do not object to the argument that all boats should be purpose-built. However, old trawlers have served us well and should not be contemptuously dismissed. I understand that the use of these old boats in the North sea has resulted in the saving of about 100 lives since Piper Alpha. They were, after all, built to withstand the rigours of the North sea.
  Some time ago, in response to the debate about new-build, Putford Enterprises produced a paper which
  514
  argued that new vessels should be designed not only to service offshore installations but also to serve likely purposes of the Royal Navy—for instance, minesweeping. The paper was submitted to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who has argued that the Royal Navy has identified sufficient vessels for all assumed purposes. That is the kind of short-term answer that I would expect, but I hope that it will not be the last word. The long-term needs of any ocean-going activity must surely be considered with reference to multi-purpose vessels.
  It is reasonable to say that the findings of the report have been widely welcomed. We are dealing with a widespread industry, encompassing many skills, and as virtually all the southern North sea sector is serviced from Waveney and Great Yarmouth, it affects every corner of life there. There is a heliport at Ellough, near Beccles, and there are the supplying and equipping back-up industries in Lowestoft and Yarmouth. I have already mentioned the standby vessels. There are engineers and electrical and specialist oil and gas workers. SLP Limited has the only major offshore module fabricators south of Teesside. The Lowestoft college has one of the best offshore survival training courses in Europe. Myriad large and small firms depend wholly or partly on the offshore industry. Safety is the binding thread which links all those separate parts.
  We can never say that there will not be another major North sea incident like Piper Alpha. We can never say that a couple of young men from my constituency will not be tragically killed when an unexpected wave pushes a davit to crush them while it is being raised to the mother ship. However, we can take all reasonable and realistic steps. By accepting the Cullen recommendations, the Government have shown that they are prepared to give a lead. That, of course, will have to be reflected throughout the industry, and not just within Shell. The Government are to be congratulated.
  Like the hon. Member for Gordon, I hope that the Government will not rest on their laurels but will move forward as fast as possible to ensure that safety remains the top priority. Technology apart, safety culture apart, human training and error apart, there is environmental evidence that the North sea is getting rougher. Technology, safety, training and human factors must take account of that. Although neither the weather, the wind nor the sea itself destroyed Piper Alpha, they must never be underestimated.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: This is an extremely important debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I start on a note of disappointment. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have spoken already. They have displayed great sincerity and a deep interest in this subject, but I have to express personal dissatisfaction that there are so few hon. Members in the House. The subject is far more important than is suggested by the attendance. I confess that I was one of the hon. Members who lobbied hard for a two-day debate. I am grateful to the Government for tabling a motion that enables us to continue to midnight. I understand that there is much pressure on the time of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps everyone thought that so many hon. Members wanted to speak that there was little prospect of being called.

  515
  The imprint of Piper Alpha is for ever seared on our minds. We are reminded of it in all sorts of ways—some of them totally unconnected with the North sea, although clearly connected with the oil industry. I hope that hon. Members will not think me parochial when I tell the House that the first thing that the television pictures of the burning oil wells in Kuwait brought to my mind was Piper Alpha. That is a reason for great sadness for those who, like me, are distraught at what happened in the Gulf. None of us wanted to see such events, although we knew that they were necessary. The image of the burning oil wells brought to mind the image of Piper Alpha on fire.
  I join those who have already paid tribute to Lord Cullen, his staff and all who gave evidence to the committee. It has already been said that it was an extremely comprehensive report. It was well argued and well laid out. Although I do not necessarily agree with all its conclusions, I recognise that the report was extremely valuable in concentrating our minds.
  Several questions arise out of the Piper Alpha tragedy. Could the accident have been foreseen? Could it have been avoided? Can a future tragedy be prevented? What lessons can be learnt for general offshore safety in the aftermath of Piper Alpha? If we are realistic, we must accept that we can all be wise after the event. There has never been an accident or incident where people have not drawn conclusions afterwards which they might not have drawn beforehand. In all honesty, the ferocity of the explosion and the extent of the damage were beyond all imagination. Everyone was shocked by it. However, the answer to my second question is yes, Piper Alpha could have been avoided. It could certainly have been avoided if sub-sea isolation valves had been fitted from the beginning.
  It is true that emergency shutdown valves have been relocated in a safer place on almost all platforms. Some sub-sea isolation valves have been fitted, but very few. One of the most important steps that must be taken is to fit every platform, both old and new, with sub-sea isolation valves. I accept that it is an enormously expensive programme, but it is vital. A tragedy of such proportions must never happen again if anything can be done to prevent it.
  The four questions which I asked at the beginning of my speech run into one another. They are all interlinked. Certainly, we believe and fervently hope that a similar tragedy can be avoided in future, but one inescapable conclusion cannot be overridden or forgotten; it is proved by both the technical report and Lord Cullen's major report. It is that the tragedy occurred as a result of the failure of safety procedures in the first instance. That was the cause of the whole episode. The echoes and multiplications of the explosions occurred as a result of that failure.
  Anyone in engineering should know that failures in safety procedures often occur at shift changeover periods. We all understand that. It is a considerable number of years since I worked in industry but I recall, because it has stuck in my mind so vividly, an incident that occurred when I was an engineering apprentice in a rubber factory in South Africa. One of the jobs that we had to do from time to time was to replace the guards which prevented rubber from being squeezed into the bearings. It was normally a 10-minute job done as part of routine maintenance but occasionally there was a failure and the job had to be done immediately.
  516
  I remember one Friday evening at 10 minutes to five —I was 17 or 18—when another apprentice and I were told, "The number two bearing guards have gone. You had better go and put them back." We were washing our hands. I do not want to spell out in detail the thoughts which passed through a 17-year-old's mind late on a Friday afternoon. The last thing on our minds was work. We went down to replace the guards. The safety procedures were clear. We would throw the switch off, open the fuse box, pull out the fuses, put them in our overall pockets, shut the box and hang on the machine a notice saying, "Do not start this machine" and go to work on the machinery.
  The two of us were sitting working away between the big rolling mills. As was inevitable, the holes had not been bored exactly right. Instead of simply slipping in, the bolts were awkward. When one has other things on one's mind at the age of 17, the job becomes more difficult. Every engineer knows how difficult it is to finish the job when one becomes irritated.
  We could not smoke in the building because of the volatile fluids used for mixing the rubber. I said to my mate, as people have probably heard me say more recently, "I am going for a smoke." We nipped out to a safe place and had a cup of tea and a smoke. The shift changed at 6 pm and when we came back the mill was running. We had not pulled the fuses out. It was a chance that we went for a cigarette. Cigarettes are not always lethal. If we had not gone for a cigarette, I would not be here and my mate would not be alive either.
  That simple episode shows how easy it is for strict safety procedures, which we all know and understand, to be forgotten and for fatal damage to result, especially at shift changeover times. If the shift had not changed the mill would not have been started. The operators on the previous shift knew that we were working there because they had reported the breakdown. Shift changeovers are extremely difficult.
  We should not delude ourselves that if it had not been for the sequence of events, unparalleled in the offshore industry, the failures in safety procedures, while still serious, might have been comparatively less significant. At one time people might have said that Piper Alpha was a freak accident which could never happen again. They might have thought that they did not worry too much because there was only a chance in 100 million, or whatever, of it happening again. We are also concerned about general safety procedures. Every life lost is one too many and every preventable injury gives rise to serious anxiety among all of us.
  All operations on production platforms must be meticulously examined. Those examinations must be carried out, as I know that they are. By operations, I mean not just equipment but labour. The safety assessment or risk analysis survey—call it what we will—must be carried out on the basis of envisaging the worst consequence. Every function must be subject to a failsafe examination. For example, the systems must be examined. If equipment A fails, is equipment B adequate and satisfactory to limit the damage? If item B is also put out as a result of the damage, is equipment C capable of stopping the damage from spreading? Every single function, however simple or complex, must be worked through.
  I know that to some extent such functions are being examined. Oddly enough, although we have been

  517
  extremely critical of oil companies, especially in the wake of Piper Alpha and the evidence from offshore, and of the way in which safety functions have been examined, we must remember that some things have been done properly and well. It appeared that they were done properly and adequately before Piper Alpha.
  I went to one platform. We were told and shown that the fire control systems which operated the deluge system were situated in a different module from where the deluge system was located, so if a fire took place and it was recognised that there might be an explosion, the control system for the deluge could be operated from another module and would not be affected immediately. The control was separate from the equipment, so it should have been possible to operate the equipment. The irony is that in some cases such matters have been examined carefully. Nevertheless, the most pessimistic approach has to be brought into play in the necessary reassessment.
  It is often argued that there is little difference now between the oil companies, the Government and the Opposition about the need to ensure that safety is paramount.
  The oil companies got as big a shock as anyone as a result of the incident. All the oil company people to whom I have spoken since Piper Alpha have said, in effect, "We thought our systems were safe and that we had done everything we possibly could." When they examined the systems on Piper Alpha and other platforms, they said, "In the light of Piper Alpha, we have suddenly realised how far we have to go." That was an honest admission and those who made it should be given credit for being honest. Clearly, Piper Alpha has had an enormous impact on people's perception.
  We must make sure that the overall safety assessments and provisions and the way in which they operate and are monitored, supervised and controlled are satisfactory. For some years, great dissatisfaction has been expressed in question and answer sessions across the Floor of the House about the Department of Energy having both the production responsibility and the safety remit. Concern has often been expressed lest conflicts of interest should arise between the needs of production and the need for safety. That theme—the possible conflict of interest of operators in terms of production and safety—has existed throughout, the fear being that production needs will override safety needs.
  I do not believe that anyone in industry says, "We don't care if this is dangerous. You must do it because production needs come first." Nobody in industry has ever said that to me, but in many ways the position is more sinister. The attitude among those concerned builds up to their believing, "We must get this production out and we can't afford to shut down." I fear that such a sentiment can impinge on the thoughts of all involved in production. I repeat that we must be sure that there is no conflict of interest between production and safety.
  Lord Cullen recommended—I concede at once that the Government have accepted the recommendation—that the Health and Safety Executive should now assume direct responsibility for offshore safety. It is sometimes forgotten that the Department of Energy undertook the safety remit as an agency acting for the HSE in the first instance. In any
  518
  event, it is now universally accepted that the transfer should take place, and the Secretary of State said that he would make it happen.
  I am pleased to say that there is unanimity on that, and the matter was put to Lord Cullen by the trade unions and by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association. That having been agreed, we are now only awaiting the starting date. On that, the Minister made out the best case he could. He said that he could not say precisely when the new arrangement would start but that it would be fairly soon.
  A number of questions remain unanswered. We are familiar with the shortage of inspectors. During the remit of the Department of Energy, there were problems in that respect. The shortage must not be allowed to persist. It is often said that a real shortage of expertise will exist, and the question, "From where will the experts come?" is frequently asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that money was not the only problem. That may be so, but it is a key to the answer.
  While I would like to see the job done entirely by the Health and Safety Executive, and an increase in the number of expert personnel so that eventually we have a sufficient body of expertise, it may be necessary for expertise to be bought in in the first instance, perhaps on a consultancy basis. If experts are available in, say, the United States or Norway, we should bring them in to help. If they cannot be employed directly by the HSE, we should hire experts and pay the price, for no excuse must be allowed to delay the essential work that has to be done.
  The Secretary of State, previously and in his remarks today, said that the demands of safety are so imperative that a shortage of money should not inhibit safety supervision, provision and operation. The right hon. Gentleman now needs to be forthright about that. I understood him to say that broad agreement had been reached. I cannot accept that statement in its entirety. I am not satisfied with the reaching of broad agreements on an issue such as this. I want to be told clearly and without equivocation the budget that the Health and Safety Executive requested of the Treasury and the amount that the Treasury agreed to provide for the HSE. There may have been broad agreement, but in terms of civil servants talking to each other and Treasury Ministers talking to departmental Ministers, reaching broad agreement could mean that the Treasury has screwed down the amount of money that will be made available, and such a situation would be wholly wrong.
  The Minister should be open with us on this issue, although I accept that it might be difficult for him to do that. Promises are no substitute in this instance for hard cash. We must be sure that the amount of money sought by the HSE has been, and will be, made available. Indeed, we must also be sure that as the HSE carries out the work In the months and years ahead, more money will be made available if it is needed. There must be no equivocation about that.
  As some of my hon. Friends have said, we should be told where the new headquarters will be. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear me say that logic suggests that they should be in Aberdeen. I understood the Minister to say that there would be a substantial presence in Aberdeen, but he could not say whether the headquarters would be established there. Any hon. Member might make a cheap debating point and say that I am expressing the

  519
  parochialism of the Scots, in particular those in north-east Scotland. That is not the case. I am simply expressing the logic of the situation.
  It is sometimes argued—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: It will be.
  Mr. Hughes: I think that my hon. Friend has anticipated me wrongly on this occasion. I do not think he intends to argue the point that I am about to make.
  It is sometimes argued that modern technology has shortened the lines of communication to the extent that it is not necessary to have people nearby to do the job. There is some validity in that. Indeed, some hon. Members may regret the way in which modern technology has brought us into much closer contact with our constituents. They can get in touch with us too readily, some might say. As irony is never reflected in print, I hasten to add that that comment was made in jest—just in case anybody reads the Official Report of my comments.
  There is no substitute for having the personnel and expertise we require close to hand so that there can be adequate communication with them. I say that because we need a stronger hands-on approach to safety in place of the hands-off approach of the past. We need people on the ground. The availability of headquarters staff would provide a permanent stimulus to safety. That is probably the best practical way to foster safety in the future.
  Some may not accept my view that a more definite hands-on approach is necessary. Indeed, some may say that we have not had a hands-off approach in the past. I believe that we have. The oil companies have argued —I believe that they still argue that—the problem of safety in the North sea arises in part because of the detailed regulation. Perhaps they are not arguing that the problems arise because of detailed regulations. However, they certainly are arguing, as they argued before Lord Cullen, that the detailed regulations instil a negative philosophy and a negative psychology towards safety.
  I need not read into the record all the references to that in the Cullen report, but it is referred to in paragraphs 21.40 and 21.42. In the latter paragraph, Lord Cullen, following up the oil companies' idea that regulations lead to less safety rather than more, recalled the evidence of Mr. McKee:
  "Regulations need to be less prescriptive and detailed, more objective and broader based. Over time as you layer more and more prescriptive types of regulations onto the overall regime it probably takes away from the overall objective of total safety."
  I do not accept that. Nor do I accept the oil companies' implication that operators decide that, provided they have satisfied the regulations as a minimum, they need not do any more.
  The oil companies identified that danger. They said that if companies simply followed the regulations, they might stop thinking about safety beyond what is written on paper. There may be a case for strongly attacking the oil companies for that, but I would restrain myself from doing so. I believe that that is an interesting admission about the psychology which may have developed.
  I want to consider a counter-proposition from UKOOA—that the operators should accept responsibility for total safety with a minimum of detailed regulation. I have always accepted, and will always accept, that employers have a legal and moral duty to ensure the safe operation of their industries for the benefit of their
  520
  employees, the company and, in the case of onshore installations, the safety of those who reside in the vicinity of dangerous operations.
  The responsibility is and always has been that of the companies involved. On the other hand, we should not conclude from that that the detailed regulations should he diluted. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will assure us that detailed regulations will remain in force and that, as and when necessary, new regulations will he laid.
  Regulations on safety and necessary procedures must be set out clearly. There can be no serious dispute about that. There must also be unanimity that safety depends on those who must implement the system. I accept what several hon. Members have said—that there is a joint responsibility. Managers, operators, owners and workers have a combined responsibility. None of us can escape that responsibility.
  Safety is a state of mind. We are all familiar with the syndrome in which there is a heightened interest in safety or security after a major incident, but that is followed by sad and serious lapses as the incident fades from memory. There is a cycle in which people suddenly become interested in safety after an accident, but that interest wanes as the memory fades.
  I do not intend to be derogatory about those who work in industry when I say that they cannot maintain the fever pitch of interest in safety that follows a major incident. It is a natural function of human resilience that the capacity to overcome danger allows us to set those dangers aside; otherwise, we would become too scared to do anything. My thesis is that we should encourage all organisations and harness all our energies towards safety.
  The involvement of the trade union movement is of paramount importance. It is essential to improving general safety. The Government have maliciously cultivated an image of the trade union movement as short-sighted and concerned solely with immediate issues, such as wages and protecting its own power base. That is a wholly malevolent image which is ill deserved and a perversion of the truth.
  Of course trade unions are interested in wages and conditions. They must have an interest in improving the standard of living of our members. When I say "our members", I should declare an interest as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I declare that interest not defensively, but as a matter of pride.
  Trade unionists have always had a legitimate and abiding interest in safety at work. They have always run safety courses for shop stewards and other members, many of which are at local and national levels and sometimes even at international level. There has been a lamentable lack of understanding, perhaps even hostility, between the oil companies and the trade union movement. I cannot understand why that has happened.
  Many of the oil companies that function in the North sea have onshore installations or onshore projects in which they coexist quite happily with trade union membership, where trade union membership is the norm, where there is trade union recognition and where there is much union-management co-operation. No one has been able to explain to me why a different view should be taken with regard to activity in the North sea. That is completely beyond my comprehension.
  However, I believe that attitudes may be changing. I am grateful to UKOOA for meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), my hon. Friend the

  521
  Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and me and for the further invitation to meet us again with representatives of the AEU executive council. I hope that that meeting takes place soon and that, no matter what harsh words have been spoken here today, the cooperation and dialogue that has started over the past few months will not be set aside.
  I hope that our discussions will continue and that they will be fruitful and co-operative. I hope that those discussions will lead to proper trade union recognition. No one is saying that everyone must be a trade union member. We seek proper rights to be trade union members and proper recruitment rights and co-operation by the oil companies to allow recruitment in the North sea.
  I do not blame people who have been offshore for a fortnight if they make a dive to get home as soon as they get off the helicopter and do not wait to speak to the trade union representative who wants to recruit them. It is ridiculous to claim that the opportunities to recruit offshore workers are the same as those to recruit onshore workers.
  I hope that we will no longer hear stories about particular platforms on which the number of trade union members is growing, and where, if one or two of those members begin to show some militancy, they find that they are not required for two or three months or are split up on to different platforms where there are very few, if any, trade union members. I hope that the oil companies will allow opportunities for recruitment. It is in their interests as much as it is the interest of the offshore workers.
  I am optimistic that there is a change of understanding and a belief that the trade unions have a place and must be recognised. However, having said that, I remain convinced that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 should be extended offshore.
  In paragraphs 21.84 and 21.85, Lord Cullen accepts the value and validity of trade union membership and representation providing a backup and a bolster for those who might be afraid of dismissal or afraid that they might not be taken seriously. He accepted the validity of the argument but qualified it by saying that most of the evidence came from the trade union movement; but it could not come from anywhere else. I regret that he did not recommend that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 should apply to offshore installations and that he did not deal with the issue of industrial relations. I ask the Government to put that piece of the safety jigsaw in place. It fits with the general thesis that safety is everyone's responsibility and with the legal requirement, which should be as clear as possible, to make safety an issue about which workers are not afraid to speak out.
  The awful impact of Piper Alpha will be with us for ever. We are constantly reminded of it, as we were recently by the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells. Piper Alpha should not have happened and must never happen again. No opportunity should be left unexplored in the drive to achieve the highest safety standards. If the lessons of Piper Alpha are learnt and applied, life offshore will be safer for those who earn their living there.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I recall contributing to the debate on the Burgoyne report on 6 November 1980. I have quickly read the five or six-minute speech that I made. I hope to speak tonight for eight or 10 times as long.
  The trade union to which I belong was heavily involved in the early 1980s in the offshore and onshore oil industry. It made recommendations which almost second-guessed the tragedy that was about to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was concerned about transport matters, and I wanted to establish a charter for offshore workers in the North sea. Many of my constituents were employed on offshore installations.
  The Burgoyne committee was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy. If the Conservative party had not won the 1979 election, many more of Burgoyne's recommendations would have been im-plemented. For instance, more attention might have been paid to recommendation 564.
  Although I have much admiration for the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and for others who worked for the Department of Energy at that time, they must carry the can because they were responsible. They failed to understand the need to separate responsibility for the running and the financing of North sea oil and the way in which that running and earning was administered on behalf.of the people who did the running and earning and who o tragically paid with their lives on Piper Alpha.
  To give an example, paragraph 5.64 of the Burgoyne report says:
  "One of the 'grey' areas referred to above is the overlap in responsibility between the PED and the Certifying Authorities, in respect of the pipeline riser and other pipeline equipment on the installation. Although forming an essential part of the pipeline system, it clearly has a bearing on the integrity of the installation."
  Nothing could be more relevant to the debate than that paragraph. The failure to ensure safety allowed that grey area to turn into the Piper Alpha disaster. Conservative Members cannot hide from their responsibility. Those grey areas were highlighted in the Burgoyne report, but nothing was done to ensure safety inspections.
  In the debate in 1980, I expressed my concern about a Department paying public funds for another arm of Government to carry out work on its behalf without checks being made to ensure that those public funds were being well spent, and that safety inspections were being carried out. I have told the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission numerous times when they have appeared before the Select Committee on Employment that they will have to carry the responsibility for the breakdown of safety, because they paid money for the petroleum engineering division to carry out work on its behalf which, as Piper Alpha showed, was not done as it should have been.
  At long last, 11 years after the debate in 1980, the Government have accepted that responsibility for safety should pass to the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission., which will perhaps prevent tragedies in future. That does not help those people who lost their lives on Piper Alpha.
  In the early 1980s, my union, Manufacturing, Science and Finance, was two separate unions—the ASTMS and

  523
  TASS. One of the assistant general secretaries of the ASTMS, Roger Lyons, was involved in producing a minority report because he disagreed with the decision to contract out responsibility for safety to two arms of Government. If his comments had been noted, we might not be holding this debate.
  Cullen's recommendations have significant implica-tions for the resourcing and staffing of the Health and Safety Executive. Because of its expertise, some of its staff will have to transfer to the new offshore division. We are concerned to ensure that the remainder of its staff do not suffer as a result of that transfer and that the new division is not financed from its current budget. The Secretary of State sought to assure the House that the HSE and offshore workers would be all right, but Lord Cullen identified Mr. Rimington, the director-general of the HSC, as the person who would be held responsible. However, as a civil servant he will be unable to say to the Treasury, "We need more money".
  I am not confident that the Secretary of State for Employment will have that ability. Therefore, I am concerned about the financing of the new division. It will take more than the honeyed words of the Secretary of State for Energy, who will be giving up responsibility on 1 April, to reassure me about the proper resourcing of the new division.
  We are also concerned that the new division may seek to draw staff from other parts of the Health and Safety Executive. For example, the CIMAH inspectors, who deal with the control of major accident hazards, are the most likely people to be drawn into the new division. That would immediately affect the necessary work that that part of the HSE is carrying out.
  Can the Minister tell us how the discussions are going? What numbers of staff are we talking about? If the Minister thinks that I am exaggerating, he need only ask his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who was a member of the Select Committee. We regularly heard from Dr. Cullen, when he was chairman of the HSE, and Mr. Rimington that they were finding it difficult to attract health and safety inspectors in the numbers and with the experience that they required. I notice that the hon. Member for Nuneaton is slumping slightly. Obviously he does not intend to intervene to disagree with me. He knows the position, and he can tell the Minister about it. He might even get the Select Committee minutes, which would show what was said.
  The Health and Safety Executive has increasing difficulty in attracting properly trained staff to carry out its functions. It will be in the full glare of publicity with its new responsibility. I am not suggesting that it should not place major emphasis on getting the new division Up and running, but that cannot he at the expense of any other part of the HSE. We want to know what the Government are doing about investigating that problem. We should like assurances tonight.
  If we are to attract staff of the proper calibre, the remuneration must be right, as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside pointed out. Remuneration of offshore inspectors has been given as the principal reason for the inability of the Department of Energy to maintain a full complement of inspectors. The remuneration should be high enough to ensure that high-calibre, qualified candidates are attracted to the work.
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside identified the need for the inspectors to be of sufficiently
  524
  high calibre to raise issues, where appropriate, with the highest management of multinational oil companies. If they cannot do that, we will have no confidence in their ability to carry out their functions. Cullen's emphasis on safety management requires an inspectorate which is confident about its role, determined to seek a real operating culture and unperturbed by the industry and the Department, which are often united in formidable opposition to safety requirements which are likely to inhibit the work of contractors.
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that the salaries being offered will attract the highest calibre of staff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, if that means seeking assistance on a temporary basis, I do not think that there would be opposition to that. That should not stop the Minister telling us that a training programme is already under way to ensure that highly qualified staff will be available quickly.
  Recommendation No. 1 is that operators should submit a safety case for each installation. That means that the new division must have considerable expertise in safety management and risk assessment. The Cullen inquiry showed only too clearly that that expertise was not present in the Department of Energy. The new division must be able quickly to build up expertise in that essential area. How will the new division attract suitable candidates? Can we have an assurance that the existing expertise of the HSE will not be diluted and left unable to deal adequately with major hazards onshore?
  On the size of the inspectorate, we do not believe that its effectiveness should be measured by the frequency of visits to platforms and rigs. Each installation should have a full inspection at least every year, with further inspections being dependent on the results of that inspection and on the number of accidents, complaints and near misses reported to the inspectors. Those requirements should be the only determining factors for the size of the inspectorate.
  The inspectors in the Department of Energy did not show evidence of a strong approach to enforcement—for example, in the issuing of prohibition notices and the institution of legal proceedings. Indeed, we believe that the culture within the Department of Energy did not encourage the use of the full range of legal powers available to inspectors under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, on the powers of the inspectorate. We want a guarantee that the Minister will insist that they use all their powers. Not only should the Minister say so, but the culture within the Department should change. Cullen identified the fact that the culture did not exist in the Department.
  Inspectors may require further legal training to enable them to make full use of those powers. The use of legal powers has significant resource implications. The change in the approach to enforcement of health and safety requirements offshore must be recognised by increased resources for the new division. We want to hear whether the Government have taken that into account when they have been discussing resources with the Treasury.
  With regard to the role of the certifying authority, Cullen did not make a specific recommendation. The current system needs reform. The new offshore division of the Health and Safety Executive should have a specific role in licensing the certifying authorities. The present relationship between the offshore operator and the

  525
  certifying authorities is too close. Such an additional role for the HSE would also have resource implications which the Minister may deal with later. The Norwegian system, where certification is carried out by the regulatory body, is very resource-intensive.
  With regard to consultation with employees' represen-tatives and the disclosure of information, we will expect the new offshore division to carry out full consultation at national, regional and installation level. Extensive and valuable consultation takes place at present with the Health and Safety Executive. That should be extended to the new division.
  At installation level, we will expect inspectors to carry out their duty to disclose information to employees in accordance with section 28(8) of the 1974 Act, whether or not there are trade union representatives on the installation. We also expect employees or their represen-tatives to receive, as a matter of course, copies of any enforcement notices issued and written details as set out in section 28(8) of the Act.
  We are concerned at the lack of adequate disclosure of information to employees and their representatives offshore. In view of the remote location of offshore installations, we believe that contact with workers is extremely important. Consultation and disclosure have resource implications, but their inclusion in the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act shows the importance that Lord Robens believed that they should be given.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend and close colleague the Member for Aberdeen, North is not present at this moment; however, I see that my hon. Friend and close colleague the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) is here. I do not subscribe to the belief that the health and safety offshore division should be transferred to Aberdeen. I do not deny that I speak as the chair of the MSF parliamentary group, whose membership extends through-out industry.
  We are concerned about the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission. They have their own culture within that organisation. I have served my time in a shipyard and part of the culture of becoming a tradesman was working with other tradesmen. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of the new division to be simply moved to Aberdeen. We have identified London and Bootle as places where it might work best. That is where the majority of the Health and Safety Executive is. Clearly, the division needs a big expansion on the ground in Aberdeen to show the Government's determination, but we do not believe that it is not in the division's best interests for it to be moved to Aberdeen. If that were to happen, there would be the possibility—I put it no higher than that—that we might make the mistake that we made with the Burgoyne report. It might be too much like an extension of the Department of Energy. The new division is most likely to find its roots if it is clearly within the HSE, within that culture, in the same offices, with inspectors who deal with other hazardous areas. However, we do accept that there needs to be an increased presence in Aberdeen. I hope that I have not lost two friends.
  I come now to the response of management in the oil companies to Cullen's recommendations on the manage-ment of oil safety. Cullen's recommendations affecting
  526
  offshore operators can be divided into three broad categories. First, there are the recommendations upon which immediate action can be taken without waiting for regulations or interim guidelines from the enforcing authority. Secondly, there are recommendations for regulations to be made, but which operators can act upon when provided with interim guidelines by the enforcement authority. Thirdly, there are recommendations which require regulations to be made but to which operators should be considering and planning their responses.
  The Secretary of State has said that he is not willing at this point to tell us how everything will work. We want to spell out some of the areas to which we want the Minister to respond today or to which we want responses when the Secretary of States gives us his considered opinion. I therefore come to some of the key recommendations of the Cullen report and the action that we believe operators and the Department of Energy should have taken.
  We believe that the Department of Energy should, immediately after the publication of the Cullen report, have made clear in writing to all operators the recommendations upon which it expected immediate action to be taken. Most of those recommendations require action to be taken, in the words of the Cullen report, forthwith—without the need for regulation or interim guidelines from the Department. The Department of Energy should have drawn up interim guidelines on some recommendations and required operators to take action to implement the advice. Has that occurred, and if not, why not?
  The Department of Energy should have given operators a clear timetable for the above steps to be taken and, in the event of such steps not being taken, enforcement notices and, in particular, improvement notices should have been issued under sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974. To date, we have not heard of any such notices being issued and we are concerned that the timetable for Cullen's recommendations to be complied with may be lax.
  We are also anxious that inspectors should use their full powers under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act to ensure that the immediate improvements recommended by Cullen are implemented. A clear programme and timetable for the legislation recommend-ed by Cullen could and should have been drawn up and published so that the consultative process could be put fully into action. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us his views on that.
  Recommendation 54 concerns the fire risk analysis. Companies should have been instructed by the Department of Energy to undertake fire risk analysis and given a date by which that should have been completed. Companies not complying with the date should have been issued with an improvement or prohibition notice. Has that happened, and if not, why not?
  Recommendation 76 concerns the evacuation, escape and rescue analysis. Companies should have been instructed to complete the analysis forthwith. The Department of Energy should have agreed the timetable for completion, taking into account Cullen's recommenda-tion that it should be completed quickly, and at least by November 1991. Are they on schedule, and if not, why not? The Minister will understand that that applies to operators with a large number of installations. We need to know just how far that timetable has got and how effective the Minister and the Department of Energy have been.

  527
  Enforcement notices should have been issued where companies have not responded positively and with sufficient urgency.
  Recommendation 60 concerns smoke and gas ingress assessment. Companies should have carried out forthwith an assessment of the risk of ingress of smoke or gas into accommodation and fitted smoke and gas detectors and implemented ventilation shut-down procedures as in recommendation 57. Has that happened?
  Recommendation 69 concerns an emergency systems review. Companies should have carried out a review forthwith of the ability of emergency systems to withstand severe accident conditions. Has that happened, how often and where? If not, why not, and what has happened since then?
  Recommendation 44 concerns sub-sea isolation valves. Although Cullen allows a safety case to demonstrate whether sub-sea isolation valves are required to be fitted, there are some cases where the need for them to be fitted is in no doubt. Those include the main export lines from distant installations which will hold large inventories of gas or oil and where a large proportion would be liberated if there were a rupture. Examples include Forties Charlie to Cruden Bay, Claymore to Flotta, Cleeton to Dimlington, and the Brent export gas pipeline to St. Fergus. Others can readily be identified. Have all those sub-sea isolation valves now been fitted? If not, has the Department of Energy issued enforcement notices? We need to know.
  Recommendation 85 concerns personal survival and escape equipment. Has everyone on board an installation now been issued with the equipment detailed in the recommendation—in particular, a personal survival suit, a smoke hood, a torch, a life-jacket, and fireproof gloves? Does the Minister know? We need to know today whether the recommendation has been implemented.
  Recommendation 34 concerns permit to work systems. Has the industry drawn up harmonised systems as recommended by Cullen? Is the Department of Energy satisfied with the revised system? We need to know today.
  On recommendation 27—safety committees and safety representatives—what steps have companies taken to support and encourage the involvement of offshore work forces in safety, as laid down in recommendation 27? I see the Minister relaxing, but there is plenty more to come. What evidence can companies provide to demonstrate their efforts? What are companies' objectives? Does the Minister know? I look forward to hearing exactly what they are in some detail, and to what extent they have been achieved.
  Those are some of the comments which it is important to put on record and which, I hope, will prompt some answers from the Minister during the debate.
  Industrial relations, health and safety and the offshore environment clearly affect all hon. Members and the people they represent. They affect people's working lives and, in the case of Piper Alpha, they cost people their lives. We therefore need to know what the Government have to say about those issues. The state of industrial relations has a proven impact on health and safety onshore and its impact can be crucial offshore, as Piper Alpha demonstrated. Pursuit of high levels of health and safety offshore is in part due to the appalling experiences of recent years, but more so than onshore the isolation of platforms and their residential status frequently reminds workers of the potential hazards.
  528
  Can the Minister give answers to the following questions? Health and safety committee representatives onshore operate under regulations promulgated under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. While the Act applies offshore, regulations under the Act apply only if they say so—there is no such provision under onshore regulations. Until 1989, there were no statutory provisions for health and safety representatives or committees. A number of operators instituted committees on which their own employees were represented, whom they nominated. There was no training for representatives and they had no rights.
  There were two exceptions. First, in relation to Phillips Petroleum, my union—the MSF—won bargaining rights for the Hewett field off the Norfolk coast in 1978. The company agreed to set up a safety committee with union-nominated representatives as though it were onshore. Representatives all received time off with pay to attend union-organised safety courses. The system worked well, although contractors were not represented.
  Secondly, MSF won representational rights with Occidental Petroleum for the Piper Alpha installation. As a result, a consultative committee was established to deal with all matters, including health and safety. The committee broke up when the company failed to provide representatives with a copy of the report on the 1984 explosion. That may well be one of the reasons why we are having this debate today.
  As regards safety committees, where do the difficulties lie at the moment? The problem has largely been the relationship between contractor and operator, usually represented on the installation by the offshore installation manager, whose word—as everyone knows—is law. In a few cases, the employee may have had a right established by agreement to raise safety issues, but only with his employer and not with the operator. The contractor-employer then had to raise the issue remotely with the operator and put relationships at risk, which could threaten future contracts and commercial relationships. As a result, onshore arrangements have never been successfully carried offshore. One cannot wonder at that —if there is a possibility of the contractors losing future contracts, there is no way they will push too hard against the wishes of the company concerned.
  We need to know what the Government are doing to change that. We need to know how that pressure can be taken off. Clearly, one way is for companies to accept that they are the employer, or to insist that the contractors employ best practices while they are on the platform. If that were part of the contract, we might find that a different relationship existed offshore.
  The priority when dealing with health and safety problems has to be the health and safety representative. While committees have a role, they cannot deal with issues which require immediate action. Therefore, represen-tatives must be provided with facilities to do the job. First and foremost is the freedom to perform their role without hindrance or fear. Any representative has to guard against such pressures, but one who works for a contractor has two potential problems. The first is the ending of a contract. The client—the operator—will usually veto all those contractors putting up for any new job and can, without the employee knowing, veto anyone of whom the operator disapproves. Clearly, if the operators have that power there will be pressure upon any individual representative. Those of us who have been trade union

  529
  representatives before coming here and have spent our lives representing others know that if one puts oneself forward to represent a group of workers one always has that fear—wondering what the management's reaction will be. In an industry where bad practice exists or which is badly regulated—an industry with old-fashioned equipment where change has to take place—pressure on individuals might take the form of a fear that their careers in the company might quickly end when they stop being representatives. They might think that their careers would end if they took on such responsibilities.
  As my hon. Friends demonstrated earlier, we know that an unknown number of persons—there is no record—are now permanently unemployable offshore because they were prepared to take up responsibilities, whether as health and safety representatives or simply trying to represent workers at a trade union level.
  Black lists need to be abolished, for the benefit of the industry. If they do not go, the industry cannot function properly. The climate on installations will never improve while the company, through the contractor, can take action against a person rightly raising concerns on behalf of other workers. The Government need to play their part in that.
  As we move to the next stage of operations in the North sea, and to the end of those operations, whenever that will be—no one wants it to reach that stage quickly—there will be more and more pressure on companies to ensure that there is little or no opposition to what they want to do. We have to ensure that those problems are tackled.
  The second area of concern for a safety representative is the power of the offshore installation manager. I did not meet such a creature on the one visit that I made to an offshore facility. No one seemed to have horns or a tail, or walk about with a big stick, so I am not sure what oil installation managers actually look like. Nevertheless, the stories that I have heard suggest that they can be quite alarming, and their powers are certainly alarming if not exercised properly.
  One of the benefits of a debate of this kind is the opportunity that it gives us to cite our wider experience and knowledge. The Select Committee on Employment, for instance, has been considering recruitment practices in industry generally. All the evidence suggests that the way in which an organisation operates depends entirely on the extent to which its chief executive is involved. There can be no improvement unless oil installation managers—who are bound to have responsibilities of one kind or another, and who are directly responsible for recruitment in some instances—are shown that the way in which they operated before the Piper Alpha disaster is no longer acceptable. Their performance must be monitored, and the Government have a role to play in that regard.
  Training is essential for health and safety represen-tatives. Even when they are elected, the facilities for their training are largely controlled by their employers. Training is predominantly technical, and involves little instruction in presentational skills. The TUC and individual unions organise onshore courses, and have successfully trained many thousands of representatives over the past 15 years, but offshore representatives are denied such courses. All courses must be approved not by the employer but by the operator, and attendance on an unapproved course could
  530
  result in the representative's not being paid. If the Minister doubts that, he should note that Shell issued a directive to that effect to its contractors in 1990. In many cases, not only will representatives be unpaid, but they will not be required to return when their contracts have expired.
  Whether Conservative Members like it or not, no offshore environment will change without proper union recognition. The companies and operators concerned must accept that. I remember making many representations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about offshore union representation when he was at the Department of Energy; it is a shame that we were not able to achieve our aims before he left the Department.
  We are very unhappy about the Government's failure to involve themselves in the issue. The operators have argued that they cannot implement the onshore regulations because there is so little union recognition offshore, implying that that is due to the low level of union membership. However, when it has been possible to test the level of membership by means of checks or ballots, widespread support has been shown to exist. On seven Shell installations, ballots of the work force demonstrated levels of support as high as 85 per cent. As a result of those ballots, Shell agreed to representational rights on conditions and pay, but not on health and safety.
  MSF has a long-standing agreement with Phillips Petroleum for the Hewett field, which has almost 100 per cent. union membership—that includes the oil installation managers. Phillips recently agreed to union recognition, in response to the demand of 83 per cent. of its employees on the Maureen platform. According to the management, Occidental's recognition agreement expired when the platform was destroyed, which seems rather tragic.
  Conservative Members may feel some concern about our demands for trade union recognition. We have made it clear that we will allow ACAS to ensure that ballots are run properly, and that the questions on the ballot paper are acceptable to everyone. We may even allow ACAS to determine what constitutes significant union membership. I believe that 40 per cent. membership would allow us to claim that a ballot should take place. What is the Minister's view?
  We have held seven ballots and won them all, with majorities as high as 80 per cent., but other companies are not prepared even to discuss the holding of such ballots. Following recognition claims made more than four years ago on the Viking Loggs and Hutton TLP fields, Conoco has made it clear that it does not want any third party intervening. We asked the Minister's predecessor—the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) —many times to intervene on our behalf, but the Government—who are supposedly so keen to ensure that ballots are held, and that people are allowed to exercise their individual rights—have done nothing to help. At one stage a clear majority of Mobil workers on the Beryl field wanted trade union membership, but the company refused. We asked the Government to help us, but met with no success.
  We are also concerned about contract employees. If they are not given the training and representation that they need, they may suffer. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside has returned, as I had intended to make this point during his speech. We want a skilled work force in the North sea, and we believe that that will be possible only if that work force is trained and experienced. Continuity of employment is the best way to

  531
  achieve that. At present, more and more companies are trying to move towards a single contractor, without considering the implications of the change that that involves.
  When employees are employed by a new contractor, they lose their right to redundancy pay and representation regarding pay and conditions. That does not lead to improved skills and the continuity of employment on North sea installations that is required. For example, Shell told Press that it would like it to become the main contractor in the Lemen and Indefatigable fields. One of the contractors at present is McAlpine, which provides good training for its crane drivers and mechanics. Shell has suggested to Press that if it gets the contract it might subcontract some of the work to McAlpine and keep the work force on the platform. If the negotiations do not go well, however, and Press becomes the sole contractor, all the skill and expertise of the work force will be lost—as well as their trade union rights and their right to redundancy pay. Some of these people have served McAlpine for eight years.
  Does the Minister believe, as we do, that companies such as Shell should employ their work force directly and ensure that they are given training? They ought, at least, to be made responsible for ensuring that the contractors provide training.
  We are happy for the services of ACAS to be used to determine whether there should be trade union recognition on any particular platform. We have never been afraid to use the ballot box so that offshore workers can demonstrate that they want trade union recognition. Furthermore, we have never been afraid to argue that industrial relations are good on platforms where there is trade union recognition. We do not want a repetition of what happened last summer. I met the Minister's predecessor, together with some of my trade union colleagues, and warned him that he faced a summer of problems if he did not do something about trade union recognition. As he was about to visit various offshore platforms, he agreed to look into whether there was any aggro or dissatisfaction. After he had visited those platforms he said that nobody had asked him about trade union recognition. There was an immediate denial of his statement by individuals who, despite the fact that action could have been taken against them, were prepared to identify themselves and say that they had asked the Minister for trade union recognition. The Minister seemed to want to act like the three wise monkeys—to hear nothing, to see nothing and to say nothing—but the issue will not go away and we shall continue to raise it. Moreover, trade union recognition is in the Government's interests as well as in the interests of the economy and industry.
  The operators have arranged a cartel among themselves. They provide a package of similar terms and conditions for their own employees, but do not allow contractors to enter into single bargaining agreements. There are only two exceptions. The first relates to the offshore construction contractors. For some years there was a trade union agreement covering the hook-up period. It ran from the contract being placed to the start of production. Even though the same workers were employed to do exactly the same work after production started, they would go on to a set of non-negotiated and worse terms.
  The hook-up period was crucial to the operators' cash flow. After that, any industrial action was unlikely to affect
  532
  production. The second concerned caterers. An agreement exists covering catering workers—in the northern sector only and even then not on drilling rigs. A combination of industrial action and high labour turnover produced that agreement. For either agreement to work, the operators must agree to accept bids for work only from conforming contractors.
  Early in 1990, the principle of an agreement covering all contract workers on the United Kingdom continental shelf was put to a number of bodies, including the Offshore Construction Contractors. Only half an hour before a joint meeting to discuss the proposition, the OCC was telephoned by a representative of UKOOA and told that UKOOA could not agree to go along with it, thus making any agreement worthless. A summer of industrial action followed, and that will be repeated unless such problems are tackled.
  A negotiated agreement would provide a number of measures which would have an immediate impact on health and safety. Among them is reduced labour turnover, which would retain skills and experience in the industry, the absence of which leads directly to an unsafe workplace. Improved morale would increase cooperation and concentration, particularly among contractor staff. It would remove the need for the 1989 regulations and enable the 1977 regulations to be used to provide union safety representatives. Such representatives, rather than the employers, would have the right to choose trainers and would receive the backing of their union, thus reducing victimisation and providing the resources and independent advice needed properly to perform the safety role.
  Those are small measures, but we believe that if the Government supported them and argued with us that the companies should accept them, we could improve both the environment and the chances of the returns from the North sea continuing to help the economy.
  When the recommendations in the Cullen report are finally implemented, all installations will be required to possess a safety case, provided by the operator and vetted by the Health and Safety Executive. It seems likely that the safety committee will have access to it only after it has been agreed. It looks as though, even for existing installations, the safety committee or individual representatives will have no say. For new installations, there will be no safety committee whose representatives can be consulted. In Norway, safety committees are consulted on such issues. For new platforms, the unions themselves are consulted about the initial design philosophy.
  As I have said, MSF held recognition for Occidental employees on Piper Alpha. When the replacement platform was being designed, MSF asked to discuss the design philosophy—in particular, its view concerning a separate accommodation unit, bridge-linked. We were told that it was nothing to do with us. The recognition agreement died with our members on Piper Alpha. That is something with which the company and the Government will have to live. I am not saying that the Government were directly responsible for Piper Alpha, but had it not been for their failure to understand that they needed to play a role in convincing the contractors that they—the contractors—should involve those whom they employed on a facility through their recognised union representatives, the Piper Alpha disaster might just not have occurred. The fact that, in this case, we can show that the

  533
  accident might not have happened had we been involved is of greater concern and is even more hurtful to the families of the victims, who will read our debate tomorrow.
  With such a high proportion of offshore employees being contractors whose employers will not be known until well after the installation is completed, it is vital that union representatives should be involved at the earliest possible stage. The inter-union offshore oil committee represents unions with direct involvement in the oil and gas construction and production industries, and could be a suitable body for involvement in such consultation processes.
  The recommendation by Lord Cullen concerning the appointment of offshore safety representatives has been dealt with by my hon. Friends, and I shall not refer to it again.
  The haphazard approach to industrial relations led to industrial action being taken during the past few summers. That action did not seek directly to improve safety, but the participants believed that the continental shelf agreement would bring about a safer environment. If we are not to see a repetition of such action, union recognition should be granted where support for it can be demonstrated. We are not asking for something for which we cannot show that there is support, but where such union support can be demonstrated, recognition should be granted. There will then be a willingness and enthusiasm on the part of the work force to be more actively involved in what should be a joint role to improve safety in the workplace. Once recognition is granted, there will be every reason why the 1977 regulations should apply. The safety representatives need the support of those regulations and recognition for the trade unions if they are to perform their vital functions and to assist with the necessary and dramatic improvements in safety.
  As I said earlier, I did not intend to be brief because I have been thinking back to my short contribution on 6 November 1980 when we discussed the Burgoyne report. We all stand accused of not working harder and of not pressing the Government harder on that occasion. Those of us who were part of the trade union side which produced the minority report, and the Opposition Members who agreed with that minority report and said that changes should be made, will never know whether we could have achieved what the minority report recommended if we had been able to demonstrate the case and to articulate it more clearly in the Chamber at that time. What we do know, however, is that Piper Alpha occurred.
  Although the Government have said that they will accept Lord Cullen's recommendations, we must ensure that they examine them closely. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, with the support of one of his hon. Friends, although the Government accepted quite a lot of the Burgoyne report, but not the minority aspect, Piper Alpha occurred. There have also been other accidents, but not quite so bad as Piper Alpha, such as helicopters going into the North sea and incidents on other platforms. This time we in this place had better ensure that we do not allow our enthusiasm for Lord Cullen's report and its worthwhile recommendations to blind us to the fact that we need to ensure that those recommendations are sufficient. My hon. Friends and I will continue to make the points that I have made today on behalf of my trade union
  534
  and those whom we represent. Unless we do so, we believe that, although Lord Cullen's report will always be a good report, the implementation of its recommendations will not really do the job that we are convinced that Lord Cullen intended.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is to the credit of the House that we are debating this issue almost three years after the Piper Alpha tragedy. That shows the extent to which the House recognises the importance of the issues that it raised and the lessons that we need to learn from what happened on 6 July 1988. I first raised this matter in the House on 19 December in one of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. There has been more interest in this matter tonight than there was then, but I had expected that more hon. Members would wish to participate.
  As has been said, all hon. Members have constituents who work in the North sea. They are spread right across the United Kingdom, and travel out to Aberdeen and other parts. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, both my father-in-law and my brother-in-law have worked at various times in the North sea. My father-in-law worked for 25 years for the Kuwait oil company. I am sure that he would want me to place on record the fact that he is sickened by the devastation of all the oil wells in Kuwait.
  Lessons can be learnt from the Piper Alpha incident, and we must keep certain aspects in perspective when deciding what should happen now. We should recognise that offshore installations present unique safety problems. A production platform is a community. Within a small area of just 100 ft each way there are drilling operations, a refinery and all the facilities of a hotel. On land, those operations would cover tens of acres. Oil platforms are not only compact; they must be self-sufficient in an emergency. There is no question of waiting for the fire brigade or other emergency services to arrive. Means of survival while staying on the platforms are crucial and critical, as are means of escape and evacuation.
  The House must recognise that oil and gas platforms are extremely complex pieces of technology, sited in a uniquely hostile environment. When I look out to the North sea from my constituency on the north Yorkshire coast, particularly in some of the grey sombre weather that we have had this winter, I am amazed that oil and gas installations can be maintained at all when one considers the weather with which some of those chaps must contend.
  Many tragic incidents involving loss of life have occurred over the years—I dare say too many—of which the Piper Alpha disaster was perhaps the worst. It is important to stress that when the Cullen report was published on 12 November last year, the Government immediately accepted all of its recommendations. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will no doubt confirm tonight, there is no question of picking and choosing between Lord Cullen's recommen-dations.
  Many of us feel that the Piper Alpha tragedy, in which 167 men lost their lives, was the worst in the history of oil exploration and extraction, not only in the North sea but in the world. As I said in our brief debate in December, such a disaster must never happen again. Too many tragedies have occurred in the North sea. I refer to the incident on the Shell Brent Alpha platform, which was

  535
  evacuated after a gas explosion, the serious fire on the Ocean Odyssey, several helicopter crashes and the Safe Gothia incident.
  Since oil and gas exploration began in the 1960s, some 500 lives have been lost in the North sea. That is a daunting and tragic total. As I am sure many other hon. Members have said, the whole House pays tribute to the bravery of the men who help our economy and put up with such dreadful conditions. Moreover, we again extend our sympathy to the families and loved ones of all who have died in the North sea over the years.
  I have always felt that the tragedy of the Piper Alpha disaster, like so many disasters, is that if more had been done beforehand, the accident might have been avoided. That is part of the benefit of hindsight. However, if Lord Cullen's recommendations had been in place beforehand, the disaster might have been avoided. That is true of so many other disasters—one thinks of the two dreadful accidents that occurred in football grounds at Bradford and Sheffield, of the Clapham train crash, the King's Cross fire and of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Had greater attention been given to safety details, loss of life could have been prevented. Conservative Members part company with one or two Opposition Members about what conclusion should be drawn from that. I do not believe that one should simply blame the Government. As I said, we have the benefit of hindsight.
  Today we heard an extraordinary explosion from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who seemed to say that, because the Government did not implement the minority Burgoyne recommendations, the Ministers in office in 1980 were responsible for the disaster. I hope that when I reread the Hansard report I will find that I have got that wrong, but I listened to the hon. Gentleman and that is my impression of what he said.
  When I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) I said that, on balance, the Government accepted the majority recommendation of the Burgoyne report. I do not see how the Government could be expected to accept both the major recommendation and the minority recommendation. There seems to be a contradiction.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who clearly studies these matters in considerable detail. In 1980, the Government did what they could and accepted the majority recommendation. I do not see how they could have been expected to do more. As the hon. Gentleman said, the minority recommenda-tion clearly contained a valid argument. The hon. Member made that point forcefully in his speech, and hon. Members who took part in the debate 10 or 11 years ago were right to make that argument. We warned that there was a problem, but we differ from them over whether the Government should be blamed for accepting the majority, rather than the minority, view.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Having spoken for so long earlier, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to reflect on this point. We thought that it was wrong that the Government should ask the same Department that had responsibility to maximise the financial potential of the North sea to regulate and inspect itself. There was clearly a possible conflict, and we argued then that it existed. We
  536
  accept that our view could have been right or wrong, but in the light of that experience we do not want the Government to make the same mistake again.
  Mr. Greenway: I said that the hon. Gentleman had made his point well, and now he has made it twice. The majority Burgoyne recommendation was that, on balance, it was better to leave safety in the North sea to the Department of Energy, which is what the Government did. We cannot blame the Government for accepting that majority recommendation. The view of the hon. Member for Dundee, West is that, with hindsight, that was perhaps the wrong recommendation and the minority one was correct. That is something on which the House, people in Scotland and those whose loved ones were killed on Piper Alpha will want to reflect. No blame attaches to the Government for accepting the majority Burgoyne recommendation to leave safety as a matter for the Department of Energy.
  Now, 10 years later, Lord Cullen has recommended that there is a case for transferring responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cohn Moynihan): On balance.
  Mr. Greenway: Yes, on balance, but there have been changes in the past 10 years. The Health and Safety Executive has developed its expertise beyond that which it had 10 years ago. In addition, in his report, Lord Cullen found no evidence that the Department of Energy put production matters before safety matters. That seems to be the burden of the argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, West.
  I hope that the House will agree that the Government were right to send the report about whether Occidental should be prosecuted to the Lord Advocate. Lord Cullen has concluded that there were significant flaws in the way safety was managed by Occidental. I know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today to comment further on whether Occidental would be prosecuted. I do not believe that we can press the matter. We must leave it with the Lord Advocate, although many of us believe privately that perhaps there is a case for prosecution.
  We have looked back—what must be done in the future? The House will want assurances that North sea operations will be safer than they have been and that safety will be paramount. We all recognise the inherent dangers of working in the North sea, but we must not take unnecessary risks with other men's lives. If the Piper Alpha disaster suggests that we may have done so in the past, we certainly must not ever do so again.
  The House has rightly given a warm welcome to Lord Cullen's most impressive and penetrating report. He has provided the most comprehensive analysis possible of conditions necessary for the safe management of offshore installations. I am sure that the report also contains lessons for the safe management of. other industrial activities. It rightly concludes that safety in such a demanding environment as the North sea cannot be secured by fixed rules or off-the-peg solutions, but that it needs a flexible approach and the ability to evaluate what is the best compromise between often conflicting safety objectives.
  The solutions that are implemented must take account of the varying circumstances of individual installations.

  537
  That is why Lord Cullen was right to say that every installation must be assessed. He outlined some of the ingredients that would help to ensure that a safety management programme was as comprehensive as it should be—the organisational structure, management, personnel standards, training for operations and emergencies, safety assessment, design procedures, procedures for operations and maintenance modifications.
  The involvement of the entire work force is especially important and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point strongly. The entire work force—operators and contractors—must be involved in accident and incident reporting, investigation and follow-up, the monitoring and auditing of the operation of the system and in the systematic reappraisal of the system in the light of the experience of the operator and of the industry. The important objectives, which Lord Cullen rightly identified, place the responsibility where it belongs—with the owners and the operators of the installations.
  The oil industry is one of our most dynamic industries and has shown great inventiveness and resourcefulness, not least in maintaining the economic viability of North sea production when world prices fell sharply in the mid-1980s. The Government also deserve credit for keeping an open mind on taxation and for making adjustments when necessary. Genuine adaptability and ingenuity have been shown by the Government and by the oil industry as a whole.
  It is tempting to say that there should be definite rules and a clearly prescribed approach to safety in the future, but such an assertion would be unwise. In real life—in the practical world—reasonable safety objectives often conflict with each other and Lord Cullen has recognised that. The better standards that we want depend on our achieving the best trade-off between those conflicts and not having a prescriptive, rule book approach.
  There must be proper controls and monitoring of safety standards in the North sea. As I have said, they must be more flexible than they have been in the past. We can still learn a lesson from the findings of the Robens committee, which began its work 20 years ago. It highlighted the disadvantages of over-detailed legislation.
  It is accepted by hon. Members of all parties that companies must involve all their workers. The hon. Member for Dundee, West made a strong argument about union recognition on North sea installations. I believe that that is a separate issue from safety. Whether members of staff, employees, production workers or sub-contractors, and whether members of unions or not, all on installations must be properly involved in safety. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about the right of representation of every worker on a safety committee. That is the Government's argument about safety and it is somewhat different from saying that people must be members of a trade union to have their safety interests represented.
  Every worker must also perceive his own proper contribution to safety, and must have the knowledge and training to play his part. That must mean better communication. When we ask ourselves why the Piper Alpha disaster happened, the one conclusion that we reach is the one that Lord Cullen put his finger on. He said:
  "From the evidence I conclude that this"—
  the failure of the system—
  538
  "was due to a failure in the transmission of information under the permit to work system and at shift handover."
  We must learn the lesson from that. Even at the most mundane level of operations, communication between staff, with each member of staff understanding the other's role and the importance of every procedure that other members of staff carry out, cannot be given too high a priority. Safety must not be sold merely as a philosophy or as some vague concept by exhortation to the worker. Dialogue with the worker and involvement in everything that he does is essential to a safe working environment.
  The Cullen report is especially to be welcomed because if faces up to those difficulties and tackles them squarely. It proposes a framework that is flexible and avoids detailed prescriptions. There must be real dialogue and not a rigid imposition of predetermined rules. It is no good having a manual of principles, endorsed by management, standing on the shelves or in the workplace gathering dust. The principles must be put into, and kept in, effect.
  The Piper Alpha disaster was an offshore incident. I recognise that part of the difficulty has been whether offshore installations are as safe as those onshore. Right now in my constituency, the reverse question is being asked. People ask, "Are onshore operations as safe as they should be?" As the Minister knows, a consortium headed by Kelt UK Ltd has sought planning consent to build a gas-fired electricity generating station on the road between Malton and Scarborough, which would harness various pockets of gas, mostly sour gas, which are to be found throughout the Vale of Pickering. The sour gas, which is the majority of the resource, has 1,250 parts per million hydrogen sulphide which, as my hon. Friend knows, is an extremely dangerous substance. The proposal is that the gas would be piped over several miles and that it would be used to fire two gas turbines to generate electricity for the national grid.
  I am not exaggerating when I say that, because of what happened on Piper Alpha as much as because of anything else, local people are petrified by the risks that may be associated with the process. Time and time again, one hears a question consisting of three short words—"Is it safe?" My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues say that, according to the Health and Safety Executive, it is safe. My constituents are demanding much more definite assurances.
  My hon. Friend was closely involved in the passage of the Electricity Act 1989. That Act provides for these matters to be considered at a public inquiry before a decision is taken. Having considered all these issues over a period of several months, I believe that a public inquiry is essential before any planning permission is granted in respect of the West Knapton site. Ministers in the Department of Energy deserve some credit for the introduction of this new procedure, but it is there to be used, and it would be in the public interest for all the issues relating to this application to be fully considered and fully challenged at a public inquiry.
  The delay that such an inquiry would involve is inconsequential when set against the risks associated with such an operation, including the risks to the economic interests of the area. Agriculture and tourism are dependent on a pollution-free environment. It has been suggested by some critics of the proposal that the technology that would be used is relatively untried, as sour

  539
  gas contains such high quantities of hydrogen sulphide. The prospect is not one that my constituents view with much relish.
  Then opening this debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, for every serious accident, there were many minor accidents from which important lessons could be learnt. On land, there must not be any accidents involving facilities surrounded by farms, homes and villages. I accept that the scale of what is proposed at West Knapton is considerably smaller than platforms in the North sea, but I am sure the Minister agrees that nothing should be left to chance and that any risk is unacceptable. The whole safety issue must be dealt with exhaustively at a public inquiry. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm tonight that, should a public inquiry cast any doubt on the safety of this operation, he will not hesitate to refuse consent.
  Many chapters of the Cullen report deal with emergencies and with the action that should be taken when emergencies occur: with this application, one question does not seem to have been properly tackled; what emergency arrangements do we need to have in place in north Yorkshire to deal with a potential disaster involving gas pipelines? Moreover, how much will it cost and who will pay?
  In reply to the debate that I initiated on 19 December 1990, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State outlined a number of crucial matters relating to pipeline safety. He said that
  "apparatus … for the testing, inspecting or maintaining of the pipeline shall not be introduced or recovered from the pipeline, unless such introduction or recovery is essential to maintain the safe operation of the pipeline."—[Official Report, 19 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 395.]
  The operation is referred to as pigging, but pigging creates problems. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is a potential safety hazard in the opening and closing of pipelines and pressure valves. Pigging is a cause of great concern among my constituents in the Vale of Pickering, not least because of the hydrogen sulphide content of the gas. I do not think that any of my constituents are satisfied that the problem of pigging has been considered properly. I think that my hon. Friend agrees that a public inquiry would be a good means of dealing with the problem. I apologise to my hon. Friend
  the Minister for being so robust and forceful about the Vale of Pickering project, but he will understand that safety is paramount. My constituents expect nothing to be left to chance.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a telling point in his interesting speech when he said, about Piper Alpha, that we thought that we had done everything that we should. That is what worries my constituents about the West Knapton project.
  The oil and gas industry is important to our economy. It has made a major contribution in the past decade and I am sure that it will continue to do so in the next decade and into the next century, but it is a dangerous industry. We must maintain proper standards in a dynamic system capable of growing and being flexible. The Cullen report provides the basis for ensuring safety. We must be under no illusions about what it will cost. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has painstakingly said at every opportunity that cost will not be a problem.
  The House has had an opportunity tonight to consider matters which are crucial to the people who work out in
  540
  the North sea. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that the work that they do demands that safety is not left to chance and that we must never again have a repeat of the Piper Alpha disaster.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I join in the general praise for Lord Cullen's report. The document becomes all the more impressive each and every time that it is read. I also join the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in saying how disappointing it is to see such a low attendance for tonight's debate. It should be put on the record that the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) were anxious to contribute to the debate; perhaps if slightly more consideration had been shown by one hon. Member in particular earlier in the debate, they would have had that opportunity.
  I intend to make a brief speech, because, along with other members of the Energy Select Committee, I shall have the opportunity to pursue these matters in the inquiry into offshore safety management which we shall begin a week on Wednesday. I look forward to closely questioning Ministers, the Health and Safety Executive, the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee, the trade unions and other interested bodies about progress or otherwise in implementing the Cullen recommendations, and some important issues which go beyond the Cullen inquiry.
  Like many hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I have constituents who died in the Piper Alpha disaster. Also like other hon. Members, I decided that the best, indeed the only, thing that I could do in memory of those constituents was to seek to ensure that such a disaster would never happen again, that the Piper Alpha inquiry would be used as a springboard to take matters forward and make the environment in the North sea safer. I decided that the fact of the disaster should indeed make a difference, which is the only proper and fitting memorial to those who died.
  I wish to raise three matters which must be taken forward. First, there is a general and unanimous welcome for the Cullen recommendation, which will be implement-ed, that the safety inspectorate should be independent of the Department of Energy. I agree that the perception of independence is as important as the reality. It is important that oil workers have confidence in the inspectorate. We should not blind ourselves to the fact that the previous arrangements came in for trenchant criticism in the Cullen report.
  I intend to argue along with other Members from the north-east of Scotland that the geography and location of the nerve centre and headquarters of the safety inspectorate are important, However, I want Ministers to understand that it is not just an argument about geography. It is also an argument about the psychology of the industry and the degree of commitment that the safety inspectorate has to being part and parcel of the sharp end of the oil industry in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, as opposed to being headquartered where the oil companies' headquarters and executives are, by and large —in London.
  I hope that the Government paid attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about a survey conducted by the Aberdeen centre for offshore safety which showed that 70 per cent. of the

  541
  companies operating in the North sea believed that their personnel primarily concerned with safety matters were located in the north-east of Scotland. I see little argument for tolerating a safety inspectorate which continues to be cocooned in London, away from the sharp end of the industry.
  Many people in the north-east of Scotland have suspicions about the attitude of the Department of Energy to these issues because successively, in discussing the location of the petroleum engineering division or the offshore licensing division, good arguments about locating them in the north-east of Scotland and Aberdeen have been turned aside for what seems no more than civil service prejudice to be close to the political decision-makers in London.
  It would be a lost opportunity if such prejudice were to affect the decision on the location of the headquarters of the safety inspectorate and if solid arguments for putting that inspectorate where it belongs—in the north-east of Scotland, along with the front end of the industry and the oil workers—were overruled because people wanted to hang on to their London base.
  Of vital importance is the question of human relationships in the North sea. There is a general admission that, regardless of the safety regime and the recommendations, in terms of the safety equipment in the North sea, unless there are satisfactory human and industrial relations in the area, we shall never have an environment as safe as it could be.
  Many people had hoped that the Cullen report would herald a new era, a fresh initiative and a new dawn for industrial relations in the North sea. Indeed, when Shell in December agreed to relinquish the formal blacklisting of trade unionists involved in the industrial action of last year, we hoped that the companies had realised that this was a time to start to create that new atmosphere in the North sea.
  It is with sadness, and some anger, that I report, from the offshore information centre, the belief that, while the formal blacklisting has ended, it continues informally through contractors in the North sea. The centre is documenting 73 cases which it believes show that there is a continuing blacklist, with continuing discrimination and victimisation of oil workers who took part in the industrial action of last year.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government took a grim view of victimisation in the North sea. Will the Government promise that, when those 73 cases have been documented by the information centre, each case will be investigated to see if victimisation can be substantiated and that, if it is, the Government will back up their fine words with action to ensure that the practice is rooted out? There can never be a satisfactory safety environment in the North sea until human relationships between workers and companies are improved to a position of greater trust than exists now.
  The question of trade union recognition has been raised by several hon. Members. I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State argue that somehow the Cullen report had been a setback for the cause of trade union recognition. On the contrary, I should have thought that, given the strictures and limitations on the remit of the report, what Lord Cullen said, particularly about trade
  542
  union representation on safety committees, went a long way to show that he believed that the most satisfactory thing would be for trade unions to have representatives on safety committees. Paragraph 21.84 states:
  "I am prepared to accept that the appointment of offshore safety representatives by trade unions could be of some benefit in making the work of safety representatives and safety committees effective, mainly through the credibility and resistance to pressures which trade union backing would provide."
  In that statement, Lord Cullen showed a keen appreciation of the central difficulty in terms of safety reporting in the North sea. Many offshore workers believe that to be concerned with safety is a blight on one's career and job prospects.
  I want to refer to correspondence that I received this afternoon. By way of caution, I must state that I have not had an opportunity to investigate the case fully. However, it is worth referring to as an example of the fears expressed by offshore workers at the moment.
  I have received a copy of a certificate of election in the name of Mr. G. Moore of Moodiesburn in Glasgow. On 17 February, Mr. Moore was elected as a safety representative on one of Aker Lasalle's platforms in Morecambe bay. I also have a copy of a document dated 21 February which notifies Mr. Moore of the termination of his contract of employment. I do not know whether those two events are totally connected. There may be other reasons for that sequence of events. However, I am absolutely sure that Mr. Moore and many other offshore workers believe that to be active in safety matters in the North sea when employed by some companies—and I stress "some companies"—is a passport to being left ashore when the present trip ends.
  Until that atmosphere of fear and trepidation in the North sea is properly overcome, we will not have the safety environment for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have called this evening.
  It is very easy for hon. Members to use fine words and say that we must make safety a priority in the North sea. This is a very comfortable and secure environment in which to say that. I suspect that the perception is completely different for someone working offshore on a platform. Those workers still believe that being involved with safety matters is not conducive to keeping one's job or securing career prospects. I suspect that we are talking about only a few companies, but until that atmosphere is confronted and overcome, there will not be a genuinely safe environment.
  I accept that there is a multitude of contractors and indeed unions operating in the North sea. It is not easy to find a quick way forward in terms of trade union recognition. However, I am convinced that, if the Government could guarantee a secret ballot of offshore workers now, the overwhelming majority of them would want to be represented collectively rather than individually before their employers.
  How do we secure that collective representation? It is not good enough for the oil operators to say that that is not their concern but that of the oil contractors, and then for the oil contractors to say that they would have conceded trade union recognition, but they believed that that would penalise them with regard to the oil operators. It is then not good enough for the Government to say that it is a matter for the companies involved and not for Government policy. There should be a genuine attempt to secure for offshore workers the same rights that are

  543
  expected and demanded by onshore workers. Why should offshore workers, who work in an insecure and unsafe environment, be denied the rights that we would guarantee onshore workers, who work in most cases in a safer environment?
  There have been 25 years of continuous oil development in the North sea. We have taken a long time to learn some of the lessons that are so clearly spelled out in the Cullen report. The self-congratulatory nature of the Government's comments since Cullen reported shows that there is every danger that once again complacency is setting in. The empty Benches tonight show that that is true; hon. Members should know better. It would be a betrayal of those who died on Piper Alpha and of those who still work in the dangerous environment offshore if tonight's low attendance were to show a lack of concern among hon. Members about the safety of offshore installations.
  9.55 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In my brief speech, I shall not rehearse the technical arguments that have been advanced so eloquently by hon. Members but will remind the House of exactly what happened on the night of 6 July 1988 and why we as elected representatives must quickly take firm action.
  The television pictures of what was Piper Alpha are indelibly imprinted on our minds. We remember the deaths that occurred and the harrowing faces of the relatives of those who died and of those whose bodies have never been recovered. Hon. Members who attended the memorial service in Aberdeen had the harrowing experience of meeting mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, wives, grandchildren, nieces and nephews who could not comprehend what had happened.
  Hon. Members who lost constituents in the Piper Alpha disaster are aware of the survivors—young men who hear the physical and psychological scars and who wonder why they escaped while their friends died in tragic circumstances. I pay tribute to the social work of the voluntary and statutory organisations in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who have done so much to help those people, and to the nursing and medical staff who attended the victims as they were brought to the shore. Those memories should never be forgotten.
  Hon. Members must act to ensure that such a disaster never happens again. It is often said, "We hope that it will never happen again", but I hope that there will be genuine commitment to implement all the Cullen recommenda-tions speedily and effectively.
  Offshore workers in the oil and gas industry are angry because the industry generates millions of pounds for the Exchequer, yet they are asked to work in the most difficult circumstances without guarantees of health and safety. One need not be a first class honours economics graduate from the university of Harvard to understand that oil and gas mean a great deal of money, yet those workers are being asked to work in difficult circumstances.
  Mothers and wives have asked me, "Is it safe for my husband or son to work offshore?" Piper Alpha has destroyed the confidence of many families in the industry. Therefore, I ask the Minister to emphasise to those people that the safety aspects will be given priority. When the oil industry started in the North sea there was a desperate
  544
  rush to have access to the wealth of the industry. The speed with which we went ahead to extract the oil was measured against the prospect of ensuring a pace of development which would allow safety as well as environmental aspects to be taken into account. Surely it is not contradictory to balance the wealth of the industry against the safety of the workers and the future of the environment.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may he proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.— [Mr. David Davis.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Mrs. Ewing: The issue of union recognition on rigs and platforms has also been raised. Those who have fought hard and long for union recognition have not done so because of a selfish attitude but because they genuinely want to enter into a dialogue with the oil companies about how the best working conditions can be achieved, as well as considering other aspects such as wage levels, hours and so on.
  Many workers in my constituency believe that since they took industrial action they have been blacklisted. That is difficult to prove. When one writes to a company about an individual case, the company claims that it is not blacklisting the individual, because he has been subcontracted through another organisation. Trying to establish what has happened is like punching at cotton wool.
  Union recognition on rigs and platforms would go much of the way towards resolving the problem. So long as there is a feeling that blacklisting operates, people will not have confidence in the system. I have written to various companies about constituents; I believe that there is blacklisting, and that many people have been struck off lists, although no one will admit it.
  Reference has been made to the establishment of a centre for safety. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that it should not be established in Aberdeen. Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe. Given that it was the centre from which most of the men who worked on Piper Alpha flew to their fate, one of the most fitting memorials that we could establish to those men and to their families would be to set up in Aberdeen a centre for excellence, which would attract the best people from all over the country to work close to the oil industry. That is an important aspect of the debate. It would do a great deal to restore confidence in the oil and gas industries if the Government were to announce that that centre will be established in the oil capital of Europe.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: We have had a useful debate on an extremely important subject. There have been speeches of extreme value from both sides of the House. I do not want to criticise the size of the turnout. The main point is that all hon. Members who have spoken have shown a deep interest in and a deep knowledge of the subject. I prefer quality to quantity. It is important to make that point.
  The subject is important because of the huge amount of revenue which the country has earned and is still earning

  545
  from the North sea and because of the dramatic consequences of the events of 7 July 1988 on the lives of many people.
  There are more than 35,000 workers in the oil industry in the North sea and they all feel the impact of that disaster. The relatives of the victims will never forget what happened on that night. They will bear the scars of it to the end of their days, as will the survivors, most of whom will never be able to go back to work, certainly offshore. I feel tremendous sympathy and empathy for the relatives and survivors in view of what they have to bear and will continue to have to bear. I have regular contact with many of them.
  The issue has dragged on for a long time. I blame no one for that, but since the disaster in 1988 the relatives and survivors have had to cope with the strain of intense publicity of all events offshore. A rash of incidents seemed to follow the Piper Alpha disaster, the most serious of which were the death of Timothy Williams on the Ocean Odyssey and the Brent Spar helicopter disaster. There were a number of other deaths on various platforms offshore. All have meant a constant awareness of the way in which a relative has been lost or the way in which survivors have lost their livelihoods and many of their friends and colleagues. They have also had to cope with the glare of publicity that was focused on Lord Cullen as he went about his work so ably in Aberdeen during his inquiry.
  The issue of prosecutions, which was referred to by the Secretary of State in the debate on the report when it was published in November, is still outstanding. The papers were referred to the Lord Advocate at that time and we were informally led to understand that a decision on whether prosecutions would be proceeded with would be made some time in January. The latest date is April. I urge the authorities to speed up and to ensure that there are no delays. It is important that all these public matters are dealt with because of the trauma that they cause relatives and survivors, quite apart from all the other reasons.
  Many tributes have been paid to Lord Cullen for his report. I have paid such tributes publicly and they have been echoed today. They are well deserved. However, when we rush to congratulate Lord Cullen and wallow —as one hon. Member suggested—in the new-found attitude to safety in the North sea, we should not lose sight of the real importance of safety. It is easy to become complacent and there is already a sense of that creeping into the industry.
  I want to spend most of my time tonight considering some of the things that have happened since the Piper Alpha tragedy and trying to look ahead. It is important to recognise the status of the industry. Opposition Members frequently refer to the amount that the Government have earned in oil revenues from the North sea—more than £80 billion since they took office in 1979. I shall not make the usual comment about where that money has gone, but it is clearly a significant amount. There is a huge amount of employment associated with the oil and gas industry. The most recent survey, referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and published by Grampian regional council, which suggests itself to be the most thorough recent survey, shows that more than 100,000
  546
  people in Scotland are employed in the industry, more than one in 20 jobs in Scotland. That is a significant proportion.
  Lord Cullen recognised the importance of the industry. It is important to take such points on board because when we talk about the problems of the industry, we are not talking about an industry which is isolated from the rest of the country, as it effectively has been legally by the way in which the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 has been operated, certainly by this Government. All the oil companies which have operations offshore have operations onshore and they cope with the onshore legislation effectively and adequately. That is a point which I shall emphasise later.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to the Burgoyne report. That is part of the history of the matter and has been mentioned frequently tonight. Certainly it was referred to at length by Lord Cullen. The hon. Member for Ryedale seems to have some difficulty understanding why we criticised the Government. It is correct to say that the Government accepted the recommendations made in the Burgoyne report. I have read statements made in the House by the Minister of the day, now Lord Gray of Conting, when he introduced the report in 1980. It is clear that the Government accepted the report but that they did very little about it.
  On the day of the Piper Alpha disaster, numerous agencies were involved in offshore safety. The Department of Energy's petroleum engineering division was respon-sible for health and safety, the Department of Transport was responsible for fire fighting, safety, standby vessels and deluge equipment on the platforms, the certifying authority was responsible for the integrity of the platform, and the pipelines inspectorate was responsible for the integrity of pipelines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) referred to paragraph 5.64 of the Burgoyne report —in which Burgoyne drew attention to the grey area at the interface between the pipelines inspectorate and the certifying authorities. He referred to that, because ignoring that advice, and the note from the Burgoyne committee, led to inefficiency, which led directly to the Piper Alpha disaster. The gas risers blew on that platform and that is the reason for the scale of death' and destruction.
  We are perfectly entitled to point to Government inadequacy. It is fine for the Government to say that they accept this or accept that, but they did not do what they said they would do, and the Burgoyne report was not implemented as fully as it should have been. For those reasons, my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Dundee, West, were perfectly entitled to point to the Government's guilt, and I do not demur from that.
  Many serious problems still exist in the North sea. It is important to continue to draw attention to them. We shall do that. Standby vessels were mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I did a survey of standby vessels last year and asked certain questions of the Department of Transport. At that time there were 154 registered standby vessels in the British sector of the North sea, only seven of which were less than five years old. Nearly half of the fleet —54 vessels, or 48 per cent.—were more than 25 years old and 28 vessels were more than 30 years old. The oldest standby vessels which are still in operation, I understand, are the Euan, which was constructed in 1936 and is

  547
  operated by Garcia Limited; the Grampian Osprey, which was licensed in 1937 and is operated by George Craig and Son; the Tamito, built in 1945 and operated by Tamis Limited; the Silver Pit, which has now changed name and owner and was referred to at length in Lord Cullen's report, registered in 1947; the River Grampian Rose, built in 1949 and operated by George Craig and Son; the Grampian Hawk, built in 1950 and operated by George Craig and Son; and the Deveritel, which was built in 1953. Those boats still operate in the North sea as standby vessels.
  We have heard of efforts by the Department of Transport to review regulations and guidance notes which apply to those boats. It is my understanding that a draft document was published in May 1987. It was revised in March 1988 and, obviously, everything went on ice after the Piper Alpha disaster. In August 1989, a further draft was published and there was yet another in September 1990. When I pressed the Department, asking what had happened about standby vessels, I was told that it was considering the Cullen report. Here we are two years after the Piper Alpha disaster, at least four years since the Department of Transport saw fit to review the regulations, and nothing has been done.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) read out the criteria that Lord Cullen recommended as the basis upon which standby vessels should perform. Will he acknowledge, and will the Minister take this on board when he replies, that it is impossible for the boats that he has described to meet those criteria, and that the Government must say why they continue to operate?
  Mr. Doran: Although it is not his direct departmental responsibility, I hope that the Minister will reply to valid questions like that, which are relevant to safety in the North sea. As long as the Government continue to dither —whichever Department is involved—we shall continue to doubt their sincerity.
  We have heard a good deal about health and safety representatives. The Opposition have argued for a long time that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 should be extended to cover the North sea. The Government, or at least the Minister's predecessor, used to come out with the standard response that the Act had already been extended in 1977. Of course we knew that. What we wanted was the extension of all onshore regulations to those working offshore, and we saw no reason why that should not be possible. Of course special circumstances exist on offshore platforms, just as they exist inside chemical works and refineries, but I for one have never been able to understand why companies such as British Petroleum are able to operate separate regimes onshore and offshore.
  Eventually, the Government decided to produce regulations in 1989. We criticised those regulations at the time, and we continue to do so. They are a much watered-down version of the onshore regulations, and they do nothing to deal with offshore problems. Lord Cullen rightly recommended a review of the regulations, arid I wish that that could happen sooner—there is another year to go before the review is undertaken.
  One of our main objections to the regulations lies in the exclusion of the statutory trade union representative. 'The
  548
  Government accuse us of being interested only in jobs for the boys—in protecting our union colleagues. That is very far from the truth. I strongly believe that every individual should be entitled to belong to a trade union, and to be represented by that union. We have the example of the onshore regulations, which allow the union statutory involvement and require the HSE to take a tripartite approach to safety. That has led to a considerable improvement in safety measures.
  We have argued that there are two strong reasons for the unions to be involved. First, they are independent of the employers, and have the resources to set up training courses. They also have the technical expertise to advise workers and to provide advice on technical matters. That independence is crucial. The second major benefit is the support and assistance that unions can provide to prevent the intimidation of elected representatives. That operates very effectively onshore, and there is no reason why it should not operate just as effectively offshore.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is not in the Chamber now, mentioned a letter that he received from the offshore information centre in Aberdeen. I received a copy of the same letter. It concerned Mr. Gordon Moore, who was employed by Aker Lasalle. On investigation, I managed to find out that Mr. Moore was a time-served tradesman—he considers himself to be a craftsman—with 12 years' offshore employment and a considerable track record. He decided that he wanted to be elected as a health and safety representative for the platform where he worked, in Morecambe bay. Having sought election, he was duly elected and appointed, and the necessary certificate was signed and issued by the installation manager.
  On 22 February, Mr. Moore was sent a letter by his employers, which was signed by Mr. A. B. J. Kammer, human resources manager. The letter said:
  "Further to discussions with the writer and our Mr. Allan Cunningham, we regret that we are unable to retain your services on the Morecambe Bay Contract due to unsatisfactory references being obtained from your previous employers."
  Mr. Moore has tried to find out what those unsatisfactory references were. His employer refuses to tell Mr. Moore about them. He has therefore come to the inevitable conclusion that he has been victimised because he decided to try to become a safety representative on an offshore platform. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Mr. Moore is justified in feeling that he has been victimised.
  Three workers on the Brent Bravo platform decided to stand as safety representatives. Mr. Jake Boyle, Mr. Graham Macdonald and Mr. Dave Glen sought election and were elected. Within 10 days of their election they were made redundant, despite the fact that there were numerous vacancies. Indeed, there was an upmanning on that platform.
  In a statement, Mr. Boyle said that he started his employment on Brent Bravo on 3 October 1990, that there were hardly any safety representatives on the platform at that time and that, on his second trip—on 5 November —he took out nomination forms and was duly nominated. He returned for his next trip in December. He noticed that there were still notices for safety representatives, but he had received no intimation of what had happened to his nomination. When he inquired, he was told that his form had been lost. He left the platform after being renominated. When he returned on 27 December there was

  549
  still no nomination on the board, so he approached the installation manager who told him, "I've lost your form." After he complained very strongly about that, the form was mysteriously found and he was told that if there were no other nominations he would become a safety representative on 23 January.
  On 19 January he received a letter from his employers, who were contracted to Shell, saying that he had been downmanned, despite the fact that upmanning had occurred on the platform in his trade. There was no particular reason for him to be sacked. Therefore, he has reached the conclusion, as have Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Glen, that they were sacked because they sought to represent the work force.
  In recommendation 30, Lord Cullen recommended that protection similar to that contained in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 against unfair dismissal for membership of a trade union be extended to employee representatives. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister say that they accept in full Lord Cullen's recommendations. I hope that the Minister will say that that recommendation will be enshrined in legislation. I hope that he will also say when it will be enshrined in legislation and what he intends to do about people such as Mr. Boyle, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Glen and Mr. Moore.
  Mr. Boyle took matters into his own hands. He decided to write to the Department of Energy, he was so concerned about the situation in which he found himself. He received a reply to his letter on 5 February 1991 signed by Mr. R. D. Jenkins, who described himself as a senior inspector in the petroleum engineering division. The letter says:
  "I have spoken to the management of the Brent Field on this subject, and I am informed that it is considered that you were down-manned for operational reasons—i.e. Vauldale"—
  who were the employers—
  "had considered that your employment was of a short term nature and you were replaced by someone who had different conditions of contract."
  There has been no investigation by the Department of Energy. No protection has been offered to Mr. Boyle. I appreciate that the Department is to give up its responsibility for safety fairly soon, but I assume that Mr. Jenkins, together with the other inspectors, will be transferred to the Health and Safety Executive. Such behaviour should not be tolerated. These cases must be investigated.
  The Department of Energy accepted the version of events provided to them by the employers without carrying out any further inquiries or investigations. That is unsatisfactory and is not conducive to safety. If Mr. Boyle's case is as accurate as I think it is after my discussions with him and those who represent him, it is no wonder that Opposition Members and offshore workers have no confidence that their interests will be protected by the Department of Energy. They want major changes to be made when responsibility for safety is transferred to the Health and Safety Executive. We certainly intend to pursue those issues.
  I said that I intended to discuss the operation of the Department of Energy. The Minister will be well aware that I have had—and have deliberately sought—a high profile on offshore safety issues. That was a personal
  550
  decision, consistent with the interests of my constituency, where there are a large number of offshore workers and where many of the major companies are located.
  Over the years, as I have presented cases such as those of Mr. Boyle, Mr. Moore and the other gentlemen I mentioned to successive Secretaries of State for Energy, I have had no confidence whatever that they have been properly investigated by the Department. Secrecy has been endemic in the Department's approach to its tasks. It has been impossible to escape the impression that there is connivance—almost collusion—with the oil industry.
  I do not make that charge lightly. I know that officials at the Department of Energy are anxious to do their job properly. I know that they find it difficult because they are thoroughly under-resourced and have been for many years and have received no political support. Nevertheless, the responses that I have received from various individuals who have occupied offices in the Department have not filled me with confidence. Their approach has been offhand and they have left me with no confidence that any attempt was being made to take complaints seriously.
  With one exception, I have never presented a case to the Department without thoroughly investigating it myself. Every time I have presented a case, I have done so because I have been satisfied that there has been some cause for the complaint. I can recall no case on which I have received a satisfactory response from the Department.
  Mr. Vaughan Mitchell, a welder employed offshore, was sacked because he refused to do a job which he strongly believed was likely to lead to serious problems on the platform. We investigated the case thoroughly, took statements and presented all the evidence to the Department. The response, after an "inquiry", was that the Department was satisfied that no injustice had occurred. Mr. Mitchell, through his trade union, is now pursuing the matter legally. He attempted to get support from the Department—to find out the results of its investigation at least—but the Department has consistently refused to release the papers.
  There is also the recent case of the Ocean Alliance. Just over a year ago, I wrote to the then Minister, drawing to his attention a catalogue of problems associated with the conversion of the Ocean Alliance drilling rig, which had been secured on contract by BP and which was lying at Invergordon undergoing a major refit to make it suitable for deep-level drilling in the North sea—a process that required the installation of a lot of high-pressure equipment. The allegations were checked again. I spoke to the individuals involved. A full submission was made to the Department, and I also contacted BP as the eventual operator of the installation. I received the same reply from both sides—"There is no problem; there is nothing wrong."
  My views and the responses that I received were then fed back to the health and safety committee, which raised merry hell with the employers. A new catalogue of complaints was received and submitted to me. I passed the information on to the Department of Energy and to BP. This time, some honesty had to creep in. We received apologies from BP, and even BP's house magazine had to carry the tale that there were things that were badly wrong with the drilling rig. I raise that case because when I first referred the matter to the Department of Energy there was virtually no response and, so far as I could see, no serious investigation.

  551
  Another case which the Department was forced to take seriously was that of the Amoco, Montrose and Arbroath platforms. The Department took that case seriously only because a Department of Transport inspector had managed to visit the Arbroath platform and had discovered a collection of problems which were detailed in a long memorandum that found its way into my hands. Eventually, the Department took action. It could not refute the evidence because it was specific, but that is one of the few cases on which we have managed to stir the Department of Energy into some action.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West referred to the report into the incident on Piper Alpha in 1984. It is important to consider that report in the context of what I am saying now because it was held in secret by the Department of Energy, which refused to release the papers. We have found it difficult to understand why. The existence of that report was certainly known prior to the 1988 disaster. I am intrigued to know why it has not been brought into the public domain, given the disaster on Piper Alpha, because it may have had some relevance to the explosion in July 1988. A lot of pressure was applied. I spoke privately to the Secretary of State about releasing the report, but he refused to do so.
  However, on the day that Mr. Petrie's interim report was released in September 1988, the Department sneaked the 1984 report into the public domain. I already had some idea about what was in the report because I had spoken to some of Occidental's executives, who had given me the shocking news that there had not been a Department of Energy investigation into the 1984 Piper Alpha explosion. I was staggered by that news, but I was bound by confidence not to do anything about it because it was a private discussion.
  When the report was published in September 1988, I saw why the Department had not been keen to release it. Under the heading "Legal Conclusions", it had concluded that there was a catalogue of four possible or probable breaches of the various regulations that would have justified a criminal prosecution. However, the Department's own inspector, Mr. Bainbridge, who is still a departmental inspector based in Aberdeen, concluded in paragraph 5.2:
  "had we decided to institute proceedings it would have been proper to conduct our own research rather than to rely entirely on the research findings of Occidental. I therefore propose no further actions other than a letter to Occidental."
  I repeat that after a major explosion on that platform which, as we know, was destroyed in July 1988, the company had carried out its own investigation. I gather that it employed outside consultants to carry out that investigation and to prepare two reports for the Department. When the Department's inspector had reviewed the matter, it was concluded that there were several possible or probable breaches of the regulations, but those papers were not passed to the Procurator Fiscal for prosecution or brought into the public domain so that lessons could be learnt. Why? Because the Department of Energy had not held its own inquiry. We can envisage the embarrassment that that would have caused.
  I concluded not long ago that there was no longer any point in taking up these matters with the Department of Energy. It is easy to get a cheap press headline bringing a "shock, horror" story to public attention, but when one batters one's head against a brick wall with virtually no sign of the brick wall yielding, no matter what pressure is
  552
  applied, one eventually decides that it is a waste of time to continue to raise such matters with the Secretary of State for Energy because the Department seems to have no interest in dealing properly with them or in acting as a public inspector of safety in the North sea. It seems to be assumed that any complaint is unjustified if the oil companies say that it is unjustified.
  I have taken a different approach. I have decided to contact the oil industry direct. Whenever a problem occurs on a platform or a drilling rig, I make every effort to persuade the oil company that those allegations are well founded and that it should take action against its contractors, employees or whoever is working for it.
  I can give a recent example of the way in which that method operates. I recently had occasion to complain to an oil company about the operation of a drilling rig, the SEDCO 706. Unfortunately, there was a death on that rig after I had made complaints to the oil company involved, although it was unconnected with my complaints.
  About a fortnight ago I telephoned a senior manager in the company and listed the complaints to him. He replied within about 15 minutes and told me that the company was sending a team of medical experts and environmental specialists to check out the complaints and that he would report back to me as soon as possible. He did so, and told me that many of the complaints were founded and the company was dealing with them. That was a refreshing approach, and not one that I have ever had from the Department of Energy. I hope that it is a sign of what will happen to the oil industry, particularly when it comes under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive.
  The most recent information that I have about the SEDCO 706 is that Total, the oil company involved, has decided to bring the drilling rig back into Invergordon so that proper remedial work can be carried out. That is a refreshing approach that contrasts starkly with that generally taken by the Department of Energy. I am pretty confident that if I had gone to the Department, no attempt would have been made to make a serious investigation. All credit should go to Total for the way that it operated.
  For the future, we want a completely new approach from the Health and Safety Executive. We want openness, the dispensing with the secrecy that has surrounded safety, and public scrutiny and control of safety in the North sea. I hope that we will get that. After my discussions with Dr. Cullen, the chairman of the Commission, and Mr. Rimington, I have no doubt that they share my hope that we will be able to open up the industry. If an industry operates in a vacuum without proper scrutiny, terrible things can happen, as we saw on Piper Alpha. The approach taken by the Department of Energy has been totally discredited, not only by my experiences, but by Lord Cullen's report.
  The oil industry has raised concerns with me about the transition to the Health and Safety Executive. I am extremely disappointed that, this close to what we all expected to be the transfer date, the Secretary of State was unable to make any positive statement about the arrangements. I understand that negotiations must take place and must be concluded. I was pleased that he said that finance was not a problem and that there would be proper resourcing, but I thought that we would have had some more positive information from him about a start-up date and what detailed arrangements are to be made.
  At no time has the Department sought to give any programme for the implementation of the Cullen

  553
  recommendations. It would not be beyond it to produce a detailed programme of how it sees the legislation being introduced and dealt with, and how Lord Cullen's 106 recommendations are to be implemented.
  The oil industry is entitled to a little certainty about the future and an idea of what to expect and in what time scale it has to operate. Huge investments and many jobs in the north-east of Scotland depend on the industry. We want that industry to thrive; we do not want it to be worried. We want investment programmes and to have some idea of how the safety regime is to develop over the next few years. It is clear that that is the time scale involved. Will the Minister give us some idea of the time scale that he envisages for implementation of the recommendations? We need a little more than the vague suggestions that have been made.
  As the Minister and his predecessors have frequently made clear at Question Time and on other occasions, the North sea has a bright future. Many marginal fields are being developed and many proposals are being presented to the Department for approval. I had a discussion earlier this week with a senior executive from one of the major oil companies. He was deeply concerned that the system that operated well for his company—and, I am sure, for other companies—seemed to be in some difficulties because of the transition.
  Before the submission of an annexe B application, it was normal to have preliminary discussions with the Department, and among the issues discussed would be safety and the implications of the design. At that stage, it was normal for the Department to give an informal view of the design and how it saw its safety implications. The Department would then say whether the design would be acceptable.
  At present, the Department seems not to feel able to give informal directions. I have a major worry—which was not expressed by the individual with whom I spoke this week—that the Department's approach may inhibit investment in some of the marginal fields, on which many jobs depend. If the Mininser cannot say anything about that today, I should appreciate his looking into the matter and seeing whether there is any justification for that suggestion.
  Several hon. Members have talked about the location of the offshore safety division. I will briefly put my Front Bench hat aside because I have a personal interest in that I represent Aberdeen, South. I want merely to say that I do not accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, who spoke from a particular perspective. It is important to stress that if the HSE is successfully to implement the safety regime that we want in the North sea, it must be visible. The place where it must be visible is the centre of the oil industry, which is the city of Aberdeen.
  Clearly there will be facilities elsewhere. I have had discussions on the matter with representatives of the Commission and of the executive. They have made it clear that they intend to have a substantial presence in Aberdeen. We are looking for more than that. We want to see a high profile there, and I want the headquarters to be based in Aberdeen, which would make a significant improvement to the attitude to safety. We know that if the headquarters are based in Aberdeen—and certainly if the
  554
  Labour party's dispersal programme is implemented and we are able to transfer the petroleum engineering division jobs to Aberdeen—there will be a follow through of oil industry jobs as headquarters are moved to the centre of the industry. In this day of instant communications, there is no good reason why the headquarters cannot be in Aberdeen. If I can come to this place at the beginning of every week and go back at the end of every week, I am sure that the oil industry, Government officials and HSE officials can manage.
  We must look ahead. Various issues need to be dealt with. I and other hon. Members have mentioned the problems of the contract labour system in the North sea. I do not want to go into too much detail on that because enough has been said already, but we must recognise that the root of the safety problems that still exist in the North sea is employment practice. I understand fully why oil companies use contract labour and why they do not want to have a permanent staff, whom they would have to recruit and lay off, when they can buy in the expertise. It makes for good management in their terms. However, it has a serious impact on safety, especially when we are dealing with such a hostile environment and such a stressful occupation.
  We must also recognise that many employers in the North sea are good employers, and many are based in my constituency. There are also many bad employers. I have come across two examples recently of appalling practices. They concern two catering companies—Trinity Catering and Caterae. Both are small-scale catering companies which have managed to win contracts in the drilling industry. There are many problems with those companies, but I want to mention one practice that they have in common.
  The offshore survival certificate is mandatory. Most employers in the North sea ensure that their staff have such a certificate. The companies pay for it because they recognise that it is mandatory and they want everyone to have the best training. The Robert Gordon institute in my constituency provides what many regard as the best training in that respect—certainly it is the best in this country. The two companies in question, to cut their labour costs, have decided that employees will pay for the certificate. The companies take on the men, put them through the course, pay for it, and then deduct the cost from the men's wages.
  I and the trade unions have tried to get some response from the companies about their practices. They refuse to give the men itemised statements, so the men cannot claim tax rebates. They are totally disillusioned with their employers. Of course, they have the option of giving up their jobs, but this is the first employment that many of them have had for some time. They are being totally exploited. I suspect that, so far as the Inland Revenue is concerned, something is happening. I realise that that is a serious accusation, but I have no inhibitions about making it. The way in which these companies operate—including their failure to provide itemised statements and to respond to any reasonable requests for information—strikes me as questionable. An investigation is needed. When he is considering offshore safety, the Minister must ask what contribution companies that exploit their work force in this way make to safety in the North sea.
  There are similar companies operating in other parts of the North sea. I have other examples that I do not intend to mention tonight. Such companies have men on every

  555
  platform, and they cause problems on every platform. The problems have nothing to do with the attitude of the men, but it is difficult to keep the morale of a work force high when it is being exploited.
  The contract system will have to be examined carefully. I know that certain companies have already started on that process. I have already paid tribute to Shell and BP—the two largest operators in the North sea—both of which have instituted programmes of long-term contracts. They are also providing training for the staffs of their contractors, with a view to improving skills to meet company requirements. That is certainly the way ahead.
  I have no doubt that, as long as such companies make an effort and can show how the benefits of long-term contracts work their way down to the ordinary offshore worker, there will be significant improvements in the offshore safety system. It is an attitude that needs to be adopted by other companies. I know that firms such as Chevron and Conoco have a fairly enlightened approach to safety. Their approach is rooted in continuity of employment, and they make serious efforts.
  The problems of stress offshore must be considered. I have made inquiries about the research being done in this area. Sadly, I can find no record of any Government-sponsored or oil company-sponsored research. Mrs. Joy Sutherland of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology has done some work, and a social worker in my area recently sent me a document detailing stress effects, but it is an area that needs to be studied. I should like the Minister to say something about what efforts the Department will make, and what efforts it will encourage the HSE to make, to find out more about the problems of stress offshore. The working conditions in the North sea are unique, as are the stress factors. I am thinking in particular of offshore workers who have had to cope with the serious problems of accidents and deaths on their platforms.
  There are several other isssues on which I should like the Minister to comment. On 14 July 1988, I wrote to the then Secretary of State on the subject of sub-sea valves. I received a very encouraging response from Mr. Petrie and one of the then Ministers concerning the Department's attitude. Since then, the attitude has been watered down. I understand that Mr. Petrie still insists that the Government intend at some stage to introduce regulations on sub-sea valves. However, we have heard very little. We have seen regulations providing for the relocation of the
  556
  emergency shut-down valves. That is not the safest method in all cases. It is accepted that sub-sea valves provide the safest method. I should like to know exactly what is happening in that regard.
  Funding of the Health and Safety Executive has been mentioned. The Secretary of State said that finance would not be a problem, but it is important that we should know how the Minister views the future of the HSE, and what improvements he thinks it will make in the existing system.
  I have a severe case of the wobblies about safety cases. I accept the philosophy and Lord Cullen's reasoning behind them but it is not the only answer or the only solution. I want to hear the Minister's views on what other steps are necessary to ensure that safety cases do not become a simple panacea and that people do not become complacent because safety cases are in order.
  We are well aware that serious problems with implementing Lord Cullen's recommendations are caused by the shortage of skills in safety matters on not only the public but the private side. I know that the industry is trying to get up speed quickly, but the resources are limited. It will be important to ensure that the safety case is properly scrutinised and that there are experts on the public as well as the private side.
  We have raised the issue of trade unions and health and safety committees. All the statements which have been made by the Secretary of State and the Minister were about the operation of the present system, which is under their control. What are the views of the Health and Safety Executive? Do Ministers expect that, as part of the legislative process that we shall experience, there will be a full extension of the onshore provisions?
  As I said earlier, this is an important debate. Important things have been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important that we do not become complacent. A genuine sense of frustration and anger lingers in the north-east of Scotland and among oil workers. It is felt that the position of employees is riot taken seriously. There have been industrial disputes in he past two years. There may be another one this year. That would have a serious impact on the oil industry. We all want to avoid that. The best way to do that is for the Government to use their power and authority to ensure that the grievances of North sea workers are dealt with.
  Lord Cullen's report presents one way forward. It is one that we are all prepared to support, but it demands not merely words but action from the Government.

  Piper Alpha (Cullen Report)
  10.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place—he sent his apologies that he had to leave the Chamber—about the attendance this evening. I hope that he agrees that, with remarkably few exceptions, what we have heard in the Chamber has been much more than merely useful—it has been salutary. Many speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House brought into sharp focus the human dimension of offshore safety, and I am glad that they did so. It was right, because all our debates on the subject and almost every action that has been taken on offshore safety since 6 July 1988 stand in the shadow of the terrible event of Piper Alpha. The human dimension of Piper Alpha always comes first to our minds and remains with us when the precise course of events or the technical implications are no longer to the fore.
  The human dimension is no more than shorthand for the personal needs, fears and concerns of the 30,000 and more men and women who earn their living in the face of these hazards, and the needs, fears and concerns of their families and friends. It is right to focus on the human dimension because, at the end of the day, securing safety depends on the responsibility and watchfulness of individuals at every step of the process and every level of the organisation in question.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for paying tribute to the Rev. Andrew Wylie. All those who know Andrew Wylie will be aware of the enormous contribution that he has made. It is no mere chance that when, with the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, I visit several platforms offshore in a few weeks the first stop that we shall make will be to see Andrew Wylie. It was right to pay tribute to his knowledge, courage and humanity. When he retires, which will be all too soon, I hope that he will not be lost to offshore workers.
  It has been clear from the outset that radical and far-reaching changes in the system of regulation of offshore safety must and will result from the implementation of the recommendations of Lord Cullen's report. Lord Cullen was given a wide-ranging remit and was able to probe matters to whatever depth he thought appropriate to identify the initial cause of the disaster, to understand how it escalated and to consider how similar incidents could be prevented. I firmly believe that the Government were right fully to accept Lord Cullen's conclusions. I confirm that in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We fully accept all the conclusions, together with the recommendations that Lord Cullen made for the future.
  There are five key goals in offshore safety, and they have been voiced in the debate. They are to improve the management of safety on offshore installations; to improve their design and equipment; to improve planning and provision for emergencies and for evacuation, escape and rescue; to strengthen the involvement of the work force in safety; and to strengthen the regulation of safety.
  The Government have acted with consistency and dispatch in responding to the report. The Department's
  558
  director of safety wrote to operators on the day the report was published requesting them to undertake action forthwith, without waiting for legislation, on a number of Lord Cullen's key recommendations, dealing with fire risk analysis, smoke and gas hazards, emergency systems and evacuation, escape and rescue.
  Further action was highlighted by Mr. Petrie in the same letter on work related to the implementation of improved safety measures covering standby vessels, drills, exercises and precautionary musters and evacuations, personnel survival and escape equipment, pipeline emergency procedures, hydrocarbon inventory rises in pipelines, control of the process, permits to work, safety committees and safety representatives. I list those for the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who asked what action had been taken on many of the issues. In fact, action was taken, and rightly so, within 24 hours on those key issues.
  A great deal of work has been done since then. Inevitably, detailed work is involved to effect the transfer of responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive, but that work is already well advanced, thanks to the tremendous amount of work undertaken by officials in all the relevant Government Departments. The Department of Energy's safety directorate has been upgraded to an independent division within the Department in a way which will facilitate the transfer to the HSE.
  Much has been said in the debate about the important role of engineers, and I am particularly pleased that such a distinguished engineer as Tony Barrel] has joined the Department from the HSE to be the first head of the new division.
  I utterly reject the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) about lack of political support from Ministers for the staff who work so assiduously and competently in the Department of Energy. Anyone who studies the Official Report will have witnessed time and again our commitment as Ministers to the outstanding civil servants who serve us and the country so well. I shall explain shortly how strongly I reject the allegations made by some hon. Members against the inspectorate.
  As a result of the work that we are doing, we now hope to effect the transfer in April of this year. When the transfer has taken place, formal responsibility for offshore safety will pass from the Secretary of State for Energy to the Secretary of State for Employment, in whose domain the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive fall. My right hon. Friend made it clear earlier, and I repeat, that the new division will have the resources that it needs to continue to enforce the existing regulatory regime for the time being and to develop and implement the new regime.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West should accept that from the point of view of the HSE, Lord Cullen, Mr. Rimington and all the staff of the HSE, there is no way that the HSE would be prepared to take on the important functions of offshore safety that it is being asked to accept if the division were not adequately resourced. Those concerned have been parties to all the detailed discussions at official and ministerial level which have been taking place day after day to meet the earliest possible date for transfer. That is why my right hon. Friend said that at this stage broad agreement had been reached—not final

  559
  decisions, because we must carry with us every party to the discussions in order to effect the transfer. As soon as those final decisions are made, the transfer will be effected.
  Had we made them by today, we would effect the transfer as soon as possible, for we have no desire to hold up the important process of the HSE taking over responsibility and implementing Lord Cullen's recommen-dations. We have put a great deal of time and effort into that, and to meet our April target would be a considerable achievement that should be recognised as such by hon. Memberss in all parts of the House. I promise hon. Member who have raised that issue that we could not have acted faster—[Interruption.] I have obviously had a dramatic effect beyond hon. Members present in the Chamber, but it appears that all is now under control.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: It is clear that the Government team do not want to answer the question or are not sure how to answer it. I will try again as the Secretary of State failed to answer me earlier.
  Mr. Rimington was identified by Lord Cullen as the responsible person. On 12 December, when talking about resources and finance, Mr. Rimington said to the Select Committee on Employment:
  "please forgive me if I seem a bit vehement, I am not intending to be rude in any way—of the need to secure enough money to discharge the offshore responsibility, which as a matter of fact Lord Cullen has laid explicitly on me."
  That is unfair. I cannot see how Mr. Rimington can possibly be held accountable. That responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State for Energy or with the Department of Employment. Mr. Rimington believes that he is responsible and that is not fair. He cannot possibly be responsible. That was the point that I made earlier.
  Mr. Moynihan: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, his interpretation of that exchange must be broader than that. He would be the first to realise, as all hon. Members realise, that the HSE is taking over responsibility for offshore safety. We have been debating that all evening. The HSE's resources are not directed to one individual to decide how he wants to spend that money. They are directed to the HSE. It will have to put a case together and have the support of its sponsoring Department. In turn, we will have to be satisfied before we hand over the safety divisions that we are handing them over to a body that is well resourced—adequately resourced at the present time —which had clear responsibilities and a clear programme to implement in respect of the Cullen report. If I have helped to clarify the position for the hon. Member for Dundee, West, I shall have achieved an objective. It is not the Government's intention to place all responsibility for offshore safety in the hands of one individual. It is our intention to hand it over to the HSE as soon as we can, and I hope that we can achieve the April target.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I hope that the Minister will consider my other points. The whole issue makes no sense because at the moment the HSE has difficulty recruiting staff. The total package that we are considering is for the whole department. Cullen has identified specific expenditure required for the new division. That is where there will be conflict.
  Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. The report does not mention specific expenditure. It is the duty of Ministers to read the report and, having accepted
  560
  the recommendations and conclusions, to work out an appropriate budget to implement those recommendations. We are doing precisely that as swiftly as we can.
  As hon. Members have made clear, the key task for the new division in implementing the recommendations of the report will be the introduction of requirements for the new safety cases. That is the cornerstone of the new system. It is not the Government's view that the safety case, in its own right, is what Cullen suggests. We believe that the safety case is critically important, but the need to bring forward regulations as soon as possible is also critically important in the implementation of the recommendations of the report.
  The report contains many other recommendations that do not fall directly within the safety case legislation. They will have to be implemented and some of them will require Government regulations. They will be brought before the House as soon as the HSE has had the opportunity to assess in detail the timetable and its implementation.
  The safety cases should show that operators have met defined objectives on the adequacy of the company's safety management system, on the identification and control of risks to personnel from hazards arising from the hydrocarbon inventory on the installation and from other potential major hazards and on provision in a major emergency of a temporary safe refuge for all personnel on an installation and a means for their safe and full evacuation, escape and rescue if needed.
  Specific matters to be demonstrated in the safety case include the minimisation of hazards from hydrocarbons, the minimisation of the exposure of personnel to accidental events, the endurance of the temporary safe refuge, and analysis of fire risks and of the effectiveness of the arrangements for evacuation, escape and rescue.
  In the meantime, all the existing legal requirements remain in force, and it is important that they are maintained. They will continue to be effectively enforced by the staff of the offshore safety division.
  Lord Cullen welcomed the introduction of emergency shut-down valves, which led to regulations being introduced and a tough implementation regime, which was welcomed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. The fitting of those valves is rigorously monitored. Lord Cullen suggested that it would be inappropriate to introduce sub-sea isolation systems across the board. He felt it important to consider them and their valves within the safety case for each platform, because of the wide differences between platforms. Therefore, an analysis of each platform under the safety case will determine whether it is necessary to implement a sub-sea isolation system. For some platforms they will not be required on safety grounds.
  It has been made explicit on a number of occasions —it should have been made explicit on every occasion—that annex B approval conveys no formal or informal safety approval or clearance. The approval has been discussed, not least with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my officials and myself. We regard it as a priority that where operators make proposals which are in the design stage and have safety implications, it should be a priority of the inspectorate to be as helpful as it can in providing information so that there is no delay in design techniques or a specific design. It will not be possible to ensure that in every case, because certain issues are being rigorously debated, but where possible we have asked the relevant

  561
  inspectors to be as helpful as they can, given the concerns that the hon. Member for Dundee, West rightly drew to the attention of the House.
  Few operators have operations offshore and onshore, partly because of the petroleum revenue tax implications. A growing number of small companies are operating onshore and I shall happily provide the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South with the details of that. It would be inaccurate to say that the two overlap to the extent that he suggested.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has accepted that the Government should implement recommendation 29. It will naturally be a matter of time before a final decision is made. My hon. Friend has not taken over responsibility for these matters yet, but the Department of Employment accepts that recommendation. We shall let the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South know as soon as a decision is made.
  Lord Cullen considered the possibility of immediately implementing the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations, but explicitly rejected it. It is a critical point. He concluded that what was required was a new offshore regime that would differ from any onshore regulatory system. He went much further; he argued that in many areas, drawing broad parameters for all platforms would have been unwise and that a safety case needed to be designed for each platform. Clearly some prescriptive regulations would apply to all, but the thrust of his argument was that a safety case should be drawn up and each platform taken individually. To replicate the CMAH regulations offshore was explicitly rejected by Lord Cullen, as hon. Members know.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) rightly spoke of the sensitivity of the work forces of contractors and operators and the need for developments to bring the two together, for example, in accommodation and recreational facilities, rather than having a two-tier approach, one for the operator's staff and the other for the contractor's work force. I agree that it is important that that is achieved, for better industrial relations and for a better environment on all platforms. I hope that operators will respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised on that issue and which I endorse.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned an offshore safety trust. I have not looked at that in detail, but I shall be happy to consider any suggestions from hon. Members about improvements to safety, though I would not want to deflect attention from the work of all who are involved in the implementation of the Cullen report. That must be a top priority. If there were a mechanism for enhanced safety which did not deflect from that work, we should consider it.
  The location of the new offshore safety division led to three conflicting views. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) was reasonable not to demand that Lowestoft should be the site, given its proximity to so much gas activity in the southern North sea. I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend did earlier, that the location is a matter for the HSE and the HSC. The chairman of the HSC has said that he sees a need for a substantial increase in staff numbers in Aberdeen. That has been welcomed by hon. Members. I cannot pre-empt decisions to be taken by the HSE or go to the extent that some hon. Members
  562
  would like on location. Undoubtedly there would be real difficulties in a comprehensive relocation of existing staff; some of the difficulties have been touched on in the debate, not least by Labour Members.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister will have to spell out what the difficulties are. What he should have heard from all parts of the House was the great virtue in having the nerve centre of the new operation located at the nerve centre and front end of the oil industry. Although the Minister cannot pre-empt the decision, he could give the House the assurance that the arguments have been well heard and understood, that the final decision will not be based on prejudice or on the previous practice of locating the headquarters of such bodies in London, and that he will take account of the arguments presented by hon. Members who represent the bulk of the oil and gas industry.
  Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have put forward in the debate will be taken into account by the HSE. I will make sure that those arguments are noted. The issue has been widely debated inside the House and outside.
  There are real conflicting problems, not least the amount of work that members of the division do in London, given that many of the operators have their headquarters based down here and that they would be travelling down from Aberdeen on a large budget to do their work. If it was proven that if inspectors and the whole division moved to Aberdeen, all the operators would follow, that is the sort of argument that the HSE would consider in the future.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose——
  Mr. Moynihan: Some hon. Members have made lengthy speeches and, with permission, I should like—[Interruption.] I will give way once more.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I did not make the point in my speech, but the argument that somehow the centre of gravity is in London is disputed by the industry itself, which complains that its staff have to travel to London. The industry wants the centre to be based in Aberdeen. It is not satisfactory for Ministers to say, "We are sorry, the centre of gravity is in London," when the industry itself denies that.
  Mr. Moynihan: I am not saying that the centre of gravity would necessarily remain in London for years to come, but when we looked at the costings we found that 80 per cent. of the work is currently done in and around London. That may well change. I simply say—I hope that it is a reasonable response—that if there are difficulties and arguments they will be listened to carefully by the HSC in due course.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the Burgoyne report. In 1980 the Government acted in line with its majority recommendations. It would have been impossible to act in line with the majority recommendations and with the minority recommendations as well because they disagreed, but we took on board the point made by the minority group that the role of the HSE should be enlarged.
  Ten years later, the HSE has developed considerable expertise, which was no doubt one of the issues relevant to Lord Cullen's consideration of the changes that had taken

  563
  place on which he reached the conclusion that, on balance, it was the time to move. Burgoyne decided to the contrary. We agreed with both, and a great deal has changed in the past 10 years—not least our responding to the concern put forward by some members of the minority group who argued that that should be taken on board, as it was. It has been a real factor in the Government's consideration of the acceptance of Lord Cullen's recommendations and the move across to the HSE.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale referred to the current application for power stations. The planning application is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of his considerations. However, my right hon. Friend's decision will be based on all the relevant factors and the issues that my hon. Friend has raised this evening are exactly the type of issues that the HSE will consider, because it is currently being consulted. My right hon. Friend will not make his decision until it is satisfied. I understand that my right hon. Friend has written to the district council and if it chooses to object to the application, a public inquiry will be mandatory.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West made an important point with which I wholeheartedly disagree. Lord Cullen found no evidence to suggest that the Department had put production considerations above safety or was not independent. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no such conflict has ever affected our determination to give top priority to safety. Lord Cullen's recommendations for a transfer to the HSE is made on organisational grounds, not to secure independence.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument was therefore redundant and inaccurate. It would not have persuaded the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn.) when he was Secretary of State for Energy, and it certainly does not persuade us. If there were even a grain of truth in it, the hon. Gentleman would surely accept that Lord Cullen would never have suggested, as he did, that the inspectorate, which currently does excellent work in the safety division, should be the same men and women who will go across to form the safety division within HSC. He would never even have considered that if the safety inspectorate were jeopardised in terms of putting safety first. For that reason, I wholeheartedly reject what the hon. Gentleman says. It is an appalling slight on the outstanding work that the inspectors have undertaken for many years.
  It was argued today that the operators were opposed to applying the 1977 onshore regulations offshore. In fact, that proposal was considered and rejected by Lord Cullen. It could not he right in the industry, in which union recognition is of limited extent, for the nomination of safety representatives to be entirely in the hands of the trade unions. There is no bar to members of trade unions becoming safety representatives if they are elected by the work force.
  When the safety committees are reviewed this summer, as it will be two years on from their introduction, one of the key factors to be considered will be the arguments put forward by hon. Members today, including those put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, West on behalf of his union. One consideration will be whether the safety committee structure has been effective in representing each and every member of the work force on each and every platform. Every platform has a safety committee and its representatives reflect each constituent part of those
  564
  platforms. What is important is that their concerns are aired in the safety committee and responded to by the operator or, if response does not come forth, that they have an opportunity to contact the Department of Energy and the inspectors onshore. The proof of the effectiveness of that system is that they often do, and every time they do, those complaints and concerns are taken up. It does not matter whether a person is unionised or not—what matters is that that person's concerns are aired on the safety committee and there is a response to them.
  Opposition Members and all who have equated trade unionism with enhanced safety—an equation which I wholeheartedly reject—will have the opportunity to put their case to the HSE when the regulations are reviewed this summer. We are committed to undertake that review this summer and it will take place. No doubt, during the review the very same arguments that have been aired today will be aired again. It was interesting that Lord Cullen accepted that this was no time to change union representation on the safety committees and that it was right to wait until this summer to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the committees.
  In conclusion, I shall turn to the last few substantive issues——
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Could the Minister give his observation on recommendation 21.84, in which the Lord Cullen recommends that there would be a benefit from the recognition of trade unions? Surely he must agree that the atmosphere in which people operate is critical to building confidence in the regulation. By recognising unions, an atmosphere of confidence would be established, which would surely help everyone.
  Mr. Moynihan: In the Cullen report there are three paragraphs which concentrate my attention virtually every day. One is 21.84, which has been quoted extensively today and which cites evidence and states that it admittedly came almost entirely from trade union witnesses—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff at Lord Cullen's words—I am simply quoting from the report. He was prepared to accept that the appointment of offshore safety representatives by trade unions could be of some benefit in the making the work of such representatives and committees effective. He goes on to say, however, that the position offshore is affected by a number of issues, which he quotes extensively in 21.85. Having weighed the evidence, he concludes:
  "I consider that it would be inappropriate for me to recommend any change in the method by which safety representatives are chosen."
  Time and again today we have heard the first two paragraphs quoted, but never the conclusion, in which Lord Cullen rightly weighs up the evidence and draws his view. Time and again we hear just one set of evidence which is reported in here. The report also states that there are a series of other important issues:
  "trade union membership is still relatively limited in relation to the total offshore workforce; trade unions have been `recognised' only to a limited extent; and the employment of offshore workers is fragmented between a number of different employers",
  and a whole range of other factors. Nevertheless, Lord Cullen reaches that important conclusion. He then says that we have an opportunity to review the matter when we consider the effectiveness of the safety committees, and we

  565
  shall be able to do that—we give that commitment today —when a full review is undertaken two years after implementation of the committees.
  I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about the process that we are pursuing, as it is entirely the process that Lord Cullen put before the House in the report, and that we have accepted.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister intend to reply—as far as is possible in the time available—to the questions that I asked about the Cam Spirit, alias the Silver Pit?
  Mr. Moynihan: I am always keen to assist the hon. Gentleman, so I shall do that now.
  The hon. Gentleman is right—the court found the Silver Pit to be deficient in a number of respects. It is the responsibility of an owner to maintain his ship to acceptable standards and, in the light of the court's report, the Department of Transport took action with regard to ad hoc inspections undertaken by marine surveyors. It was made absolutely clear at the time that the vessel acting as standby for Piper Alpha that night had been praised by the court for its role in the rescue, although it found that the boat's general state of repair had been poor. It placed no responsibility for those deficiencies on the master.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Silver Pit was operating in the North sea, and that that was a disgrace——
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way again?
  Mr. Moynihan: No, I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the Cam Spirit.
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not say that. I posed a question—in the interrogative mode, as I believe it was called when I was at school. Is it true? It has been reported to me and we have pursued it. We have tried to find out the facts from the owners, but the owners have been unwilling to give us the facts. I asked the Secretary of State for the facts—I did not assert that what I asked about was the case.
  Mr. Moynihan: I apologise. There was, however, a clear implication to that effect, which was heard by my hon. Friends and, I am sure, by Opposition Members.
  The Cam Spirit has been out of service for a major refit. It cannot and will not go back into service until it has been examined by Department of Transport surveyors.
  Mr. Dobson: Since being in service—and, with its crew and master, performing an admirable task on the day of the disaster—has the vessel been in operation in the North sea?
  Mr. Moynihan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I tried to obtain the details of the answer to the question that he has asked—in the interrogative mode. I obtained the answer, but I will find out more details.
  Whatever those details are, however, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is incumbent on the Department of Transport to finalise the revision of the standby vessels code. We accept that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, the important issue is that future regulative requirements in respect of standby vessels will be matters for the HSC and HSE as part of the overall programme of implementing the Cullen report. I
  566
  am advised that, to meet the standards in the new code, vessels will have to satisfy the technical requirements set out in recommendation 89. The hon. Gentleman read out the requirements at length, and I am sure that he will welcome that initiative.
  In an extensive speech, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) referred to permits to work. The Department's technical investigation identified possible failings in the generation of Occidental's permit-to-work system as an element in the disaster. The system had also broken down in the case of an earlier accident—the Sutherland fatality, in 1987—for which Occidental was prosecuted and fined following an investigation by my inspectors. There have been detailed regulations governing permit-to-work systems since 1976. The Department issued a statement of intent in August 1989, proposing that they be updated. The proposals, which were presented to the inquiry, have been generally welcomed. Lord Cullen recommended greater harmonisation of the key features of permit-to-work systems, but not standardisation. He realised that each system needed to recognise individual circumstances.
  Mr. Salmond: I know that the Minister would not want to end his speech without picking up the point about the 73 cases of suspected blacklisting documented by the offshore information centre. I believe that he vastly underrates the importance of the fear of victimisation and informal blacklisting in the North sea. Will he give a guarantee that, if such cases are documented by the centre, some of the firm action referred to by the Secretary of State will be taken against the companies responsible?
  Mr. Moynihan: All hon. Members take allegations of victimisation and blacklisting very seriously indeed. It is incumbent on all Ministers to take up cases brought to their attention by any hon. Member. There are other means of recourse outside the House—not least the employment legislation and industrial tribunals. If there are specific examples of extant blacklists, I urge the hon. Gentleman, and all other hon. Members who referred to them in the debate, to draw them to our attention. We cannot act in a vacuum.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) argued that the Shell list was a list of people whom Shell refused to re-employ because they had disobeyed the offshore installations manager. I reject the description of offshore installations managers given by the hon. Member for Dundee, West. It is critical for safety reasons that offshore installations managers be obeyed. After a while, Shell decided to rescind the ban on the employment of those individuals. No evidence was brought to our attention of a blacklist distributed to other companies by whichever operator—[Interruption.] If there is evidence, it should be drawn to our attention. We should certainly act on it.
  The whole House heard the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South say that he does not wish to bring these cases to the attention of Ministers. He prefers to go directly to the operators. I made the offer to him again today, as I have on previous occasions, that as a Member of Parliament he should bring details concerning his constituents to my attention. We shall certainly pursue those cases, as we have in the past, and as we shall continue to do in the future. The hon. Gentleman is right about going to the operators to discuss employment matters

  567
  directly with the employers and their employees, and he is also right that there is recourse to industrial tribunals. Those two avenues should equally be pursued on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. Doran: I made my comments on the basis of my experience with Department of Energy Ministers, and I do not intend to withdraw them. The Minister has no understanding whatever of how the Shell blacklist operated. Every contractor who wanted to employ someone on a Shell platform had to check with Shell, whose computer system recorded against the name of every registered individual a mark which indicated that that individual was unacceptable. Shell admitted that publicly. When we raised the matter in the House, the Minister and his colleagues ignored it.
  Mr. Moynihan: I have said to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that that dispute was between Shell and its employees. The premise of the dispute was disobeying the instructions of an offshore installations manager. That had important safety implications which have now been resolved. We examined that case in detail and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy answered questions on it, as I did. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw further cases to our attention, we shall certainly look at them.
  In conclusion, I hope that the House will accept one issue above all others. Our commitment to implement the Cullen recommendations is complete. Our determination to implement them as soon as possible is full. We shall continue to approach this issue with vigour. We hope to achieve the early deadline of April. We are doing everything that we can to do so. I hope that every hon. Member recognises that safety must be, and will remain, the prime consideration. It will underpin all the work that Department of Energy Ministers do.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

  Fishing (Tie-up Scheme)
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Fraserburgh harbour traders—fortuitously in the presence of the Minister with responsibility for fisheries. This is one of a number of petitions that have been collected around the coast of Scotland. It represents the seething anger in the fishing communities about the imposition of the eight-day tie-up scheme.
  The Fraserburgh harbour traders express their concern about the penalties and the severe economic dislocation that will be caused by the Government's unwillingness to allow short trips back from one port to another to be exempt from the scheme.
  The petition reads:
  'Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House take immediate steps to amend the legislation to allow vessels to return from their landing port to their home port without incurring any additional tie-up time over and above the eight-day period commencing with the date nominated by the vessel at the landing port. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.'
  It is signed by John Wallace, the chairman of the Fraserburgh harbour Commissioners, by George Masson, a partner in John S. Pirie and Co., and by 63 other traders representing all the trades in Fraserburgh harbour.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Horticulture
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  11.35 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: As the House will know, I have always taken a keen interest in horticultural matters—particularly in my capacity as chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee and as parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, which appears under my name in the Register of Members' Interests. I am most grateful, therefore, to have the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to raise with the Minister a number of important challenges that the production sector of British horticulture faces today.
  The total farmgate value of horticultural production in this country is estimated to be £1,600 million, and the retail value of that produce is at least twice that amount. Outdoor vegetables account for around £600 million, flowers and plants for around £400 million and fruit for £240 million. I often feel that, overall, horticulture is undervalued in Britain and that is particularly true of its production capacity. As I hope to show, other nations are perhaps less indifferent to horticulture than we are.
  It is a measure of the importance of the industry that it employs about 60,000 people—half as many as are employed in the entire agricultural industry in Britain today. It is worth recalling how horticultural production was often limited to a certain season and a modest number of products, whereas now the seasons have been extended —as in the case of autumn-fruiting raspberries—and exotic crops such as sweet peppers or bean sprouts are on offer from domestic suppliers. The British grower must seize those challenges, plugging the trade gaps in certain product lines.
  I believe that British growers have shown real enterprise and initiative in ensuring that Britain has one of the most competitive and technically advanced horticulture sectors in the world. From my knowledge of the industry, I do not believe for a moment that the people who work in horticulture expect special favours from Government or the erection of obstacles to competition. British growers know full well that foreign producers may benefit from lower wage costs and a more favourable climate. They accept the fact that improvements in transport have intensified competition.
  Certainly those factors cause our producers problems, but, thanks to the technical sophistication of our industry and the quality of the produce it provides, I have confidence in its ability to compete and to excel. However, to employ a rather overused phrase, British producers should face the competition on a level playing field. It is crucial that our industry is not disadvantaged, especially by unnecessary red tape and obstacles to innovation at home.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to consider a number of issues, all of which will have an impact on prospects for British horticulture. The use of peat in horticulture is the first of these. Peat is a vital element in ornamental horticulture, as a growing medium. As any gardener will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, peat is unique in that it has a number of key characteristics: it is disease-free, has an ideal mixture of air and water, holds water exceptionally well and can be easily adjusted in formulation for different plants and locales. There is not a
  570
  single other material combining all these qualities that is available in sufficient quantity. Quite simply, given our current state of knowledge, peat is irreplaceable as a growing medium for young plants. As the Horticulture Development Council peat report points out, however, peat is less essential as a mulch or soil conditioner.
  In the past couple of years, there has been increasing concern about the risk of damage caused by peat extraction to wildlife habitats and scientific areas. Fortunately, new technology has found some alternatives to peat for soil conditioning and surface layering. As yet, however, no commercial substitute has been found. Research is currently under way to find new substitutes, but we still have a long way to go before we can find something that is both cost-effective and non-polluting.
  I wholeheartedly applaud the growing consciousness of environmental issues, but I think that it is wrong that horticulturists should bear the brunt of having to find peat substitutes in response to wider political concerns about the environment.
  What is needed is more money to fund research. Until then, British horticulture has no choice—regardless of its own environmental concerns—but to continue to rely on peat. I hope that the Minister may be able to give the industry some reassurance on the important issue of research and development in peat substitution.
  Another subject of concern to the industry is how it will be affected by the European single market. One of the great achievements of British horticulture is that this country currently has one of the most stringent plant health regimes in the European Community. We have been able to maintain this through tough regulation and import inspection and control. With the single European market will come harmonisation of plant health standards. Many in the industry find that very worrying. The European Community proposes to maintain health standards through two key mechanisms: the establishment of special plant health status and the introduction of plant passports. Each plant or batch of plants will have to have its own safety inspection record, and this record will constitute a plant passport which will allow the plant to move freely within the Community.
  All this seems thoroughly sensible in theory. However, the proposal at present is for such a system to apply to movement not only between member states, but within member states. A passport, plus inspections, may thus be required for shipments of plants between Athens and Acton or between Lincoln and London. This could lead to serious administrative problems and heavy costs, with little demonstrable improvement in plant health status.
  With each plant requiring its own passport, the scope for red tape, bureaucracy and burdens on business is limitless. It is also worrying that the EC may adopt standards below our current national standards, which could seriously jeopardise the health of the plants in Britain. I am concerned that some other Community countries will not be willing or able to maintain the levels of plant health to which we in this country are accustomed, and that standards will slip, especially as controls will rest with the exporting country, with no customs checks at point of entry. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that the Community recognises the importance of maintaining high standards designed to achieve the very best, not just the average, standard of plant health?
  Possibly the most serious threat to horticulture in the longer term is the progressive loss, and lack of

  571
  replacement, of plant protection products. With the loss of advisory services' routine screening of pesticides, the greater registration costs, which act as a disincentive for manufacturers to invest in developing plant protection products for horticultural crops, and the progressive reduction in Government support for near market research into novel pesticide applications, there is a serious and imminent danger that horticulture will lose the ability to control important pests and diseases. Much has been done by the industry in funding essential work to support "off-label" uses of pesticides, and by industry and Government in developing alternatives to chemical control methods.
  However, the industry must rely on the help of pesticides for the foreseeable future, but it cannot fund the enormous costs involved in developing and registering pesticides. Unless serious reconsideration is given to the level of support given by the Government to enable the development of such control methods, the industry may collapse through the lack of such essential techniques. Surely it is for the public good for the United Kingdom to have a viable horticultural industry?
  The third issue I wish to raise tonight is that of garden festivals. Horticulture has given wholehearted support to the concept of garden festivals. Needless to say, they provide a forum for marketing the products of the industry, but they have also proved a catalyst for urban regeneration in some of our most rundown inner-city areas and they offer horticulture an opportunity to apply its expertise to making the urban environment more pleasant for the people who live and work in cities.
  The Government's imagination was instrumental in getting the idea of garden festivals off the ground. I hope that, having seen the beneficial effects, the Government will continue their support. Government financial aid for garden festivals expires in 1991. If there are to be further festivals, as I hope there will be, a Government decision is needed immediately on whether they will continue to support national festivals. It takes several years to put together a first-class garden festival. It would be a tragedy if we wasted time. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to look favourably on supporting and funding a continued programme of British garden festivals, so that those important public events will be able to endure.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard a great deal from the industry about the fourth issue that I wish to raise tonight, but I hope that he will bear with me while I go through the arguments, as the issue is crucial to horticulture. Like all business men, growers are being affected by the slowdown in the economy. They are also being hit by rising costs, but none is rising quite as fast as natural gas. Gas is very important for greenhouse growers, because it burns efficiently and does not emit pollutants, as the CO2 is used to enhance plant growth.
  It is a major cost for hundreds of growers and, quite frankly, its price has risen at an alarming rate. It now costs 50 per cent. more to heat a glasshouse in Britain than to heat one in Holland. Some growers have seen their natural gas bills rise 25 per cent. during the past year. When British Gas was privatised, it was hoped that increased competition would result, pushing prices down. Sadly, that has not happened. British greenhouse growers are suffering from extremely disadvantageous gas prices, which are in turn affecting their ability to compete, and biting into profits.
  572
  Caught between high gas bills and high interest rates, growers could be forgiven for feeling that they are truly between a rock and a hard place. Can anything be done to ease the burden of high gas prices which so many of our producers now face? How does the Minister intend to tackle the problem of soaring costs for British growers?
  Finally, I turn to the issue of soft fruit imports from eastern Europe. During the past few years, Britain has imported a great deal of semi-processed soft fruit from Poland and Yugoslavia. Those two countries have the advantage both of low labour costs and favourable rates of exchange to export. Moreover, until recently, a system was in place that guaranteed minimum soft fruit price levels for goods imported into the United Kingdom. However, that system broke down last year, resulting in a severe fall in prices.
  To the critics of a price support system, I would argue that the mechanism aids not only British fruit growers, but eastern European ones. The eastern European countries could earn more for their soft fruit exports with the agreed minimum price. The price support system was extended on a temporary basis for three months from 1 January 1991, but that is clearly not long enough to provide any sort of security for our growers or, indeed, the eastern European countries that compete with them. Does the Ministry intend to extend the price support system into a viable long-term mechanism that can provide security to everyone?
  British growers can compete well in an international environment if they are only given the means by which to do so. I emphasise that this is not an industry on the look-out for handouts or preferential treatment, but it needs a fair deal from a sympathetic Government. During the past 11 years, the Government have transformed prospects for the business in this country. They have shown that they understand the problems and challenges that horticulture faces—notably through the help they have lent with replacement heated green houses.
  I hope that British horticulture can continue to count on the understanding and help of a Government and a Ministry that have proved themselves good friends to it during those years. We must address those problems and give the British grower a chance to prepare for the future.
  11.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has raised five issues and I will do my best to respond to them. She discussed the use of peat, soft fruit from eastern Europe, plant health, gas prices and garden centres.
  I know that the question of peat preoccupies the industry. Professional horticulture accounts for about half our usage in the United Kingdom; the other half is split between the retail market and the landscaping contracting sector. Professional use has declined. Tomatoes, for example, are now grown on rockwool, perlite or NFT. Even with 100,000 hectares in England and Wales, and 800,000 hectares in Scotland, peat constitutes a limited resource, especially as some of the area is not exploitable.
  The Department of the Environment has made a firm Government commitment to examine the question of peat, including working licences and the availability of substitutes. Neither we nor the industry can be complacent. I appreciate that any restrictions on the

  573
  current uses of peat would present problems, although it should be possible to develop effective and acceptable alternatives, especially in the ornamental sector.
  Our strategy for horticultural research and development identifies work on alternatives to peat as a high priority area. We are already committed to substantial spending on strategic work. We are liaising closely with the Horticulture Development Council, Horticulture Research International and others in developing further programmes. It is in the industry's interests to take a constructive role in encouraging the use of acceptable alternatives. The Peat Producers Association and the Horticultural Trades Association have a role to play in this respect.
  The Department of the Environment recently issued a leaflet called "Wake Up", which was launched just a few days ago and which advised gardeners to avoid using peat where substitutes were available, as my hon. Friend said, as mulches and soil conditioners, for example. There is a Horticulture Development Council seminar on peat scheduled for 26 March, which is a welcome initiative enabling the industry to explain its current position on peat use and to consider the next steps.
  The gas pricing policy is a matter for British Gas. However, I recognise that the price of Dutch gas is a long-standing issue. The United Kingdom cited the Netherlands case before the European Council and it obtained a ruling which still stands. We must get better value for money from the use of gas. My right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out at the "British Growers Look Ahead" exhibition that energy efficiency is vital for business and for the environment.
  The Government are surprised by the low uptake of grants of up to 40 per cent. under the farm and countryside grant scheme for the installation of more energy-efficient glasshouses and equipment. We should like growers to come forward for the grants while they are still available. There are already things that can be done to help growers to get better energy use in their greenhouses. Where we have clear evidence of continuing problems of unfair competition, we shall take that evidence to the European Commission and ask that action be taken. I recognise that garden festivals have proved popular with the industry. Nobody could ignore their effects on urban regeneration. As my hon. Friend has said, no decision has yet been taken on the future of the garden festival programme after Ebbw Vale, which is scheduled for 1992.
  We have had a report on the festivals in Liverpool, in Stoke-on-Trent and in Glasgow, which was published just before Christmas. It is true that it showed that there was a fast reclamation of derelict and polluted sites, that there was economic benefit from the jobs and that there was an improved image for cities. That was, of course, at some cost—we reckon about £20 million at today's prices over and above the cost of reclamation. We will review the programme of garden festivals in the light of the balance of benefits and costs. The views of the industry will weigh heavily with us during that review.
  I recognise that the most important issue raised by my hon. Friend may have been plant health and the single market. I subscribe entirely to her belief that the single market must not lead to a lowering of our plant health standards or status, or to excessive financial and
  574
  administrative burdens on the industry or the Government. Controls on plant material entering the United Kingdom centre on plant health certificates, which are issued by authorities in the country of origin. Certificates are checked at the point of entry by customs officers and, where necessary, by our plant health inspectors.
  After 1992, the system will continue for trade with non-Community countries, but a new system of control will be needed for intra-Community trade.
  The proposals are still being thrashed out in Brussels, but we can see the outline of what is likely to emerge. It is clear that there will be significant changes in the way both we and the industry work. There will be more frequent visits by plant health inspectors to growers of planting material, leading to the issue of the so-called plant passports.
  As my hon. Friend said, the passports will apply for trade within member states, as well as between member states. After 1992, in principle, there will be no distinction between internal trade and trade between member states —apart from the so-called isolated zones. Plant passports will be needed for material travelling between Lincoln and London or, indeed, between Broxbourne and Basildon. This is intended to ensure that all material circulating within the Community meets certain standards.
  We are conscious of the need to minimise red tape. It is inevitable that the introduction of Communitywide changes will result in certain changes in the regulatory framework, but it is not our intention to impose on ourselves a burden that is not necessary, and least of all do we intend to impose on the industry a burden that is not necessary. A great deal of our negotiation is directed at making sure that we have the lightest regime that can be effective. If one demands that there should be a level playing field—that the law should be enforced equally everywhere—a certain number of inspectors and a certain regulatory framework are necessary. We have to be able to manage and police the system.
  We supported the establishment of the European plant health inspectorate, which is the kernel of the Communitywide supervising system that will oversee the enforcement of the new rules. A great deal of negotiation has still to be done in this sector, but we are particularly conscious of the need to preserve the special status that the industry in the United Kingdom enjoys, because of our high health standards. Of course, that is a consideration which extends beyond the plant and horticultural sphere; it affects the agricultural and fisheries sectors also. We wish, in all those cases, to preserve the status that we have built up over the years.
  The final issue raised by my hon. Friend—the import of east European soft fruit—has caused some difficulties. I have been very closely involved in the negotiations. I can confirm that we have sought an extension of the safeguard action—the minimum import prices—beyond the end of this month to cover the new season. We do not have the ability to impose that ourselves. It is not a unilateral decision; it has to be agreed by the Commission. However, at the Agriculture Council meeting at the beginning of this week, my right hon. Friend raised the matter before the full membership. I, too, raised it at a number of meetings last year.
  That has been followed up with a letter to the Commissioner within the last few days. Our officials have been given instructions to pursue the matter with all

  575
  vigour. We recognise its importance to the industry in my hon. Friend's constituency, in other parts of England and, of course, in the lowlands of Scotland, whose important horticultural industry has felt a serious draught from these imports.
  We have not moved from our long-standing position that effective voluntary arrangements with Poland and Yugoslavia are best, and that reasonable price levels serve both us and them. It is perfectly true that undercutting prices and failing to maintain discipline does the United Kingdom's industry no good. It is equally true that unfair competition does not do very much for the revenue of those exporting. The exporters do not get the sort of returns that would benefit them in the long term. We do not deny, and I think that my hon. Friend does not deny, that there is a place in our markets for Polish and Yugoslav products. For example, they are used in jam production.
  We think that it is very much in our interests to have a rapid reintroduction of the informal pricing arrangements, with improvements—for example, differentiated prices and better monitoring, which the Commission promised more than a year ago but has not been able to deliver. We shall continue to press this important issue. The east Europeans, if they have any sense, will recognise that, if they do not deliver the sensible disciplines that we seek in this sector, our outlook will be influenced when it comes to seeking further liberalisation in other sectors.
  My hon. Friend said that she was very optimistic about the future of the industry. In general terms, I share her optimism. Where the industry is forward-looking and competitive, it will have our full support. But, as my hon. Friend said, it faces challenges. Nineteen ninety-two will ease the trade between member states and in 1996 we shall see the end of the Spanish transition. Both events will result in greater competition. Several years ago people
  576
  assumed that Spanish entry would somehow bring an Armageddon-like attack on the industry, but that has not materialised. Our competition is still predominantly from the northern European states, which have climatic conditions similar to ours.
  Successive Ministers have reminded growers about the importance of marketing. It is important to keep hammering home that message. I am sure that my hon. Friend does so in her constituency, which is so important in horticultural terms. Quality assurance, presentation, continuity of supply and competitive prices are the important elements for the industry.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said on 21 February that Food from Britain would address itself to the import substitution problem. Clearly, horticulture has a considerable potential to help in that matter. He also issued a challenge to the industry at the "British Growers Look Ahead" conference in January to come up with ideas to improve competitiveness, and we look forward to seeing those ideas put into practice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has raised some important issues for the horticultural industry. It is by no means considered the Cinderella of the United Kingdom industry by the Ministry, despite the fact that it does not have the heavy regimes of other agricultural sectors which command so much time, sweat and tears. The horticultural industry is important. It has a significant future. It recognises that its future lies significantly in its own hands. Where we can assist, we shall do so. With such a joint enterprise, there is no reason why it cannot increase in strength.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment in the Law Officers Department.

  (a) Women

  (b) Ethnic minorities

  Grade

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  3

  1

  100·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  5

  2

  50·0

  1

  25·0

  6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Overall

  6

  32·0

  3

  16·0

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  3

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  No post holders

  5

  5

  13·0

  0

  0·0

  6

  14

  23·0

  4

  7·0

  7

  12

  23·0

  8

  15·0

  Overall

  173

  39·0

  96

  21·0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1

  0

  0·0

  Figures on ethnic minorities do not cover all staff as they are derived from a voluntary questionnaire. Current records indicate that about 5 per cent, of staff in grades 1 to 7 are from ethnic minority backgrounds. Overall, records indicate that about 5·5 per cent are from ethnic minorities

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  0

  0·0

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  2

  4·0

  6

  24

  13·0

  7

  583

  38·0

  Overall

  3,245

  59·0

  Serious Fraud Office

  1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  3

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  5

  2

  20·0

  0

  0·0

  6

  3

  21·0

  1

  7·0

  7

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Overall

  83

  38·5

  7

  8·4

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Law Officers Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible, other than the Crown prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office, took part in the nationwide survey of non-industrial civil servants which was completed in 1988.

  The Crown prosecution service conducted a survey in January 1990.

  The Serious Fraud Office has not previously undertaken a monitoring exercise because the origins of
  228
  The Attorney-General
  Recruitment at senior grades in the civil service is carried out by the Civil Service Commission. The Commission has taken various steps to aid recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities.

  ER

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in the Law Officers Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  The Attorney-General
  In the Departments for which I am responsible the number and percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall who are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities respectively as at 1 April 1990 (4 March 1991 in the case of the Crown prosecution service) are as follows:

  the individuals have been known to management, due to the small size of the Department. In the Serious Fraud Office the setting up of an equal opportunities review will be undertaken by the recently appointed grade 7 head of finance and establishment officer. As a result, it is expected that a formal monitoring and review system will be in place by the summer of this year.

  In the other Departments, information on the ethnic origins of staff has been kept up to date.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General how many court actions relating to mortgage repossessions occurred in the Selby and York county court in each year since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage actions for possession entered and orders made for possession in York county court in each year since 1986, the first year for which figures are available, are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of Mortgage possession actions entered

  Number of mortgage possession orders entered

  1986

  452

  299

  1987

  335

  269

  1988

  327

  238

  1989

  368

  193

  1990

  505

  145

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of students attending all designated courses for student loans who are potentially eligible for student loans in(a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Separate figures for England and for Wales are not available. The Department recently estimated that 547,000 students domiciled in England and Wales are eligible for a loan in the academic year 1990–91. The estimate may be revised as further data become available.

  Grant-maintained schools
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what would be the total cost in payment of capital grants, assuming that the present average payment was maintained, if every local education authority school opted for grant-maintained status;

  (2) what would be the total cost in payment of special purpose grants, assuming that the present average payment was maintained, if every local education authority school opted for grant-maintained status;

  (3) what would be the total cost in payment of transitional grants, assuming that the present average payment was maintained, if every local education authority school opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  The levels of these grants are reviewed annually in the light of the Government's spending priorities for education and other services. It is not therefore possible to project a figure for the total cost if every local authority school opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average amount paid per school in(a) transitional grants, (b) special purpose grants and (c) capital grants for those schools that have opted for grant-maintained status.
  230
  Mr. Eggar
  The table sets out the total amount of these grants paid to grant-maintained schools in 1989–90, the only year in respect of which final figures are available.

  £K

  Transitional grants

  746

  Special purpose grants

  455

  Capital grants

  2,013

  The actual grants paid to each GM school reflect the particular circumstance of an individual school, including its size, and the date within the financial year on which it became grant-maintained.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount paid in capital grants for each school that has opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Final figures are only available in respect of the 1989–90 financial year. The total amount paid in capital grants in that year to GM schools was as follows:

  Schools incorporated in September 1989

  £K

  London Oratory School

  1,039·7

  Old Swinford Hospital

  750·1

  Skegness Grammar School

  180·2

  Wilson's School

  42·8

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount paid in transitional grants to each school that has opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Transitional grants are available to help with preparing for and taking on grant-maintained status. The transitional grants paid to grant-maintained schools incorporated on or before September 1990 are as follows:

  £ thousands

  Schools incorporated in September 1989

  Audenshaw High School

  25·9

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  26·1

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  29·7

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  21·0

  Colyton Grammar School

  21·5

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  23·5

  Hendon School

  27·5

  London Oratory School

  30·0

  Old Swinford Hospital

  23·2

  Queen Elizabeth's Grant-Maintained Grammar School

  19·9

  Queen Elizabeth's Grant-Maintained School for Boys

  30·0

  Queensbury School

  24·6

  Skegness Grammar School

  23·5

  Small Heath School

  26·5

  St. James' Church of England School, Bolton

  24·9

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

  21·8

  The Kings School, Grantham

  26·2

  Wilsons School

  25·9

  Schools incorporated in January 1990

  Bankfield High School

  21·5

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  30·0

  Schools incorporated in April 1990

  Beechen Cliff School

  28·0

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  23·9

  Claremont High School

  28·5

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  27·7

  London Nautical School

  20·9

  Netherthorpe School

  23·2

  231

  £ thousands

  Ribston Hall High School

  25·3

  Southfield School for Girls

  24·2

  Southlands School

  23·1

  Schools incorporated in August/September 1990

  Adams' Grammar School

  21·7

  Bishopshalt School

  28·8

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  28·0

  Bridgewater Hall School

  30·0

  Brindley Hall School

  30·0

  Carre's Grammar School

  20·7

  Ecclesbourne School

  30·0

  Guildford County School

  26·0

  Long Field High School

  17·1

  Marling School

  25·9

  Pate's Grammar School

  30·0

  Rickmansworth School

  29·0

  Stroud High School

  25·5

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  30·0

  Wolverhampton High School for Girls

  23·4

  Notes:

  1. A further 20 schools have yet to submit their final bids for transitional grant. Of these, six schools were incorporated as grant-maintained schools on 1 January 1991, 12 schools will be incorporated in April 1991 and two schools will be incorporated on 1 September 1991.

  2. Schools incorporated as grant-maintained schools on or before September 1990 were eligible to apply for transitional grant of £15,000 plus £15 per pupil up to a ceiling of £30,000. This grant could only be paid prior to the date of incorporation.

  3. It was announced on 10 October 1990 that all secondary schools and primary schools with 200 or more pupils incorporated from 1 January 1991 would be eligible to apply for £30,000 plus £30 per pupil in transitional grant. Smaller primary schools will be eligible to receive £20,000 plus £30 per pupil. Financial regulations have now been laid before the House allowing schools to spend grant after incorporation.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount paid in special purpose grants to each school that has opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Final figures are available only in respect of the 1989–90 financial year. The total amount paid in special purpose grants in that year to GM schools was as follows:

  £'000

  Schools incorporated in September 1989

  Audenshaw High School

  19·1

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  22·3

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  20·9

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  6·7

  Colyton Grammar School

  12·4

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  16·5

  Hendon School

  32·2

  London Oratory School

  71·0

  Old Swinford Hospital

  24·7

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  13·7

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School For Boys

  36·7

  Queensbury School

  9·1

  Skegness Grammar School

  19·3

  Small Heath School

  14·2

  St. James' CE School Bolton

  25·6

  The Grammar School For Girls Wilmington

  10·6

  The Kings School Grantham

  33·6

  Wilsons School

  42·0

  Schools incorporated in January 1990

  Bankfield High School

  5·4

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  18·8

  Higher Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Universities Funding Council about future capital expenditure programmes on academic buildings and student accommodation for the expansion of higher education up to the year 2000.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairmen of both funding councils from time to time to discuss a range of higher education issues, including capital funding for teaching and research in higher education. Provision of student accommodation is a matter for institutions.

  Standard Assessment Test
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he is giving to local education authorities and to schools in England regarding those pupils whose parents are refusing to allow them to take the standard assessment test at key stage 1.

  Mr. Eggar
  Parents do not have a right to withdraw their children from any part of the national curriculum, including the standard assessment tasks at key stage 1.

  If children are absent from school without leave, local education authorities may need to investigate, through their established procedures, whether a breach of the parental duty to secure regular attendance is taking place.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Palestinians
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving, and proposing to give, to the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1990–91 we are providing about £1·2 million in support of United Kingdom voluntary agency activities in the west bank and Gaza strip and for training awards in the United Kingdom for Palestinians. We hope to maintain at least the same level of support in 1991–92. In addition we are contributing to UNRWA's activities in the occupied territories—United Kingdom contribution of £5·5 million in 1990 and £6·0 million in 1991—and through the EC budget which in 1991 has provision for 102 million ecu for food aid, project assistance, and emergency relief to the Palestinians. The United Kingdom share of this will be around £12 million.

WALES

  The Arts
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level of arts services budgets in each local authority in Wales for each year between 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Available expenditure information is given in the following tables. It is not possible to give figures separately for theatres and civic halls.
  233

  Local Authority gross expenditure on theatres and civic halls

  £000

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (a) Capital

  Current

  (a) Capital

  Current(

  (a) Capital

  Current

  (a) Capital

  Current

  (a) Capital

  Current

  (a) Capital

  Current

  (b) Capital

  Current

  (b) Capital

  Current

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colwyn

  0

  65

  0

  60

  3

  66

  0

  80

  39

  83

  10

  101

  0

  95

  0

  102

  Delyn

  30

  0

  19

  88

  33

  90

  191

  82

  198

  81

  12

  75

  0

  63

  0

  76

  Glyndwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  56

  0

  64

  0

  105

  0

  120

  0

  171

  Rhuddlan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carmarthen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  48

  0

  54

  0

  Ceredigion

  0

  85

  41

  50

  12

  33

  43

  52

  9

  65

  21

  70

  0

  80

  0

  85

  Dinefwr

  0

  34

  0

  33

  5

  43

  7

  40

  0

  35

  20

  42

  0

  32

  0

  26

  Llanelli

  1

  294

  0

  315

  0

  293

  0

  266

  0

  287

  1

  320

  10

  333

  0

  369

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  0

  33

  1

  35

  1

  36

  31

  40

  0

  46

  0

  51

  0

  51

  0

  57

  South Pembroke

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  8

  245

  0

  225

  0

  206

  0

  248

  0

  255

  0

  299

  0

  331

  0

  312

  Islwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Monmouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  10

  0

  13

  Aberconwy

  799

  0

  113

  92

  312

  423

  20

  423

  6

  459

  11

  363

  3

  498

  0

  649

  Arfon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  23

  61

  61

  53

  41

  71

  0

  53

  0

  63

  1

  72

  5

  80

  0

  71

  Meirionnydd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ynys Mon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cynon Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ogwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda

  0

  149

  10

  155

  128

  173

  31

  160

  11

  182

  6

  192

  10

  225

  173

  198

  Rhymney Valley

  215

  259

  0

  220

  0

  278

  0

  248

  0

  289

  0

  299

  0

  286

  0

  247

  Taff Ely

  69

  31

  174

  30

  324

  38

  31

  49

  14

  70

  0

  63

  0

  61

  69

  91

  Brecknock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27

  13

  4

  14

  0

  15

  0

  11

  0

  14

  0

  14

  Radnorshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  4,128

  252

  0

  2,147

  542

  3,405

  814

  3,499

  186

  3,341

  84

  5,297

  3,494

  4,648

  506

  6,305

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lliw Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Port Talbot

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neath

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea

  181

  869

  826

  849

  2,025

  710

  1,469

  1,286

  408

  1,547

  2,087

  1,227

  408

  1,731

  211

  1,958

  Clwyd

  8

  1,105

  4

  1,167

  10

  1,249

  40

  1,458

  223

  1,729

  211

  1,973

  249

  2,306

  177

  2,346

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  0

  27

  0

  50

  0

  55

  0

  42

  0

  49

  0

  27

  0

  26

  0

  24

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total Wales

  5,462

  3,508

  1,250

  5,570

  3,479

  7,183

  2,681

  8,097

  1,095

  8,659

  2,464

  10,595

  4,274

  10,990

  1,190

  13,114

  (a) Theatres, civic halls and restaurants

  (b) Theatres only.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Welsh Office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Civil Service Commission is responsible for most recruitment into senior grades in the Welsh Office. It has introduced a number of initiatives to encourage applications from members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in the Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The details are as follows:

  Women1

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade 1

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  1·0

  9

  234

  Women1

  Grade 4

  1·0

  17

  Grade 5

  7·5

  13

  Grade 6

  15·0

  17

  Grade 7

  15·0

  10

  Department

  1,042·0

  48

  1 Total as at April 1990.

  Members of Ethnic Minorities

  Number

  Percentage

  Grades 1–6

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  2

  1·4

  Departmental Total

  24

  1·1

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department carried out a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees in May 1988. The
  235
  ethnic origin of all new entrants and leavers is monitored and I have no plans for another survey. Since 1990 my Department has been concentrating on the implementation of a programme of action to consolidate the equality of opportunity offered to people of ethnic minority origin.

  Housing Repairs, Merthyr
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a list of local authority properties surveyed under the Welsh housing conditions survey to determine the level of repair costs to Merthyr borough council.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I have today placed a copy of the list in the Library of the House.

  Corlan Housing Association
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the inquiry commissioned by Tai Cymru into the affairs of the Corlan housing association.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  On 25 May 1990, and exercising its powers under section 28 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, Tai Cymru asked the Housing Association Consultancy and Advisory Service (HACAS) to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of Corlan housing association. Tai Cymru had already established by that date that Corlan faced significant difficulty. The HACAS report expresses concern in four main areas. First, it points to instances of what appear to have been overvaluations of site work and premature claims for housing association grants. Secondly, the report suggests that Corlan's internal administrative and other arrangements were not sufficiently robust to ensure that a development programme of the scale and nature undertaken by the association could be managed with appropriate care and thoroughness. Thirdly, shortcomings in the management of development projects were apparently compounded by deficiencies of financial control. Lastly, it is suggested that the association allowed uncertainties to arise over establishing the delegated responsibilities and development control mechanisms essential to good management in any organisation.

  The report concludes that the committee of management believed that management mechanisms needed to be consolidated and were making efforts to bring this about. It also makes it clear that the Committee was completely unaware of any overvaluation or overclaiming—and would not in any circumstances have approved if such proposals had been put to it. The inquiry found no evidence to suggest that any individual staff member had sought to benefit financially from what occurred. The report has been prepared for issue by Tai Cymru, notably to chairmen and committees of management; and I understand that copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  With the help of Wales and West housing association, Tai Cymru was able to devise arrangements to secure the position of all Corlan's tenants, and to retain the association's housing stock, including those sites under development. Tai Cymru also set out to ensure that the relevant lessons had been learnt from what took place at Corlan. Following its creation in April 1989, Tai Cymru had already taken steps to introduce performance monitoring procedures for housing associations of greater
  236
  breadth than those associated with conventional financial audit. After it became clear that Corlan faced serious difficulties, Tai Cymru took the following further measures. In addition to submitting audited annual accounts, all housing associations were required to present management accounts, balance sheets and 12-month cashflow forecasts on a quarterly basis. Special arrangements were made to scrutinise these new submissions from housing associations: as an additional safeguard, Tai Cymru made it clear that grant payments could be automatically suspended if the submissions were not returned to timetable. The procedures for validating grant claims and for preventing overclaiming were strengthened. New technical guidance was issued on the treatment of valuations. In addition, and following detailed discussions with the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations, a fixed charge is to be applied to all new schemes in order to provide additional security for public assets.

  As for committees of management, Tai Cymru is to organise a programme of seminars this year to help members in tackling their financial and management responsibilities. In the light of discussion at those seminars they will make recommendations on whether any other support, such as the provision of special training, might be of assistance to members. Officials of Tai Cymru and the Welsh Office will set up a joint working group to review those new measures and consider whether any additional steps need to be taken in the light of what happened at Corlan. I am confident that the measures already taken by Tai Cymru will strengthen the capacity and performance of housing associations in Wales to the considerable benefit of the movement, now and for the future.

  Operations (Statistics)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) for each health district in Wales and (b) for each of the last three years (i) the number of scheduled sessions held in operating theatres, (ii) the number of scheduled sessions that were cancelled, (iii) the number of cases operated on in scheduled sessions, (iv) the number of cases operated on outside scheduled sessions and (v) the total number of cases operated on.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with(a) the National Rivers Authority and (b) the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the decision in the Leybucht bay case determined by the European Court of Justice on 28 February.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional units of accommodation have been provided for homeless households under
  237
  the homeless initiative for housing associations in 1990–91 by (a) the local authority area in which they have been provided, (b) the number of units provided through repairs to empty housing association homes, (c) the number of units provided through off the shelf purchasing by housing associations and (d) the number of homes becoming available through tenants incentive scheme payments.

  Sir George Young
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Yorkshire, Humberside and Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) of 21 February,

  Breakdown (by programme) of DOE Expenditure in Y & H Region (£ million) at 1990–91 prices

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91 forecast outturn

  1991–92 estimated

  Rate Support Grant/ Revenue Support

  15,29·0

  1,575·6

  1,522·6

  1,410·3

  888·1

  n/a

  Percentage

  172

  177

  171

  159

  100

  Housing Investment Programme Allocations

  162·9

  153·2

  142·1

  114·8

  186·7

  178·2

  Percentage

  87

  82

  76

  61

  100

  95

  Housing Subsidies

  0·38

  0·33

  nil

  nil

  256·73

  n/a

  Percentage

  0·7

  0·5

  100

  UDG/URG/City Grant (grant approvals)

  2·72

  4·52

  38·28

  8·14

  37·74

  n/a

  Percentage

  35

  58

  494

  105

  100

  Urban Programme

  n/a

  29·68

  27·69

  29·03

  27·96

  27·66

  Percentage

  100

  99

  Urban Development Corporation

  n/a

  n/a

  12·18

  19·71

  33·0

  23·59

  Percentage

  37

  60

  10

  71

  Gypsy Grants

  0·89

  0·38

  0·80

  0·28

  1·45

  1·89

  Percentage

  61

  26

  55

  19

  100

  130

  City Action Team

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0·76

  0·80

  Percentage

  100

  105

  Derelict Land Grant (DLG)

  4·29

  10·97

  11·12

  11·38

  14·11

  14·70

  Percentage

  30

  78

  79

  81

  100

  104

  Private Sector DLG

  1·74

  1·02

  4·69

  1·76

  0·55

  1·14

  Percentage

  316

  185

  852

  320

  100

  207

  11990·91 saw the introduction of a new capital control system and new financial regime.

  2 This is the Housing element of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy.

  3 City Grant approvals to date.

  Breakdown (by programme) of DoE expenditure in Leeds metropolitan district (£ million) at 1990–91 prices

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91 forecast outturn

  1991–92 estimated

  Rate Support Grant/

  176·0

  178·5

  167·5

  149·9

  137·7

  N.A.

  Revenue Support

  (128 per cent.)

  (130 per cent.)

  (122 per cent.)

  (109 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  Housing Investment

  29·1

  26·9

  23·9

  18·3

  33·6

  30·1

  Programme Allocations

  (86 per cent.)

  (80 per cent.)

  (71 per cent.)

  (54 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  (90 per cent.)

  Housing Subsidies

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  28·35

  N.A.

  (100 per cent.)

  UDG/URG/City Grant

  1·04

  2·96

  0·23

  0·08

  0·05

  N.A.

  (grant approvals)

  (2,080 percent.)

  (5,920 percent.)

  (460 per cent.)

  (160 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  Urban Programme

  N.A.

  4·7

  5·4

  5·1

  5·3

  5·1

  (89 per cent.)

  (102 per cent.)

  (96 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  (96 per cent.)

  Urban Development

  N.A.

  N.A.

  2·99

  9·45

  14 ·0

  11·3

  Corporation

  (21 per cent)

  (68 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  (28 per cent.

  Gypsy Grants

  Nil

  Nil

  0·47

  0·038

  0·76

  0·16

  (62 per cent.)

  (5 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  (21 per cent.)

  City Action Team

  N.A.

  N.A.

  N.A.

  N.A.

  0·37

  0·38

  (100 per cent.)

  (103 per cent.)

  Derelict Land Grant

  0·048

  0·163

  0·194

  0·245

  0·750

  0·708

  (DLG)

  (6 per cent.)

  (22 per cent.)

  (25 per cent.)

  (33 per cent.)

  (100 per cent.)

  (94 per cent.)

  Private Sector DLG

  Nil

  Nil

  0·34

  0·36

  3Nil

  Nil

  238
  Official Report, column 196, if he will provide a breakdown by programme of his Department's expenditure in (i) Yorkshire and Humberside and (ii) the metropolitan district of Leeds at (a) 1990–91 prices and (b) as a percentage of the 1990–91 expenditure.

  Mr. Key
  A breakdown of the Department's main programmes is given in the table for the years 1986–87 to date, at 1990–91 prices,(a) for Yorkshire and Humberside region and (b) for the metropolitan district of Leeds. The figures are also expressed as a percentage of the 1990–91 expenditure. Changes in programme definition and the introduction of new capital and revenue support systems mean that figures for individual years may not be directly comparable.
  239
  Notes:

  1 1990–91 saw the introduction of a new capital control system and new financial regime.

  2 This is the Housing element of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy.

  3 PRIVATE SECTOR DLG no longer available in Leeds following the introduction of City Grant.

  Hostel Deficit Grant
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether new hostel deficit grant approvals will be issued after 1 April in respect of any eligible schemes in respect of hostel deficit grant receiving project approval before that date but not having been processed due to Housing Corporation delays; and whether he will keep the situation under review and issue a further progress report in March;

  (2) what is the current backlog of schemes awaiting budget approval from the Housing Corporation in respect of hostel deficit grant; and when the backlog will be cleared;

  (3) what monthly target the Housing Corporation would need to meet to eliminate the backlog of schemes awaiting budget approval in respect of hostel deficit grant by the due date; what performance is currently being maintained against this target; and how many schemes have been approved and how many rejected in each of the last three calendar months.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Housing Corporation does not have a backlog of new projects awaiting HDG budget approval and it will be able to give in principle budget approval, as appropriate, for all schemes which receive project approval during 1990–91.

  In the last three months the corporation has dealt with the following new HDG budget applications:

  Month

  Approved

  Rejected

  December

  14

  11

  January

  20

  17

  February

  13

  8

  Council Land
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of applications submitted in each of the years since 1980 by Walsall metropolitan borough council, for the sale of council land, under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972; and how many of these were approved, rejected or withdrawn.

  Derelict land grant: Nottinghamshire and the Sherwood constituency Local authority expenditure on approved derelict land grant schemes 1980–81 to 1989–90

  £million

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Ashfield

  —

  —

  0·08

  0·06

  —

  —

  0·04

  0·04

  —

  0·10

  0·32

  Bassetlaw

  0·03

  —

  —

  —

  0£01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·04

  Broxtowe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·00

  Gedling

  0·01

  0·01

  0·18

  0·31

  0·08

  0·07

  0·04

  —

  —

  —

  0·70

  Mansfield

  —

  —

  0·16

  0·10

  0·05

  0·31

  0·40

  0·53

  0·21

  0·09

  1·85

  Newark and Sherwood

  —

  —

  0·03

  0·06

  0·04

  0·08

  0·07

  —

  0·25

  0·36

  0·89

  Nottingham City

  0·47

  0·19

  0·18

  0·11

  0·01

  0·10

  0·20

  0·80

  —

  —

  2·06

  Nottinghamshire

  1·25

  0·51

  1·25

  1·47

  1·53

  1·06

  1·62

  1·25

  2·07

  1·89

  13·90

  Rushcliffe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·00

  Total

  1·76

  0·71

  1·88

  2·11

  1·72

  1·62

  2·37

  2·62

  2·53

  2·44

  19·76

  Note: Expenditure lower than £10,000 is not shown.
  240
  Mr. Yeo
  Since 1980, Walsall metropolitan borough council has applied twice to the Secretary of State for his consent under section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose of land at less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained. Both applications were in 1985: one was withdrawn; and, in the second case, consent was granted for disposal of land for a community centre.

  EC Environment Research Budget
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the benefits accruing to the United Kingdom from the allocation to the European Commission's joint research centre at Ispra as a supplement to the EC's environment research budget 1990 to 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  The activities of the joint research centre under the third framework programme on research and technological development (1990 to 1994), including those relating to environmental matters, will be the subject of a Council decision later in the year. The Government will assess the merits of the Commission's proposal when this becomes available and will make a full contribution to the decision-making process relating to it.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the annual amount of grant given to local authorities in Nottinghamshire and Sherwood constituency during the past 10 years for regeneration and cleaning up derelict land.

  Mr. Yeo
  Records of derelict land grant payments to local authorities in Nottinghamshire and the Sherwood constituency are not available for the full period covered by the question. However, the expenditure incurred by those authorities on derelict land grant-approved schemes in the same period was as follows:

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has of the number of domestic heriditaments in the London borough of Hackney in which the rates payable in 1989–90 were less than £720.

  Mr. Key
  No information is available centrally on the number of domestic hereditaments in the London borough of Hackney in which the rates payable in 1989–90 were less than £720.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will include a provision specifically for street lighting in the urban programme.

  Mr. Key
  Urban programme resources are not allocated to particular project types. It is for each local authority to decide whether it wishes to include projects involving street lighting improvements in its individual programme. However, the recently published guidance for urban programmes for 1992–93 indicates that UP resources may be used to good effect to support lighting schemes in residential areas.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relationship between the quality of urban living and the effectiveness of street lighting.

  Mr. Key
  Our action for cities objectives acknowledge the relationship between the quality of life in inner cities and reducing crime in these areas. Current research commissioned and being carried out by the Home Office is assessing the effect of improved street lighting on crime and the fear of crime. Additionally, this Department is currently undertaking a review of known research and information about a wide range of housing-related crime prevention measures. This includes a more detailed analysis of the effects of street lighting improvements on the incidence of robbery and autocrime in inner urban areas.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will include an assessment of the energy efficiency savings of new public street lighting when considering applications under the inner area programme.

  Mr. Key
  Applications for urban programme funding are considered on their merits in the light of the policy framework set out in annual programme guidance. Projects will only be approved for funding which have direct benefits for those who live and work in inner city areas.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will include an assessment of the impact of improved street lighting on the reduction of the fear of crime and actual crime when considering bids under the inner area programme.

  Mr. Key
  Applications for urban programme funding are considered on their merits in the light of the policy framework set out in annual programme guidance. Projects will only be approved for funding which have direct benefits for those who live and work in inner city 242
  areas. The Home Office are currently considering the results of research undertaken by the university of Southampton to assess the impact of improved street lighting on crime and the fear of crime in the London borough of Wandsworth. In addition, they are monitoring the link between lighting improvements and crime in four other urban programme areas in England.

  Guidance Notes
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those companies which have been contracted to work for Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution on the preparation of guidance notes for implementation of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  No companies have been specifically contracted to work on the production of guidance notes. However, the following companies have been contracted to undertake research which will be of use in the preparation of the notes:

  DTI Warren Spring Laboratory

  UKAEA

  Cremer & Warner Ltd

  Clayton Environmental Consultants

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Dames & Moore International

  ECOTEC Research & Consultancy Ltd

  Environmental Resources Ltd

  Aspinwall & Company

  W. S. Atkins Consultants Ltd

  Chemex International

  Gibb Environmental Sciences

  Sir William Halcrow & Partners

  PA Consulting Group

  March Consulting Group

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for sulphur dioxide emissions from Formalloys and Metals Ltd., Glossop, for each month since June 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  Figures for sulphur dioxide emissions are shown in the table:

  Tonnes of sulphur dioxide

  June 1990

  212

  July 1990

  217

  August 1990

  179

  September 1990

  126

  October 1990

  163

  November 1990

  227

  December 1990

  151

  January 1991

  0

  February 1991

  0

  During January and February 1991 the plant did not operate.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to planning authorities concerning the conservation of badger setts during the consideration of planning applications.

  Mr. Trippier
  Advice to planning authorities on all aspects of nature conservation is contained in DOE circular 27/87, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the
  243
  number of badgers and the current number of active badger setts in England; how many such setts have been destroyed during the last three years; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council has recently published a book entitled "The History, Distribution, Status, and Habitat Requirements of the Badger in Britain" which gives these figures for England, as well as for Scotland and Wales. A copy of this book is in the Library.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of sites of special scientific interest which were originally notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the number awaiting re-notification under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  The numbers are 4,026 and 119 respectively.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Leybucht Bay judgment of the European Court of Justice on 28 February on the economic and recreational development proposals affecting sites of special scientific interest in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council regarding the Leybucht Bay judgment in the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  An official English translation of the judgment is not yet available. Careful consideration will be given to its implications in due course. No consultations have taken place with the chairman of NCC regarding the judgment.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of sites of special scientific interest which have been damaged by operations granted planning permission in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is set out in the NCC's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of staff who were employed by the Nature Conservancy Council on a contract basis since 1981 in order to assist with the re-notification of sites of special scientific interest.

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

  Game Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to secure the future survival and status of the red grouse and other game birds in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council undertakes research into the populations of all game birds on an annual basis. In addition, they are involved in several studies relating to the survival of the red grouse 244
  and other game bird species, and to the effective management of their habitats. The results of the studies will be made available to the Department.

  Blackpool Beach
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether European Court action against the United Kingdom over Blackpool beach is still active.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 13 February,Official Report, columns 471–72.

  London Zoo
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to increase the financial reserves available to London Zoo; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 7 February,Official Report, columns 223–24.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about communications and discussions between his Department and London zoo about the zoo's future.

  Sir George Young
  No. The future of London zoo is a matter for the Zoological Society of London.

  Business Rates
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain how parish councils receive income from the unified business rates; if he will publish the formula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Under the new system of local government finance, business rates are paid into the national non-domestic rates pool and redistributed on the basis of adult population. Together with revenue support grant, special grants and community charges, the amounts of business rates received from the pool are paid into charging authorities' collection funds, out of which are met precepts and the charging authorities' own demands for revenue. To the extent that the precept of a parish and the demand of the charging authority on its collection fund are together equal to or less than the charging authority's standard spending assessment (SSA) per head, that expenditure is met in part from redistributed business rates. Spending above SSA is met entirely from community charges.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the Leeds development corporation budget has been spent in every year since its establishment in (1) west Leeds, (2) south Leeds and (3) Leeds central(a) in total and (b) broken down into (i) grants to existing employees, (ii) assistance with relocation, (iii) development of land, (iv) development of property, (v) environmental improvements, (vi) administration, (vii) publicity, (viii) job creation at 1991 prices and (ix) other.
  245
  Mr. Key
  Information is not available in this form. Urban development corporations produce annual reports of their activities and copies of these are placed in the House of Commons Library. The hon. Member may also wish to speak to the chairman of the Leeds development corporation.

  Dereliction
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sum will be provided from central funds to assist the clearance of dereliction in 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 7 February 1991 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell),Official Report, column 226. Further resources for the clearance of dereliction will be available through city grant, but it is not possible accurately to identify the proportion devoted to the reclamation of derelict land. It is estimated that £23 million will be spent under the urban programme on derelict and vacant land improvement and £48 million is earmarked to be spent in the urban development corporations on land reclamation and site preparation.

  Water Research Centre
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has reviewed the arrangements by which copies of reports produced by the Water Research Centre for his Department are placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In an answer given to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 16 February 1984, an undertaking was given to place in the Library of the House copies of reports of studies commissioned by the Department from the Water Research Centre (WRC). The usefulness of this arrangement was to be reviewed.

  A review rather later than envisaged discloses that there does not seen to be sufficient interest shown in the Water Research Centre's reports to warrant the continuation of this special arrangement. In addition the Water Research Centre has since become a private company and it would not be equitable for their reports to be treated differently from those of their competitors.

  For these reasons, I propose to terminate this arrangement and I have today written to the hon. Member accordingly.

  Effluent Discharges
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the National Rivers Authority has made towards introducing a scheme of charges for consents to discharge effluent to water.

  Mr. Baldry
  The National Rivers Authority introduced charges for applications for discharge consents from 1 October last year. It has now put forward proposals for annual charges to be levied on consent holders from 1 July this year. Copies of the proposals have been placed in the Library. Interested parties have until 30 April to comment on the proposals, which can be put into effect only if approved by my right hon. Friend.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the allocation of resources to local authorities under his Department's rural housing programme for 1991–92.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities which have been successful in bidding for resources under my Department's rural housing programme for 1991–92 are being informed today.

  The response from authorities has been excellent, and the £50 million of supplementary credit approvals are being targeted on those local authorities in rural areas with the greatest need for low-cost rented housing. All the schemes will be undertaken by housing associations, and this programme will complement the Housing Corporation's own programmes for shared ownership and rented housing in rural areas.

  The allocations which I am announcing today should result in the creation of 1,422 new housing units in 1991–92, from 187 schemes in 119 local authorities.

  A schedule of allocations has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Political Union
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals the United Kingdom will be putting forward to the inter-governmental conference on European political union for strengthening the environmental dimension of European Community policy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The United Kingdom has made two proposals designed to strengthen the link between the Community's environmental policy and its other policies. First, we have proposed an amendment to article 2 of the treaty of Rome which sets out the Community's fundamental objectives. Those objectives derive from an era when environmental considerations were not seen as a constraint on economic activity, and currently take no account of the subsequent development of EC environmental policy. We have therefore proposed adding a new objective of"promoting throughout the Community sustainable growth which respects the environment."

  Secondly, we have called for an agreement that in future new proposals for Community legislation or action, in whatever field, should include a statement on the environmental effects of the proposed measures. This is intended to ensure that environmental requirements and implications are taken properly into account in the formulation of all areas of Community policy.

  In our White Paper "This Common Inheritance" we stressed the need to improve Community environment policies. We believe these ideas would be of important practical value in ensuring that different areas of Community policy do not act in conflict, and that environmental considerations are given the priority they require.

  Woodlands (Disposal)
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his present policy in respect of the disposal of woodlands by the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.
  247
  Our policy on the disposal of Forestry Commission woodlands was set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 June 1989, Official Report, columns 544–45.

PRIME MINISTER

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have made any assessment of the number of(a) Iraqi military, (b) Kuwaitis, (c) Palestinians and (d) other nationals who were killed by Allied forces on the Kuwait to Basra road in the retreating convoy before a ceasefire was declared.

  The Prime Minister
  Allied forces had instructions to attack retreating Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in these attacks.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects all prisoners of war held in(a) Iraq and (b) the United Kingdom to be released.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: Further coalition prisoners of war were handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross yesterday and we hope that all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals will be released as soon as possible. Arrangements are being made with the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Iraqis being held in the United Kingdom to be released as soon as possible.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration Her Majesty's Government gave to securing the release of prisoners of war before agreeing to a ceasefire in the Gulf conflict.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: Allied offensive operations in the Gulf are currently suspended. The release of all prisoners of war remains a top priority before a formal ceasefire is declared. In adopting resolution 686., the United Nations Security Council has called on Iraq immediately to arrange access to and release of all prisoners of war and detainees, under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 7 March.

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

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on the commitment to be sought from Iraq to destroy its ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction,Official Report, 28 February, column 1117, if he will make available to the United Nations appropriate resources and technical expertise to permit the supervision to which he refers.
  248
  The Prime Minister
  We are considering what type of international supervision would be necessary for the destruction of such weapons. We would be willing to consider making available appropriate resources a nd technical expertise if necessary.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his statement of 28 February,Official Report, column 1117, he will make it his policy to give consideration to inviting Iraq to join the missile technology control regime.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to do so.

  Immigrant Workers, Kuwait
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to alleviate economic hardship of immigrant workers in Kuwait made redundant by the Gulf war.

  The Prime Minister
  British nationals returning to the United Kingdom from Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion were eligible to receive travel grants and loans, and where appropriate, other assistance from the Department of Social Security. Assistance for those returning to their homes in other countries is a matter for their own Governments.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister, with special responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of essentials services to service personnel disabled in the Gulf including counselling, psychiatric care, rehabilitation, social services, jobs and adapted housing.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: No. There are well-established arrangements for providing advice and assistance to personnel disabled in the course of their military service.

  Economic and Political Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on the intergovernmental conferences on(a) economic and monetary union and (b) political union; and if he will make it his policy to place the submissions made by each member state or the European Commission on (a) and (b) in the Library within one week of their being available to Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported to the House on 1 March on progress in the EMU intergovernmental conference, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House yesterday on the progress in the political union intergovernmental conference. The proceedings and documents of these conferences are confidential as was the case for the intergovernmental conference that resulted in the Single European Act.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are made to ensure that car dealers who advertise special discounts to people in
  249
  receipt of mobility allowance grant these discounts in addition to those generally available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  No official checks are made by the Department with regard to the advertising of special discounts to people in receipt of a mobility allowance.

  If an advertisement is suspected of being misleading under part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which deals with misleading price indications, it should be referred to the local trading standards department.

  In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority, which regulates advertising in the United Kingdom for the print, cinema, poster and direct mail media, stipulates in its code of practice that all advertisements should be legal, decent. honest and truthful. Any complaint against an advertiser may also be brought to the attention of the ASA.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet considered the business plans of the English regional development organisations; and what level of financial support he proposes for 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have studied the current performance and future plans of the five English regional development organisations. I am pleased to say that they continue to make a significant contribution to the overall success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment. In recognition of this, I have today offered the five English regional development organisations the full allocation of £4·5 million of grant aid for their inward investment promotion activities for 1991–92, £500,000 more than in 1990–91. This increase in funding, added to the extra £1 million allocated last year, is to enable the United Kingdom to remain competitive in promoting its 250
  locational advantages in the face of competition from the rest of Europe for mobile inward investment in the single European market. I have allocated the grant aid as follows:

  RDO

  1991–92 Grant £'000

  Per cent. share of total grant

  Northern Development Company (NDC)

  1,330

  29·5

  INWARD Ltd. (in the North West)

  990

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association

  970

  21·5

  West Midlands Development Agency (WMDA)

  670

  15

  Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau (DCDB)

  540

  12

  Grant is offered on an annual basis according to past performance and ability to absorb additional funding effectively, and for an agreed programme of future activities, with proper regard to value for money. It is Government policy to encourage direct inward investment to the United Kingdom because it contributes significantly to economic growth. Inward investment brings benefits to the country as a whole and more specifically to the assisted areas.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: The proportion of the Department's staff who are known to be disabled is 1·5 per cent. This figure includes both registered and unregistered disabled officers.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount of public money spent on British Rail in the period 1961 to 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total of external finance required by British Rail, from 1976–77 to 1990–91 inclusive, was some £11·2 billion in cash, equivalent to around £18·8 billion in current prices. There are no readily available figures for earlier years which cover Government grants arid net borrowing.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the British Rail establishments which have been closed since 1961 broken down by(a) size of establishment and (b) number of employees.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held by the Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount of public money spent on(a) roads and (b) motorways from 1961 to the present date.

  Mr. Chope
  The total amount spent on all public roads in England from 1961–62 to 1989–90 was £39 billion—£96 billion at 1989–90 prices. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to produce a comparable figure for motorways.

  Motorways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to remove litter from and clean up the motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  We are reviewing current practices to ensure that the standards set out in the code of practice for litter and refuse are achieved and that the duties placed on the Department of Transport by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are fully discharged.

  BR, Swinton
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any proposals from BR to close the railway station at Swinton near Rotherham; and if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss means of securing its future.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No proposals have been received concerning Swinton. My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with the chairman of BR.

  Al-M1 Link
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he expects the Al-MI link road to be completed, and what type of road he considers to be appropriate in this case.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the A635 Dearne towns link road proposed by Barnsley metropolitan borough council. I have recently 252
  made resources available which will enable the council to begin construction of one phase of this scheme in September 1991. The council hopes to complete the scheme by 1996 and progress would depend on the whole scheme being accepted for transport supplementary grant. The council has proposed that the road should be a 7–3 m single carriageway with local widenings at junctions and crawler lanes.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet his French counterpart to discuss freight transport facilities from the United Kingdom to the continent through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I plan to have discussions with the French Ministry in April.

  War Risk Re-insurance
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the war risk re-insurance he has been providing for British aircraft under the Marine and Aviation (War Risks) Act 1952.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Copies of agreements concluded under section 1 of the Marine and Aviation (War Risks) Act 1952, covering aircraft owned by British Airways plc and Magec Aviation Ltd. have been laid before each House of Parliament. The agreement in respect of British Airways facilitated the maintenance of scheduled flights to the Gulf area before and during the recent hostilities. With the improvement in the situation in the Gulf, it is no longer necessary for the Government to reinsure aircraft, and the two agreements were accordingly terminated on 5 March. No claims have arisen in respect of aircraft reinsured.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional costs were incurred by the United Kingdom missions to the United Nations in(a) New York and (b) Geneva, since 2 August as a result of the invasion and liberation of Kuwait; and what consideration has been given to increasing the resources available to United Kingdom diplomatic missions to the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Increases in local costs at the two posts have been offset by savings made elsewhere in their local budgets. Additional staff have been provided on a temporary basis to the missions to help them deal with short-term increases in work load, and we have improved security and communications facilities where necessary.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to offer economic assistance to the families of men from the Indian sub-continent killed accidentally by allied military activity in the Gulf war, where evidence exists that the dead civilians were the sole economic provider for the families in Kuwait or the sub-continent.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No, although we naturally regret all civilian casualties resulting from the recent hostilities in the
  253
  Gulf. Security Council resolution 674, which has now been accepted by the Government of Iraq, reminded Iraq of its liability for any loss, damage or injury ensuing in regard to Kuwait and third states and their nationals as a result of its invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the United Kingdom intends to take at the United Nations arising from the Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are working to ensure the restoration of international peace and security in the area in keeping with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) all resolutions initiated by the United Kingdom, (b) all resolutions supported by the United Kingdom and (c) all resolutions put forward at the General Assembly of the United Nations since 1979, on the restriction or prohibition of arms sales and military equipment; and if he will indicate, where applicable, the reasons why the United Kingdom did not support resolutions on arms sales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  (a) No resolutions on the restrictions or prohibition of arms sales have been initiated by the United Kingdom since 1979.

  (b) The United Kingdom has voted in favour of:

  (i) UNGA 43 first committee resolution 43/751 of 7 December 1988 entitled "International Arms Transfers" which the United Kingdom also co-sponsored.

  (ii) UNGA 44 first committee resolution 44/116N of 15 December 1989 entitled "International Arms Transfers".

  (iii) UNGA 45 first committee decision 45/415 of 4 December 1990 entitled "International Arms Transfers".

  (iv) The three resolutions above are all those brought to a vote at the United Nations General Assembly on the restriction or prohibition of arms sales since 1979.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer on Iraqi nuclear capability to the hon. Member for Bradford, South, (Mr. Cryer)Official Report, 28 February, column 582, he will set out the occasions on which Her Majesty's Government made representations to (a) the Iraqi Government, (b) the United Nations and (c) the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iraqi violations of its non-proliferation treaty commitments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made clear our concern about possible violations by non-nuclear weapon states of their non-proliferation treaty commitments.

  Somalia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for improving relations with the Government and people of Somalia.
  254
  Mrs. Chalker
  There is at present no established nationwide Government in Somalia, but Britain's record there is a good one. We took a lead in denouncing human rights violations by the previous regime and have given refuge to large numbers of Somalis.

  Bananas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreement Britain has to buy Windward Island bananas.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom has a long-standing commitment reflected in protocols of successive Lomé conventions to give preferential access to the United Kingdom banana market for our traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific suppliers, which include the Windward Islands.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average level of real interest rates, mimimum lending rate, in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Maples
  There is no agreed definition of the real interest rate, nor is mimimum lending rate any longer in continuous use. The table shows the annual average of the three-month interbank rate since 1978 and the average three-month interbank rate deflated by the 12-month all-items retail price index for each year.

  Average three-month interbank rate

  'Real' interest rate

  1978

  9·24

  +0·9

  1979

  13·67

  +0·2

  1980

  16·62

  -1·0

  1981

  13·92

  +1·8

  1982

  12·28

  +3·4

  1983

  10·13

  +5·3

  1984

  9·95

  +4·7

  1985

  12·24

  +5·8

  1986

  10·95

  +7·3

  1987

  9·70

  +5·3

  1988

  10·31

  +5·2

  1989

  13·89

  +5·6

  1990

  14·77

  +4·8

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average number of employees per establishment in industrial firms in the United Kingdom in(a) 1990, (b) 1980, (c) 1970 and (d)

  Mr. Maples
  Changes in the definition of the establishment and in the coverage of statistical registers inhibit valid long-term comparisons. The table provides the available information from the censuses of production.

  Manufacturing industry2

  Employees per establishment1

  1963

  89·5

  1970

  91·4

  1980

  59·7

  255

  Employees per establishment1

  1983

  49·6

  31984

  37·2

  1988

  33·4

  Note: A comparison of the above series with alternative information on larger manufacturing sites corroborates the significant fall in employees per unit.

  1 Employment includes both employees and working proprietors, and the self employed.

  2 Figures for 1988 and 1980 cover manufacturing industry as defined by Divisions 2–4 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification. Figures for 1970 cover manufacturing industry as defined by Orders III-XIX of the 1968 Standard Industrial Classification. Figures for 1963 cover manufacturing industry as defined by Orders III-XIX of the 1958 Standard Industrial Classification. There have been minor changes in the coverage of the census with the adoption of each new Standard Industrial Classification.

  3 Figures for 1984 based upon new register with more complete coverage of smaller businesses.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of 26 February,Official Report, column 442, he is in a position to update his estimates of the costs of Britain's contribution to the Gulf war in the light of the cessation of hostilities; and if he has any information to add about assistance promised from other countries towards the meeting of Britain's costs.

  Mr. Mellor
  At this stage I have nothing further to add to the information given in my right hon. Friend's reply of 26 February to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and mine to the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 4 March.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many overseas visits were made in an official capacity in 1990 by(a) the Chancellor, (b) the Chief Secretary, (c) the Financial Secretary, (d) the Paymaster General and (e) the Economic Secretary including, in each case, those visits made in connection with European Community matters.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following is the information requested for the calendar year 1990:

  (a) Twenty, of which 16 were related to European Community matters;

  (b) Nil;

  (c) Thirteen, of which 12 were related to European Community matters;

  (d) and (e) Five and three respectively, all of which were related to European Community matters.

  Beneficial Loans
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what assumed rate of interest employees of banks and building societies who are in receipt of beneficial loans are currently paying tax on the difference between the rate of interest on beneficial loans and that rate; and what considerations are taken into account in deciding against which rate to assess this benefit.
  256
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: The taxable benefit, if any, of a loan made by an employer to an employee is determined using the "official rate" of interest which is 14·5 per cent. from 6 March 1991. The statutory formula which governs the "official rate" of interest is contained in Treasury regulations and is, broadly, the average base rate of six named banks plus 1·5 per cent.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year since 1979 the level of investment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry expressed as a percentage of the amount required to cover depreciation of existing capital stock.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: Available estimates of gross fixed capital formation as a percentage of capital consumption for the manufacturing industries, including assets leased from the financial industries, are as follows:

  per cent.

  1979

  130

  1980

  111

  1981

  86

  1982

  84

  1983

  83

  1984

  97

  1985

  111

  1986

  103

  1987

  108

  1988

  118

  1989

  127

  Estimates of capital consumption, and hence these percentages, must be interpreted with some caution. Capital consumption is not directly observable and so the estimates made are based on a series of assumptions.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the statistics supporting his chart number 2.10 in the autumn statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactures

  Volume per cent.

  Value per cent.

  1970

  9·3

  9·1

  1971

  9·4

  9·3

  1972

  8·4

  8·2

  1973

  8·6

  8·7

  1974

  8·3

  7·4

  1975

  8·3

  7·6

  1976

  8·1

  7·1

  1977

  8·2

  7·5

  1978

  7·6

  7·3

  1979

  7·1

  7·4

  1980

  7·0

  8·0

  1981

  6·3

  7·0

  1982

  6·5

  6·8

  1983

  6·1

  6·2

  1984

  6·0

  5·9

  1985

  6·1

  6·1

  1986

  6·1

  5·8

  1987

  6·1

  6·1

  1988

  5·9

  6·1

  257

  Volume per cent.

  Value per cent.

  1989

  6·0

  6·0

  11990

  6·2

  6·2

  21991

  6·1

  6·2

  1 Estimate.

  2 Forecast.

  Sources: World trade: Based on data published in United Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics.

  United Kingdom exports: Central Statistical Office.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outbreaks of sheep scab have been confirmed this year to date; and what was the corresponding figure for 1990 and 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been 26 confirmed outbreaks of sheep scab so far this year, compared with 20 in 1990 and 16 in 1989.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Association of County Councils concerning the enforcement of compulsory sheep dipping; and what is his estimate of the number of farmers who have not complied with the latest regulations.

  Mr. Maclean
  Comments have been received from some county councils which show that there have been enforcement difficulties, but no formal representations have been made by the Association of County Councils. The review of the 1990 dip is not yet complete and until the various responses have been analysed it is not possible to assess the level of compliance.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live tests for bovine tuberculosis in badgers have now been conducted; what were the results of such tests; how long the current pilot study will continue; if any non-tested badgers have been killed during the duration of the tests; and if he will make a statement on his preliminary findings of the study.

  Mr. Maclean
  Field trials on the live test have only just started, having been delayed by bad weather. The trial is expected to last 12 months. Not all badger removal operations will be included and therefore some badgers killed will not have been tested.

  Harvest Returns
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the size of the United Kingdom harvest in (a) tonnes and (b) value, at actual and at 1990 prices in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  The size of the cereals harvest and the value of cereal sales off farms are shown below.258

  Year

  Cereal harvest (000 tonnes)

  Value of output (£ million)

  Value of output at constant 1985 prices(£ million)

  1979

  17,416

  1,184

  1,302

  1980

  19,472

  1,463

  1,550

  1981

  19,621

  1,693

  1,649

  1982

  21,913

  2,062

  1,890

  1983

  21,307

  1,996

  1,671

  1984

  26,602

  2,420

  2,321

  1985

  22,466

  2,281

  2,281

  1986

  24,489

  2,184

  2,171

  1987

  21,675

  2,038

  2,042

  1988

  21,028

  1,881

  1,979

  1989

  22,685

  2,061

  2,145

  11990

  22,533

  2,062

  2,068

  1 Forecast.

  It should be noted that the size of the harvest does not correspond exactly to the value of output—sales off farms —even when this is measured at constant prices. This is partly because some of the harvest is used on farms for animal feed and because some of each year's harvest is sold off farms in the next calendar year. Valuations at constant 1985 prices have been used in the third column since these are more readily available and comparable with other published figures, than valuations at 1990 prices.

  Bananas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the quantities and cost of bananas imported from the Windward Islands each year since 1980.

  Mr. Curry
  The quantities and cost of bananas imported from the Windward Islands each year since 1980 are as follows:

  Tonnes

  Value (£)

  1980

  69,909

  20,249,027

  1981

  103,389

  32,849,653

  1982

  104,287

  37,758,070

  1983

  114,932

  48,006,383

  1984

  130,091

  58,712,038

  1985

  163,168

  85,285,560

  1986

  204,920

  108,315,977

  1987

  183,456

  97,820,191

  1988

  231,338

  104,866,452

  1989

  218,222

  100,833,517

  1990

  244,785

  117,153,927

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs General Trade Statistics.

ENERGY

  Hydro-electric Generators
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will undertake an efficiency and effectiveness survey of the Office of Electricity Regulation, the Non-Fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency Ltd. and Her Majesty's Government in encouraging small and medium hydro-electric generators.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The non-fossil fuel obligation has proved an effective vehicle for stimulating a variety of renewables technologies. Twenty-six hydro-electric projects, with a declared net capacity of 12 MW, contracted with the regional electricity companies under the 1990 renewables order. My right hon. Friend has announced
  259
  that he has it in mind to introduce a reserved tranche for hydro projects under the 1991 renewables order. In these circmstances, I do not consider an efficiency and effectiveness survey of the kind proposed by the hon. Member to be necessary.

  Electricity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effect on competition in the electricity generation market of the increase in bulk gas prices for electricity generating purposes announced by British Gas on 1 March.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is too early to say what the implications of the new bulk gas prices may be for competition in the electricity generation market in the longer term.

THE ARTS

  Arts Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chair of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the funding of the Association of Artists and Designers in Wales.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no plans to do so, as this is very much a matter for the Welsh Arts Council to determine in the light of its artistic policies and priorities.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the current waiting list for each specialty in Leicester health authority and the number of people who have waited(a) for over one year and (b) for more than two years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available information, at 31 March 1990, is given in the table. It is the time people wait which is important, not total numbers on the list. The number of patients waiting over one year for in-patient treatment in Leiecester health authority has fallen by 61 per cent. since 1979 and by 14 per cent. in the 12 months to March 1990. In addition, the number of in-patients treated in Leicester in 1989–90 has increased by 49 per cent. since 1979.

  Waiting lists Leicester health district—March 1989–90

  Specialty

  Number waiting1

  Waiting over one year

  Waiting over two years

  Ordinary admissions

  General Surgery

  1,135

  29

  8

  Urology

  330

  4

  0

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  1,601

  152

  57

  ENT

  1,950

  249

  33

  Ophthalmology

  438

  1

  1

  Oral Surgery

  508

  14

  0

  Neurosurgery

  14

  0

  0

  Plastic Surgery

  874

  480

  271

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  560

  71

  21

  Accident and Emergency

  24

  0

  0

  General Medicine

  5

  0

  0

  260

  Specialty

  Number waiting1

  Waiting over one year

  Waiting over two years

  Gastroenterology

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiology

  336

  16

  4

  Dermatology

  0

  0

  0

  Nephrology

  5

  0

  0

  Neurology

  8

  8

  8

  Rheumatology

  16

  0

  0

  Paedriatrics

  2

  0

  0

  Geriatric Medicine

  10

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  1,082

  47

  12

  GP other than Maternity

  147

  0

  0

  Mental Handicap

  30

  24

  20

  Mental Illness

  18

  5

  2

  Forensic Psychiatry

  0

  1

  1

  Radiology

  5

  0

  0

  Total

  9,098

  1,101

  438

  Day cases

  General Surgery

  840

  64

  27

  Urology

  130

  4

  1

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  41

  3

  2

  ENT

  48

  0

  0

  Ophthalmology

  328

  0

  0

  Oral Surgery

  23

  0

  0

  Neurosurgery

  14

  0

  0

  Plastic Surgery

  766

  319

  298

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  0

  0

  0

  Accident and Emergency

  15

  0

  0

  General Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  Gastroenterology

  62

  0

  0

  Cardiology

  0

  0

  0

  Nephrology

  0

  0

  0

  Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  Rheumatology

  3

  0

  0

  Paedriatrics

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  0

  0

  0

  GP other than Maternity

  41

  0

  0

  Radiotherapy

  7

  0

  0

  Community Medicine

  30

  0

  0

  Total

  2,438

  390

  318

  1Gross less self-deferred

  Source: KHO6, KHO7, KHO7A

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available figures of cost per patient per week of in-patients at each mental handicap and mental illness hospital in the Northern region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the steering group on national health services information—the Korner committee—the costing information submitted by authorities from 1987–88 is no longer compiled on the basis of type of hospital but focuses on district-based treatment costs by specialty/specialty groups within all hospitals.

  Information relating to the Northern region for the financial year 1988–89, the latest currently available, is shown in the table.

  261

  Average specialty costs per patient day—patients using a bed 1988–89

  District

  Mental handicap £ (cash)

  Other psychiatric specialties1 £ (cash)

  Hartlepool

  39·98

  49·01

  North Tees

  80·94

  62·52

  South Tees

  65·21

  50·67

  East Cumbria

  41·92

  29·08

  South Cumbria

  42·80

  35·43

  West Cumbria

  30·98

  46·05

  Darlington

  23·56

  59·78

  Durham

  33·21

  34·72

  North West Durham

  —

  34·88

  South West Durham

  —

  29·93

  Northumberland

  28·11

  30·63

  Gateshead

  52·15

  26·94

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  57·04

  46·05

  North Tyneside

  —

  53·48

  South Tyneside

  25·85

  27·47

  Sunderland

  64·42

  28·75

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

  Notes:

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

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

  Liverpool AHA
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations and operating sessions were cancelled during 1990 by Liverpool area health authority; how many hospital beds are available(a) currently and (b) in 1980; and how many hospitals are open (i) currently and (ii) in 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not collect centrally information about the number of cancelled operations. In the year ending March 1990, 582–4 per cent. of the total—scheduled theatre sessions were cancelled in the Liverpool health authority. These sessions may have been taken up by other consultant specialties.

  Details of the number of beds available and the number of hospitals open are given in the table.

  1980

  1989–90

  Number of available beds

  5,443

  2,990

  Number of hospitals

  18

  15

  Number of day cases

  15,272

  18,900

  Number of in-patients treated

  85,674

  103,911

  Source: SH3 return 1980.

  KHO3 return 1989–90.

  Note:

  Due to restructuring of the Health Service in 1981, information prior to 1982 is not directly comparable with subsequent years.

  Health Authorities (Capital Valuations)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the dates and amounts of the latest capital valuation for each district health authority and national health service trust in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest capital valuation of land and buildings occupied by district health authorities in 262
  England and Wales was carried out as at 31 December 1989. A concurrent exercise was carried out in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The totals of worth for existing use were:

  £

  England

  23,256,449,000

  Wales

  1,089,041,000

  These figures have been provided by the chief valuer, Inland Revenue, from centrally held returns. A summary by regions and districts is expected to be placed in the Library by 15 March 1991 and will include figures for Scotland.

  At the date of this valuation (December 1989) there were no national health service trusts and property which would in due course be vested in NHSTs was not separately identified. It is included in the figures for district health authorities.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many domiciliary deliveries of prescriptions are made annually on average by pharmacists in the United Kingdom; and what arrangements exist to compensate pharmacists for these additional service costs and to encourage domiciliary deliveries of prescriptions to the elderly and disabled when necessary.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available. Only those providing a domiciliary oxygen service are specifically remunerated for the service.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to allow doctors to indicate on prescription forms that the pharmacist can supply a therapeutically equivalent product in place of a brand name product.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We encourage general practitioners to prescribe drugs by their generic name because it is good professional practice and because of the opportunities for savings such prescribing creates. Many hospitals already routinely supply generic products against prescriptions.

  Census
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information will be available to the public from the 1991 census, additional to that available to the public from the 1981 census.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Results from the 1991 census, like those from the 1981 census, will be available as published statistical reports to be laid before Parliament and as abstracts of statistical information supplied on request, as authorised under section 4 of the Census Act 1920.

  The results will include statistical information from new questions on ethnic group, limiting long-term illness, term-time address of students and schoolchildren, hours worked weekly, availability of central heating and a count of dwellings by geographical area and type, Statistical information will be available, for the first time in England and Wales, for geographical areas specified as groups of postcodes.

  Two new types of abstract are in preparation. The Registrars-General have agreed in principle to supply the

  263
  Economic and Social Research Council with two samples of anonymised records from the 1991 census, as announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), on 19 July 1990, column 707. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is also planning to produce a directory showing which postcodes are located in each census enumeration district.

  All census output will be designed to guard against disclosing information about identifiable people or households. Information on the plans for the production of reports and abstracts is given in census newsletters, copies of which are in the Library. Further details will be available in prospectuses issued by OPCS.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) if he will identify those district health authorities which contract out the processing of cervical smear tests to private laboratories; and the number of tests involved for each district;

  (2) if he will give the average cost of processing each cervical smear test within the National Health Service; and the average cost for the smear test contracted out to laboratories outside the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Thousands

  Population aged 65 or more2

  Residential care places3

  Independent sector nursing beds4

  Year

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  1979

  6,978·0

  113·6

  33·9

  32·0

  —

  1980

  7,067·2

  114·1

  35·0

  35·8

  —

  1981

  7,107·7

  114·9

  36·9

  39·3

  —

  1982

  7,107·5

  115·5

  36·7

  44·3

  18·2

  1983

  7,061·2

  115·9

  37·6

  51·8

  22·5

  1984

  7,033·9

  116·4

  38·2

  63·1

  27·3

  11985

  7,184·4

  102·5

  26·4

  73·6

  33·9

  1986

  7,294·9

  101·5

  25·6

  86·9

  41·6

  1987

  7,407·4

  112·4

  28·4

  105·8

  —

  1988

  7,465·4

  110·6

  28·5

  115·9

  57·0

  1989

  7,522·6

  107·4

  28·6

  134·6

  73·6

  Note: All figures are rounded to one decimal place.

  1 Figures for places in residential care from 1985 are for elderly people only. Earlier years include places for younger physically handicaped.

  2 Mid-year OPCS figures.

  3 Figures are for year-ending 31 March.

  4 The numbers of beds in private hospitals and clinics and private and voluntary nursing homes are not collected separately. Figures are for calendar year ending up till 31 December 1986, and for year-ending 31 March from 1987–88. Figures before 1982 are not available.

  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the names of the board of directors for the Christie hospital trust in south Manchester.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Trust boards are made up of equal numbers of executive and non-executive directors and a chairman. Non-executive directors are chosen for the personal contribution they can make to the effective management of the trust. Two are drawn from the local community and the remainder appointed by my right hon.

  Hospitals, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many days in January and February hospitals within the Bradford hospitals trust were refusing to admit patients requiring cold surgery; on whose authority or instructions these decisions were taken; are those patients requiring non-emergency, long-stay operations being admitted now; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Until 1 April 1991, the hospitals in the Bradford hospitals National Health Service trust are under health authority management. Bradford health authority was required as part of contingency plans for the Gulf war to make beds available in the event of casualties. Throughout this period short-stay cases were admitted and throughput went up. Long-stay patients are now being admitted as usual for treatment.

  Retired People
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number of persons over retirement age in each of the last 10 years; and what were the number of(a) local authority care home places, (b) private residential home places and (c) private nursing home places in each of those years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of persons aged 65 or over in each of the years 1979–89, together with the numbers of places in local authority, voluntary and private residential accommodation catering primarily for elderly people are set out in the following table. The table also shows the number of independent sector nursing beds for elderly patients for the years 1982–89.

  Friend the Secretary of State. Executive directors include the chief executive, director of finance and, in the majority of cases, a medical and nursing director. Following is a list of the chairman and non-executive membership for the Christie hospital national health service trust:

  Sir John Page

  Professor Roger Green

  Mrs. Rayna Dean

  Sir Richard Baker-Wilbraham

  Mrs. June Rosen

  Mr. Robert Shepherd

  Social Services Inspectorate
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reasons for the decision to reduce the salary level of the post of head of his social services inspectorate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The chief inspector, social services inspectorate, post was advertised recently at a salary level up to the top of the grade 3 pay scale with the possibility of a higher amount for an exceptionally well qualified candidate. The new grade reflects the findings of an internal review of the Department's senior posts which included an examination of the duties of the chief inspector post. It does not affect in any way the postholder's reporting arrangements within the Department or his—or her—access to Ministers.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce new measures to combat the incidence of salmonellosis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 14 January, columns 392–4.

  The Chief Medical Officer has also issued public advice that everybody should avoid eating raw eggs or uncooked dishes made from them, and that vulnerable groups should cook eggs until the white and yolk are solid. Copies of the advice are in the Library.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given by his Department to health authorities with regard to the maximum number of beds that may be permitted in a nursing home.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is a statutory requirement that each nursing home patient has adequate accommodation and space. The maximum number of beds in any one home is constrained by the needs of the residents. Guidance issued by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts and endorsed by the Department provides that all long-stay patients should enjoy a lifestyle as non-institutional as possible, and sets out certain minimum standards for bedroom, sitting or day room areas.

  Abortion
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is yet in a position to announce the date for the implementation of section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The changes to the Abortion Act 1967 contained in section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 will be implemented on 1 April 1991. The Secretary of State for Health has made an order, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provision) Order 1991, SI 480 C. 10, to bring into force section 37 of the Act and to make transitional provision for a period of one month, and laid before the House the Abortion Regulations 1991, SI 499. The 266
  Secretary of State for Scotland has simultaneously laid the Abortion (Scotland) Regulations 1991, SI 460 S. 41.

  Copies are available in the Vote Office and Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Landfill Site, Carrickfergus
  Mr Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the conditions of approval for the land fill site at Sullatober Mill, Marshalltown road, Carrickfergus have been complied with; what monitoring has taken place on site since approval was granted; whether the present condition of the site merits revocation of the licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The site has been monitored frequently since 1984, when planning permission was first granted. In the period between 1985 and 1987, three breaches were detected and remedied. No further breach was detected until March 1990 and it, too, was remedied. Two further breaches have been detected and enforcement action has commenced. The question of revocation of the site licence is one for consideration by Carrickfergus borough council.

  Slatt Crossing Inquiry
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the inquiry into the railway accident at the Slatt crossing is to be resumed.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the inspector. I understand that he will make an announcement shortly.

  Housing Developments
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking in(a) the Antrim borough council area and (b) the Newtownabbey borough council area to tidy up and maintain green areas provided in private and public housing developments at the insistence of the Department of Environment planning service.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not the practice of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland, as planning authority, when granting planning permission for housing developments, to impose conditions requiring the provision of open space areas for public use. Where a developer provides open space at his own initiative the responsibility for maintenance would rest with him. He is normally advised to make maintenance arrangements with the local council. The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland therefore does not take action to tidy up areas such as this. The responsibility for maintaining any open space areas in public housing estates lies with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Census Enumerators (Donaghadee)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were received for the position of census enumerators in the Donaghadee district by the closing date of 22 February; how many appointments will be made for the Donaghadee district; and how many of these appointees were selected prior to the closing date for applications on 22 February.

  Mr. Hanley
  Eighty applications were received by the closing date of 22 February and 52 appointments will be
  267
  made. Thirty-four appointments were made from the first phase of the recruitment campaign, which ran from 1 November to 14 December 1990. No appointments have yet been made from the second phase, which ran from 3 January to 22 February. Interviews are being held to fill the remaining 18 vacancies.

  Departmental Policies (Environmental Implications)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions have been taken since the appointment of a Minister in his Department to consider the environmental implications of his Department's policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: The Northern Ireland Departments, like all others, have been active in implementing and developing the commitments made in the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", since its publication in September 1990.

  The Northern Ireland departmental report, published on 15 February, recorded progress with a wide range of initiatives, reflecting the White Paper's comprehensive review of policy affecting the environment. Additional resources have been secured substantially to extend water quality monitoring and to carry out estuarine studies in environmentally sensitive coastal waters; to extend smoke control areas; to accelerate the survey and declaration of areas of special scientific interest; and to expand the environment service of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland. The report also records the Department of Agriculture's commitment to the implementation of the countryside management strategy, giving particular emphasis to the prevention of farm sourced pollution and the encouragement of environmentally sensitive farming. The Department of Economic Development has published a consultative paper on energy efficiency with a view to implementing an extensive programme of energy conservation measures outlined in that paper. The Department of Education is taking steps to ensure that environmental issues are given sufficient weight in the programmes of study for the compulsory subjects of the Northern Ireland curriculum.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on overseas registration of voters.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures published on 13 February showed that 31,001 overseas electors were included in the draft electoral register for 1991–92. This figure does not include valid applications which were received too late for inclusion in the draft register. Final figures for the 1991–92 register, which will be higher, will be published, in the summer.

  Teenage Crime
  Mr. tan Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the amounts of crime carried out by teenagers.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government are continuously developing their programmes to divert young people from 268
  crime. The Home Office safer cities programme includes schemes directed at reducing young people's involvement in criminal activity. Local activities for young people will be an important feature of the national crime prevention week to be held in April. We are also working with the Department of Education and Science who are considering measures to reduce truancy. However, some parents could do more to influence and control their children's behaviour, and the emphasis on parental responsibility in the Criminal Justice Bill will encourage them to do so.

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chief constable for Merseyside on the present manning levels of the Merseyside police force.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Merseyside police authority made an application for 49 additional police posts in 1991–92. On the advice of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, I have approved five extra police posts from 1 October 1991.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the implications of the 1991–92 Merseyside police authority budget settlement on the police establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The establishment of the Merseyside police, as I authorised, will not be affected by the police authority's budget settlement. It is for the authority to decide how many posts in the establishment should be filled.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to reduce racially motivated attacks.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Racially motivated attacks are wholly unacceptable in a civilised society. The Government are urging the police and other agencies to tackle such attacks vigorously and has issued detailed guidance to those involved. Ethnic minority communities can have full confidence in the police's determination to prosecute the perpetrators of racial attacks.

  Nottingham Police
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what request he has received for funding to enable the Nottingham police force to be brought up to strength; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Nottinghamshire police authority did not seek an increase in establishment for 1991–92 following the 26 posts which my right hon. Friend approved for 1990–91. At the end of December the strength of the Nottinghamshire constabulary was 2,342, which is only two short of the authorised establishment.

  Shoplifting
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women have been acquitted of shoplifting charges during the last five years for which records are available.
  269
  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested can be found in the relevant "Criminal Statistics for England and Wales, Supplementary Volumes I and II", copies of which are in the Library. Table 1.1A deals with magistrates courts and shows that in 1989 a total of 3,594 males and 1,788 females of all ages were either found not guilty or, for various reasons, the case was not proceeded with. Table 2.1A gives equivalent figures in the Crown court of 410 males and 235 females. I am arranging for the statistics for 1985–88 to be sent to the hon. and learned Member.

  Police (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss inner city areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend meets chief officers of police on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of policing matters, but he has no present plans for a meeting with the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss inner-city areas.

  Electorates
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the size of constituency electorates in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the past 12 months, we have seen three letters on this subject from hon. Members. A question was asked in the House in January 1989.

  Model Guns
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the sale of model guns which are outside the Firearms Act.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None recently.

  Alcohol Licensing
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward the reform of the licensing system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to introduce any further legislation on liquor licensing in England and Wales for the time being. I see a good case, in due course, for reviewing the liquor licensing laws as a whole with a view to its reform and modernisation.

  Northumbria Police Force
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding and establishment of the Northumbria police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The establishment of the Northumbria police is 3,552. Following an application for 87 additional police posts in 1991–92, my right hon. Friend has approved 26 with effect from 10 October 1991 provided that the police authority is prepared to meet its share of the cost of these posts.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend community radio.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1 January 1991 the development of all forms of independent local radio, including community radio, has been the responsibility of the new Radio Authority established under the Broadcasting Act 1990. I understand that the authority aims to issue licences for 20 to 30 new independent local radio stations each year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications of the 1992 programme for the national control of immigration and visitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Discussions on the movement of people within the Community after 1992 are continuing. We have made it clear that we intend to continue to exercise immigration controls at our frontiers.

  Crime, Leicestershire
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage reported crime has increased in Leicestershire since 1 January 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the first nine months of 1990 recorded crime in Leicestershire increased by 32 per cent. over the corresponding period in 1989.

  Police Budgets
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are made by the Home Office to reimburse local police forces for unbudgeted security operations or for exceptional investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office meets 51 per cent. of police authority expenditure on revenue costs through specific grant, whatever the origin of the expenditure.

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grants of compensation for wrongful imprisonment were made in each of the last two years(a) under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and (b) under the ex-gratia scheme.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following information relates to payments of compensation in respect of imprisonment as a result of wrongful conviction, and is based on the date upon which the final payment of compensation was made. A number of interim payments, pending final assessment of compensation, have also been made during the period.

  Year

  Ex-gratia payment

  Section 133 payment

  Total number of payment

  1989

  8

  —

  8

  1990

  4

  1

  5

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amounts were paid in compensation for wrongful imprisonment in each of the last two years.
  271
  Mr. John Patten
  The following information relates to payments of compensation in respect of imprisonment as a result of wrongful conviction and is based upon the date on which the final payment of compensation was made. A number of interim payments, pending final assessment of compensation, have also been made during this period.

  Amount of compensation paid in resolved cases

  Year

  £

  1989

  77,477

  1990

  73,121

  Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were put into canvas restraint jackets in each of the years from 1986 to 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the number of applications of loose canvas jackets to male prisoners in

  Persons in prison service establishments in England and Wales on prison rule 43 and young offender institution rule 46 on 30 June 1990: by type of prisoner, period of segregation, age group and sex

  Males

  Females

  Type of prisoner

  All persons

  Aged under 21

  Adults

  Aged under 21

  Adults

  All held on prison rule 43 or young offender institution rule 46

  2,282

  220

  2,036

  3

  23

  Own interest (own protection)

  1,980

  152

  1,805

  2

  21

  Current period of segregation

  Up to 1 month

  408

  57

  347

  1

  3

  Over 1 month up to 3 months

  451

  43

  403

  —

  5

  Over 3 months up to 12 months

  885

  48

  831

  1

  5

  Over 12 months

  236

  4

  224

  —

  8

  Good order or discipline

  302

  68

  231

  1

  2

  Current period of segregation

  Up to 1 month

  222

  59

  160

  1

  2

  Over 1 month up to 3 months

  59

  3

  56

  —

  —

  Over 3 months

  21

  6

  15

  —

  —

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners experienced more than one 10/74 transfer in each year for 1986 to 1990;

  (2) how many prisoners experienced in each year from 1986 to 1990, (i) more than three 10/74 transfers (ii) more than three transfers under good order and discipline procedures and (iii) more than three transfers for other reasons, including Home Office directives;

  (3) how many 10/74 transfers were authorised by governors in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were kept in a body belt for over 24 hours in each of the years from 1986 to 1990, and in which prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information is given in the table.
  272
  the years 1986 to 1989 was published in table 10.3 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Cm. 1221), a copy of which is in the Library.

  According to the records held centrally, the number of different inmates who were so restrained was four in 1987, two in 1988 and one in 1989.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners in each of the years 1986–1990 were held in segregation units for (i) over six months, (ii) over a year and (iii) over two years;

  (2) how many prisoners were kept in segregation units for a continuous period of over 13 weeks in each of the years 1986–1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available data relate to the population of inmates removed from association with other inmates under prison rule 43 and young offender institution rule 46. Figures for 30 June 1989 were published in table 10.1 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1989" (Cm. 1221), a copy of which is in the Library. Provisional figures for 30 June 1990 are given in the table.

  Prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales restrained by means of a body belt for periods over 24 hours: by establishment, 1988 and 1989

  Establishment

  1988

  1989

  Local prisons

  Birmingham

  2

  —

  Durham

  1

  —

  Hull

  —

  2

  Leicester

  1

  —

  Wandsworth

  1

  —

  Training prisons

  Cookham Wood

  —

  1

  Frankland

  1

  —

  Full Sutton

  1

  —

  Young offender institution

  Dover

  —

  1

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were put into segregation in each year between 1986 and 1990 (i) under good order and discipline, (ii) pending adjudication, (iii) on punishment, (iv) for any other reason and (v) on rule 43(a).
  273
  Mrs. Rumbold
  An inmate may be removed from association with other inmates where this appears desirable for the maintenance of good order or discipline or in his own interests, under prison rule 43 or young offender institution rule 46. The readily available information is that the following numbers of prisoners were removed from association under these rules on 30 June:

  1989

  1990

  Good order and discipline

  238

  302

  Own interests

  2,213

  1,980

  Information is not recorded centrally on the number of inmates who, under prison rule 48(2) or young offender institution rule 51(2), are kept apart from other inmates pending adjudication.

  Inmates were awarded cellular or room confinement following adjudication or disciplinary offences on the following number of occasions:

  Body bells applied to violent or refractory prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment, 1987 to 1989

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Establishment

  Applications

  Prisoners

  Applications

  Prisoners

  Applications

  Prisoners

  Local prisons and remand centres

  Ashford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Bedford

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  8

  5

  2

  2

  Brixton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Canterbury

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Chelmsford

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Durham

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Hull

  7

  7

  4

  4

  9

  9

  Leeds

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Leicester

  6

  6

  14

  11

  2

  1

  Lewes

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  4

  4

  3

  3

  Oxford

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Pentonville

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Reading

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Rochester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wandsworth

  6

  5

  10

  8

  6

  6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  3

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Training prisons

  Acklington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Albany

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Blundeston

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  4

  3

  —

  —

  Chelmsford

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookham Wood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Frankland

  6

  5

  6

  5

  3

  2

  Full Sutton

  —

  —

  7

  6

  9

  8

  Garth

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Haverigg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  1

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Long Lartin

  4

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Parkhurst

  5

  5

  —

  —

  8

  8

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Stafford

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  274

  Year

  Number

  1986

  7,342

  1987

  6,904

  1988

  6,317

  1989

  6,269

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria were used for deciding which cases involving allegations of assault by prison officers should be settled by ex-gratia payments and which should be contested.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are no standard criteria and the decision about whether to contest a civil claim must reflect all the circumstances of the case. A decision to make an ex-gratia payment will not necessarily reflect doubts about the conduct of the member of staff concerned or a belief that the allegation is true.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions and in which prisons, a body belt was used in Her Majesty's prisons in each year from 1986 to 1990; and on how many prisoners was the body belt used in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information is given in the table.
  275

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Establishment

  Applications

  Prisoners

  Applications

  Prisoners

  Applications

  Prisoners

  Wakefield

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Young offender institutions

  Aylesbury

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Dover

  7

  7

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Glen Parva

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Guys Marsh

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Onley

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rochester

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many doubled door cells there are in Her Majesty's prisons; and how many times double door cells were used in each of the years from 1986 to 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In England and Wales the current prison design standards provide that a special cell for the temporary confinement of a refractory or violent inmate, or a protective room in a prison hospital for the temporary confinement of an inmate who is disturbed or is otherwise a danger to himself or herself or to others, should have inner and outer doors. Not all special cells and protective rooms at present designated as such are so equipped. Reliable information about the total number of special cells and protective rooms is not available centrally. The readily available information about the total number of occasions on which special cells and protective rooms designated as such have been used is as follows:

  Year

  Special cells

  Protective rooms

  1986

  1,662

  n.a.

  1987

  1,491

  507

  1988

  1,453

  623

  1989

  1,739

  593

  n.a.—not available.

  Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ex-gratia payments were made to prisoners who claimed to have been attacked in jail by prison officers in each year for 1986 to 1990; in which prison the incidents occurred; how many prison officers were disciplined; and on what grounds it was decided not to discipline prison officers in these cases.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Central records are kept only of allegations made by prisoners of assault by staff when these result in civil litigation. Of the 20 such claims received during this period, six have been concluded, and in one case compensation has been paid. This was for a negotiated settlement relating to an alleged assault which was fully investigated and on which it was decided that no disciplinary action would be taken. The settlement was accepted by the plaintiff without any admission of liability on the part of the Department or individual members of staff.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is spent by electoral registration officers in each of the London boroughs on 276
  compiling the electoral register and keeping it up to date; and if he will give comparable figures for Birmingham, Cornwall, Kent and Lancashire.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Security Service
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Security Service Commissioner's annual report for the year ended December 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  As soon as is practicable.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints against the Security Service were received, and how many actually investigated by the Security Service Tribunal in the 12 months ending December 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Security Service Tribunal operates independently under the provisions of the Security Service Act 1989. I do not propose to make available details of its work. It will be for the Security Service Commissioner to decide in consultation with the tribunal what information might be included about the tribunal in his annual report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Traffic Wardens, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to devolve recruitment and control of traffic wardens to individual London boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to devolve the recruitment and control of traffic wardens to the London boroughs. Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Bill, the London boroughs will be able to recruit their own parking attendants to undertake the enforcement of certain breaches of parking controls.

  Charities
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the income of charities for the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally, but statistics compiled by the Charities Aid Foundation suggest that the current annual turnover of the whole charitable sector in England and Wales is in the region of £15 billion.

  Crime, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of crime in north Yorkshire; and what it was at the same time in 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  North Yorkshire police recorded a total of 44,590 offences during 1990, compared with 35,774 in 1989. The number of offences detected in 1990 was 17,726 compared with 12,092 in 1989. These are the most recent figures on which a comparison can be made.

  Mr. Joseph Barker
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the treatment of Joseph Arthur Lewis Barker, prisoner CJ0124 in Her Majesty's prison, Liverpool stating why he has been moved to the hospital prison, what injuries he has and what treatment he is being given.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  For reasons of medical confidentiality it is not our practice to disclose publicly information about the medical condition or treatment of individual prisoners.

  I shall be writing to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to release prisoner CJ0124, Joseph Arthur Lewis Barker from prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mr. Barker's earliest date of release from prison is 16 February 1993. He will be eligible to be considered for parole from 19 October 1991.

SCOTLAND

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1 to 7) and overall in the Scottish Office are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Lang
  The number and percentage of women officers in grades 1 to 7 and overall in the Scottish Office and associated Departments at 1 April 1990 are shown in the table:

  Grade (and equivalents)

  Women

  Percentage

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  2

  6·5

  4

  —

  —

  5

  17

  11·3

  6

  36

  16·2

  7

  64

  13·2

  Overall

  2,967

  39·6

  None of the staff in grades 1 to 7 at 1 April 1990 described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Office last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department conducted a voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff in 1987, a reminder 278
  exercise in 1989, and thereafter all new entrants have been invited to complete questionnaires. I have no plans to conduct a further survey.

  We achieved an 87 per cent. response from the exercise, and 0·3 per cent. of staff have described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department does not conduct recruitment for top grades.

  Recycling
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce a scheme for local authorities in Scotland comparable to that announced by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 2 January.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no plans to introduce in Scotland a system of supplementary credit approvals for local authority investment in recycling projects. The arrangements for handling recycling investment through local authority capital expenditure allocations are given in my reply of 24 January 1991 to my honourable Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), at columns 306–7.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employment training places in Scotland in 1990–91 were taken up by trainees in the categories of (i) all 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for at least six months and (ii) those between 18 and 50 years unemployed for two years or more.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Precise information about numbers of trainees is not available in the form requested. Information about people who take up employment training places is obtained from returns submitted by training managers and is incomplete. However, from these returns it is estimated that, in Scotland, from 1 April 1990 to 4 January 1991, 14·7 per cent. of all starts were aged 18 to 24 years and unemployed for at least six months and 24·4 per cent. were aged between 18 and 50 years and unemployed for two years or more.

  Forestry Commission
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all land which was owned by the Forestry Commission and has been sold, for which local authorities have been able to enter into an access agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The arrangements for access agreements which my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, announced on 21 November 1990,Official Report, columns 164–66, have not yet been introduced.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a list of all land currently owned by the Forestry Commission on a county by county basis, giving the area of the land and stating the type of woodland or other type of countryside.
  279
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission is organised administratively into seven conservancies and 57 forest districts; information cannot therefore be given by counties except at disproportionate cost. A summary of the land currently managed by the Forestry Commission is given by forest districts in tables 15, 16 and 17 of appendix XI to the commission's 1989–90 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much of the 1991–92 revenue allocation to Lothian health board is allotted to(a) hospital services, (b) community units, (c) special projects, (d) general practitioners and (e) projected efficiency savings in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms;

  (2) if he will list the special projects funded by the 1991–92 Lothian health board revenue allocation and the money allotted to each of them from the allocation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board has been allocated £346·505 million for hospital and community health revenue expenditure for 1991–92. Within this total, specific sums of £7·706 million—2·2 per cent.—and £2·124 million—0.6 per cent.-were made available for AIDS-related services and Project 2000 respectively and a general allocation of £2·457 million—0·7 per cent.—was given for other services such as drug misuse and breast cancer screening. The board will set its own priorities in regard to expenditure on hospital services and community units. The board has been asked to find an additional 1 per cent. of its HCH revenue allocation, or £3·465 million, from cash releasing efficiency saving which will be available to improve patient care.

  In addition to the hospital and community health allocation, Lothian was allocated £5·923 million for general practice team staff and £2·3 million for general practice premises.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was allotted to general practitioners from the 1989–90 revenue allocation to Lothian health board; and what was Lothian health board's revenue expenditure on general practitioners in that year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1989–90, funds for general medical services were not cash limited and therefore no specific allocations were made to health boards. In that year, expenditure by Lothian health board on general medical services was £27·748 million.

  Nurses
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses are registered with the bank nursing scheme in each of the health board regions(a) at each grade and (b) in total.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mortgage repossession orders have been made in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the last five years, and for each of the last 12 months.
  280
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: This information is not available.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of revenue support grant allocated to each Scottish district council on a per capita basis; if he will explain the formulae applied in calculation of these grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The figures are set out in the table.

  A full explanation of the methodology applied in determining the revenue support grant for all authorities, including district councils, for 1991–92 is set out in the report on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before the House of Commons on 30 January and approved on 13 February.

  The principles used in distributing RSG are agreed between the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance.

  RSG forms only part of aggregate external finance, the other components of which are specific grants and non-domestic rate income. Meaningful comparison between districts is only possible in terms of AEF as a whole.

  Revenue Support Grant 1991–92 per head of population

  District Councils

  £

  Berwickshire

  56·83

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  48·42

  Roxburgh

  61·42

  Tweeddale

  58·81

  Clackmannan

  45·98

  Falkirk

  26·51

  Stirling

  30·88

  Annandale and Eskdale

  40·09

  Nithsdale

  37·54

  Stewartry

  47·79

  Wigtown

  64·38

  Dunfermline

  23·31

  Kirkcaldy

  22·43

  North East Fife

  57·08

  Aberdeen City

  38·84

  Banff and Buchan

  35·89

  Gordon

  61·39

  Kincardine and Deeside

  53·21

  Moray

  48·63

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  44·85

  Caithness

  54·41

  Inverness

  27·18

  Lochaber

  50·29

  Nairn

  60·06

  Ross and Cromarty

  69·10

  Skye and Lochalsh

  116·48

  Sutherland

  91·20

  East Lothian

  36·50

  Edinburgh City

  52·68

  Midlothian

  56·68

  West Lothian

  46·40

  Argyll and Bute

  93·85

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  63·63

  Clydebank

  82·24

  Clydesdale

  61·82

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  37·50

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  64·01

  Cunninghame

  16·32

  Dumbarton

  33·83

  East Kilbride

  21·34

  Eastwood

  55·87

  Glasgow City

  73·37

  Hamilton

  53·29

  Inverclyde

  72·33

  281

  District Councils

  £

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  46·11

  Kyle and Carrick

  39·51

  Monklands

  78·13

  Motherwell

  59·49

  Renfrew

  53·07

  Strathkelvin

  69·66

  Angus

  52·31

  Dundee City

  65·69

  Perth and Kinross

  50·24

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department is doing to improve the publicity for family credit.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1989 a series of advertising campaigns and other publicity has led to a high level of awareness of family credit. But there is a high turnover of families within the eligible population, as people move into and out of eligibility as their family circumstances change. It is necessary therefore to ensure that those who become newly eligible are aware of the benefit and that they may qualify.

  So that all families with children are made aware of family credit and are able to see whether they might be entitled, a personalised message about family credit now appears in child benefit order books, and on the appropriate award notices where child benefit is paid direct into a bank or building society. This tells the family that they may be able to get family credit if their income is less than the figure quoted in the message, which is individual to that family. A new advertising campaign, using television commercials to draw attention to the message in child benefit order books, began on 11 February. A poster has also been produced for display in post offices.

  Other publicity measures which have been undertaken recently include a mailing, last August, of specially prepared material to some 80,000 advisers, including citizens advice bureaux, ministers of religion and others, and the inclusion of a leaflet about family credit in "Bounty Bags" which mothers of new-born babies receive in hospital.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply of 25 February,Official Report, column 402, regarding cold weather payments, if he will inform the hon. Member for Oldham, West when the information is placed in the Library.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes, I will inform the hon. Member when information for February is placed in the Library. However, a full and accurate picture of cold weather payments claims and expenditure will not emerge until later because claims can be made up to three months after the period of cold weather.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 265, whether immediate payments of cold weather claims can be approved on the telephone by local offices without personal attendance or written application by the claimant.
  282
  Mr. Scott
  No. Claims for social fund cold weather payments, in common with other social security benefits, must be made in writing. A telephone call can alert the office to the likelihood of a claim, but payment will depend on written confirmation made either in person or through the post.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most up-to-date estimate of the numbers of(a) applicants and (b) recipients of the special cold weather payments for the first two weeks of February.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates of cold weather payment claims and payments for the first two weeks of February could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. When details of actual claims and payments become available, they will be placed in the Library.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total numbers of those in receipt of(a) supplementary benefit and (b) income support aged (i) 16 years, (ii) 17 years and (iii) 18 years in each year between 1978 and 1980 in Wales.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested for supplementary benefit is in the table. Income support was introduced in April 1988.

  Supplementary benefit recipients in Wales

  1978

  1979

  1980

  Aged 16

  4,000

  4,000

  5,000

  Aged 17

  4,000

  3,000

  5,000

  Aged 18

  3,000

  3,000

  5,000

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries 1978–80.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he took of the increase in the number of residents of residential and nursing homes claiming housing benefit in deciding to reduce the scope of the entitlement of such residents to housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on 29 October 1990 at columns 368–70.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the lifting of Crown immunity from Government Departments in respect of the 3 per cent. quota of jobs for disabled people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have always aimed to meet the quota of 3 per cent.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to uprate social security benefits to take account of the increases in water charges that will be implemented as a consequence of the Water Act 1989.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income-related benefits are considered for uprating each year and we seek to take account of all relevant factors.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for the adoption by benefit offices in the Isle of Wight and Somerset of differing policies in relation to the payment of income support to residents transferred from local authority care to independent homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for income support is defined by regulations and is available in respect of fees, up to certain limits, to residents of registered residential care homes and in certain other types of homes. Adjudication officers receive guidance on their interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer in the adjudication officers' guide, a copy of which is available in the Library. It is for individual adjudication officers to make decisions in any given case.

  Disablement Allowances
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the last three years the number and percentage of people awarded mobility allowance whose terms of award was insufficient for them to take advantage of the motability scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  People whose awards of mobility allowance are for two years or less are not eligible for any of the motability schemes. The precise information requested is not available, but the numbers of such people receiving mobility allowance on specified dates are in the table.

  Awards of two years or less

  Total live load

  Percentage

  On 30 December 1988

  46,101

  555,975

  8·3

  On 28 December 1989

  50,774

  599,268

  8·5

  On 27 December 1990

  51,013

  640,658

  8·0

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the statutory instruments which will be superseded by regulations made under the disability living allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill.

  Mr. Scott
  A number of sets of regulations will be made under the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill. The introduction of disability living allowance will, for example, require amendments to be made to all the regulations relating to attendance allowance and mobility allowance and to a range of other sets of regulations covering general matters such as claims and payments and the inter-relationship between benefits. Work is continuing on the drafting of the regulations and it is not yet clear how many sets of regulations will need to be amended.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of administering single payments for each year of the scheme from 1980 to 1988 expressed(a) in money terms, (b) as a proportion of the total value of single payment expenditure that year and (c) at 1991 prices.
  284
  Mr. Scott
  Single payments were part of the supplementary benefit scheme and administration costs were not separately identified.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the research commissioned by his Department on severe hardship payments for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Jack
  We expect to publish the research on such payments in the near future.

  Pension Book
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the layout and terminology of the current pension book to make it more user-friendly.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A number of options for a redesigned benefit order book are currently under consideration.

  Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional benefits are due to a pensioner couple in receipt of £83·25 state pension, £27·80 attendance allowance and occupational pension of £25·80.

  Mr. Jack
  The extent to which this pensioner couple might be eligible for additional benefits would depend on a range of factors, including the amount of any other income or capital they possess, the size of their family and household composition, their housing costs, if any, and the amount of community charge payable.

  Transitional Additions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of transitional additions for each category for which such additions are payable at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Shortly after the 1990 uprating, the number of people in each category who were in receipt of income support transitional additions were as follows:

  Number

  Pensioners

  42,000

  Long-term sick and disabled

  8,000

  Families with children

  7,000

  Others

  52,000

  Social Fund
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the independent research commissioned from the social security research unit of the University of York to examine whether the social fund is meeting its objectives will be available for publication in either completed or interim form prior to the establishment of the benefits agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The research into the operation of the social fund by the social policy research unit is not expected to be completed until the end of December 1991.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures exist for his Department to
  285
  monitor the local priority categories used for allocating grants from the social fund and changes which take place in those priorities.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no centrally imposed procedures for monitoring local priority categories, or changes which take place in those priorities.

  This function is the responsibility of the relevant local manager who, as the appointed area social fund officer and budget holder, is required to issue guidance on matters specified by the Secretary of State. That guidance must take account of local factors in specifying priority needs for grants and loans and the levels of priority which may be met from the expenditure allocation for the local social fund officers for the relevant period. The area social fund officer is also required to monitor and review at least monthly the planned level of expenditure and the priority needs and levels for his locality and to revise them as

  Claimants in receipt of unemployment benefit, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit/income support and supplementary benefit/income support only 1987 to 1990 (Figures are for November each year).

  Unemployment benefit

  Benefit Unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit/income support

  Supplementary benefit/income support only

  Table 1(a)

  1987

  Great Britain

  548,772

  126,609

  1,407,222

  South East

  124,000

  28,804

  335,009

  East Anglia

  15,185

  3,700

  30,160

  South West

  39,757

  9,127

  76,010

  West Midlands

  51,953

  12,215

  164,632

  East Midlands

  38,478

  7,938

  80,837

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  56,558

  13,633

  141,867

  North West

  70,279

  17,698

  218,740

  Northern

  45,124

  10,819

  105,359

  Wales

  31,312

  8,002

  77,895

  Scotland

  76,126

  14,673

  176,713

  Table 1(b)

  1988

  Great Britain

  384,769

  114,902

  1,065,930

  London East

  27,040

  9,406

  102,854

  London South

  27,301

  8,831

  93,460

  London West

  22,224

  5,548

  46,168

  South West

  27,696

  6,893

  54,087

  West Midlands

  34,987

  10,334

  117,850

  East Midlands

  35,853

  9,180

  79,457

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  42,300

  12,135

  108,953

  North West

  56,629

  17,849

  180,284

  Northern

  31,268

  9,661

  77,918

  Wales

  24,547

  7,988

  59,346

  Scotland

  54,924

  17,077

  145,553

  Table 1(c)

  1989

  Great Britain

  210,325

  78,457

  918,924

  London East

  15,974

  6,832

  83,952

  London South

  16,074

  6,624

  77,078

  London West

  12,882

  4,346

  36,771

  South West

  14,294

  4,875

  45,814

  West Midlands

  18,465

  6,801

  95,783

  East Midlands

  20,722

  6,997

  67,333

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23,018

  8,225

  97,727

  North West

  30,389

  11,485

  158,546

  Northern

  15,771

  5,879

  71,903

  Wales

  12,512

  5,017

  50,383

  Scotland

  30,224

  11,376

  133,634

  286
  necessary. It follows that this guidance can vary from one local area to another, thus ensuring that the highest priority needs in a community are met.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the past four years the total cost and number of unemployed claiming(a) unemployment benefit, (b) unemployment benefit and income support and (c) income support for Great Britain and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of unemployed receiving benefits in November of each year are set out in tables 1(a) to 1(d). Total benefit expenditure for Great Britain on income support, unemployment benefit, rate rebates and community charge benefits paid to unemployed people is shown in table 2.
  287

  Unemployment benefit

  Benefit Unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit/income support

  Supplementary benefit/income support only

  Table 1(d)

  1990

  Great Britain

  282,726

  60,225

  969,315

  London and South East

  71,674

  16,017

  232,998

  South West

  20,491

  4,453

  56,875

  West Midlands

  25,420

  5,953

  97,022

  East Midlands

  28,096

  6,336

  77,672

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29,725

  6,441

  99,043

  North West

  38,514

  7,728

  157,971

  Northern

  19,273

  4,069

  70,649

  Wales

  15,348

  3,694

  53,243

  Scotland

  34,185

  5,534

  123,842

  Note: Standard region changed in 1988 and 1990.

  Table 2

  Expenditure on unemployed people 1986–87 to 1989–90

  £ million

  1986–87

  7,310

  1987–88

  6,650

  1988–89

  5,240

  1989–90

  4,280

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the research by the social policy research unit into the operation of housing benefit review procedures.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have today placed a copy of the report in the Library. We shall be studying the research findings with care and considering whether there is a need to make changes to the current arrangements.

  The report will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and is expected to be available:in the early summer.

EMPLOYMENT

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in manufacturing in each of the last twelve months.

  Mr. Jackson
  Changes in the number of employees in manufacturing industries are supplied in the table.

  Employees in employment in manufacturing industries Great Britain Seasonally adjusted

  1990

  Net monthly change (Thousands)

  January

  4·1

  February

  -13·7

  March

  -13·0

  April

  -7·6

  May

  -6·0

  June

  11·0

  July

  2·3

  August

  -2·0

  September

  -22·9

  October

  -18·6

  November

  -15·6

  December

  -30·4

  Duty Workers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the number of detached duty workers recruited and the numbers now operating in the south-east and south-west of England dealing with unemployed people claiming benefit, (b) the standard regions from which the detached workers were recruited and (c) the total costs, including travel, overnight allowances and any other premium payments, for each quarter between 1 January 1988 and 31 January 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Employment Service
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by the employment service to deal with the increased numbers of unemployed people claiming benefit in the south-east and south-west regions of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for employment training in each of the years 1988–89 and 1989–90(a) the total outturn and planned expenditure in both cash and real terms and (b) the total number of places provided for Great Britain and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total outturn and planned expenditure on youth training in cash and constant prices for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is shown in table(a). Table (b) gives the total number of youth training (YTS) places provided for Great Britain and each of the standard regions in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  289

  Table (a)

  £ million

  Outturn

  Planned expenditure

  Cash prices

  Constant prices1

  Cash prices

  Constant prices2

  1988–89

  993

  1,056

  1,141

  1,214

  1989–90

  976

  976

  1,039

  1,039

  1 Cash figures adjusted to 1989–90 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation measured by the GDP deflator shown in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  2 Figures exclude community industry.

  Table (b)

  Training Places

  1988–90

  1989–90

  Great Britain

  391,950

  359,469

  South East

  40,008

  38,613

  London

  21,207

  20,660

  South West

  30,503

  28,043

  West Midlands

  43,609

  39,394

  East Midlands and Eastern

  46,633

  42,592

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  45,228

  41,151

  North West

  60,703

  53,412

  Northern

  30,484

  27,790

  Wales

  23,779

  22,665

  Scotland

  49,796

  45,149

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for youth training in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94(a) the total estimated planned expenditure and for 1990–91 the estimated outturn expenditure, in both cash and real terms, (b) the total estimated planned expenditure for credits included in the above and (c) the total estimated number of youth training places provided for Great Britain and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total estimated planned expenditure on youth training (YT) and training credits in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 in cash and constant prices is shown in the table. The estimated outturn expenditure for YT in 1990–91 is £833 million, which is equivalent to £771 million in constant prices1. Information on the number of places provided is not available.

  £ million

  Youth training

  Training credits

  Cash prices

  Constant prices1

  Cash prices

  Constant prices1

  1990–91

  2814

  754

  —

  —

  1991–92

  3844

  737

  115

  100

  1992–93

  842

  702

  120

  100

  1993–94

  831

  669

  118

  95

  1 Cash figures adjusted to 1989–90 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation measured by the GDP deflator shown in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  2 As shown in the 1991 spring supplementary estimate published in February 1991.

  3 Cash prices for 1991–92 onwards published in departmental report (Cm. 1501–1519).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for employment training in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94(a) the total estimated planned expenditure in both cash and real terms and (b) the total number of planned places, for Great Britain and each standard region; and what is the estimated outturn expenditure for 1990–91 employment training in 1990–91 for Great Britain and each standard region.
  290
  Mr. Jackson
  Total planned expenditure on employment training in cash and constant prices in 1990–91 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. Information on the total number of planned places is not available. Estimated outturn expenditure in Great Britain for employment training in 1990–91 is £1,062 million. Regional expenditure forecasts are for internal management purposes only.

  £ million

  Cash

  Constant

  1990–91

  1,074

  995

  1991–91

  877

  766

  1992–93

  792

  661

  1993–94

  881

  654

  Notes:

  (1) Cash figures for 1991–92 to 1993–94 are taken from the departmental report (Cm. 1501 to 1519) and adjusted to take account of recent additions to planned expenditure in 1991–92.

  (2) Cash figure for 1990–91 is the spring supplementary estimate published in February 1991.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for youth training in each of the years 1988–89 and 1989–90(a) the total outturn and planned expenditure in both cash and real terms and (b) the total number of places provided for Great Britain and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following table(a) shows the total outturn and planned expenditure on employment training in both cash and constant prices in 1988–89 and 1989–90. Table (b) shows the average number of filled places provided for Great Britain and each region in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Table (a)

  Outturn

  Planned Expenditure

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  1988–89

  2425

  2452

  494

  526

  1989–90

  1,107

  1,107

  1,210

  1,210

  1 Cash prices adjusted to 1989–90 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the gross domestic product deflator shown in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  2 These figures do not include wages for those who continued on community programme terms and conditions. ET was launched in September 1988, therefore these figures are only for six months of operation.

  Table (b)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  South East

  7,200

  13,800

  London

  10,900

  20,100

  South West

  7,000

  11,900

  West Midlands

  12,700

  22,800

  East Midlands and Eastern

  9,100

  16,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16,500

  25,100

  North West

  15,900

  28,500

  Northern

  12,200

  23,600

  Wales

  7,800

  15,800

  Scotland

  12,100

  24,800

  Great Britain1

  111,400

  203,200

  1 Great Britain total includes a small number of trainees at residential training colleges and large contractors not included in regional figures.

  Rochdale TEC
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the directors of Rochdale training and enterprise council and (b) any resignations which have taken place since the board was established.

  Mr. Jackson
  An up-to-date list of TEC directors including those of Rochdale TEC is held in the House of Commons Library. Resignations are a matter for the TEC.

DEFENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The last such survey was conducted in 1988. A further survey is being conducted at the moment.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1 to 7) and overall in the Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information on ethnic minorities is based on a voluntary survey conducted since 1988 to which not all staff responded. The figures as at January 1991 are as follows:

  Women

  Ethnic minorities

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  Grade 1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Grade 2

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Grade 3

  1

  1·6

  0

  —

  Grade 4

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Grade 5

  8

  2·5

  0

  —

  Grade 6

  10

  1·2

  4

  0·5

  Grade 7

  85

  2·9

  18

  0·6

  Overall

  40,202

  28·7

  1,847

  1·3

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Ministry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Recruitment at grade 7 level is undertaken by the Civil Service Commission on behalf of the MOD. Entry to grades above grade 7 is normally through internal promotion procedures.

  Table A

  Regiment/Corps

  Recruiting area

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)

  Scotland

  Queens Royal Irish Hussars

  Northern Ireland, Surrey, Sussex, London

  14th/20th Kings Hussars

  Lancashire (including Greater Manchester), Isle of Man

  16th/5th The Queens Royal Lancers

  Staffordshire

  Queens Dragoon Guards

  Wales, Shropshire, Herefordshire

  2 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Greater Manchester

  12 Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Cumbria, Lancashire

  26 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Surrey, Sussex

  32 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Cheshire, Isle of Man, Merseyside

  39 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  West Midlands, Shropshire, Hereford and Worcestershire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire

  40 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Ayrshire

  Challenger II Tank
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answers of 19 February,Official Report, columns 137–38, when he now expects to make a decision on the Challenger II tank contract bid.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I hope that a decision on the equipment for our future main battle tank fleet will not have to be delayed too long.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has reached about the future size of the Territorial Army; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 20 February 1991 at column 192.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf support groups are known to his Department; and what advice and back-up support has been given to them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We know of 70 support groups. The Gulf amenities desk telephone line, which is open 24 hours a day, is available to provide information and advice.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which areas of the country from which men and women now serving in the Gulf have been recruited there is no Gulf support group.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on areas of the country from which personnel now serving in the Gulf have been recruited is not held centrally, and we are not necessarily aware of all the Gulf support groups operating in the United Kingdom. The question could not, therefore, be answered without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the regiments serving in the Gulf and, in each case, indicate from which area of the country the majority of the men and women have been recruited.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal recruiting areas of the British Army regiments and corps serving in the Gulf are listed in table A. Regiments and corps which draw their recruits from across the country are listed in table B.
  293

  Regiment/Corps

  Recruiting area

  1 Armoured Division Signal Regiment

  Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside

  30 Signal Regiment

  Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Avon, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall

  2 Squadron 14 Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare)

  Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Avon, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall

  1st Battalion Scots Guards

  Scotland, Cumbria, Durham, Lancashire, Isle of Man

  1st Battalion Royal Scots

  Edinburgh, Lothian, Peebles

  3rd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  Northumberland, Lancashire, Birmingham, London, Warwickshire

  1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Ayr, Glasgow

  1st Battalion Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  Dumfries, Galloway, Borders

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment

  Staffordshire and Birmingham

  1st Battalion Queens Own Highlanders

  Scottish Highlands

  28 Ambulance Squadron Gurkha Transport Regiment

  Nepal

  205 General Hospital (Volunteer)

  Glasgow

  Table B

  Regiments and corps which recruit nationwide

  Army Air Corps

  Corps of Royal Engineers

  Coldstream Guards

  Royal Army Ordnance Corps

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Royal Corps of Transport

  Royal Pioneer Corps

  Royal Military Police

  Womens Royal Army Corps

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to arrange for the clean up of military detritus, toxic wastes and redundant equipment in Kuwait, southern Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia as a result of Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces are currently assisting in clearing hazards from the battlefield.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken to ensure the general welfare of the families of military personnel serving in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: In addition to the normal welfare facilities provided by each service for the support of families and dependants, special arrangements have been made to provide help and
  294
  support during Operation Granby, including the provision of a Gulf helpline service at military establishments, specialist counselling where needed, the issue of fact sheets and briefings to disseminate information and answer queries. Those who are remote from military establishments are kept in contact by regular telephone calls and information bulletins.

  Taylorplan Services Ltd.
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been awarded by his Department to Taylorplan Services Ltd.; what hourly rates of pay were advertised by the company for any contract awarded by his Department; what complaints he has received about pay rates offered by the company or its quality of work; and whether the company has any current contracts with his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A total of 20 Ministry of Defence contracts for catering and cleaning work have been awarded to Taylorplan Services Limited; 18 of these are still current.

  The rates of pay offered by contractors for employment on their service contracts with the Ministry are a matter for the companies themselves. We have received no complaints about Taylorplan, either in relation to their pay rates or their contract performance.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Census (Confidentiality) Act,

Standard Life Assurance Company Act.

Westminster Hospital Closure
3.7 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the bombing of Downing Street and Victoria Station, it is still their intention to close Westminster Hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very brief Answer. Is she aware that in a series of central London emergencies —namely, the poll tax riot, the Carlton Club bombing, the Downing Street mortar attack and the Victoria Station bombing—the accident and emergency unit of the Westminster Hospital, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is due to close very shortly, was heavily involved? That hospital is absolutely essential. Does the Minister accept that the distance and the crowded streets from the heart of London to Fulham will make that new hospital unable to cope with the demands made on it not only by those who live in central London, but by the working population and the tourists? Will she consider with her right honourable friend cancellation of the closure of this crucially important and greatly respected Westminster Hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships will join me in taking this opportunity to congratulate the staff at the Westminster, St. Thomas's and other hospitals which were involved in the incidents to which the noble Lord has referred. They responded splendidly to the emergencies. In those congratulations I include the London Ambulance Service. The Westminster Hospital will close in 1992 when the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital opens. However, there are several hospitals within reasonable distance of the City of Westminster that are specially designated to deal with major incidents. They include St. Thomas's, which is just across Westminster Bridge.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of noble Lords, of whom I was
1488
one, two years ago wrote to the then Secretary of State and to the then Prime Minister urging that this decision should be reversed for precisely the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals? Unfortunately, we wrote without effect. Is she further aware that the events of recent days described by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have merely increased my anxiety? Will the Minister accept that it is foolish to close a hospital which is so near to the centre of government and political life and to increase the distance which people subject to terrorist attacks may have to travel before they can get succour?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was not familiar with my noble friend's involvement in this matter. However, I am aware that all proper consultation and other procedures were gone through before the final decision was made about the opening of the new hospital and the closure of the existing Westminster Hospital. I reiterate that there are many excellent hospitals within reasonable distance of the City of Westminster, including Charing Cross Hospital, Guy's, St. Mary's, Hammersmith and the Middlesex Hospitals. The London Ambulance Service and the North West Thames and Riverside Health Authorities envisage no difficulties in responding to major incidents after the closure of the present Westminster Hospital.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, did the noble Baroness refer to Charing Cross Hospital? Does she think that it is still at Charing Cross? Is the Minister aware that that hospital is now out at Fulham? Is she further aware that patients are sent there, that it takes half an hour to get there by taxi and that the fare is £5?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware of the location not only of the present Charing Cross Hospital, but of others. I have a map which proves that. I reiterate that these hospitals are within reasonable distance of the City of Westminster. I did not reiterate then the hospital to which I referred previously; namely, St. Thomas's.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister say why she left out St. Thomas's Hospital? Is that hospital debarred from dealing with casualties from the centre of London?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. I have just made up for the fact that I did not refer a second time to St. Thomas's Hospital because I had referred to it in response to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that we in this House are very grateful that Westminster Hospital was still open at the time she was hit by flying masonry in Victoria Street and that she was able to get there very quickly? We hope that the hospital will continue in order to help all those who work in the Palace of Westminster.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very much reminded of that particular incident. My noble friend

1489
Lady Strange was very kind in personal terms on that occasion. I remind your Lordships that, as part of the plan for the new facilities, as well as the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital there will be a new health centre at Pimlico which will provide GP care, outpatients' clinics and a minor casualty service. Those facilities will take care of that problem, and they will also take care of the walking wounded from a major incident if it occurs close to the sites of the incidents to which reference has been made.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us who have benefited very greatly from the attentions of the staff of the Westminster Hospital have been much dismayed by this decision? Can she say whether all connection between the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding area and that hospital is to cease? If that is the case, then it is a serious matter. Can she say how far the nearest casualty station will be after Westminster Hospital has been removed from all contact with Westminster?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must repeat that St. Thomas's Hospital, with all its many excellent facilities, is just across the river —one minute further away from Victoria than the Westminster Hospital. The Pimlico health centre, which will be able to deal with minor casualties, is also very close.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, St. Thomas's Hospital is across the river. Few of us can swim that distance with ease. How much further is it by land than Westminster Hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it has always been recognised that few of us can swim. That is why there is a bridge.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assist the House by giving one good reason why Westminster Hospital should be closed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is room for a wide debate on the whole question of facilities which apply to London. One basic fact about London remains: it is extremely well provided for in terms of hospital services. In inner London there are still 50 per cent. more beds per resident than in outer London. Therefore a certain rationalisation was required. New facilities were required. The decision to centre those facilities at the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital was taken with all proper consultation, planning and other consents.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not for the benefit of the Houses of Parliament as a whole and London especially that we have a new and modern hospital rather than an old one? Is my noble friend not happy that the new arrangements will be an improvement rather than, as noble Lords opposite have been saying, a disimprovement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing a note of reason to these questions. The new facilities will be much admired.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is it not good practice to have critical care teams coming out from
1490
casualty departments to save life? Is that not more important than anything else? What will happen if the bridges are blocked because of, say, riots?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that argument could be raised in relation to access to any hospital. Our efforts are directed at dealing with casualties on the spot as much as possible. All the improvements being made to the London Ambulance Service are to that end.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is rather curious that it is the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who is always attacking the Government for closing hospitals in London? Who was the villain of the piece who started the movement to shift resources in the NHS from London into the country? It was none other than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, himself.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend asks a rhetorical question.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I was associated with the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, in the representations which he mentioned, together with other noble Lords who served as business managers in the other place. We did so on the basis of our experience of looking after the welfare and care of Members of both Houses and also of the problems posed by security. Even at this late stage I press the Minister to see whether some facilities cannot be kept on the present Westminster Hospital site.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that all the possible alternatives were gone into at the time the decision was made in 1988. Nevertheless, I shall of course draw these representations to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, according to the plan, as I understand it, the main relief hospital for Westminster Hospital is to be located in the Chelsea-Fulham area. If that is the case, is that not altogether too far to be called a reasonable distance away in the event of a major accident or something of that kind? Is it really too late to give the matter further consideration?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. In my response to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I indicated that several hospitals other than the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital will be within a reasonable distance of the City of Westminster.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is my Question. I have been attacked and I am entitled to reply. Does the Minister understand my disappointment that she did not dissociate herself from the point made by her noble friend Lord McColl in that the decision to close the Westminster Hospital had nothing whatsoever to do with the RAWP report which I implemented 12 years ago? Does she accept that the consultation which she says was adequate led to almost total opposition to the proposal—from the Westminster City Council, from the health council and from the

1491
residents who submitted an enormous petition? Does she recognise that all those groups were totally opposed to the decision? In view of all the points of view presented in the House today, will she not at least discuss with her colleagues whether the decision makes sense?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as regards the remarks made by my noble friend, I believe that no specific allegation was made. He was referring to the wider policy which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The decision in question was made in 1988 and, so far as I am aware, the discussions are now closed. However, as I said, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the views which have been expressed today.

Motor Cyclists: Provisional Licences
3.20 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many provisional driving licences for motor cyclists are now extant, and how long is the average period of the provisional licence.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, at 2nd April 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there wore over 550,000 provisional licences containing motor cycle entitlement. The entitlement lasts for two years. In addition, about 31 million full licence holders have provisional motor cycle entitlement.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very informative Answer. The 31 million figure which he mentioned is new to me. It indicates, I imagine, that all normal driving licences carry a motor cycle licence with them. However, to turn to the figure of 550,000, is my noble friend aware of the vulnerability of these young teenage motor cyclists? The figure for injuries and accidents in respect of them is six times higher than that which applies to older motor cyclists. Is he satisfied that the machinery available is adequate to call up provisional licences when the two-year provisional period expires in order to ensure that, if the person concerned has not taken a test and received a full licence, they start again and take a proper off-street test?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I and the department are especially aware of the vulnerability of young motor cyclists. That is why, as my noble friend is aware, we have recently introduced the compulsory basic training as the first part of the two-part test. If a new provisional licence holder fails to pass his test within the two-year period, he is then off the road for a year and has to start the process all over again.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not, nevertheless, important to bear in mind that motor cycle accidents overall have now been on the decline for 10 years? In fact, the Government's target for the year 2000 of cutting motor cycle accidents by 40 per cent. is well on the way to achievement whereas the aim to cut motor car accidents by a third is sadly way off target.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe it is generally recognised that young motor cyclists are especially vulnerable. Although the figures have shown some signs of improvement, it is also true to say that the number of motor cyclists has decreased. Therefore, I do not think that we should draw too much comfort from the decline. I am sure that the new compulsory basic training arrangements will assist.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I must be an exception to the rule just mentioned having been knocked down by a motor cyclist during the past two years. Will the Government consider introducing more careful training for dispatch riders who tempt fate at all times, not only in relation to themselves but also in relation to other drivers and pedestrians?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: They are a menace!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the issue of dispatch riders arises every time we deal with motor cyclists in this House. I am not surprised; they are indeed a problem. However, I would not go so far as to say, as the noble Lord just said, that they are a menace. They are subject to the same rules which apply to every other motorist or motor cyclist. I hope that those rules are rigorously enforced.

Merger Referrals: Criteria
3.25 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have changed the criteria for referring proposed mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government's main criterion for referring proposed mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission remains their effect on competition as it affects the UK consumer. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he will pay particular attention to the degree of state control, if any, of acquiring companies.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord says, is there not now some degree of confusion about the criterion for reference of proposed mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Further, is it not a fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, against the advice of the OFT, recently referred to the MMC a case in which one of the parties was a French state-owned bank and that the commission subsequently found that there was no justification for blocking the proposed deal?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any confusion. The reality is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State considered it relevant to include the criterion of a nationalised company which would not be subject to the same strictures as a private company. That has a direct relevance to the level of competition and the level of comparability.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the public interest criterion is confusing and out of date? Does he also accept that a

1493
pure competition criterion would benefit the application of competition policy if it was only the consumer interest and not the public interest which was concerned? I believe that that improvement would be welcomed by the commission.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that my right honourable friend will not agree with the remarks of my noble friend. However, I shall certainly draw her remarks to his attention for consideration.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the Minister think that the interests of communities affected by mergers should be given more weight when these matters are considered?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the requirements of the MMC refer to the consumer. Of course, there is other legislation. There are also other considerations in various areas which are no doubt covered by other departments. However, I suspect that it would be very difficult to have one piece of legislation which would cover all the aspects to which the noble Lord refers under one simple umbrella.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that large mergers above a certain threshold are dealt with in Brussels under what is inelegantly known as Euro-merger control? Further, is not the criterion for that simply one of competition as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes? The criterion of whether there is any public control does not operate in Brussels. Therefore, is it not true that a small merger can be blocked because there is an element of public control; but that a large merger cannot be blocked because there is an element of public control? In other words, a nationalised company can take over ICI but no nationalised company can take over a division of ICI?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in his eloquent description of the European body. However, if he were to table a Question on comparability, I should be more than happy to answer it. I suggest to the noble Lord that there are cases where there could be such flagrant infusions of capital that would be relevant with regard to a nationalised company as against a private company within a takeover under European control.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would that be possible as regards the competition criterion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I suggest that it would be possible to have infusions of capital within a nationalised company which would so distort the market that it would come within the criterion described by the noble Lord.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important that there should be the simplest possible criterion and opportunities for companies to have informal discussions so as to reduce the amount of wasted expenditure caused by long inquiries and thereby avoid all the problems involved in the process?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that I am correct in saying that it is the duty of government to try to enforce simplicity at all times.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was accepted by my noble friend Lord Cockfield many years ago that the relevant definition of "public interest" was then ripe for review? Is he aware that that fact was also expressly accepted some years later by my noble friend Lord Young?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Northern Development Company
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to assist the Northern Development Company in its business plan for 1991–92.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that after careful consideration of their respective plans for 1991–92 my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs has today announced the levels of grant in aid awarded to each of the five regional development organisations for their inward investment activities. Out of a total of £4.5 million available for all the RDOs, the Northern Development Company has been offered £1.33 million, which represents a generous uplift of 13 per cent. over 1990–91.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that sounds promising, but it could have been better. Does the Minister agree that the Northern Development Company has an excellent record, and that one reason for its success is that when it was formed, and since, it had the full support of all the political parties, the private sector, the local authorities and the trade unions? It is a model of co-operation. Does he recall that the Northern region still has the highest unemployment rate outside Northern Ireland? Having regard to all those factors, does he accept that this is not a begging-bowl exercise? Every penny is needed to sustain and improve the Northern region and in so doing to improve things in the country as a whole.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the excellence to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, referred was one of the reasons my right honourable friend agreed to go way above the rate of inflation. On his second point with regard to unemployment in the North, I point out that nearly 97 per cent. of the working population in the North East is covered by assisted area status. That is the highest percentage of any region. Those are the areas which benefit from all DTI aid schemes.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the great difference now compared to

1495
previously is that many new businesses are setting up their head offices in the region as opposed to their branch factories, and that therefore when there is a downturn matters do not go so badly as they did 10 years ago? All the help given is being used to the best advantage.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all in your Lordships' House are well aware of all the shining examples of success. It is worth remembering that the United States is investing in the United Kingdom 60 per cent. of every dollar it spends in Europe in anticipation of 1992. Japan is spending some 40 per cent. of its inward investment in Europe. One has only to drive along the motorway past Washington New Town to see the material evidence of that investment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, to which he did not reply; that many firms are setting up in the North East with their own headquarters, and that the control is therefore in the North East rather than in Japan or the United States? Is it not further the case that as much effort as possible should be expended on the North East because of the high quality and skill of the workforce there and the excellent industrial relations that have prevailed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of that fact. I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I referred to the Nissan plant at Washington in response to my noble friend's question. I am sure that noble Lords are also well aware of the Vickers' plant on Tyneside which made a notable contribution to the support of our forces in the recent Gulf endeavours.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Revised Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1991, and four Scottish Rateable Values Orders will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday 28th March and return on Monday 15th April. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 28th March.

Sunday Entertainments (Video Supply) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to permit the supply of video recordings on Sunday. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
1496
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Education Reform Act 1988 in order to make special provision for the teaching of swimming in maintained schools. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Norrie.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to he printed.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the Child Support Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 5,

Clause 22,

Clauses 6 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 21,

Clauses 23 to 43,

Schedule 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
3.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introduction of disability living allowance:]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("a community care supplement").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to manuscript Amendment No. 22A and Amendment No. 23. I apologise for the manuscript amendment which is necessary to understand Amendment No. 23 which refers back to it and which was inadvertently omitted. The manuscript amendment reads:

1497
", to any one of which may be added a community care supplement payable out of the National Insurance Fund".
The purpose of the amendment is to continue the independent living fund by statute in place of the Government's proposal to abolish it by 1993 and thereafter instead to rely upon local authorities. The amendments are concerned solely with severely disabled people who wish to avoid institutionalisation. I use that monstrous 20-letter word to describe the distaste which we all feel for putting back into institutions, or into institutions for the first time, people who would otherwise live viable lives in the community. It relates to about 7,000 badly disabled people only.
I should like to give as an example not those who are in the House today who are badly disabled—it is a significant indicator of the importance of the amendment that they are here—but our late, and beloved, friend Lady Lane-Fox, who wryly described herself as exhibit number one. She was content in her lifetime to be so described and I am sure that she would be happy if I were to so describe her today. Had that valuable person, Felicity Lane-Fox, been institutionalised what a cruel waste of a vital spark it would have been. She animated our debates and did so much for her disabled fellow people. If the Committee remembers her, it will understand what we have in mind.
The purpose of the amendment was originally the subject of an amendment tabled in the House in 1986 and moved into the Bill by a considerable majority. It was not accepted in the House of Commons, and a substitute amendment was put in its place.
Subsequently, in 1988 I believe, this fund was set up. It is generally agreed by those interested in the 1986 amendment and by all the disability organisations that Mr. Nicholas Scott did a marvellous job in priming the fund, obtaining Treasury approval for it. The fund has since worked extremely well; starting as quite a small fund of about £5 million and now flourishing at about £65 million. It is devoted to making viable the lives of disabled people as severely disabled as Lady Lane-Fox.
The fund is remarkable because it is largely administered by disabled people in conjunction with the Ministry. DIG—the Disablement Income Group—and its Scottish equivalent are closely associated with the disbursement of the moneys of the fund. It is tailored to fit the needs of 7,000 people and there is an average disbursement of £70 or £80 a week. The minimum can be as low as a few pounds and increase to as much as £400 per week. I doubt whether we could get a more intimate association between those who distribute the fund and those who are the beneficiaries than we have with the present organisers of the independent living fund.
Against that background, one needs to consider the Government's proposal to disband the fund in 1993 and instead to hand over the distribution of the money to local authorities. Very few people in this Chamber would have sufficient confidence in the local authorities to be able to handle the money as intimately as the present administrators of the fund.
1498
Indeed, it may well be that the money allocated to local authorities for this purpose could get lost in the wash and never reach the 7,000 people. I do not wish to tar local authorities across the board with that brush because I am absolutely convinced that a number would carry it out conscientiously and well, but I am not at all convinced that the majority of local authorities would have anything like the sensitivity to administer the fund as it is now administered. That is its history.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government propose to get rid of their creature—their brainchild dreamed up by Mr. Nicholas Scott—and disperse its activities across the board to local authorities. Of course, it would be tidier and fit in with the rest of the Government's proposals. But I do not believe that it is just a Treasury objection. If the Government mean what they say, they will spend just as much money after 1993 on the 7,000 severely disabled people as they do now. It cannot be a matter of greater expenditure. Thus, I am puzzled as to the real reasons and I wait to hear them from the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
Most people in this Chamber need few words more from me to persuade them of the merits of the amendment, but I conclude by quoting the words of Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People when he spoke on Report in the House of Commons on 7th February:
"I take a personal interest, and some satisfaction in the way in which the [independent living fund] has developed and expanded … not least because it has identified a real need in the community and gives disabled people the chance to exercise control over the provision made for them. It ensures that they are not simply told that somebody can come at a particular time of day that suits the timetable of the social security department".
That is the nub.
"Instead, choice can be exercised about the nature and extent of the care that they are given".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/91; col. 440.]
The Minister responsible for disabled people himself puts the case for the amendments in a nutshell. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I am delighted to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 23. Members of the Committee will have noticed from the names on them that these are all-party amendments, on which I believe there is all-party agreement. The noble Lord has put the case admirably and I have no wish to prolong the discussion on a matter on which I believe we have already won the argument.
To go back over the history to which the noble Lord referred, many of us were absolutely delighted when the independent living fund came into existence. We heard its announcement and I well remember attending a meeting of the All-Party Disablement Group, at which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was present, as was Lady Lane-Fox. We all listened, fascinated and immensely encouraged, when we heard

1499
from those who would be responsible for the fund—Mr. Peter Large and others—on precisely what it would do.
We knew that the fund was there for five years; and at the time five years seemed a long time. Some of us thought that perhaps we might not still be here after five years and unhappily Lady Lane-Fox is not. However, at least we knew that many of the people dependent on the fund would still be here and their needs would have to be provided for. The noble Lord quoted from the remarks of the Minister responsible, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and perhaps I may do the same. On 11th December, Mr. Scott said:
"After 1993, the generality of [independent living fund] cases should go to local authorities".
As the noble Lord rightly said, were I one of the people dependent on the fund I would not have found that statement immensely reassuring, irrespective of the locality or the nature of the local authority in which I resided. It was not very reassuring. Mr. Scott continued:
"There will obviously be a need for some interim arrangement to deal with the existing load of the independent living fund … There will have to be some transitional provision and there may be some provision for new cases".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 11/12/90; col. 63.]
That is what we are trying to do and what the Minister seemed to want to do. When pressed later at Report stage on 7th February, he continued:
"we wish to look most closely at the proposed arrangements that will come into effect in 1993, the timetable for transfer of cases and any transitional arrangements necessary".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/91; col. 441.]
Transitional arrangements are bound to be necessary. We must make absolutely sure in this House that they are in place. Later, in a Written Answer, Mr. Scott said in reply to Mr. Allen:
"Our plans for the future of the independent living fund are still under consideration following the decision to phase the implementation of community care".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/91; col. 370.]
They arc still under consideration now, as the result of an all-party amendment ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to the amendment because it deals with a crucially important aspect of the provision of financial help for severely disabled people. The history of the fund is well known so there is no need to repeat it. It fills a real gap in the social security provisions for disabled people and is an excellent example of flexible and ring-fenced community care.
As previous speakers have said, there is considerable concern about the possibility of responsibilities which are now borne by the fund being shifted to local authorities in 1993. I ask the Committee to reflect on the practicalities. Both major parties are considering new structures for local government. There will be a replacement for the poll tax and rumours continue about the possibility of shifting responsibility for community care to health authorities in order to reduce the cost of local government finance. Does anyone really expect that, with this raft of policies to be implemented by local authorities, they will be able
1500
to take on the present responsibilities of the independent living fund? We know that community care funding for local authorities is now inadequate. What will happen to the funds if they are not ring-fenced? I believe that they will disappear into other areas of local authority expenditure. As has been said, they will literally go down holes in the road.
We should also remember that even now local authorities have not fully carried out all their duties and powers under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. They are even having to cut back on the parts of that Act that they have fulfilled in the light of the financial restrictions imposed by the poll tax. I ask again how we can be sure that local authorities will be willing and able to provide the essential domiciliary help which some people with disabilities need.
The Disablement Income Group has provided us with a number of examples of the inadequacy of local authority provision, with the temptation to move severely disabled people into residential care. The whole thrust of government policy is intended to avoid that situation. It has been said that in the whole country only six local authorities anywhere near provide the level of support and assistance which is now provided by the independent living fund. The ninth report of the Social Services Select Committee of another place entitled Community Care: Social Security for Disabled People states:
"We further believe that the Government should consider the establishment of the independent living fund as a statutory body".
The Government bear a heavy responsibility in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, the Government are to be congratulated on the setting up of the fund. It would be a tragedy if the work of the fund were effectively to disappear in 1993. This amendment gives the Committee the chance to protect the functions and the funding of the ILF. Unlike a number of amendments that were moved from this side of the Chamber on the social security legislation, this amendment will cost the Government not a penny more than they otherwise would have spent. The Government are already spending £62 million on the ILF. We are not asking the Government to spend any more, but we are attempting to protect that funding and, above all, to protect the 7,000 people who are benefiting from the operation of the fund at the moment.
Lord Swinfen: I am delighted that the amendment is also tabled in my name in support of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I am a firm believer in the independent living fund and the way in which it helps severely physically disabled people. The fund is an aspect of government funding that helps the Government's policy of moving severely disabled people out of long-stay wards in hospitals to allow other people to use those wards.
The organisation for which I work trains severely physically disabled people to live independently. I know of one individual who has now moved on with the help of the fund. She requires help nearly the whole time. If she were not helped by the fund, she

1501
would be in institutional care. What is more, that would mean that her husband would have to live with her in the institution because he is also disabled. He does not need as much help as his wife, but he is not able to help her.
Some years ago before the fund was even thought of, a disabled person was living in the Midlands who was paralysed from the neck down. He was determined not to go into institutional care. He was fortunate in that he had sufficient funds of his own to enable him to stay out of institutional care and to order his own life. The independent living fund helps severely physically disabled people to obtain the independence that the rest of us take for granted. We can pick up a book whenever we want. However, a number of disabled people cannot do so. If they need or wish to read an article, a magazine or a book, is it right that they should have to wait for someone to come along from the local authority at his convenience to do it for them? That person may tell the disabled person that he only has time to read a couple of paragraphs, rather than a whole chapter, on that occasion as he has other things to do. It is much better that local authorities should be able to fund someone to come along when disabled people need attention and to provide help in the way the disabled people wish.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I wish to express my wholehearted support for these amendments. I had a horrible feeling that I was watching a repeat performance of what happened from the end of the proceedings of the Social Security Act 1986 to the gestation and birth of the ILF when I heard the comments of the Minister responsible for the disabled on the subject of transitional funding and other matters. I should add that the birth of the ILF was almost an induced birth as it was an eleventh hour attempt to sort things out. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said at that time that five years seemed a long period. Perhaps 1993 still seems some time away. However, time is particularly short for disabled people who are trying to plan to come out into the community. That process can easily take two years and I have heard of someone who took four years to plan her entrance into the community. This situation is worrying for such people as they cannot plan ahead. It is also extremely worrying for those who are living in the community now as their future is uncertain.
Why get rid of something that is working well? Does the Minister agree with the comments that my noble friend Lord Henderson made as regards how well the Minister responsible for social services considers the ILF is working? What is the Minister's response to the report of the Social Services Select Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has already mentioned? Is the Minister aware that all the disability organisations are wholly opposed to the transfer of the ILF to local authorities?
I totally support the amendments on the grounds that they will meet the general feeling that the fund should be put on a statutory basis; that we should put an end to uncertainty for disabled people; and that we
1502
should continue to help severely disabled people to have control of their own lives, in the ways the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe I occasioned some surprise by being in my seat—or at least, having rocketed round the Chamber recently in one of my seats—on Second Reading but not speaking although my name was mentioned. My name was sometimes taken in vain, and, just occasionally, in praise when noble Lords referred to my previous utterances during the four years that I was responsible for various social security matters in the Chamber. I did not speak on Second Reading for a concrete reason. I was a Minister in the Department of Social Security when the principles of this Bill were being discussed. Therefore I did not feel it was right for me to speak on Second Reading. Second Reading after all should be concerned with the principles of a Bill.
I listened to most of the proceedings on Second Reading and I have read them very carefully. It is interesting to note the extent to which speakers tend to produce shopping lists on Second Reading and continue that practice throughout the course of a Bill. That was my experience in replying to many amendments in the past. Now that we have got beyond the stage of principles, I have absolutely no hesitation in chipping in. My remarks are based partly on my own memories of the various experiences that I have been through, and partly on the experiences themselves.
I do not know how many Members of the Committee were present in the Chamber the other day when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made an interesting remark. He said words to the effect that government money equals government interference. The whole history of social security is an example of that. The detailed rules and regulations with which the Government surround the real needs of claimants for various social security benefits are legion.
We are discussing whether the independent living fund should be a statutory body, or whether its benefits should be statutory benefits. I believe it would be folly to take such a step although I fully accept—I have always done so —that severely disabled people have exceptional needs which have to be catered for. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), made. It would be equally mistaken to pass the functions of the fund to the social services departments of local authorities. I believe it is generally agreed—after a slightly rocky start—that the independent living fund is an extremely good thing, to misquote 1066, And All That. When you have a good thing going for you, you do not change it. You leave it severely alone. That is what I recommend the Government do on this occasion.
4 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I should like to give very warm support to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I must at once declare an interest. I am chairman of the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have just come from a meeting of the national council of

1503
that body, which I chaired, at which I learned that in the course of 1990 459 people who are severely disabled by different forms of neuro-muscular disease were given grants from the Joseph Patrick Memorial Trust—a branch of the organisation—to enable them to maintain their life in the community. Those grants were towards the cost of equipment, modifications to their homes and other items which under law should have been provided either by the health authority or the total authority. Their grants from that trust eventually totalled some £310,000 last year because neither the local authorities nor the health authorities in the areas where they lived felt able, from the funds available to them, to support their needs to enable them to continue to live in the community.
The independent living fund has made an enormous contribution to the care and welfare of disabled people in our community. It has enabled many of those who would otherwise inevitably have been committed to institutional care to live happy and fruitful lives in the community. In my view it is crucial that that provision should continue.
The fund has made outstanding contributions to the care of many individuals. At a time when the Government are quite rightly promoting care in the community that type of flexible support for severely disabled people who have high care costs should and must remain. If the Government transfer the funding to local authorities, as is proposed in the Bill, I regret to say that, in the present rocky and parlous state of local authority finances, I share the anxieties expressed by many other Members of the Committee that that money may well disappear into the maw of local government finance and may not be used to help those most in need. I therefore support the amendment most warmly.
Lord Henley: The amendment provides me with the opportunity, which I readily take, to put on record the great pride which the Government attach to the achievements of the independent living fund. In particular, as many Members of the Committee mentioned, my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has taken a close personal interest in the founding of the fund and in its development and expansion over the past three years. I should like to thank those noble Lords who praised my right honourable friend for setting up the fund and getting it going.
I should also like to repeat some of the history of the fund. The Committee will recall that the fund was originally set up in 1988 with a budget of £5 million to provide help to those people who previously received a weekly additional requirement for domestic assistance in their supplementary benefit. Since 1988 the scope of the fund has been progressively widened to provide help with the costs of personal care. That widening, of scope has been a major factor in the growth of the fund. Now the fund helps over 7,000 people within a budget for 1990–91 of some £32 million, with another large increase agreed for next year.
Many Members of the Committee may already know that the trustees of the fund have announced
1504
that they have lifted the previous upper age limit for eligibility for help from the fund. That means that from 1st March this year help can be awarded to people over the age of 74. I am sure that everyone will welcome that further substantial improvement in the fund.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that the fund has been a success. We accept that, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State has accepted that. It has been a success not least because it has addressed a real need in the community in giving disabled people the opportunity to exercise control over their lives rather than having to submit to choices made on their behalf by experts. It allows individuals largely to choose the nature and extent of the care that they need in order to remain in their homes, following an in-depth discussion of their needs with trained social workers.
That move towards greater choice on the part of disabled people underlies all this Government's recent and proposed reforms in benefits for disabled people, including the two new benefits proposed in the Bill (which we shall discuss later) and the new administration and adjudication arrangements. However, for disabled people to make real choices in their lives they need information and advice about the options which are open to them and the costs and benefits of those choices. That information can come only from an individual assessment of the disabled person and his or her needs by a trained and experienced professional.
It is my understanding of the amendment that if there were no independent living fund, there would have to be a regulated scheme. All of those who have spoken in support of the amendment would agree that it is not a regulated scheme that is wanted. The amendment seeks a concession from the Government that the independent living fund will be retained. I recognise that. I also recognise that the amendment expresses the concern of many in this Chamber about the ability of local authorities to pick up cases from the independent living fund when the community care arrangements come into effect in 1993.
I can assure the Committee that we understand those anxieties and take very seriously the points that have been made today about the future position of people who are currently supported by the fund. I can only repeat the promise made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State that we shall be looking very carefully at the arrangements for the transfer of cases and at any transitional arrangements which may be necessary. The Government will want to be satisfied that the new arrangements meet the concerns that have been expressed. We shall want to make decisions as quickly as possible, in discussion with all those involved, to allay the fears which I know are felt by many people who receive help from the fund. The Committee can be assured that the Government's record on the independent living fund is our assurance that we shall wish to be satisfied about the practical effects of the arrangements.
Simply continuing the independent living fund at the same time as bringing in community care would

1505
not necessarily be the right way forward. We do not believe that the flexibility that will be available in the community care arrangements when they come into effect needs to be replicated in the independent living fund. Under our community care plans the 1993 arrangements rely on local authorities designing their own care packages for everyone in the community rather than looking to the ILF. It would be quite wrong to separate out that relatively small group of disabled people from the people being catered for by the local authorities.
We shall of course discuss with local authorities the transfer and funding arrangements. We shall want to satisfy ourselves that those arrangements safeguard that very vulnerable group of people. Although I understand the desire of some Members of the Committee to take the opportunity to amend the Bill today, we are still nowhere near the end of the fund's third year; we are barely beyond half way. I understand the desire to take the decisions now but, with all respect, it is not sensible for the Government to take those decisions when so much of the detail of the community care arrangements remain to be worked out.
With those assurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord sits down, he will be aware that one of the proposals put forward by his own party for the reform of local government is the abolition of the county councils, which are presently responsible for social services departments and presumably for the devolution of those responsibilities to the district councils. Is there not a possibility that the responsibilities now borne by the ILF could fall between the two tiers if one was abolished?
Lord Henley: I am not aware at the moment that it is the Government's policy that the county councils should be abolished. No doubt that is something that one party or another might look at on another occasion. However, whatever happens, there will still be social services departments just as there are social services departments in districts in the old metropolitan counties.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, replies, perhaps I may point out that the noble Lord did not adequately answer the point made somewhat briefly by his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. The essence of what he said seemed to be that if something is working well it should be left alone; why mess about with it? The noble Lord gave us an assurance that the greatest possible care would be taken when making new arrangements, but he also said that the present arrangements were perfectly all right. So why do we need any new arrangements? Let us stick to the old ones.
Lord Henley: The ILF is working well. Noble Lords will remember that last year we debated at great length the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The second part of that Bill will bring in community care in 1993. The introduction of community care changes the position on ILF. ILF
1506
would replicate the proposals under community care. For that reason we have to consider our position. We must ensure that there will be adequate transitional arrangements for those supported by the ILF when community care is included in 1993.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He will realise that every speech other than his own was in favour of the amendment. There was all-party support for it; and not merely all party support, since the amendment had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who for many years represented the noble Lord's department.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. That certainly was not the tenor of my remarks. I think that it is a great mistake to put this matter on a statutory basis under government control. I thought I made it clear that it was a great mistake when I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in a previous debate when he said that government money equals government interference. Equally, I accept that I do not like local authority control for rather different reasons. What I requested, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, just picked up, was that it should be left severely alone.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That is what we are aiming to do; that is the whole purpose of the amendment. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for reinforcing that point of view and, once again, I thank him for it. There is nothing more for me to say except that I believe that the Committee is absolutely at one in requesting the Government to save Mr. Nick Scott's baby. That is all. We do not want it to die an unnatural death in 1993 at the hands of the local authorities. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Phillips: On a point of order, may we have the lights put on? The Government may wish to save on light and heat in your Lordships' House but this is a very important debate and is there any reason to turn the lights down?
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Addington, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Adrian, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Carter, L.

Airedale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Annan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ardwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Attlee, E.

Cross, V.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Aylestone, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Birk, B.

David, B.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Derwent, L.

Bottomley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Brightman, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

1507

Falkender, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Galpern, L.

McNair, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Mayhew, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gregson, L.

Mishcon, L.

Grimond, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hacking, L.

Moyne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Nicol, B.

Ogmore, L.

Hampden, V.

Oram, L.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Porritt, L.

Hayter, L.

Richard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Rochester, L.

Holderness, L.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howe, E.

Stallard, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hylton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Terrington, L.

Ingleby, V.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Varley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walpole, L.

Kagan, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kearton, L.

Wharton, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Willis, L.

Listowel, E.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Longford E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elton, L.

Alport, L.

Erne, E.

Astor, V.

Ferrers, E.

Bauer, L.

Flather, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Birdwood, L.

Geddes, L.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Boardman, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Haslam, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hertford, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Caldecote, V.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Killearn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Knollys, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Lyell, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Mancroft, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Donegall, M.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

1508

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Selsdon, L.

Nelson, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Stockton, E.

Norrie, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strange, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Orkney, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Pender, L.

Swinton, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Teviot, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Quinton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Rodney, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Romney, E.

Westbury, L.

Selborne, E.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 13, after ("mobility") insert ("(physical and mental disablement)").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 27.
As the Bill stands only those suffering from physical disability are entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component of a disability living allowance whereas those suffering from physical or mental disability may, under certain criteria, become eligible for the lower rate. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the two provisions into line. The reasons why it is being proposed constitute a further instalment in a long-running campaign which I hope is nearing its end, seeking the full rate of mobility allowance for a comparatively small number of persons estimated at 8,000 or 9,000 with severe mental handicap and particularly severe behavioural problems.
I shall not burden the Committee with an account of the further exchanges and the various arithmetical calculations in which the Government have engaged over the past year or two. I shall rest on what the Minister said on Second Reading, and what was said in another place. In the Official Report at col. 904 on 26th February, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"If we can isolate the 8,000 or 9,000 people in the group whom MENCAP is convinced are markedly more disabled than the others who will, as I mentioned in opening the debate, come into the lower rate, then we will happily do so".
At col. 905, he said:
"If we could isolate the group identified by MENCAP—I stress that we must find a way of doing that—then we would be happy to do so".
I repeat the Minister's words:
"I stress that we must find a way of doing that".
In the Official Report of another place on 7th February at col. 474 Mr. Nicholas Scott said:
"I am on record as giving an undertaking to do my best to find a way of defining those 8,000 or 9,000 people … I am genuinely unhappy that it has not been possible so far to define such a test. The issue will not go away".
Indeed, it will not.
It is clear that the test for the lower rate of mobility allowance as set out in the proposed Section 37ZC(1) (b) falls far short of meeting the requirements of this group, which needs physical control, not just guidance and supervision, for most of the time when out of doors. As an example, the mother of one boy says, "He's a danger to himself and everyone else when out of doors unless in a car. He has no road sense whatsoever. He simply cannot be taken on to public transport". Both the mother and the father have to restrain him physically if he takes it into his head to dart across the road; and even two people may not be enough. I could give example after example, but I think that that suffices.
When at an earlier stage the Government changed their mind and decided to grant mobility allowance to the deaf-blind, they did so by regulation. However, the regulation-making power was then limited to the physically disabled. The higher rate is repeated in the proposed Section 37ZC(3) of the Bill but there is no known physical cause of the mental handicap of the group about whom I speak. If the amendments were accepted, the provisions too could be dealt with by regulation.
The test of severe mental handicap should not be too difficult to define. After all, there is a test of severe mental impairment laid down for exemption from the poll tax. While I do not deny that the wording about severe behavioural problems would not be easy if the gates were not to be opened too wide—although we would be quite willing to help—the drafting could perhaps be done at greater length in a regulation than would be appropriate in a statute. That indeed happened with regard to the deaf-blind. Since we are all agreed on the objective—and I cannot interpret the pronouncements of the Minister as meaning anything else—I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise the words. Without the amendments the Government cannot even try. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am very pleased to support the amendment. As the noble Lord said, there is a long history of trying to enshrine in legislation the mobility allowance availability for severely mentally handicapped people. This Chamber accepted an amendment to that effect in 1989 which was overturned by the Government in another place.
There is no need to repeat the saga of the varying numbers produced by the Department of Social Security with regard to those who would benefit. First, it was 140,000, then 50,000. It then became 200,000 before decreasing to 50,000 again. There is confusion in understanding mental illness and mental handicap. At a late stage of the proceedings there was the mysterious case of the OPCS data tapes. Perhaps I may be allowed a wildly mixed metaphor. They appeared over the horizon like the US cavalry coming to the rescue, and ended up like the Sherlock Holmes' dog which did not bark.
Those of us who have supported the extension of the benefit to the severely mentally handicapped have never changed our view that the number would be less than 10,000. The figure is probably 8,000 to 9,000
1510
people. The figure appears at last to have been accepted by the Government. They say, not unfairly, that definition is the problem. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government the chance through regulation to solve that problem. I am sure the Minister knows that we are all anxious to help in that task.
The amendment gives the Government a chance to find the right definition. However, if the Minister accepts the amendment will he consider that there is a firm commitment to find the definition through regulation and thereby help such people? I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions but we should not wish to find that the department had accepted the amendment with the understanding that it would enshrine the definition in regulation only to find that this was impossible.
The cost is low; it is less than £8 million. Such people will receive the new lower rate of mobility allowance; so the difference will be the increase in the rate. It is worth an additional £19.10p per week—that is almost £1,000 per year—to 8,000 or 9,000 people.
In recent times the Government have tried hard to deal with the problem. I hope that at last the Minister will accept the amendment so that we can protect these severely handicapped people.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I support the amendment. It is not necessary to prolong the discussion. On many occasions the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has addressed the Chamber on the subject most movingly. He has given detailed examples of the people in this group about whom he is anxious.
We then get into the numbers game and ask how many such people there are. The nub of the problem is that we are discriminating against the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. We constantly deny that, but in practice we do so, partly because their disability, profound though it may be, is not as visible as some physical disabilities.
I am informed by the Spastics Society that four years ago Mr. John Major, then the Minister responsible, approved the extension of the mobility allowance equivalent to the higher rate of mobility component to this group of people. That was subject to confirmation by a DHSS survey of the small number of people likely to benefit. Four years is plenty of time in which to ascertain the number of people concerned and I am sure that the Government know it. If it is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, surely now is the time for them to agree to deal with the problem.
Lord Glenarthur: I too have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. For about two years I was responsible for mental health and mental handicap. During that time I gained a certain knowledge of the subject and developed a good deal of sympathy for the people in this plight. Visiting a number of them and seeing the way in which they live left a deep impression on me.
The Government appear to have accepted the principle of the amendment but are stuck with the

1511
difficulty of finding a definition. Reference was made to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I also had responsibility for that department and know that a finer body of people one could not find. I too cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man nor beyond that of anyone in the OPCS to devise a system of defining more precisely where these people lie in society and how many there are.
We run the risk of missing a real, proper and sensible opportunity to make such an amendment. It is unlikely to present itself again for some time. For that reason I urge my noble friend to take firmly on board what has been said. One is providing a great stimulus to such people in giving them access to the outside world, whether by boat, vehicle or whatever. It helps them in their extremely difficult lives and it provides their carers with the opportunity to develop their limited abilities beyond the state that might otherwise be possible. I hope that the Government will be bold and go further than they have previously found possible. In doing so they will acknowledge their understanding of the plight of so many of these people.
Lord Renton: I must first declare a potential family financial interest. I have a severely disabled daughter with a mental age of two years and a natural age of 35. She is unable to walk unless held up and is unable to feed, dress and undress herself. She is completely dependent. Clause 1, which one must welcome as far as it goes, consists of six pages of complicated legislation. The proposition for helping them is relatively simple: I had hoped that it might be done more simply. However, the six pages of the clause are not the end of the story because the provisions will not come in to effect until at least three sets of regulations have been made.
For both personal and broader reasons I earnestly hope that the Government will show sympathy for the clear case that has been made, not for the first time, by the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
Lord Skelmersdale: I understand that if an acceptable definition of these particularly unfortunate people existed the amendment would be unexceptionable. The difficulty is finding a method of reaching a definition I believe that the Government are in broad agreement with MENCAP that there are between 8,000 and 9,000 such people. Naturally the Government wish to help them but do not wish to spread the net any wider.
The problem is that under the Bill the application for these benefits is based on self-assessment by the individual, by the carer or by a combination of both. That must make it more difficult to find a definition of these people whom we all agree need to be helped. I do not know a way out of the conundrum. I understand that acceptance of the amendment would put pressure on the Government to find such a definition.
After hearing what was said by my right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People and my noble friend on the Front Bench I wonder whether any other pressure is needed. The Government have expressed a genuine desire to help
1512

these disadvantaged people. In the circumstances is it necessary to press the amendment at this stage? I should prefer to give the Government a little more time—say, until Report —to reach a sensible solution. They have already accepted existence of the problem and wish to deal with it. I should rather take that course than push them at this stage.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may rub in the fact that on previous occasions we have tried to amend the statute to include this provision. I accept that our efforts have not done the trick. We are now proposing that that should be done by regulations in which there can be a wider spread; and it is perhaps more practicable to find a satisfactory definition which can be interpreted by those who must operate the scheme in the field. If we miss this opportunity, we should be driven to try to achieve our aim by statute which so far we have failed to do.
Lord Auckland: I live in Surrey where there are seven large mental hospitals. It is very rare that parliamentary draftsmen can be accused of drafting concise legislation. The usual accusation is that amendments and Bills are far too long. This clause is extremely vague and I believe that the amendment is right to spell out quite specifically "physical and mental disablement".
In the clause there is no specification as to who is covered. Those who have had experience of hospitals for the mentally handicapped—as I have—would surely agree that the least any government can do is to include the words of the amendment in the Bill.
Lord Carter: In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, we need Amendment No. 27 to insert the words "or mental" in order to bring that into regulations. I believe that is so. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: Clearly I should like to reiterate the points made by my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Skelmersdale. We have taken that on board and have accepted that if the group of some 8,000 or 9,000 people spoken of by MENCAP can be defined then we should be prepared to come forward with an amendment to cover them.
However, as I said on Second Reading, there is a problem as regards definition. The problem has moved on somewhat since our debates of last year and the year before, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will remember. We are now debating the matter in a different and better context. One reason for introducing the new lower rate mobility component in DLA is that the OPCS evidence has pointed to substantial numbers of people with relatively low incomes who have mobility problems which are not severe enough to get them into mobility allowance but who nevertheless entail extra costs. I know we may differ about the extent of these extra costs, and about the coverage that the existing benefits give, but I think it is fair to say that the principle of having a disability benefit which gives better recognition of the fact that there are degrees of disability has been generally welcomed.

1513
This amendment really raises the question of whether, within that sizeable population—150,000 or so—who will certainly now be eligible for the lower rate, we can identify a much smaller group whose mobility needs and costs are so great as to justify giving them the higher rate—currently mobility allowance. I stress the phrase "we can identify" because I think in all fairness Members of the Committee should recognise that that, understandably, has to be the focus of the Government's attention.
It is not that we sit in our ivory towers disbelieving what MENCAP and the Spastics Society tell us about the numbers whom they have in mind. The problem is, and always has been, how to distinguish the group they have in mind from the much larger numbers of people, whom we all acknowledge exist, who have mental disabilities, whether mental illness or mental handicap, severe enough for them to require guidance or supervision for most of the time.
The bulk of the people whom we expect to qualify for the lower rate are people who suffer from mental disabilities. As my right honourable friend the Minister pointed out in another place, really very sizeable numbers of these people have what are, by anyone's standards, distressingly severe behavioural problems. For example, 50,000 adults were identified by OPCS as getting "so upset that they hit other people or themselves" and 25,000 children were "aggressive, violent-tempered or destructive and scream or shout most of the time every day". These figures may surprise the Committee; they somewhat surprised us when we looked at this when devising the DLA. But I must say I cannot see why the OPCS research should have come up with significant over-estimates of the numbers of people with behavioural problems of this severity.
Once one reaches these sorts of levels of behavioural problems, I hope the Committee will acknowledge that there are genuine difficulties in splitting off the much smaller group of people which MENCAP and others believe to be their target group. I recognise of course that they, and as I understand it, Members of the Committee are solely referring to those who are mentally handicapped and are not seeking to incorporate the sizeable numbers of mentally ill people whose problems can at least be less permanent.
Even so, we have to be clear on this. Very many people with mental handicaps who appear in the 75,000-strong groups I cited earlier—adults who injure themselves, and violent and aggressive children—are people who must be outside the group which MENCAP wants us to identify. The Committee will, I think, understand that to find a definition which excludes people in these situations is no easy matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, quite rightly cited the example in the community charge provisions of severe mental impairment. However, I believe that the noble Lord has inadvertently made the point which I seek to make. About 100,000 people qualify for exemption
1514
from the community charge on those grounds. Clearly, that is far broader than the group which MENCAP wishes us to identify.
We have never said that it cannot be done. Our intuitive belief is that organisations like MENCAP and the Spastics Society will have the deepest knowledge of the needs of these people and will be best able to help us in trying to draw distinctions within the broader groups. But I have to say that we do not believe that previous amendments that have been tabled referring to the need for "physical control" have met the purpose.
I appreciate and welcome the fact that noble Lords opposite are recognising our genuine difficulties here and are therefore not at this stage trying to pin us down to a specific form of words on the face of the Bill. But in all honesty I do not think that this is an amendment we can or should accept. For one thing, I do not believe it actually works. As we understand the problem, it is not necessarily the case that a person with this degree of mental handicap is in fact unable or virtually unable to walk. So, if we amend the legislation in the way suggested we would not pick up the group which could walk but those who needed really very severe restraint or control in order to do so.

I do not believe that it would be responsible to accept the amendment, to say nothing of the costs which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised. He seemed to believe that that cost would be very small. We estimate that the cost could be substantially in excess of £100 million. We do not believe that it would be responsible to accept such an amendment.
Lord Carter: My estimate was based on figure of 8,000 to 9,000 people. The difference between the higher and lower rates is about £20 per week. Therefore, if my estimate is accepted, the cost would be under £8 million.
Lord Henley: As my right honourable friend and others have said, and I repeat, we accept the principle but there is a problem of definition. That is why it would not be responsible to accept an amendment which might cost far more. It would not be responsible to accept an amendment unless and until we feel we have found a satisfactory form of words to isolate the right group. I am happy to reiterate the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister in another place that if we can isolate the group to which Members of the Committee have referred, then we shall do so. I freely admit that we are unhappy because we have not yet managed to do that. However, I ask the Committee to trust me because the department has expanded considerable effort in trying to do that, and will continue to do so.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale pointed out that there are two weeks until we deal with the Report stage. Following the announcement by my noble friend the Chief Whip, we shall have an extra week's holiday at Easter and therefore I believe that Third Reading will be that much later after Easter. That will allow more time if Members of the Committee wish to meet either my right honourable friend or myself to see whether a solution can be found. However, I do

1515
not believe that that would necessarily be the right way forward at this time. I have given an assurance that if we can isolate that 8,000 to 9,000 we shall do so. However, this amendment would not be the right way forward. I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I have said and feel able to withdraw his amendment on this occasion.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am rather at a loss to understand what is being proposed. We have gone back to all these figures of 100,000 and so forth. I thought the Government had agreed that we were talking about a group of 8,000 to 9,000. Is the Minister now suggesting that we postpone a decision? Is he saying that when we have found the solution it is to be done by regulation, as was done for the deaf and the blind? If so, this would require an amendment somewhat along the lines that we are suggesting. Alternatively, is the noble Lord suggesting that something might be put on the face of the Bill? I just do not know.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is quite right that we could not do it merely by regulation without an amendment. Something would need to be on the face of the Bill. That is why I was trying to stress that this Bill is not being rushed through in any way. My understanding is that there are something like two weeks before Report stage and, because of the length of the Easter Recess, there will have to be at least another two or three weeks after that before Third Reading. It is of course important to get some agreement on this. The noble Lord and I accept that we are trying to isolate the same group, but I do not think that it would be right to take a decision on this today. I have given the noble Lord an assurance that there is still time to talk and that we hope to come forward with an amendment, if it is possible to do so, at a later stage.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps the Minister could answer my question. Is he talking about doing this by regulation in the end or is he talking about putting something on the face of the Bill?
Lord Henley: I have answered that particular point. I said that it could not be done simply by regulation unless we put something in the Bill. Thereafter, having agreed on that, this is something which I imagine could be on the face of the Bill or be done by regulation; but certainly something has to go into the Bill. I have accepted that point whatever happens.
Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble friend would clarify one matter, because it is the prevailing matter in this discussion. He has said that if a suitable formula could be found which would cover only the 8,000 of 9,000, the Government would be happy to have that written into the Bill. Is he expecting other people to work out that formula so that he can either accept it or, with the aid of his officials, knock it down; or will he, with all the expertise at his disposal, work out the formula and then assure us that all will be well?
Lord Henley: I said that over the months we had made considerable efforts in the department to try to come forward with a formula and I have apologized
1516
for the fact that we have failed to do so. That is why I invited others to come forward with their expertise and suggestions. I appreciate that my noble friend praises the expertise in the department, but we have not been able to resolve this. We shall continue to try, but we shall also listen to the advice of noble Lords and to those organisations for which they speak.
I cannot promise that the Government will come forward with an amendment but I have given an assurance that if we can isolate that group of 8,000 to 9,000, we shall meet that commitment. However, we must make sure—we have a responsibility to do this—that the group is properly identified. We are dealing with very large sums of taxpayers' money and I do not think it right that an amendment should be accepted which does not properly identify the group which is then allowed to expand and go out of control.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I have been trying to follow this Bill but I am not sure that I have quite reached the point where I understand it fully. I was present on an earlier occasion some months ago when this matter came up for decision by your Lordships and there was a discussion. I understood then that there was a disparity between what was proposed in what is now the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the Government as to the numbers of people involved in the question. The disparity at that stage was very great indeed. I could quite understand that one did not know at that stage whether one was talking about £100 million or £10 million, and at that time I was entirely on the side of the Government. But we have moved on from there. If I have got this rather complicated drafting right, there are two components to be considered in the first two sections: one is the care and the other is the mobility.
Both of them at one stage or another in the definitions on page 2 of the Bill contain a mental factor, which is on the face of the Bill. I understand, though I may be wrong, that when we look at the subsequent pages we realise that nothing much can be done until regulations are passed by the Secretary of State. If that is a correct view, I can quite see why my noble friend wants to postpone a decision at this Committee stage, when it is still open to discuss the matter on Report. However, I should have thought it was not beyond the wit of man to insert on the face of the Bill a phrase which would enable the last stage—namely, the regulatory stage—to be the effective trigger in respect of the concession.
I thought that was the only point which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was trying to make in moving the amendment. I may have misunderstood, but I should have thought that this was capable of agreement. I am not ever wholly familiar with the Companion to the Standing Orders and with what is precluded on Report after discussion at Committee, but I should have thought it was possible for both parties to come to an arrangement whereby there need not be a Division at this stage and that the matter could be proceeded with on Report, as my noble friend suggests. If I am wrong, of course I shall be the first to concede it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I could try again. Under the Bill there are two rates of mobility allowance: one of £10 a week and one of £29.10, if I have got the figure right. Our argument is that some 8,000 people who suffer from the most appalling behavioural difficulties should get the higher rate instead of the lower rate. That cannot be done unless the relevant clause is amended so as to enable people who suffer from mental disablement as well as those who suffer from physical disablement to get the higher rate. There is a provision that the lower rate is available to those who suffer from physical or mental disablement. There is no provision that those who suffer from mental disablement can qualify for the higher rate. The Bill says that circumstances may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in which a person can be taken to satisfy either of those conditions. The sole purpose of the amendment I have moved, and which has had a good deal of support, is to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances applying to these 8,000 people.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, if I heard him aright, that it can be done. My feeling is that it is a terrible thing for this Committee to say that 8,000 people who are suffering from the most appalling behavioural problems, with all that that involves for their families, and with severe mental handicap, should be precluded from getting the higher rate simply because we cannot find the words. I suggest that if it is done by regulation, as can be done if this amendment is accepted, you can spell it out and have quite a long definition and be quite sure that you are limiting it to the 8,000 and not opening the doors any wider. That is the simple issue we have been discussing.
5 p.m.
Lord Henley: I think I should come in. We are close to agreement but not close to agreement on this amendment as being the way forward. I have accepted that the Government could not make the necessary regulations without an amendment and that we need an amendment. What I am trying to say is two things. First, it would be wrong to bring in this amendment until we are sure that we can get the regulations right. I have given my commitment that we accept the figure of 8,000 or 9,000, but we must isolate it. No responsible government could bring forward an amendment that is going to produce a figure much greater than that.
The second point is that this amendment does not do the trick. Only the mentally disabled people who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk would qualify. As we understand it, it may mean that MENCAP's target group can walk but that they cannot reach any sort of destination, and the amendment does not achieve the purpose that the noble Lord is setting out. If we could talk further between now and Report stage, because I have given the commitment that we have accepted a figure of 8,000 or 9,000, I am sure we can come forward with something, but we must come forward with an amendment that will closely identify the proper target group and not go wider than that.
Lord Winstanley: I have listened most carefully, but perhaps I am a bit slow in following the noble Lord's arguments, although I am doing my best. Bearing in mind that we appear to agree on the objective and that we share the common aim to do this, and bearing in mind that the noble Lord has said that everything would depend in the end on the precise nature of the regulations—and regulations will have to be framed—can he tell me in simple terms what damage it would do if we passed this amendment?
Lord Henley: My understanding in simple terms is that this amendment would not allow us to make the regulations that the noble Lord is seeking. What I say is that we must come forward with a different amendment, and before we come forward with a different amendment we must be sure that we can identify the appropriate group.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am sorry to prolong this, but can the noble Lord help us a bit more about what might be the appropriate sort of amendment? Is he still talking about doing this on the face of the Bill, or is he following the precedent of the blind and deaf? I still do not understand this.
Lord Henley: We would be quite prepared to do it by means of regulations. If the noble Lord would find it more convenient to discuss it on the Floor of the House during the course of the Bill, he might prefer to come forward with an amendment at Report stage to put it on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before my noble friend decides what to do, may I ask a question because I, along with a great many other people, are confused by this? Was the noble Lord saying about two interventions back that the phrase "virtually unable to walk" was the sticking point?
Lord Henley: I would have to take further advice on this, but my understanding is that that is a problem at the moment with the way that this amendment has been drafted and the effect it would have on any regulations laid as a result of the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I think that is a view that we might wish to challenge, but I do not think there is much point in continuing the argument. I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment and leave it for further consideration at Report. But I would like to put on record that, as I understand it, the Government now accept that what we are talking about is some 8,000 people; that there has been rather wild talk about cost to public funds, but the sums we are talking about are something less than £8 million; and that the Government would look sympathetically on an amendment enabling this to be done by regulation provided the powers are made clearly enough and provided there is some idea of what would be put in the regulation. Is that an accurate understanding?
Lord Henley: I can accept what the noble Lord has said. We have accepted a figure of 8,000 or 9,000. The problem is one of definition. If we can define that, as I and others have said, we would be quite prepared to accept an amendment.
Baroness Seear: It may be rather improper for me to come in at this stage as I was not here at the

1519
beginning of the debate on this clause. However, as I understand it, what we need is something on the face of the Bill which authorises the regulation, and that has to be in a form which makes an appropriate regulation possible. Am I right in that? I think I am.
If that is so, may I ask the noble Lord why new Section 37ZC(1) (b) is not adequate? Subsection (1) (a) refers to not being able to walk. Subsection (1) (b) refers to
"able to walk but is so severely disabled physically or mentally that to take advantage of the faculty out of doors he requires guidance or supervision".
Is that not enough to provide the basis for the regulation?
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I do not know whether it is for me to answer that, but I touched on this in my opening speech. The test set out in paragraph (b) falls far short of what meets the requirements of these people with particular behavioural difficulties. They require much more than guidance and supervision from another person for most of the time. They have to be physically restrained and might have to be controlled by two people when they are out of doors because no one knows what they are going to do.
If one rested on paragraph (b) as it stood the doors would be opened much too wide. We are as anxious as the Government to limit this strictly so that it defines as clearly as possible the perhaps 8,000 candidates, if I can me that word, that we have been talking about. In the light of the discussion, I think that we are not going to get much further today, and I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment but we shall certainly be coming back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and a laundry component,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3 to 9, 11 and then 13 to 19.
Lord Henley: I told the noble Lord that I would intervene at this stage to make the point that I accept that we shall be speaking to all of these amendments as one group because they are all linked, but any decision by the Committee on each amendment would obviously have to be taken separately. A decision on one particular amendment would not necessarily bind the Committee in any way on any of the later amendments. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should be extremely surprised if he said anything else in the circumstances of this rather large group of amendments. The best way to deal with it, as a number of noble Lords have their names to different amendments concerning the different components of extra cost, would be if I were to say a few words on the general argument about extra costs in toto, as it were, then speak briefly to the two amendments regarding laundry and heating to which I have attached my name, leaving other noble Lords then to deal with the amendments with the particular extra cost components with which they are concerned.
1520
We made a point at Second Reading that there is a need for a disability living allowance. In our view the DLA only covers the care and mobility costs. There are many other disability-related costs that we feel are not covered, and that is the reason for the successive amendments under the various extra cost components dealing with laundry, heating, communication, domestic help, diet and the rest.
It seems that the Government's attitude to this, as revealed in the other place, relies on the OPCS data regarding costs. I quote from a letter from the department to Mrs. Brown of the Norfolk Association for the Disabled—I have her permission to do so—which says:
"You make the point that the DLA does not include specific allowances for the extra costs of, for example, clothing, diet and heating. The overwhelming evidence from the OPCS surveys was that need for help with attendance or mobility often accompanied other disabilities. In that way, the care and the mobility components in DLA are well targeted on the more severely disabled people".
In effect the Government are saying that there is a need for help with attendance and mobility costs, so help will probably be needed with other disability costs. Therefore, help will be given with attendance and mobility costs. That is the logic of the Government's argument. It seems to me that that argument is completely circular. It is either a syllogism, tautology or perhaps both. I cannot see the logic of the Government's position: because there are people who need help with the costs of mobility and care and who also have other disabilities which are not caught by the Bill, helping them with care and mobility helps them with the other costs of disability. After all, the qualifying criteria are for the needs of care and mobility. How can the DLA be expected to cover these other extra costs?
The OPCS revealed that 87 per cent. of people with disabilities living in private households are not receiving a mobility allowance or an attendance allowance. One-third of the people in categories 8, 9 and 10 of the OPCS survey involving the most severely disabled did not receive a mobility or attendance allowance. I know that the Government rely on the OPCS figures. I am sure that the Minister will refer to them when he replies. Expenditure of £6.10p per week is the average extra expenditure for a disabled person. We feel that that provision is faulty in its methodology. The Social Security Advisory Committee made a report in 1988 which states:
"The UK system recognises … some of the extra costs of disability through payment of attendance allowance for care needs and mobility allowance for mobility needs. However there are many needs which go unmet".
The Family Expenditure Survey (Disability, Household Income and Expenditure) found that,
"fuel and services (especially domestic service) are important areas of extra spending for disabled people".
Other areas in order of magnitude include expenditure on housing costs, food, durables, bedding, gadgets, aids, appliances and the telephone. Disabled people are also poor people. We have evidence that the average income of disabled people is much less than the average for the community as a whole. The OPCS asked people who were poor how much they spent. We feel the question should have been how much extra

1521
cost would have been incurred if there was sufficient help to meet the extra cost of disability in order to allow the disabled person to live a decent life.
The family expenditure survey said that the,
"actual spending by disabled people is considerably lower than for other households because of their low incomes. Disabled people face extra costs, but on average, differences in spending are relatively small".
That is a situation which was picked up by the OPCS. If people who are poor are asked how much they actually spend on the extra cost of disability, the question arises that if the money is not available, it cannot be spent. The survey should have tried to discover what would be the extra cost of disability if the disabled were to be given a decent life.
I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the survey conducted by the Disabled Income Group (DIG) which revealed just how much extra cost severely disabled people incur. That survey provides valuable information. The OPCS survey covered a whole range of disabilities and then the figure was averaged out over the whole range. DIG dealt only with the most severely disabled. The DIG method was concerned with people who were more aware of the cost of their disability. If I ask noble Lords how much extra they spent on heating during the recent cold spell, I am sure that every one would have difficulty in replying without further research. That is almost what the OPCS survey discovered in the time for each interview, instead of looking at the documents and having the time to find out how much extra expenditure was required.
The average income of the DIG sample was much higher, at £182 per week in 1989 compared with £82 per week in the OPCS survey in 1985. As I said, what one does not have one cannot spend. When the Minister replies can he say what the Government's attitude is in this area of extra cost? Is the difficulty the cost of meeting these amendments, the complexity in attempting to define and deal with the extra costs, or both?
This morning I received a communication from the National Consumer Council which states:
"Our reasons for supporting all these amendments are essentially the same. They are, that failure to recognise the special needs of disabled people would lead to their being denied access to goods and services on an equal footing with other consumers. We are not asking for preferential treatment but for recognition of particular needs in order to uphold the principle of equity to which my Council attaches great importance".
Those were the general points about the extra cost as a whole. I shall be extremely brief because I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will speak about laundry and other noble Lords will speak about heating. I wish to say a few words about those two extra costs in order to save me having to intervene later in the debate. We know that laundry is a particular problem for certain disabilities, for example, incontinence, dribbling, vomiting, the spilling of things and falling over, with effects on clothes and so on. There is also the problem of perspiration and the effect on clothing, bed clothes and upholstery.
1522
I have already said that by definition the care components help with the cost of care but not the extra cost of such things as laundry. I have received valuable information from both the Spastics Society and MENCAP. There is one example from the Spastics Society, from the mother of Danny. She says:
"Danny's always had a problem with feeding and being sick. Constantly—his clothes being washed all the time. My clothes being washed all the time, because he's sick on them. His bedclothes being washed all the time. The sheets —you go through sheets like no-one's business because they're always in and out of the washing machine".
There is also evidence from MENCAP. It points out that the health service's research unit at the University of Kent made a study of families with children with a mental handicap. It found that 50 per cent. of families said that there was more expense than normal on laundry. I wish to refer to one example among many regarding a family which has mental handicap in it:
"Although we use 'modern day incontinence items', we still use far more water than a normal family would use. Daily washing of clothes and often daily washing of bedlinen due to incontinence, is necessary, as is almost constant bottom and hands washing. Hygiene has to become a way of life, therefore extra washing of towels, flannels, toilet and bathroom equipment is very necessary".
Those of us who have experience in our own families of dealing with severely handicapped people can recognise the strength of that quotation.
I turn equally briefly to the subject of heating. The need for the amendment that deals with heating was underlined by the Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, in Standing Committee E on 6th December 1990 in the other place. He said:
"People who have mobility needs will of course often need assistance with costs such as heating, because their immobility will make them more subject to fluctuations in temperature".
The mentally handicapped are perhaps less mobile and spend much more time indoors either sitting or lying down. They feel the cold more. The house has to be kept much warmer. Many of us are familiar with that situation. There is a fear of extra heating bills in the families that have these problems. It can result in considerable discomfort for the disabled because the family is frightened to turn up the heating in order to make the disabled person comfortable. We have heard about the likely increases in electricity charges. They will present a problem.
We have had experience of payments for the elderly and the disabled because of the recent severe weather. For many of the disabled that is a need all the year round. I ask the Minister to say where the disabled and their carers are supposed to find the money for these extra costs. I have referred to only two examples. I am sure that other noble Lords will give further examples of other extra costs included in this group. If the Government reject these amendments, will the Minister say whether the rejection is on the grounds that they would cost too much, their complexity, or both? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As I added my name to the amendment concerning the laundry component perhaps I may speak next. I wholeheartedly support this group of amendments which are essential if we are

1523
to move towards a realistic disablement costs allowance. The noble Lord has given a splendidly broad picture of the general argument. I shall certainly not add to it. I shall home in directly on Amendment No. 2. I was particularly keen to add my name to the amendment concerning the laundry component. As a paraplegic I know very well that the extra laundry engendered by incontinence is not something that can be skimped without the risk of pressure sore or skin problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, people with cerebral palsy also have particular problems. He enumerated the various reasons for needing extra laundry. It can mean washing or dry cleaning not only of the disabled person's clothes but the clothes of the carers, bed clothes, chair covers, carpets and so on. It also means buying, maintaining and frequently replacing laundry equipment. If one cannot wash and dry clothes quickly and efficiently extra costs arise through having to have a double or triple supply of sheets, towels and clothes. It is a real and unavoidable extra cost. The same applies to each of these components, but payment would only be made to the person who had the specific need. That is why I support the amendments.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the Minister replies, I have my name down to one or two amendments on the cost of clothing—a slightly different issue from laundry but interrelated. If one is always laundering one's clothes they will wear out much quicker than if one is not doing so.
I should like to say a few words relating to a 1984 survey I by Judith Buckle about which the Government may or may not know. The survey was entitled Mental Handicap Costs More. I shall talk only about the mentally handicapped and their families. I shall be very brief on the subject of clothing but I can say without fear of being contradicted that more clothes are needed when a person feels cold. Often, coldness is a feature of disability, and a very important one. Shoes wear out more quickly with extra wear and tear. Some shoes cost more in the first place because they have to be specially made to fit. We have heard also about people with severe mental handicaps who tear their clothes. One cannot put anything on them because they tear their clothes straight off. Therefore more clothes have to be bought or the clothes that have been torn off have to be mended. It is a number of such factors which add up to a very considerable extra cost per year. Clothes wear out more quickly and more sets of clothes are needed because of incontinence and messiness.
Judith Buckle discovered that threequarters of the sample families in her survey required extra clothes. When the study was made in 1984 it was found that £80 a year was the cost of the expenditure on extra clothes. On the assumption that prices have risen 50 per cent. since 1984, the figure would now be £120. I instance the figures to show that it is certainly not a negligible sum of money, especially to those who are on income support. I would add my own penny's worth to the many pounds' worth adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
Lord Swinfen: In this group of amendments there are two in my name which deal with the problems of communication. I am thinking not only of people who are deaf, deaf-blind, and blind but of those with dyslexia, a rather hidden form of disability which people tend to ignore, thinking that the individual is daft, when very often he is incredibly intelligent.
Deaf people often have to buy special equipment to overcome their lack of hearing. For example, they need specially adapted telephones, where messages can be typed and not spoken. They need door bells and smoke alarms that flash lights. I could continue at length but time is moving on. They often incur additional travel costs in order to be able to communicate directly with people. They cannot use an ordinary telephone and the person at the other end may not have the kind of telephone that communicates with their telephone. On occasions they need an interpreter to translate between sign language and English.
The deaf-blind are doubly impaired. When conducting important business they may need to take with them a companion to interpret. The blind face considerable difficulties in communicating with other people. One of the hidden disabilities is dyslexia. The dyslexic individual very often cannot complete the forms necessary to obtain the benefits to which he has a right. I have recently been told about a dyslexic individual who went to the Department of Social Security office and said that he could not fill in the form because he could not write. He was told in a very loud voice, "If you cannot write you need to fill in this other form or get someone to fill it in for you". That was not only thoroughly unhelpful but rather demeaning at the same time. In general I support this whole group of amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am not sure whether we are supposed to be speaking in strict batting order on this group of amendments. However, as they have been grouped, I shall speak principally to Amendments Nos.7 and 19 which stand in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Carter.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Henley, reiterated the Government's intention to resist any idea of a reversion to the complexities, as he described them, of the previous system. He also said:
"Care and mobility needs represent the common denominator between the most frequently occurring and the most expensive of the disability related costs which people incur".
He then added rather mysteriously:
"the more expensive disabilities were the least common"—[Official Report, 26/2/91; col. 904.]
I believe that those words came from the report to which reference has been made.
That statement leaves out of account a whole raft of costs which are also expensive. They are not and cannot be covered in blanket fashion by either the care or the mobility component or a combination of both. By definition they are awarded for those purposes and they will be largely absorbed by those purposes. They

1525
are not presumably intended as jam to be spread more thinly over a larger loaf. Nor is it correct to say that the most expensive disabilities are the least common when, on the Government's own admission, in a Written Answer to Mr. Alf Morris on 28th February, Mr. Scott said:
"We anticipate that around 240,000 people will be eligible for the new lower rate of the care component of the disability living allowance and that around 60,000 of these will be people who need a special diet".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/91; col. 610.]
It is to stretch language to suggest that the requirement of 60,000 people for a special diet which is expensive as I shall show is an uncommon disability.
At Second Reading I gave some figures for the costs of a high protein high calorie diet which is required by 80 per cent. of HIV or AIDS patients when they reach what doctors call Category 4, which is the transition point from HIV positive to what is sometimes called full-blown AIDS. The life expectancy from that point is currently in the region of 10 to 20 months. Therefore, such people will not initially be covered by the new arrangements for the terminally ill, as Mr. Scott seemed to suppose, erroneously, on Report in another place.
As regards the costs involved, I do not like to repeat myself but some aspects need to be repeated. In 1991 a joint initiative by the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Bloomsbury Health Authority found that the mean weekly cost of a standardised high protein high calorie diet in London amounted to £42. That figure is very much in line with the costing by the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle upon Tyne of a diet suitable for someone with AIDS who is living alone—namely, £32.75 at 1988 prices. In that year, 1988, the self-help organisation, Front Liners, produced a figure of £34.20. It will be seen that all those estimates converge on a figure of around £40 at current prices.
At this stage of the proceedings I should like to instance a concrete case reported by the Citizens Advice Bureaux about a man suffering from AIDS. He was 43 years of age and had spent three months in hospital. He was only eligible for £36.70 income support and he did not, at the time, qualify for disability premium or attendance allowance. After discharge from hospital he was housed temporarily in a local authority homeless persons unit. A community care grant met only half of his essential needs for furniture and household equipment when he moved into permanent accommodation. He had no warm clothing and had to rely upon charitable donations. The fact that he suffered from diarrhoea and incontinence meant that he had to meet the additional cost of the washing of bedding and clothing to which reference has already been made. A high calorie and high protein diet was recommended but, together with the other costs we have mentioned, it was impossible for him to afford it. Indeed, he spent much of his time in bed trying to keep warm and frequently had no meal at all during the day.
That is a matter to which I hope the Government will address themselves, and I hope that the noble Lord will do so in his reply. What happens to such people when they can no longer cope? Clearly they will
1526
eventually go back into hospital. But surely it is an extremely inefficient use of hospital resources for a person who could live in the community with a little more help to block a hospital bed. Such a situation makes it less likely than ever that the Government will achieve their aim of reducing the number of people on the waiting lists. They have been remarkably unsuccessful in that respect.
Since the separation of the Department of Health and Social Security, which was no doubt desirable, a frontier has inevitably been traced between the two departments. One hopes that it will not be a closed frontier. If the noble and delightful Baroness, who is the Minister's opposite number in the other side of that divide, were present in the Chamber she would no doubt confirm the fact that waiting lists are a prime target of government policy. If the Department of Social Security will not address itself more urgently to the meaningful enablement of independent living her department's aims are doomed to disappointment. Such matters cannot be resolved if the left hand of the Government does not know what the right hand is doing. Those two hands must come together.
I spoke about AIDS sufferers because I have special knowledge of their plight. However, in terms of numbers, those people suffering from diabetes, liver or kidney disease and malabsorption syndrome are much more numerous. Indeed, we have heard the Government's own estimate of 60,000 sufferers who require special diets. Some of those diets are quite different from those required by HIV or AIDS sufferers; nevertheless, they are expensive. The Diabetics' Association calculates a figure in the region of £30 to £40 for a healthy diet. Moreover, some liver conditions require a very expensive low sodium diet which means that everything has to be fresh and nothing tinned can be eaten other than fruit. Kidney sufferers also require a restricted sodium low protein and low fat diet with similarly expensive implications.
The general picture for all special diets of whatever variety is that they do not come cheap—£30 to £40 a week is the average range. This afternoon I telephoned the dieticians in three London hospitals; namely, St. Thomas's Hospital, the Royal Free Hospital and the Bloomsbury community care team in the National Temperance Hospital. They all agree that it is crucial that the dietary needs of patients in the community should be supported financially. For many people their diet is an absolutely vital part of the treatment.
Finally, if the noble Lord accepts the figures I have put forward—I believe that he must do so in general orders of magnitude because in my speech on Second Reading I demolished the figures upon which the Government had been working—and refuses to go back to the old system (I believe that he may do so) then he is obliged to tell us how he supposes that independent living can be maintained for those concerned in the sort of cases which I have mentioned. Perhaps he will tell the Committee that the independent living fund, of which mention was made earlier and which, as I understand it, is at present restricted to those receiving the higher rate of attendance allowance, can be widened and adapted to take account of the miscellaneous claims which are the

1527
subject of these amendments. However, at some point he must bring forward a solution, otherwise we shall find it difficult to accept that the Government are seriously committed to the policy of independent living for disabled people.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am rather sorry that there is no former Secretary of State for Social Security, or of the DHNS as it was in the old days, present in the Committee. It has always been my belief, in the development of social security policy, that one must have cognisance, first, of the desirability of future actions, secondly, of the practical issues and, thirdly, of the expense involved. Moreover, since the 1986 Act, the Government have added to those considerations the complexity argument. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I have had many arguments in the past about complexity.
I believe that the 1986 Act was actually based upon the premise of KISS. I think that I should explain that concept now as it appears that I have confused the noble Baroness opposite. KISS stands for "keep it simple, stupid". I should stress at once that I am not addressing any Members of the Committee in that way, or any of those involved in the excellent organisations which represent the needs and objectives of disabled people.
Many of the subjects covered by the amendments before us were additions to supplementary benefit under an earlier regime. It has been a long-term aim of noble Lords opposite, and of the disability organisations, to get them returned in one form or another. There is no doubt that, judged against the criterion of desirability, many people would have need of certain of these extra benefits. They are desirable.
I was moderately encouraged by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on Second reading. At the beginning of his speech he said:
"I believe that it is correct that there will now be no fewer than 11 possible combinations of benefit under the DLA".—[Official Report, 26/2/91; col. 887.]
Later—I accept that it is the middle of a sentence but I hope that it is not out of context—he continued that,
"no fewer than 11 combinations of allowances … included in one overall benefit represents a positive merry-go-round of benefits".— [Col. 888.]
I took some comfort from those remarks, as no doubt did my noble friend on the Front Bench. I assumed that he had become an afficionado of the KISS principle.
Lord Carter: If the noble Lord reads on he will note that in his reply the Minister explained—though it was a bit of a tease—that the system will be similar in effect to that involving the one claim form, and so on. I accept that fact.
Lord Skelmersdale: In my view, that simplicity of operation must be carried forward into the rest of the social security system. There is no doubt in my mind that DLA is as simple as it is possible to make it. As I understand it, not only will it be simple but it will also be based, as we explored previously, on the basis of self-assessment. Moreover, it will benefit about 300,000 people, as my noble friend said on an earlier
1528
occasion, who currently receive no extra help with the cost of their disability. They will gain to the tune of £10 per week.
However desirable all these benefits are—I accept that they are—we have a basic complication. I say that because people will be assessing themselves as regards the need for these various additions. Clearly, any responsible organisation administering social security benefits will have to carry out a check from time to time in respect of such people on an on-the-spot basis. A complex, multi-component benefit would not be in the least compatible with self-assessment. It would inevitably require difficult subjective medical judgments about severity levels. How is the disability level measured? How do the local DSS office and the board measure it? How do we check up on it?
My noble friend has said on numerous occasions that personal care and mobility are two of the most expensive costs disabled people can incur and that it is therefore sensible to target help on those needs. The way to deal with those particular and peculiar needs is through the independent living fund mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I have already said that the matter should not be dealt with by the local authorities or a statutory agency run by a government organisation. It should be left severely alone. I am not trying to repeat the arguments we heard when discussing the first amendment but I believe that it would be far too difficult for a realistic and fair assessment to be made in each of the cases no matter how desirable they are, to say nothing of the cumulative expense which I cannot go into. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 18. Amendment No: 18 relates to water. The extra costs, as we are all aware, and the lower income of the disabled intersect with their greater needs. As previous speakers have made clear, the disabled face extra costs because they have to spend more on the ordinary items of living such as housing. Other additional costs relate exclusively to disability; for example, medication, diet, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, and medical aids. A third cluster of costs flow from the disability because people have to pay others to do what they would normally be able to do themselves. That includes cleaning, taxis and some of the communication items already referred to.
The amendment that I seek to persuade the Committee to accept differs from those three categories. It relates to water. Water bills were a relatively insignificant addition to rates. In the past they were often brigaded for council tenants with their rates and rent. After 1974, when water was removed from the local authorities, costs began to rise. In the 1980s, pressure from the environmental lobby and Europe rightly led to investment to improve water quality and better sewage treatment facilities.
As a result, water rates have been rising nationally by between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. a year. Given that two-thirds of disabled adults live in households in which there are no earners—the household is

1529
dependent solely upon benefits—how well provided for are those on benefit, especially the disabled, in meeting rising water rates?
When supplementary benefit became income support, £1.65 was earmarked for water. That sum has now been absorbed into the basic benefit. Basic benefit will of course be uprated by the rate of inflation. There are three problems associated with that. The first is that even when, in 1988, that £1.65 was identified, it was an average snapshot. Many disabled were immediate losers because they were already paying water rates of between £3 and £4 a week. Secondly, the benefit has been uprated in line with inflation but, as the Committee will be aware, the inflation index excludes housing costs with which water rates are joined. Therefore, higher water rate costs—we are all aware of what they are —are not looped back into the assessment for inflation by which income support is uprated and in which the water element is embodied.
While water rates rise faster than inflation, there is no protection or addition for people receiving income support. That means that whereas water rates are now on average about 6 per cent. of income support, in a few years the NCC expects them to represent 13 per cent. In other words, water rates now are already double the 20 per cent. poll tax average levy and they will soon be three or four times that levy. One couple in their seventies in my area were without water for 18 months because they were disconnected for being unable to meet their bills, according to the local CAB.
Water is not a discretionary item. It is, as I have said, an increasingly onerous top slice off income support and disability benefit. Not only was the original snapshot an average which produced at least as many losers as gainers, with water costs rising faster than inflation there is no way for those costs to be looped back into the index by which income support and benefits are upgraded.
There is a third threat on the horizon—metering. It may or may not be rational to meter—a move which adds to the already high fixed costs of water and which can have only marginal effects on the discretionary costs of usage. We are already the second lowest per capita users of water in Europe. In more ways than one, we are the dirty people of Europe. To discourage consumption, especially for the disabled, when it reduces personal hygiene, is not wise. If consumption falls, the heavy fixed charges remain. Therefore, an increasing proportion of the costs and user charges will rise even faster than we already predict.
As the NCC's response to the OFWAT consultation paper made clear last month, the heaviest users of water are large families, the disabled and those with dirty jobs. Metering will fall heaviest upon those least able to afford it. As previous speakers have made clear, over 1 million disabled people have the heavy costs associated with incontinence—bed linen, clothes and twice daily baths. Others need a heavy water supply because of their use of kidney dialysis machines. Others have skin diseases and need baths two or three times a day. Still others suffer what we now call challenging behaviour and physically messy
1530
lifestyles. Metering involves not just heavy installation costs; it also involves higher standing charges. It will have a regressive effect on consumption patterns.
I urge the Minister to give an assurance that in the event of pilot schemes such as that in the Isle of Wight being extended across the country—it is expected that 96 per cent. of the country will be metered by 2000—the Government will fully protect the disabled from additional costs.
Water rates are high. They are growing higher. Existing disability benefits are being top sliced by water bills at the expense of heating, clothes and diet. Recognising that, Peter Barclay, chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee, wrote to the Secretary of State in October 1990 calling for income support rates to rise,
"by an amount greater than would otherwise be the case to recognise the increasing burden caused by the exceptional rise in water charges"
on the grounds that water was so basic and the increases so exceptional.
OFWAT, the water regulatory body, recognises the severity of the problem but insists that not a matter for the water companies but for government. Appropriate government agencies should support necessitous customers. If the companies will not, the Government must. The right answer is to add water charges, where appropriate, to rents so that they are eligible for 100 per cent. housing benefit, or, if an applicant is not an income support claimant, to add them to the poll tax, or whatever replaces it, and then for them to be eligible for rebates along with the taper.
To meet ever increasing water rates—perhaps I may respond to the criteria for additional components set out by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—in that way is not complicated. It is not onerous, it does not engender problems of self-assessment and it seems to me that it pinpoints the needs that must be met. I hope that the Committee will be able to support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Amendments Nos. 7 and 17 put the case for a component of domestic help. It seems to me self-evident that whatever else is necessary for the disabled person, it is essential to keep the house clean. Speaking as someone who is remarkably bad at doing so, I feel it is obvious that to have the floor and bath cleaned and the washing up done properly, especially if one is housebound as many disabled people are, is of the highest importance. I could do without a certain amount of care as defined in the Bill, provided the house was reasonably tidied up.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 17 propose a specific item for domestic help so that disabled people are able to pay for it if they cannot get the home help component that is difficult to obtain because there are not enough people. This is a down-to-earth addition which is of the greatest importance and I rate it highly. I hope that the Government will take it on board. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: It may be necessary for me to speak for a short while in answering the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether we wished to reject the amendment because of its cost or complexity. I make three points. First, cost is obviously a factor that

1531
the Government must take into account. However, one should look at our record over the past 10 years. Our expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled has doubled in real terms to £10 billion a year. In addition, the Bill will bring in approximately a further £300 million and we can be very proud of our record as we have gradually built on our success over the years. Cost must be a factor that we take into account when Members of the Committee seek to extend the Bill in one way or another.
Complexity is the second point and we are obviously keen to minimise the complexity of DLA. As the Committee knows, we have been criticised on a number of occasions for the many combinations of rates and components of DLA. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made this point at Second Reading. He said that it was a mere tease, but one of his honourable or right honourable friends in another place took it quite seriously.
The more complex the structure, the more difficult self-assessment will become, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale quite rightly pointed out. However, in the end our main point is that the amendments are unnecessary because the care and mobility components will target help on the most severely disabled people, whatever their precise needs.
There is an important area of principle between us here. The Government's intention in introducing the disability living allowance and the intentions of noble Lords in introducing their amendments are not dissimilar, but there are significant differences between the routes which we have chosen to achieve our respective ends. I am sure that all sides of the Committee would like to create a wide-reaching disability benefit which would cater for all the many possible kinds of additional expenditure which people with varying disabilities can face.
However, I wish to look briefly at just how the kind of scheme which these amendments propose would be put into practice and then compare this with the benefit which we are developing. Our benefit has been criticised because of the alleged complexity of its structure. The noble Lord teased me about this. I hope that I shall have an opportunity later in the debate to reassure the Committee that from the point of view of the claimant DLA will be a simple two-component benefit. This pales into insignificance if we consider the complexities of the scheme devised by the amendments. Were we to accept the various amendments put forward to widen the scope of the new benefit, as I understand it, there would be an extra cost benefit consisting of 10 possible components with literally hundreds —it would take a mathematician to work it out, which I am not—of possible combinations of benefit which people with disabilities could receive. Such a system would make it absolutely impossible for potential beneficiaries ever to work out what they might or might not be entitled to, or even to understand which component or combination of components of DLA they were receiving.
The groups of amendments which have been put forward recreate pretty faithfully the old supplementary benefit system with all the complexities that it
1532
engendered, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale quite rightly pointed out. However, the experience of the past has shown us that the old supplementary benefit additional requirements were not a successful way of getting cash into the hands of people with disabilities.
In order to administer the kind of benefit which the amendments propose, the claim form would be so long and complicated as to discourage all but the most determined possible beneficiary. That is something one ought to stress. Whatever other criticisms have been made of the Bill, the assessment and adjudication procedures have generally been welcomed. The Committee should bear in mind that, even with the assessment procedures proposed, probably a fairly long document will be required. If we went down the route proposed by the amendments the chances of anyone managing to provide the Department of Social Security with enough information at the first, second or even third attempt to enable adjudication officers successfully to decide upon that person's entitlement to each of the 10 different components of DLA would be slim.
I also find it difficult to imagine just how this new multi-component benefit could be adjudicated and what the conditions of entitlement would be. Just how would the extra costs incurred by people with disabilities in such widely disparate areas as laundry and diet be measured? There would, of course, have to be some kind of objective measure of comparison with the amount spent on these items by people without disabilities. Attempting to develop a benefit along these lines would do nothing to simplify the process of claiming benefit for people with disabilities. It would make it very difficult for these people to obtain the benefit to which they are entitled.
Perhaps I may touch on one or two areas of the individual amendments dealing with different components. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised the problem of water. I obviously cannot give her the commitment she requested. However, I ask her to look at our record. It is not true that income support for disabled people has been up-rated slowly by inflation or inflation less housing costs. One significant component of The Way Ahead package, of which this Bill is the culmination, was the increase in 1990 of more than double the rate of inflation for disability premiums within income related benefits. That takes account of the complaints made by the noble Baroness that the disabled were left out of the increases in income support.
Turning to the laundry component, were we to accept that there was a need for it we would again have to deal with the practical problems such as how we could measure the extent to which the costs incurred by people with disabilities were in excess of the expenditure incurred by people without disabilities. We should have to decide whether such extra costs were solely incurred as a result of the disability.
We should need to develop some kind of objective standard against which to measure the extra expenditure incurred by the people whom we are trying to help. This is where the old system with the

1533
supplementary benefit fell down. We should also have to subject people to the much more complicated procedures for adjudication and claims.
I turn to clothing and the survey by Judith Buckle, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, Mental Handicap Costs More. No one would wish to deny that mentally handicapped people may incur extra expenditure on clothing. Again it is a question of whether a special clothing component—that attempts to isolate, first, the specific costs incurred and, secondly, the groups who should qualify for help—is the right way to proceed. The Government again believe that the extra complexity that such a provision would involve is not the right approach. I could say the same thing about heating. Added complexity would be introduced in comparing normal costs for heating with the extra costs for heating incurred by certain groups of disabled people.
I now turn to diets. We would like to be able to extend help to everyone who required a special diet. However, the important point here is that the Bill is concerned with disability. Many people who follow special diets are not disabled in any commonly accepted sense. Their diets do not, for example, prevent them from working. Many of those whose dietary disorder is linked to some other disability that, for example, prevents them from working, will qualify for one or other of the components of DLA, and the rate will depend on their disability.
6 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: Does the Minister agree that the Bill focuses almost entirely on care and mobility, and therefore its purpose is to help with the care of disabled people and to improve their mobility? One cannot spread the resources over all the other requirements. I gave the noble Lord some figures of up to £30 or £40 a week per person just to cover diet.
Lord Henley: I do not accept those remarks. We see the care and mobility needs as the simple gateway into benefits. I have been trying to stress the advantages of creating a simple way into benefits. We have never said that all the money available for attendance allowance and mobility allowance—the precursors of DLA—must be spent on care or mobility needs. The OPCS reports show that, if one wishes to direct resources to the most severely disabled people who incur heavy extra costs, the entitlement criteria for attendance allowance and mobility allowance provide an effective way of channelling those resources. That is the point we are making, and that is the general point of DLA. We would therefore resist including any extra components as they would add much greater complexity to the system that we have developed. We believe that the two-component system is the most sensible way forward and that it represents the best solution to the problem which besets all social security systems, which is how to construct a benefit which meets individual needs without making it so complicated that it is impossible for people to claim and it is impossible to administer.
1534
The OPCS (Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys) reports have provided us with an unprecedented volume of information about the circumstances of the kinds of people whom we are trying to help. Their findings have been supported by a follow-up study using the Family Expenditure Survey. The OPCS reports clearly showed that the existing extra costs benefits are well targeted on those members of the population who are most severely disabled.
In addition, the surveys made clear that personal care and locomotion are in fact two of the most expensive of the extra costs which people with disabilities can incur, and that they, (along with hearing difficulties which carry low associated extra costs), are actually the most frequently occurring of the 13 categories of disability that OPCS considered. We therefore believe it is right to concentrate the help we are giving to people who incur extra costs as a result of their disability, on these two areas which represent the common denominator between the most frequent and the most costly of the possible costs of disability.
Of course we would accept that various disability organisations have conducted their own surveys. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the survey carried out by the Disablement Income Group. However, that survey considered only some 80 or 90 severely disabled people. That cannot compare, as a basis for framing a general benefit, with the evidence that has been accumulated from the OPCS surveys, which considered some 10,000 different disabled people.
As I have said, we accept that various disability organisations have conducted their own surveys which indicated that some people incur higher disability-related costs than the OPCS reports would suggest. But it is important to remember that attendance allowance and mobility allowance were substantially in excess of the average costs incurred by even those in the highest OPCS severity category.
We would not deny that some people do incur higher costs. But a non means-tested benefit for getting on for 2 million people with disabilities cannot hope to cater for every individual nuance of need, and we have concentrated our attention upon those areas where help could be directed most easily and effectively.
The OPCS surveys demonstrated that there was an identifiable gap in the coverage which the existing extra costs benefits are providing for people with disabilities. A group of disabled people some way below the highest severity category appeared to be relatively disadvantaged in income terms. Part of their income disadvantage was that a much lower proportion of this group were in receipt of either of the extra costs benefits. Despite the substantial take-up increases since 1985, there were clearly some people at the middle severity levels who were never going to qualify for help under the current system. Those at the greatest income disadvantage tended to be people who were disabled earlier in life and who did not have other sources of income, or had not had the opportunity to

1535
build up financial resources. People in the lowest severity categories tended to have other sources of income, such as earnings, while those disabled later in life might well have built up savings or be entitled to some kind of pension. The surveys indicated that the incomes of disabled pensioners did not differ greatly from those of non-disabled pensioners. However, there was a much greater disparity between the incomes of disabled and non-disabled people under pension age. The introduction of DLA is intended to help this group of people whom the OPCS surveys identified as caught in the middle. They were too disabled to work but not likely to qualify for the existing extra costs benefits.
We have built these new lower rates of DLA on to the proven foundation of benefits based on care and mobility, because, as the evidence I outlined earlier shows, they are a successful way of delivering benefit to people who incur extra costs because of a disability. We are seeking to simplify the benefit system to ensure that the method of claiming the new benefit is easier both for claimants to understand and for the department to administer. We want to be certain that as many as possible of those who may actually be entitled to help with the extra costs of disability will be brought into benefit. The real test of a benefit system is not how good it sounds but how successful it is at getting cash to the people who need it.
Above all, we want to distinguish between the cause of a person's disability—the fact that he suffers from the impairment of particular faculties—and the effects of that disability. He may for example require extra heating or extra laundry because of that impairment.
We expect that the new lower rates of DLA will bring nearly 300,000 people into benefit. This has to be seen in its proper context. Since 1979, the number of recipients of attendance allowance has tripled from 265,000 to 795,000, while the number of recipients of mobility allowance has grown sixfold from 95,000 to 615,000. I am sure the Committee would agree that this is a substantial achievement. By 1993–94 we shall see 1.9 million people receiving either DLA or attendance allowance and expenditure will be over £5 billion more in real terms than in 1979. This is perhaps a tribute to the extent to which people increasingly understand the current benefits and how they work. That gives us an excellent basis on which to build.
After that rather lengthy explanation of why we believe our two-component system is the best provision, I hope noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press for the various extra components covering laundry, heating or other matters.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Speaking as a recipient of the mobility allowance but not of the attendance allowance, before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, decides what to do about the amendment perhaps I may briefly explain the difficulty that I have with the constant emphasis on complexity, particularly in relation to self-assessment. That was a point which the Minister mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised originally.
Surely it is fairly simple to determine that one has a certain level of heating costs and therefore one needs
1536
the heating component; or one has a certain level of special diet costs and therefore one needs the diet component. That must be simpler than saying, "I have heating costs and diet costs which are more than my care costs but luckily the latter are sufficient to qualify me for the care component. I shall receive that although it will not cover my care, heating and diet costs". It may be complicated but at least it is better than the person who may have significant heating and diet costs but no care and mobility costs receiving neither component. Will the Minister confirm that if one has no care or mobility needs one will receive no help?
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness is quite correct. That is why we have extended both the care and mobility categories so as to include a greater number of people. We believe that by that means we shall include virtually all of the people in the most severe categories as well as a great many others in the middle categories who were perceived as suffering income disadvantage.
I do not accept that the way in which the noble Baroness wishes to go forward will make life simpler. It would add enormous complexity. Colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, accused us of bringing in a complicated system because the two components would produce 11 variations. They cannot now argue that to increase the number of combinations would make it simpler.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has put her finger on the problem. The Minister said that the way in which recipients spend the DLA benefit is not restricted to care and mobility. However, the qualifying criteria are restricted entirely to care and mobility. The noble Baroness is entirely correct to say that if one does not meet those criteria one will not receive the money.
Lord Henley: I also pointed out that we have extended both mobility and care provisions and it will therefore be easier for people to receive the allowances. That will extend to most of the people to whom the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Carter: That argument could obviously continue for a long time and I do not propose to extend it. On the measurement of extra costs, there are many examples of allowances of one kind or another which are uprated annually and have to be calculated. The attempt to measure might be a broad-brush approach but it would certainly help those who receive the money.
There is no doubt that extra costs exist under various headings. There has been evidence from noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber to support that. I am not entirely clear whether the Government are saying that the costs do not exist or that they exist and the Government cannot afford to meet the requirements, or even that they exist and are met by the DLA. The argument was rather muddled. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that it was desirable to assist with those costs but it was too complex, too expensive, or both.

1537
On the subject of complexity, most Members of the Committee will have had experience of dealing with personal and corporate taxation systems. We never hear about the complexity of successive Finance Acts when they result in tax cuts.
The Government are clearly not prepared to accept the argument. I would respect their case more if they said that we were right, those extra costs exist but it would be too expensive to meet them, instead of pretending that the DLA meets the costs that we have described.
I shall withdraw the amendment that I moved, but we shall wish to return to the whole matter of extra costs at Report. Perhaps the group of amendments may be more tightly drafted, but we shall have to come back to the point. We have not been able to convince the Government this afternoon but there is a problem concerning the extra costs and I believe that it is the duty of the Government to deal with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("life") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the different fixed periods for claiming disability living allowance. As the Bill is presently drafted a person may be awarded either component for a fixed period or for life. However, if the award of a disability living allowance consists of both components he may not be awarded the components for different fixed periods.
During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place the Minister said that if the components were awarded for different fixed periods the alignment must be for the shorter period. This is a probing amendment to establish whether we have understood the matter correctly because there is a great deal of anxiety about it. As we understand it, the effect of the Bill as it stands is that if someone has care needs that are expected to last for a period of two years and mobility needs likely to last for at least four years he would be awarded the two components for two years only. Thus, despite qualifying for a four-year award for the mobility component, the claimant would be compelled to submit a fresh application and go through the whole procedure again after two years even though he had already established that he was entitled to the mobility component for four years. Will the Minister say whether that is a correct understanding of the Bill?
The amendment would enable each component to be awarded for different fixed periods. Thus, the duration of awards for different components would reflect the length of time that the claimant was expected to meet the qualifying conditions for the fixed component rather than being adapted for the purposes of administrative convenience, about which we heard a good deal in connection with the previous group of amendments.
It is not clear what would happen if a claimant was awarded one component for a fixed period and was subsequently awarded the other component for a shorter fixed period. Would the previous award have to be shortened so as to align it with the subsequent award? The Minister will understand the point that I am making.
I was given an example by the Multiple Sclerosis Society, which has pointed out that the Bill as drafted could cause particular problems for individuals with multiple sclerosis. MS is a fluctuating and unpredictable condition, characterised by relapses and remissions. At any point in time the care and mobility needs of the sufferer are not necessarily equal. The effects of MS are such that many individuals have severely impaired mobility permanently but their personal care needs may vary in their periods of relapse or remission. The duration and severity of the relapse cannot be predicted. MS is also considered to be exacerbated by stress. The MS Society says:
"We are deeply concerned that as the legislation currently stands, the individual may have to undergo repeated medical examinations to re-establish entitlement. This will cause further stress, to an already debilitating condition".
Another area of concern arising from this part of the Bill relates to the connection between the mobility award and the Motability scheme. Motability allows people to lease a car for three-year periods in return for which they surrender their mobility allowance. At present people who are awarded attendance allowance for two years and mobility allowance for three years or more can make use of the Motability scheme because the two allowances are entirely separate and are paid for different periods. Under the Bill's proposals the mobility component would be awarded only for two years in line with the care component. We are concerned that people in that situation would not be able to use their mobility component for that purpose. The Minister in another place said that the Government would discuss the problem with Motability to try to find a way round it. We are entitled to ask the Government how they propose to deal with that situation, which is potentially very serious for those who use the Motability scheme.
It has been pointed out by MENCAP that the attendance component and the mobility component are designed to cater for different needs and they should be needs led. In other words, if you need a care component for two or three years and a mobility allowance for longer, perhaps for life, there should be some way of adapting the system to allow for that. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the reason for adopting the same fixed periods is one of administrative convenience or simplicity or whether there is something further behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Lord that there is no sinister motive behind what we are doing. Perhaps I may briefly explain. The noble Lord's understanding is broadly correct. A person with care and mobility needs, unless one of the awards is for life, will find the other award shortened to bring it into line. Let me give noble Lords the rationale. A person with care and mobility needs will have to complete

1539
only one claim form and, at most, have one medical examination in order for his entitlement to both components of DLA to be considered.
I appreciate that the noble Lord's amendment is a probing amendment but its effect would be to cut across the advantages which unification will bring. In providing for components to be awarded for different periods, the amendment would increase the number of times when entitlement would need to be reconsidered. It is conceivable that a person could be awarded the mobility component for, say, four years and the care component for five years. That would mean that that person's case would be reviewed twice in the space of a year. On both occasions the claimant would be asked to provide evidence in support of continuing entitlement. Despite our intention to reduce considerably the reliance on medical examinations, we could not rule out the possibility of his being required to have a medical examination on both occasions.
We do not believe that that is in the claimant's best interests; nor is it good administrative practice. We feel that it would be much better to align the award periods, either at the outset or when the second component is awarded. Where the disabled person continues to meet the qualifying conditions the award would be renewed for a further period.
The major exception to this approach—I touched on this point at the beginning is where one of the components is awarded for life, which, incidentally, is the position in which the great majority of beneficiaries receiving both components will find themselves. Here there are not the same considerations about repeated assessments of the claimant's circumstances. A life award should mean precisely that. Unless the claimant's condition changes, either for better or worse, there should be no need to review entitlement. The Bill recognises that fact and provides that an award of one component can be made to a person for life irrespective of the period of award of the other component.
The noble Lord rightly mentioned the Motability scheme. He pointed out the concerns that have been expressed in another place, which the Government recognise. We recognise the implications that the introduction of DLA might have for the scheme. My right honourable friend in another place said that he would be discussing the practical arrangements for the new benefit with representatives of Motability. I can now report that discussions have taken place and that an administrative solution has been identified which should ensure that no one misses out on the opportunity to enter into the Motability scheme simply because his award of the mobility component has been aligned with that of the shorter care component. The fine details of the arrangements have still to be sorted out. I cannot go into them at this moment. However, I am confident that they should be resolved well in advance of the introduction of the new benefit. I hope that that will satisfy the disquiet expressed by the noble Lord.
I return to the general advantages of simplification. I hope that the advantages, as I have set them out, of
1540
unifying the two components of the claim will be accepted by the noble Lord and that he will therefore be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I certainly intend to withdraw the amendment but before doing so perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that my understanding is correct. When I moved the amendment it seemed to me that there was a real problem for the person who has a care component for, say, four years and then receives a mobility component for two years. Presumably he has to drop two years off the first allocation of the care component. That is how I understand the position. Incidentally, the Motability situation reveals the problem extremely well. If the Government have been able to find an administrative solution—at the moment it sounds rather mysterious and I understand that the Minister cannot explain it in detail—why cannot they use the same administrative solution for the other problems which I mentioned?
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is quite correct. Someone who has the mobility award then gets the attendance for a shorter period which brings it down. Thereafter, when the two years are up, he will have to reapply. But he would have to reapply for his attendance allowance at that stage anyway. That would be the time to bring them into line. That would create a much simpler way of doing things and is better than telling him that there is no need to bother about the mobility component this year and he should come back in two years' time. I think that we could reduce the number of times that he would have to claim and reduce the potential number of times that he would have to see the doctor and so on.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall read with care what he said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("he") to end of line 3 and insert ("is resident and present in Great Britain at the time of claim and at the time of payment except in such circumstances as shall be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading I mentioned the difficulties that some people have with severe disablement allowance. As the regulations are currently drafted, quite rightly in order to avoid people flooding into this country to take advantage of our welfare state, those who have not been in the country for more than 10 out of the past 20 years are denied severe disablement allowance. Unfortunately, that catches the families of some Crown servants and in particular those of members of the Army in the armoured regiments. Following either husband or father, they may be out of the country supporting that Crown servant for more than 10 out of the past 20 years.
This measure affects only a handful of people. I wonder whether my noble friend will be able to take advantage of today's proceedings to give an undertaking that the Government will change those regulations so that families of Crown servants will be

1541
covered. If he is able to do so, can he tell me when the Government will do it? I am afraid that vague promises never get one anywhere.
The purpose of the amendment is not only to put forward that point but to make certain that a similar situation does not arise with disability living allowance. I wonder whether my noble friend, when he comes to reply, can also give an undertaking that the regulations will be so drafted as to take care of the families of the Crown servants whom we send abroad on our behalf. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to support the amendment. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has brought back this issue. He has spoken on it before and made a compelling case. He has again made a compelling case. People who serve the Crown often at great inconvenience and with great effort should not be penalised for so doing.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I add my support for the amendment. Clearly one of the great disadvantages of serving the Crown overseas is that one might be caught by such a provision. I am sure that the noble Lord will relieve the Committee by stating that he will remedy the position straight away.
Will he inform us whether or not such provision goes against our social security regulations and the European Community regulations relating to nationals? If he cannot answer now perhaps he will reply by letter.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to have my name on the amendment. It is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has brought to the House on a number of occasions. It is time that he received a satisfactory answer.
Lord Henley: I thought that I always gave satisfactory answers. Obviously that is not felt to be the case. I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, by letter, if he will permit me. Since some of the concerns expressed go somewhat wide of the amendment, perhaps I may speak to the amendment and then deal with points raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
The Government intend that the residence and presence rules for disability living allowance should be the same as those which apply currently for attendance allowance and invalid care allowance. Those are that the claimant is ordinarily resident in Great Britain and has been present here for 26 weeks out of the past 12 months. This in fact improves the position for people claiming the mobility component of DLA because currently mobility allowance requires presence in 52 weeks out of the last 18 months. That easement I think shows that the Government are not intent on placing unduly harsh requirements on the payment of benefit to people who have been out of the country. Indeed, I suggest that a requirement of 26 weeks presence in the last 12 months is very reasonable. I should also emphasise that this requirement is deemed to be satisfied in certain cases, including the case where the absence from Great
1542
Britain is because the claimant is a member of the family of a serving member of Her Majesty's armed forces.
I realise that while the terms of the noble Lord's amendment relate to the disability living allowance, he has a particular concern with regard to severe disablement allowance and the residence and presence test. The noble Lord accepted that that concern goes slightly beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, with the permission of the Committee I should say a little on severe disablement allowance.
As my noble friend said, to qualify for severe disablement allowance, a claimant must be present in Great Britain and have been resident here for 10 out of the past 20 years. We recognise that this rule presents difficulties for the families of serving members of the forces. Such people may be unable to qualify for the allowance simply because they belong to the family of someone who is required to be abroad in the service of his country. I should perhaps point out that in practice this rules out only a very small number of people since the effect of a commissioner's recent decision has been to enable members of the forces to be treated as being resident in this country if they are continuing to maintain or purchase a home here.
This 10 in 20 year residence test for severe disablement allowance is a stricter one than applies for other non-contributory benefits for disabled people. We have been re-examining the test and are looking very carefully at the issues involved.
I have to admit that our deliberations are not yet complete on the general issue. But on the specific question of forces families I am pleased to say that I can today announce a change to meet the concern expressed by my noble friend. As noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will acknowledge, recent events in the Gulf must remind us that members of Her Majesty's armed forces have frequently to be overseas, and often in situations of great danger, in the service of this country. We think it only right that the structure of the social security benefits system should recognise their special position. Consequently, we propose to amend the residence condition as it applies to the severe disablement allowance, to allow periods spent abroad by serving members of Her Majesty's armed forces and their families to be treated as residence in Great Britain for the purposes of qualifying for SDA. My noble friend asked when the regulations will be made. The necessary regulations will be made at the first suitable opportunity later in the year.
I hope that with that one piece of good news my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for what he describes as a piece of good news. It is extremely welcome. Perhaps I may suggest that he considers the question of Crown servants generally. There will still be a number of civil servants serving this country in the EC. If he takes account only of the armed forces one or two individuals will be involved as opposed to between five and 10, which is the current situation.
Lord Henley: I said that we are considering the general issue but our deliberations are not yet complete. That is why I wished in the meantime to announce the concession for the families of our armed forces.
Lord Swinfen: I am glad to hear that after some months of badgering my noble friend is gradually being moved. With those thanks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 19 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 10 leave out from ("with") to end of line 14 and insert ("either his bodily functions or functions of daily living or both combined attention from another person for a prolonged period of the day; or").
The noble Lord said: The care component of the DLA simply reproduces the current attendance allowance rules and adds on an extra set of criteria for the new lower rate of payment. With the permission of the Committee, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may confirm that the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 20 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
Lord Carter: I apologise. Yes. I should have stated that at the start. The aims of the amendments are to widen the attendance criteria to include what we describe as "functions of daily living", to amend the pattern of care required to obtain the allowance, and to amend the night time supervision test introduced in 1988. We know that just under 900,000 people claim attendance allowance. It is a small proportion of the 6.5 million disabled who are recognised by the OPCS. Roughly two-thirds of the claimants for attendance allowance are over pensionable age.
The legislation for attendance allowance, and its implementation, has caused some problems. Last year the greatest load of cases before the social security commissioners consisted of attendance allowance appeals. There were almost 1,000 cases, most of which were successful for the claimant. Nearly three-quarters—69 per cent.—of claimants who challenge an unfavourable decision are successful on review. Does the Minister feel that this high percentage of turnover of decisions on appeal and review is acceptable for any benefit?
I refer to attendance in connection with bodily functions required frequently throughout the day, or for prolonged or repeated periods at night. The trigger for claiming attendance allowance for most people comes when they feel unable to look after themselves independently or safely, or when they feel in danger in some way. Preparing food, personal hygiene and cleanliness are all basic activities which most non-disabled people take for granted. Yet one would be refused an attendance allowance if one claimed on the basis of those criteria alone regardless of how crucial they were to one's life.
In this group of amendments we approach the extra cost argument from a different angle. Only a small proportion of the 6.5 million disabled population
1544
receive the attendance allowance. One is entitled to ask: Why should a person who needs a special diet prepared, or assistance with laundering because of incontinence, be excluded through a narrow interpretation of the words?
If the amendment is accepted it will allow consideration of essential needs which arise as a result of disablement to be counted for all three rates of payment. The inclusion of the phrase "functions of daily living" will allow disabled people to claim on the basis of needing assistance when preparing or observing a special diet, for needs with laundering, for cleanliness, and for getting out and about, and so on. Those are normal daily needs and functions which are limited through disability. The intention of the wider form of words is to clarify what has been achieved effectively by case law in the appeals to which I have referred, and slightly to extend the law beyond the strictly intimate bodily functions.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, 91 per cent. of all blind and partially sighted people had difficulties with at least one of their daily living tasks. We know that only a small proportion of the blind qualify for attendance or mobility allowance.
The amendments deal with another problem of attendance allowance which the new DLA has failed to tackle: the excessive emphasis that is placed on a pattern of care requirements. The attendance allowance was designed to help disabled people who had extensive and personal needs. As the rule stands the criteria rely much too heavily on the pattern of those care needs. We propose that the day time attention condition for the middle and higher rates of DLA would be satisfied where a person meets a lighter time and pattern of care needs tests. That is far more equitable than forcing people on to the £10 rate who may have substantial needs which may occur at the wrong time of day.
Our third aim is to reinstate the night-time supervision test which was used until March 1988. It will therefore remove the watching-over test which was installed by the 1988 Act. While "attention" has always been taken to mean actual physical assistance, "supervision" is seen as being more hands off; that is, having someone available in case of need in order to prevent a substantial danger arising. If as we suspect no one is qualified under the current night-time and watching-over test it should be abolished and replaced with a simpler, fairer and continual supervision test. It would be better to remove the night-time and supervision test rather than operate a test which is so tight that nobody can satisfy it in practice.
In tabling the amendments we believe that there is a need for easing the current rules for attendance allowance rather than a mere perpetuation of their deficiencies through the care component of the DLA for people under 65 and the continuation of the attendance allowance for claimants over 65. Amending the care criteria now would be more reasonable and would also lend the criteria more easily to self-assessment.

1545
MIND has pointed out that the existing criteria for attendance allowance remain unchanged as a basis for receiving the middle and higher rates of the care component of DLA. But this formula, which concentrates on a physical need or danger, often fails people whose disability arises from mental health problems. When the mental health service users successfully claim attendance allowance it is on the grounds of need for supervision. Diet, medication, finances and support are areas where supervision may be needed to avoid harm to the person. However, there are situations in which a person can be very disabled and have substantial care needs but where neither bodily functions nor substantial danger are an issue.
The Minister will understand that in tabling the amendments we are trying to improve the present situation. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The amendments concern the qualifying conditions for the care component of the disability living allowance. I freely admit that the conditions for the middle and higher rates are exactly the same as the existing conditions for the attendance allowance. As regards the care and mobility components of DLA our deliberate aim was to target extra resources for people with less severe disabilities who do not currently qualify for help. We also wished to ensure that the people who do not receive help under the current schemes continue to be eligible for the extra resources on the basis of the same qualifying conditions under DLA.
Having heard the noble Lord's reasons for tabling Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, I wonder whether in our basic intentions we are as far apart as he might think. His fundamental point is that people's care needs may be broader than simply the need for attention in connection with bodily functions. That is a fair point and one that we had in mind when inventing the conditions for the new lower rate of the care component.
The OPCS identified two particular groups of people who have care needs but are not currently receiving attendance allowance. These were people whose needs in connection with bodily functions were more limited and predictable than those of current attendance allowance beneficiaries and people who had no needs directly related to their bodily functions but who nevertheless had considerable difficulty in dealing with the kind of mundane tasks of everyday life that pose little or no problem for the non-disabled population.
We have tried to pick up both these groups with the qualifying conditions for the lower rate. I am sure that the noble Lord would want us to go further and extend the middle rate of DLA care to people whose care needs were not related to bodily functions. I have to say that that is not the direction that either our experience of attendance allowance or the evidence of the OPCS reports would justify.
1546
We would all accept that disabled people's care needs range from the acute to the markedly less substantial. What we are inventing with DLA is a benefit that gives far greater recognition to this gradation of need. I do not think there is serious doubt that people whose needs relate to their bodily functions should command the greatest help from the benefit system.
We are concerned to bring into benefit people whose needs go broader than that. Our intention in drawing up the criteria for the lower rates, particularly in the area to which the noble Lord refers as "the functions of daily living", has been to find a single test which is amenable to self-assessment, which is a crucial feature of the new benefit. That is the reason for the appearance in the legislation of what might to Members of the Committee look like the odd formula of "He cannot prepare a main cooked daily meal for himself if he has the ingredients".
Lord Carter: I can assure the Minister that I cannot fulfil that criterion.
Lord Henley: The criterion is intended to be a subjective test. The mere fact that the noble Lord claims to be unable to fulfil it would not entitle him to the benefit.
Lord Carter: The Notes on Clauses state that it is an "abstract concept". I do not know what the abstract concept is in a cooked main meal.
Lord Henley: I am beginning to look forward to a more concrete concept of a cooked meal.
We looked at the OPCS evidence about the daily tasks which those disabled people who did not need attention in connection with their bodily functions nevertheless found difficulty in performing. We then created a deliberately difficult abstract test which on the basis of that evidence will be well beyond the capacity of the group we want to target. It will be an abstract test. No one will put to the test the cooking abilities of the claimant, of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, or of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. However, perhaps one day they might allow me to do so. No one will be ruled out of benefit merely because they do not in practice ever want to cook themselves a main daily meal. Let us be clear that the more difficult the test, the more people will be unable to perform the task and thus more people will receive benefit.
In essence, my argument would be that on the lower rate we have found a different and I think a better way of achieving what I believe the noble Lord wants. As the system beds down we shall look very closely at whether our abstract test is meeting these objectives. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to reverse the steps taken in the Social Security Act 1988 to put on a clear and coherent footing the night-time criteria for people who require care from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to themselves or to others. I hope to persuade Members of the Committee that it would not be sensible to do that. When the 1988 Act was passed my noble friend emphasised that the reason for

1547
changing the law was in no way to tighten up the conditions for entitlement to benefit; rather the Government's aim was to restore the law to what was generally believed to be the case before the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mrs. Dorothy Moran.
A fundamental aim of the attendance allowance has always been to recognise the extra costs and disruption of normal family life that arise from the attendance needs of severely disabled people. At night, when the normal state of the members of any household is that of sleep and quiet, such disruption can be caused because the disabled person requires frequent attention with his bodily functions or because his condition requires that someone else is awake and watching over in order to avoid the disabled person putting himself or other people at risk of substantial danger. In that situation, as Members of the Committee have recognised, there is a clear need which should be met. On that basis, many hundreds of thousands of people have qualified for attendance allowance since 1971. As I said before, since that time numbers have increased considerably.
However, the Court of Appeal held that in some circumstances continual supervision might be exercised even by someone who is asleep, albeit ready to wake up if and when a danger occurs. Such danger need not be common provided that it is not,
"so remote a possibility that it can reasonably be disregarded".

Therefore, we were getting very close to the position where the household routine need scarcely be disturbed at all for benefits to be payable. We were getting away from the whole idea of need.
The night-time criteria introduced in 1988, which are being carried forward into disability living allowance, provide a clear and unequivocal test which identifies exactly the people for whom the benefit was always intended. There is no evidence that those criteria have been applied any differently from the way in which the original criteria were applied until the time of that judgment. I believe that Amendment No. 22 would be a retrograde step and unnecessary. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I propose to withdraw the amendment. As the moving of the amendment and the reply by the Minister indicate, this is a complicated area. However I do not believe that the Minister answered my question as to how many people qualify under the night-time supervision test. If, as we believe, it is a very small number, then perhaps it may be sensible to replace it. If the Minister does not have that information now, perhaps he will write to me. We believe that the continual supervision test would make more sense.
I shall read what the Minister said on this complicated matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 22A:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert (", to any one of which may be added a community care supplement payable out of the National Insurance Fund.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert:

("(5A) The weekly rate of the community care supplement shall depend on the individual circumstances of a severely disabled person. In particular it shall depend on the extent to which he is severely restricted in his ability to perform normal personal care and domestic tasks because of his disablement, on the extent of his need for help, attention or supervision from another person, on the cost of securing the required help, attention or supervision, and on such other factors as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

(i) a community care supplement shall not be payable in addition to a payment from the Independent Living Fund;

(ii) providing his circumstances qualify him for a payment from the Independent Living Fund, a community care supplement shall be payable to a severely disabled person in lieu of such a payment when the payment ceases on the expiry of the life of the Independent Living Fund Trust on or before 8 June 1993; and

(iii) payment of the community care supplement shall be disregarded for the purposes of assessing housing benefit and community charge benefit.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 12, after ("person") insert (", except a child under the age of 16 who is accompanied or frequently visited by a parent or guardian who provides prolonged or repeated supervision or attention with bodily functions while in hospital for medical treatment",).
The noble Baroness said: This is a modest amendment and I shall not take up a great deal of the Committee's time. It refers to children in hospital. The amendment seeks to rectify what is currently perceived as an injustice which will be carried forward into the DLA.
At present, parents of severely disabled children receive attendance allowance which is withdrawn if the child goes to hospital and remains there for more than 28 days. One understands why that rule may make sense when an adult goes into hospital, even if it takes faint regard of the costs of hospital visiting for the family. It may make sense also when a child is in for respite long-stay care and, therefore, where the hospital is shouldering the entire nursing and caring burden.
However, this amendment deals with a much smaller group; namely, those children who are in hospital for long-stay medical treatment—for example, for cerebral palsy—which may require elaborate surgery and where they continue to receive care and nursing from their parents within the hospital ward. Such care reduces the load on the staff and the trauma on the child. As one senior paediatrician, Dr. Judith Kingston, pointed out in a radio interview:

1549
"It does seem unfair that parents should lose attendance allowance when their children are in hospital for a long time. We rely on parents looking after their children when they are in hospital, the mums contribute significantly to the nursing care of the child and there's a lot of expense —extra expense—involved when the child is in hospital".
The extra expense referred to is not merely travelling costs but the extra costs for the family at home when one parent is almost full-time at the hospital.
If the Committee were to accept the amendment, it would aid a small group of families which are already under considerable strain. At very modest expense this Bill could take the opportunity to remedy and not carry forward what is currently perceived as an injustice as regards the attendance allowance. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendment. I hope very much that the Minister will accept it or an amendment which achieves the same objective.
Earl Russell: I also support the amendment. It is very modest. It does not create an entitlement to new money but merely refrains from taking away from people money to which they have previously been entitled. Therefore, the effect of the amendment will be to ease considerably an administrative burden. The allowance is given when a child is out of hospital. It is taken away when the child is in hospital and returned when the child comes out of hospital. Therefore, it is necessary to go through two administrative processes and the saving of administrative costs which this amendment would involve may be an extra reason for the Government looking upon it with favour.
Lord Swinfen: I have some sympathy with the amendment, but only some sympathy. I appreciate that where disability living allowance is used to pay for extra staff to help to look after a child, it would be quite wrong to dismiss the staff while that child is in hospital. It would perhaps be impossible to find staff when the child came out. Therefore, that on-going expense needs to be paid and there will be other expenses which still need to be paid.
However, in moving the amendment the noble Baroness said that the parents of a child in hospital saved the National Health Service a certain amount of expense by helping to look after the child. Is it not the case that where that child would be looked after in hospital, so would an able-bodied child be looked after in hospital by that able-bodied child's parents?
I recall my own children being in hospital years ago. My wife helped on the ward. She had a possible advantage because she was already a state registered nurse. However, many other parents were looking after their children and they received no allowance for doing so. They may well have had to give up work and lose income in order to look after their child in hospital. Therefore, it is very much half a dozen of one and six of another.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree with my noble friend. I have some sympathy for the amendment for the same reasons that he has given. However, the amendment worries me slightly because if a parent receives an
1550
attendance allowance for a child, by definition the parent is responsible for the child and the state accepts that the parent has that responsibility. The moment the child becomes hospitalised then somebody else is responsible for the child; namely, the nurses, doctors and other professionals involved. Therefore, I do not believe that this is the right way forward on this occasion.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: The children whom the noble Baroness has in mind in particular are those for whom the parents or guardians continue to provide substantial care on a regular basis while the child is in hospital. I recognise well the anxiety of the noble Baroness for that group of children. However, the amendment raises serious questions of principle and administration.
I shall deal first with the principle. From the outset 20 years ago, attendance allowance was designed to help meet the cost of care and attention in the home. That must be its primary purpose. I believe there has been consistent bipartisan acceptance of that principle.
We have recognised that the financial commitments associated with a severe disability do not cease immediately on the person going into hospital. That is why, in 1983, we changed the rules to allow attendance allowance to continue to be paid for the first four weeks in hospital. Also payment is restored when the disabled child returns home and, provided a minimum of 29 days is spent at home, attendance allowance continues in payment if the claimant is obliged to spend another stint in hospital.
So we have gone to some lengths to be flexible. I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to be precise in the exemption she is seeking from the general rule, but I think I should briefly restate that I would not favour any general relaxation of the rules on payment of AA/DLA to people staying in hospital for protracted periods. They are, after all, in the vast bulk of cases, receiving most of their care from the hospital staff and many or all of the expenses which are incurred in giving this type of care are being borne by the hospital. It would, I think, be wrong for attendance allowance to continue in the generality of cases, giving double provision for the same needs from the benefit system and the NHS.
To turn briefly to the administrative difficulties, the first is that pinpointing the group which concerns the noble Baroness without going far broader, as I suspect my noble kinsman Lord Russell wished to do—is genuinely difficult. I think we would want to assure ourselves, for example, that parents' presence and care was requested by the hospital—that is, that the hospital nurses were not in practice doing all the caring for which DLA is paid. But if we did seek that assurance from the paediatricians—and I take the noble Baroness's word that most paediatricians would be only too happy to supply the information to us—we should for this group be applying a very different test from that we are using for DLA in all other circumstances. The DLA criteria make no reference to whether the help is in practice given, simply to whether

1551
it is required. For this group, we should be asking for evidence of the parents' actual contribution to the caring.
I must say that I am wary of inventing new tests for our adjudication officers to have to apply even if—and perhaps especially if—they apply only to very small numbers. And I do wonder, if we did try to circumvent the many problems we see with this amendment, whether we should simply be creating new anomalies in the system. For example, what about the situation of children over the age of 16 or of mentally handicapped adults needing constant attention—and perhaps also getting it from a relative when in hospital? There are real dangers in trying to fine-tune a social security system so much to cover very worthwhile contingencies that you end up with a system that is inoperable and incomprehensible.
In the light of the flexibility that I have mentioned we brought it in some time ago in relation to the payment for the first four weeks and also the restoration of payment when the child goes home provided a minimum of 29 days is involved. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply but I have to say that I am not persuaded by it. The situation, when we are dealing with a small group of children such as are referred to in the amendment, has three characteristics. First, they are children; secondly, they enter hospital already disabled; and, thirdly, they are sick. Given that, they are likely—certainly all the evidence from the paediatricians suggests this—to have needs over and above those of an able-bodied child or indeed an adult. That need is normally met by the parent, usually the mother. It is very clear from the evidence we have had that the nursing and caring need, because of the triple effect of being a child, being disabled and being sick, is great and that the nursing staff count on the very active contribution made by the parent. As a result, the paediatricians themselves would welcome the allowance.
Therefore it is not only a matter of fairness to the mother —it is usually the mother—who is continuing the nursing care in hospital but of house and attendance allowance of either £25 or £35, compared to the average cost of an NHS bed which may well be £200 plus. In addition the family at home, left without the care offered usually by the parent, including cooking, cleaning, laundry and so on, because that parent is almost full-time in hospital, is itself incurring costs over and beyond those originally faced. The extra responsibilities involved in giving nursing care and so on in the hospital, the extra costs facing the family without that parent at home, and the costs of medication and of visiting that the parent incurs, would, it seems to me, justify targeting this sum at those parents.
Secondly, the Minister made much of the point about opening the floodgates to care. I find it very odd that he objects to fine-tuning, unless of course he manages to call it "targeting", whereupon he is in favour of it. I would suggest that what he regards as fine-tuning in this case is a matter of targeting those
1552
children who are already disabled and require extensive parental nursing in hospital: a group which the paediatricians say can be easily identified. If I may reinforce the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, what we are talking about here is allowing an existing benefit to continue—not asking for new money—because the core of the activity which attracts that benefit, which is nursing care and attendance for the child, continues whether the child is in hospital or at home. On that basis, I would hope that perhaps the noble Lord might find himself able to redefine fine-tuning as targeting and come back to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime I would ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed and, in moving that, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage should begin again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Revised Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities
7.6 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move that the draft code laid before the House on 31st January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House should approve the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities. The background briefly is that the Employment Act 1989 amended the provisions in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 on time off for trade union duties. I recognise that the noble Lord opposite argued against that amendment, but their views did not prevail in the parliamentary process. There was a full debate on this matter in 1989 and it would not be right now to go over the same ground in any detail. However, it would, I think, be helpful to your Lordships in considering this draft ACAS code if I gave a very brief explanation of why the amendment to the 1978 Act was made. It will help to set the present debate in context.
The amendment to the 1978 Act had its origins in the White Paper Building Businesses … not Barriers, which was published in 1986. Paragraph 7.9 of that White Paper said that the Government intended to limit the range of duties for which time off with pay must be allowed to the scope of union recognition by the employer. The reason for the White Paper proposal was to reduce unnecessary statutory burdens

1553
on employers. The law as it stood at that time could result in employers having to pay for lay trade union officials to take time off to deal with matters unrelated to those matters for which the employer recognised their union. That put a cost on employers and did not seem fair or right.
The Government implemented the White Paper proposal in Section 14 of the Employment Act 1989. That section restricted the time off for trade union duties in the manner I have indicated and was, in the Government's view, a modest, reasonable and necessary measure in the cause of good industrial relations. In our view the time-off provisions as amended strike a fair balance between the rights of trade union officials and the obligations which it is reasonable to impose on employers.
Turning now to the code, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is required by the Employment Protection Act 1975 to provide practical guidance in a code of practice on the time-off provisions. Such a code of practice has a status similar to that of the Highway Code. That is to say, failure to observe a provision of the code does not make anyone liable to tribunal proceedings but the code may be taken into account by the industrial tribunal in any proceedings before it. There is a specific reference to the code in the time-off provisions of the 1978 Act. It is a reasonably well-known and established procedure and has not, I think, caused any problems since the current code of practice came into force in 1978.
The amendment of the law on time off for trade union duties in the 1989 Act meant that the ACAS code, which has been in force since 1978, was out of date and had to be amended. If a code of practice is to provide practical guidance it must reflect the law accurately. If the law is changed, then so must the code be changed. Under the Employment Protection Act 1975 it was therefore necessary for ACAS to go through the procedure of drawing up a revised code to replace the existing one. In doing that it took the opportunity of improving the presentation of the code, as well as making sure that it reflected the change in the law.
As noble Lords will see, the code gives clear guidance on the legislative provisions themselves, the responsibilities of employers and trade unions, the advantages of establishing agreements or understandings on time off, the position where there is industrial action and the procedure for making a complaint to an industrial tribunal. In addition there is what I am sure noble Lords will agree is a very useful annex setting out the law in full.
As required by the 1975 Act, ACAS published a draft of the new code and circulated it to a wide range of organisations. Six thousand copies were sent out and comments were received from some 40 organisations. The great majority welcomed the draft as an improvement on the existing 1978 code. The new presentation was particularly well received, especially the typographical distinction between statutory provisions and practical guidance.
ACAS made some amendments to the draft in the light of the consultation. As required by the 1975 Act, it then presented the revised draft to the Secretary of State. Perhaps I could in parenthesis at this point remind noble Lords that both the TUC and CBI have members on the ACAS council.
The Secretary of State approved the draft code and has now laid it before this House for your Lordships' approval. With that explanation I commend the draft code of practice to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 31st January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the assent of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, I follow my noble friend the Minister, as behind this debate there lies a fundamental question of recognition which affects the due and orderly conduct of industrial relations on which the party opposite may well wish to comment. Before coming to this I wish to say that surely the Government are much to be congratulated on this code, which is a document that meets all current essential requirements.
First of all, the legal status is made plain in paragraph 7 of the introduction. Secondly, it is in a form suitable for use as evidence in industrial tribunal proceedings relating to time off for trade union duties and activities, and indeed on appeal in the courts from the industrial tribunal. Thirdly, it is intelligible, concise and written in good, plain, ordinary English. Lastly, it recognises the need to maintain a good working relationship between employers and trade unions. It is designed to serve, and indeed shall serve, such an important purpose.
Time off with pay entitlement is to be available for employees who are trade union officials to carry out trade union duties (examples of which are given in paragraph 12) —the list is not exhaustive: this for the purpose of collective bargaining—and I shall return to that when I come to the fundamental question of recognition—and other related matters to such duties which the employer has agreed the trade union may perform: also to undergo training relevant to the carrying out of such duties as approved by the Trades Union Congress or the union, as stated in paragraphs 15 and 16.
But without some effective recognition procedures the code will remain of limited use and application and cannot fulfil, or ever fulfil, its potential. This we all appreciate—the noble Baroness opposite and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—is a matter for primary legislation, and I referred to this in Hansard, Vol. 525, No. 31, at col. 272: there is no object in repetition.
My attention has since been directed to the findings of the Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistics, which concludes that recognition of manual unions reduces investment in an enterprise by some 23 per cent. This is worrying. But as predictability, so essential to productivity, cannot be achieved without collective bargaining, and as productivity and profits are on any economic analysis the magnet for investment, the hope must be that the findings of the

1555
Oxford Institute shall not be used as an argument against setting up some effective recognition machinery to complement this excellent code of practice.
Surely this question of recognition, long ripe for sane and sensible resolution, warrants the attention of the TUC, and is ripe for consideration by government. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed and wholly comprehensible introduction, and I hope he will not take it amiss if I use this occasion, as I have used other occasions, to suggest that the primary law should be substantially amended.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister for his clear explanation of what this code is about and to say that there is very much to welcome in the code. I understand that the Trades Union Congress, which, as the noble Minister has said, has representatives on ACAS, believes that the code is as good as it is possible to be, bearing in mind the legislation on which it is based.
As the Minister has already indicated to the House, we on this side of the House did not like the restrictions imposed in the 1989 legislation. We hope there will come a time in the not-too-distant future when we shall have the opportunity of amending those restrictions, because surely it is to the benefit both of employers and employees that there should be a good and reasonable working relationship between representatives of recognised unions in a plant, factory or office and the management. Certainly time off with pay for a number of agreed activities is one of the elements in achieving a reasonable industrial relations environment.
There are aspects of the code to which I wish particularly to draw attention because they are important. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is essential to do everything possible to encourage trade union democracy. That means providing facilities to lay members to take part in trade union activities—for example, to stand for election to national executive councils of unions and, when elected, to participate in the work of the executive and the union. It is the Government's repeatedly stated policy that unions should be returned to their members. I never thought that they belonged to anyone else. Nevertheless, that is the Government's philosophy. Therefore, I welcome those elements in the draft code which appear to encourage that development.
I have some doubts about the reference to associated employers. There are now very many large conglomerates which consist of a number of free-standing companies. Negotiations on pay bargaining and so on take place on a day-to-day basis in the free-standing companies. Therefore, I see no difficulty about time off for representatives handling those issues in the free-standing companies. However, there are often arrangements where, for example, pension schemes are negotiated on a group basis. I hope that the code as currently drafted will allow representatives to negotiate outside the free-standing companies with the main conglomerate in such circumstances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, the code shows a great improvement in the way
1556
in which it is drafted, the general presentation and appearance. I join with him in congratulating the Government upon that. I also thank him from this side of the House for raising sharply the issue of recognition, which we have repeatedly raised from this side of the House. We have raised it whenever an Employment Bill has been before the House. We have lost our amendments directed at achieving a statutory means of securing recognition. That is an area to which we shall have to return even though the context of a draft code of practice is not the appropriate vehicle. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for raising the issue. It is one to which we shall return in this House when the opportunity presents itself. I thank the Minister for the presentation of the code and offer no objection to it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for the way in which he has presented the revised code. As he said, it is based on the proposition underlying Section 14 of the Employment Act 1989 that the right of officials of recognised trade unions to paid time off for trade union duties should be limited to duties concerned with matters for which the union is recognised and that, similarly, paid time off for training must be relevant to duties meeting the same conditions.
When we debated the clause before it became part of the 1989 Act, I opposed it on the ground that the 1978 code, as interpreted by various court cases which followed its publication, provided a reasonable legislative framework for determining when a union official should be entitled to time off. I took the view that in the great majority of cases the flexible arrangements relating to time off that were already in operation were working well enough and that there was no need to change them to rest on management-based recognition agreements.
However, as the noble Viscount has reminded us, for better or worse the Act took effect. Within the restrictions that have now been introduced, ACAS has predictably produced an excellent document. I particularly welcome the way in which the summary of statutory provisions relating to time off is distinguished from practical guidance by appearing in bold type. I suppose that the only way in which the present arrangements can now be radically altered would be to revert to conditions under which it would be easier for trade unions to obtain recognition from employers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has canvassed such a course.
Like the noble Baroness, I have some sympathy for what he had to say, but I do not propose to follow him down that road now. Nevertheless, I shall be interested to hear whatever the noble Viscount may now have to say in response to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The only other comment I have to make is that under conditions in which so many companies, particularly small firms, are finding it hard enough even to survive, paragraph 31 of the revised code will often, unfortunately, be the operative one. I say that because I have been told that, with the best will in the world,

1557
in many cases employers are finding it impracticable to grant requests from trade unionists for time off and at the same time, in the words of that paragraph,
"ensure adequate cover for safety or to safeguard the production process".
That is a matter for regret, but it is no doubt unavoidable in the present circumstances. On behalf of my noble friends, I am happy to accept the code.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for welcoming this ACAS code. ACAS has obviously done a great deal of work on it by sending it out for consultation. This is the final product. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also welcomed the code, as did my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who congratulated the Government on it. I was very pleased to accept that praise, but the congratulations are due to ACAS.
I stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the important point in all this will depend on the terms of the particular recognition agreement and the subject matter covered. I need not remind your Lordships that recognition agreements vary as to the subjects covered. For example, one recognition agreement may provide that pensions are to be the subject of negotiation between the employer and the trade union while another recognition agreement may cover pay only and exclude further matters such as pensions.
The application of the time off provision to which this code is drawing attention, crucially depends on the terms of the recognition agreement. Generally speaking, if the recognition agreement covers a particular matter and is concerned with negotiations, then the employer is under a statutory duty to allow time off in relation to that matter.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the importance of trade union recognition. He also drew attention to a study to be published shortly in the British Journal of Industrial Relations which apparently shows that corporate investment is significantly lower in companies that recognise trade unions for collective bargaining. Perhaps I may take that point first. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the imminent publication of that study. I agree with him that the results of the study appear to be significant. I assure him that my department will examine them very carefully.
I turn briefly to the general subject of trade union recognition. My noble friend was quite right to stress its importance in the context of this debate. The statutory right to time off for trade union duties in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended by the Employment Act 1989, is entirely dependent on having a recognition agreement between the employer and the trade union. If there is no such recognition agreement there is no statutory right to time off. That has been the case since the statutory provisions were first enacted by the Labour Government in 1975. However, since 1980, when this Government repealed the statutory recognition procedure enacted by the Labour Government, the
1558
decision whether to recognise a trade union has been entirely a matter for the employer to decide. I completely understand that that is the point at issue between my noble friend and myself.
I should state that in our view that is how it should be. Our view is that the decision to recognise a trade union is a matter which only the employer can decide in the light of his own particular circumstances. He has a freedom of decision in this matter which seems to us to be right, bearing in mind the general voluntary nature of industrial relations in this country. But if an employer decides that he will recognise a union, he is subject to certain statutory duties. I shall not enumerate them all but I give one or two examples. One is the statutory obligation to allow time off for trade union duties. That is the subject of the ACAS codes which we are discussing this evening. Another statutory right which follows from recognition is the right for trade unions to have information disclosed to them by the employer which they need for the purposes of collective bargaining. That is provided for in the Employment Protection Act 1975.
It is important that we strike a correct balance in these matters between the obligations on the employer and the rights of the trade union. I believe that we have the balance right. Union recognition is voluntary, but if the employer decides to recognise the union certain statutory obligations flow from that decision. I believe that those statutory obligations strike a fair and reasonable balance between the obligations of employers and the rights of the unions which I mentioned. The change which the Employment Act 1989 made in the right to time off for trade union activities, reflected in the draft ACAS code of practice, was another element ensuring that the balance is correct.
We have had a useful debate and we have explored one or two of the interesting aspects of the subject. In my view—I hope noble Lords will agree—the new ACAS code of practice is an improvement on the old code. I am glad that my noble friend indicated his approval of the new layout and presentation of that code. It brings the code into line with the law as embodied in the Employment Act 1989 and its new presentation and style makes it easier to use by its customers—employers and unions. I commend the draft code of practice to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1991
7.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Section 149 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy

1559
payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) Modification Order which the House approved in July 1983. The 1983 order was previously amended in 1985 to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985 and has been amended again in each of the past three years, bringing in several bodies that were omitted in 1983 and 1985 or had since come into existence. We now have to undertake a further tidying up to bring in Scottish Enterprise and the General Teaching Council for Scotland and to replace the Local Government Training Board with the Local Government Management Board.
I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is discharged as redundant after at least two years' service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment calculated, among other things, according to his period of continuous service with his last employer. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own an employee would be entitled to a payment every time he became redundant even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.
All this, however, would not properly reflect the realities of local government service, in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government, and the 1983 order secures a similar effect in the statutory redundancy scheme by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".
Unfortunately, there is no convenient and all-embracing definition of what constitutes local government employment. It is therefore necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with whom service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. The first, in Schedule 1 to the 1983 order, lists those employers currently in being by whom anyone may be made redundant. The second, in the appendix to Schedule 2 in the same order, lists those bodies which may have ceased to exist, but with which service may still be reckoned for redundancy purposes.
This amending order is essentially a tidying up measure, it simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 of the 1983 order bodies which have come into existence since the last amendment was made, or were previously omitted, and makes one deletion. The number of employees likely to be affected is very small.
I trust that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved. [12th Report, from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister for his very clear exposition of the order. As he says, it is a tidying up measure. It appears to me to be totally innocuous with very few people involved. In those circumstances, I offer no objection to the order.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on these Benches we too are pleased to approve the order.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am most grateful for the words of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move that the draft orders laid before the House on 24th January be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the rateable values for the operational property of various utilities and undertakings are prescribed by the Secretary of State. These rateable values required to be re-assessed with effect from 1st April 1990, the date of the general revaluation of all non-domestic properties.
Your Lordships had the opportunity some time ago to debate the orders relating to most of the relevant industries. In the case of the electricity industry, however, the date of the revaluation coincided with that for the vesting of the property of the former Scottish electricity boards in their three successor companies—Scottish Power, Scottish Hydro Electric and Scottish Nuclear. This transfer of property required to be reflected in the rating assessments and resulted in an extended consultation with the companies.
We are also committed to bringing the valuation of independent generators of electricity into line with that for the supply companies in the interests of fair competition. Consultations have been conducted with representatives of the independent generators on the proposed method of assessment and the criteria for inclusion within the new arrangements. These consultations are required to await finalisation of our proposals in respect of the electricity companies.
In drafting these orders we have sought to arrive at levels of assessment consistent with those that might have been reached by conventional means and at the same time to harmonise our approach with that adopted south of the Border. Orders relating to the valuation of the corresponding undertakings in England and Wales have already been approved.
The assessments and provisions contained in these orders are the result of extensive discussions with representatives of the supply industry and of independent generators, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the Scottish Assessors' Association. The orders have also been the subject of formal consultation. I believe that they represent fair and reasonable assessments for the industry.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 24th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his explanation of the orders. It has given me a better understanding of what is involved. I have taken advice upon the orders and I understand that there are no objections from CoSLA or any of the other bodies concerned. It is also important, as the noble Earl said, that the electricity generators are being brought into the same scheme of valuation in order, as he correctly pointed out, to ensure that there will be a level playing field for competition. As I said, no representations have been made to me as regards any objections. Accordingly, I am happy to accept the orders.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his remarks. I commend the four orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.5 p.m.]

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) A payment to or in respect of any person which is attributable to his entitlement to the care component and the right to receive such a payment shall (except in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes) be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under which regard is to be had to a person's means.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Minister is in a good mood after the realisation of his culinary concept. I shall be as brief as possible, but I need to go into some detail. The amendment seeks to ensure that
1562
disabled people in receipt of the attendance allowance component are not expected to contribute it to services provided by a local authority or health authority.
I want to make it clear that we are not talking about this issue in relation to residential care or social security. They are both dealt with in other legislation. We are not talking about income assessment in the pure sense; that is, assessment of a person's overall income. Rather, we refer to AA being used as a criterion against which local authorities and health authorities impose charges on disabled people. There is a blanket policy that everyone in receipt of AA is expected to pay so much towards home care regardless of their overall income.
The Spinal Injuries Association claims that that is an increasing problem for many of its members. They are expected to contribute AA to personal and home help services and also, for example, to provide incontinence pads. AA is payable to severely disabled people only. They require frequent attendance during the day or night to help with bodily functions. Higher rate, as we all know by now, is £37.55. That currently buys about 10 hours' care in London and 8 outside the city. The irony is that if someone is disabled enough to qualify for that amount, the sum hardly gets the person out of bed and dressed every day. It certainly does not get him back into bed again.
AA is therefore a compensatory benefit. It was originally designed to help towards the general costs of a disabled person's daily living. The need for attendance was a measure of those most in need. Does the Minister accept that AA does not adequately meet the needs of people sufficiently severely disabled to qualify for it and that local authorities and health authorities should not be requiring AA in return for service provision?
The Department of Health has from time to time issued circulars aimed at preventing charges being made for the home help service but without a great deal of success. The amendment would ensure success while allowing the Government to introduce regulations to prescribe circumstances in which local authorities or health authorities can ask for AA. I understand that the Department of Health intends to issue to local authorities and health authorities guidance on income assessment for community care. The Spinal Injuries Association is concerned about the implication of that guidance. It believes that the consumers' viewpoint should be represented. Will the Minister consult the disability organisations on the broad issue of income assessment for personal social services; and, in direct relation to the amendment, will he say whether the guidance will contain advice on charging for personal assistance and domestic home help services? It would be helpful if he could answer that question when he replies because it may well help me to decide what to do about the amendment. I very much hope that he will agree to the provision or something like it because it would strengthen his hand if it were on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The purpose of the amendment has been well described by the noble Baroness so there is

1563
no need for me to spend much time on it. I should like to press the Minister. We know that the mobility allowance is disregarded as a criterion against which an authority providing the service might impose a charge. The obvious question is, why not do the same with the care component? I cannot see the purpose of introducing one benefit, the DLA, if the two components are to be kept separate for the purpose of income assessment. It is an unnecessary complication and from what we heard earlier it seems to run entirely contrary to the wish to simplify the system.
There is the phrase already in the Bill under Section 37ZB(7) which states that the,
"circumstances may be prescribed in which a person is to be taken to satisfy or not to satisfy such of the conditions".
It seems to us that that allows the Government to state areas in which the care component should not be disregarded and therefore they could accept the amendment because it means that they could continue the present position if they wished. I ask the Minister whether he accepts that the attendance allowance is inadequate to meet the personal assistance needs of people sufficiently severely disabled, to qualify for it. As the noble Baroness said, local and health authorities should not be requiring attendance allowance in return for service provision.
I repeat: how does the Minister justify introducing one benefit but keeping the two components distinct for the purpose of income assessment? Does he accept that this will lead to unnecessary complications?
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness quite rightly said, this amendment would not alter the position of income support payments in residential care and nursing homes and similar places. Where the amendment would be effective is in an area not currently covered by the regulations—that is, the local authority's ability to charge for certain services which it is statutorily obliged to supply. I fully understand the noble Baroness's concern to protect claimants' attendance allowance or the new care component. Allowances, including attendance allowance, DLA, are paid or will be paid from public funds for a wide variety of purposes. I hope that the Committee will agree that where a benefit is designed to pay for services which a local authority provides it is quite proper for that local authority to take the benefit into account in calculating charges for these services. The wide scope of the amendment would make it unable to do so unless very complicated legislation making specific exceptions were introduced. These exceptions would be further complicated with the implementation of community care.
I do not accept the point that the noble Baroness made that the attendance allowance does not necessarily meet all the needs that she suggests. However, we are prepared to consult various organisations in the disability field on the issue. I make no promise as to the outcome, nor am I in a position to make a promise about guidance that might be issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. I repeat, there are no plans to change any of the ways in which either the care or the mobility
1564
component is treated. There is no advantage to be gained from this amendment and I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am slightly disappointed by that reply, which will not surprise the Minister. I do not quite see why it should be so complicated to include legislation to exempt—did the noble Lord, Lord Carter, wish to intervene?
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, will the Minister answer my question? Why is the mobility component disregarded but not the care component?
Lord Henley: The mobility allowance always was disregarded and the noble Lord will accept that that has always been the case. I do not think it would be right therefore for us to decide not to disregard the mobility allowance or the mobility component in the new benefit, the DLA.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I return to what I was saying. I do not quite see why it is so complicated to prescribe the circumstances in which one could charge. I thought that the phrase in brackets in my amendment would have permitted that in regulations. However, perhaps the Minister will comment on that. I appreciate that he cannot say what will be in the guidance. When he says that he will consult disability organisations, do I take it that he will consult them with reference to carrying out the guidance?
Lord Henley: When I say that I shall consult the disability organisations, I mean that if disability organisations wish to come forward, as I have said on previous occasions with different Bills, my door will be open and I shall be prepared to listen to what they say. I make no promises beyond that.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I shall probably have to accept that. I wish to give the Minister one or two instances of things that are happening and perhaps he will comment on them and say whether he thinks that guidance is needed to sort out the problems. I appreciate, as he said, that many local authorities are moving away from merely providing home help towards providing home care services as well. I know his argument is that the attendance allowance can be taken for that but not for home help.
Many are moving towards providing care assistance, giving priority to those needing personal care and imposing charges on the people in receipt of attendance allowance, but the people who need basic home help are being given a low priority. In effect, they are being denied the service. Is it not the local authority's duty to provide assistance, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to those who are assessed as needing such domestic help? Can the Minister give his opinion on that? Is he aware that local authorities are asking for attendance allowances for services? Often they charge a flat rate, regardless of the number of hours provided. They may take quite a lot of the attendance allowance for very

1565
few hours and that can leave the recipient with little of the attendance allowance to spare to buy in services from elsewhere.
On 14th June 1990, at the Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, replying to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on much the same question of charging for services, using the attendance allowance for services, the Minister said at col. 466 of Hansard:
"to avoid double provision, there should not be an automatic disregard of attendance allowance"—
this is the important point—
"though the local authority would be right not to take it into account if it was being spent on attendance needs not covered by the services the local authority was providing".
Does this mean that if the attendance allowance is being spent on extra care or other extra costs, the recipient will not be asked to contribute any attendance allowance to the provision by the local authority if he needs to buy in services elsewhere?
Lord Henley: The various comments which the noble Baroness made will be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in issuing any guidance on the matter. I ought to stress what I said earlier. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that where a benefit is designed to pay for services which a local authority provides, it is quite proper for that authority to take the benefit into account in calculating the charges for those services. The specific points which the noble Baroness made may be relevant for guidance from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and he will take her comments into account.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I still argue that the attendance allowance was not specifically designed to pay for care. It was a general cost allowance. The measure of the disability for which the attendance was needed was the reason for it originally being granted. However, I can see that there is no point in dividing the Committee at this hour of the night—or perhaps there is and we shall start again tomorrow. That might be a good idea.
I thank the Minister up to a point for what he said and for offering to meet the disability organisations. I am sure that they will take note of what he said and queue up at his door. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("5") and insert ("2").
The noble Lord said: This amendment attempts to deal with a situation where it is hard to understand the logic of the Government's attitude as explained in another place. I, and many outside organisations, feel that the Government have been particularly hard-hearted as regards the lower age limit for the new mobility component. The present mobility allowance can only be claimed from the age of five. The new mobility component of the DLA will have the same restriction. That provision seems to be based on the idea that children under the age of five with handicaps
1566
have the same mobility needs as those without handicaps, and therefore no special allowance is necessary.
Those of us who have had experience of bringing up handicapped children will know the extra costs incurred from a very early age; for example, in travelling around with the child. One cannot always take a handicapped child on public transport and one has to use one's car much more often or take taxis. That not only applies to the physically handicapped but also to retarded children and children with multiple handicaps. It is only common sense to admit that such children have far greater needs than those of able bodied children. In MENCAP's survey of children with profound retardation and multiple handicaps, parents were asked about their problems with travel. Some 88 per cent. of parents said that the nature of the handicap made travel by bus or train very difficult—I made that point earlier when I was referring to physical handicap—and only 5 per cent. of the parents said they could use public transport. Some 79 per cent. said they had to use a private car, yet there is no help with those mobility costs.
Most children are able to walk by the age of two, though not every child will walk by that age. However, the mobility component is limited to children with a severe disability. If this amendment is accepted there is no danger of this entitlement being awarded to children who are simply slow in starting to walk. In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Miss Ann Widdecombe, seemed to argue that the mobility needs of a handicapped child were the same as those of a non-handicapped child until he went to school. That argument is inappropriate for children who, in educational terms, are described as having special needs. As we know, health authorities have a duty to inform local education authorities and parents of any children under five whom the health authorities have reason to believe may have special educational needs. Children aged over two can then be formally assessed under the provisions of the 1981 Act. The 1981 Education Act recognises the vital importance of early provision of education for children with special needs. The right to special education starts at the age of two and not at the age of five.
We know that children with severe handicaps require more than just supervision or guidance out of doors, as is the case with able-bodied children. Severely handicapped children have to be carried or held wherever they are. Caring for a very young child with multiple handicaps is not the same as keeping an eye on able-bodied children who are just running around. The same applies to children with cerebral palsy. The first few years can be very expensive. Again, parents have to use a car much more often. Alternatively, they have to hire taxis or pay for lifts as they cannot use public transport. Special wheelchairs and buggies are needed, as is other special equipment.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux sent us some information about two heartrending cases. A citizens advice bureau in Cheshire reports the case of a child with spinal

1567
muscular atrophy who died just before her fifth birthday. If mobility allowance had been payable it would have enabled the family to buy a car to take the child out. A CAB in Pendle reports the case of a child aged three years and three months who is severely disabled. That child's mother spends an average of two days a week taking her son to see various specialists and for treatment. The journeys may involve her travelling up to 30 miles away from her home. Anyone who has experienced visiting hospitals on a regular basis with a handicapped child will have seen the sheer heroism that is displayed by many parents of handicapped children in the time they devote to plying backwards and forwards to hospitals with their children. The Government will perhaps produce the argument of cost, but if it is a matter of cost let us be clear about that. This problem should be recognised. As I said at the outset, I believe the Government are being rather hard-hearted in their attitude to this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: I hope I may interject at this stage to ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter. We have discussed on previous occasions the child support legislation. One of the aims of that piece of legislation is to encourage women who are single parents to go out to work. Clearly the same problems will arise whether the child concerned is aged two, three, four, five or six. I have carried out a great deal of social services work in Kennington over the years and I know how extremely difficult it is for a single mother to move her child from A to B, whether to a hospital, a nursery school or any other place, if that child has either a mental or physical handicap. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment sympathetically. I hope he will inform us whether the problem is one of cost. However, if there is some illogical reason for resisting the amendment I believe the Committee should also be informed of that.
Lord Swinfen: The amendment contains a great deal of merit. Frequently when a family has a two year-old child other children are being born into the family or there may be other children under the age of five. Sometimes there are more than two children under the age of five. My noble friend the Minister is not a mother, though I know he is a father. I suspect he has never had the occasion to do a large family shop on his own accompanied by more than one small child. I gather that he may now have the occasion to do so as he has recently increased his family from two to one. I offer him my congratulations on that fact.
Lord Carter: From one to two!
Lord Swinfen: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I never have been very good at mathematics. If one has two small children and a heavy load of shopping, and one of the children is unable to move around unaided or is disruptive because of a mental disability, the unfortunate mother faces a great deal of difficulty. My noble friend should consider the amendment sympathetically.
Lord Henley: I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his intervention in restoring the size of my family to its appropriate level. Obviously I have noted the points made by all speakers, and
1568
particularly those made by my noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Swinfen. I take their comments on board. I should stress the costs that would be involved in this provision—an extra £30 million.
Some of the toughest decisions in social security revolve around where one draws any particular line, whether it concerns age or income. Inevitably a case can be made for including those who fall the wrong side of that line. That is the problem with drawing lines. Having considered this question with the greatest care I must say that we are not persuaded by the case for any change in the age limit. We remain convinced that the right age limit is five. As Members of the Committee will recall, this was the limit set by the Labour Government, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, no doubt supported, on the introduction of the mobility allowance. That age limit was set on the ground that below the age of five we all have some mobility needs. It is equally true that below that age we need guidance and supervision while walking. Children under five who can walk need almost constant supervision and must be accompanied even on the shortest of journeys.
The age of five is also the age at which most children start school. In many cases they then begin to make journeys on their own. Therefore, that seems to us a sensible dividing line. The Committee will be aware, however, that one of the guiding principles of the Bill is the commitment to considering the effect of disablement and not the cause. That message was received strongly from disabled people and their representative organisations. We are in complete sympathy with that message. That means that we should look at the amount of extra care or supervision that is needed beyond what a child in normal health would need. In the Bill we are providing for both the care and the mobility components.
The Government were persuaded by strong evidence from paediatricians and others that it was sensible to abolish the lower age limit for attendance allowance because it is apparent that some babies require substantially more care than others. I must say that we are delighted by the number of children who are already gaining from that change in attendance allowance. I should mention to the Committee that on the evidence of the OPCS surveys the children we are talking about will almost certainly qualify for the care component. It is hard to imagine circumstances in which a child who is unable to walk would not qualify for the care component, at whatever level.
I do not believe that the same applies to the mobility component. No one denies that it may be clear before the age of five that a child is unlikely ever to be able to walk. The question has to be whether the disability causes extra costs over and above those incurred by parents looking after children of the same age in normal health. As I have said, I do not think that it is possible to speak of any children under the age of five as being independently mobile.
In any decisions as to where to draw the line we must always consider priorities. That is why I emphasised the question of cost. In this case it would be another £30 million on top of the amount that we

1569
are already committed to spending. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that it would not be the best use of resources to provide help with mobility at an age earlier than that at which we can expect normal children to begin to be independently mobile. Having carefully considered the issues we believe that the age of five is the sensible limit. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. However, he faces the difficulty with a number of the amendments that he has to admit that it is cost which is at the heart of his argument.
As he said, a child who is unable to walk will receive the care component from the age of two but will not receive the mobility component until the age of five.
Lord Henley: I stressed that the evidence that we had received from paediatricians suggested that in terms of the care component the needs of a child of the age of two were greater. We do not see that as being so in the case of the mobility component until children are at least five.
Lord Carter: Anyone who compares the mobility of a child between the ages of two and five who is unable to walk with the performance of the normal toddler running around the house has missed the point. That illustrates a weakness in the Government's argument. I shall not press the amendment tonight but I shall have to come back to the matter at Report stage.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may make one further intervention to stress that we believe that the people about whom the noble Lord has spoken would be entitled to the care component. Therefore money would be coming in but it would not be in the form of the mobility component.
Lord Carter: What we have is supposedly a new benefit combining two old benefits with many of the criteria differing between the two components. Therefore we really have the same two benefits with different criteria even though they have now been brought under the one title of disability living allowance. However, I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Should Amendment No. 28 be agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 29 because it pre-empts it.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("that") to ("guidance") in line 39 and insert ("disregarding any ability he may have to use routes which are familiar to him on his own, he cannot take advantage of the faculty out of doors without").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my amendment so that there will be
1570
no need for him to move his amendment. I hope that I can, relatively briefly, satisfy the noble Lord that his amendment—which he may or may not move—referring to unfamiliar terrain is now unnecessary because we have achieved the same effect by a slightly different route.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People gave a commitment in another place that we would look most closely at whether some such amendment as that of the noble Lord was necessary. My right honourable friend said on that occasion that we were in agreement with the point that lay behind the amendment, which is essentially to ensure that a blind or mentally disabled person was not ruled out for benefit because they were able to negotiate one or two local routes on their own without guidance. The fear was expressed that if in practice they spent, in the Bill's words, "most of the time" on those familiar routes they might, perversely, find themselves ruled out for benefit. Clearly that is not our intention. Looking afresh at the matter in recent weeks we have decided that the best and safest course would be to put the matter beyond doubt by covering the point in primary legislation.
We have not done so in quite the same terms as the noble Lord in his amendment. The noble Lord can be assured that that is not because we have any strong objection to his wording. It is simply that our legal advice cast doubt on whether adding the phrase:
"to walk to any intended or required destination on unfamiliar terrain",
solved the problem.
At this stage of the evening I would not wish to enter into a tortuous textual analysis, but it seemed to us quite probable that a person who spent the bulk of the time he spends out of doors going unaccompanied to the corner shop but was unable to go anywhere else without guidance might still miss out. I believe that the amendment that I have tabled tackles that problem successfully by making it clear that the fact that someone unaccompanied can find his way on a few familiar routes does not automatically rule him out for benefit.
We are also content that we have come up with a form of words which makes it clear that the test is abstract. The last thing we would want to have invented is a test which could only be adjudicated by transporting the claimant on to unfamiliar terrain in order to see how he manages.
Having now, I think, got the amendment right, with the help of the amendment of the noble Lord and suggestions made by Opposition Members in another place, to whom I and I am sure my right honourable friend in another place would want to pay tribute, the next step will be for us to prepare a claims pack. In that claims pack we frame the questions in such a way that claimants fully understand the questions that are being asked and give their own assessment of their mobility problems, backed up by an assessment from their carers or professionals who know them. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall be consulting a wide range of individuals and organisations on that subject. I hope that on the basis of those assurances

1571
the noble Lord will be prepared to accept my amendment and will not feel it necessary to move his own. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: From these Benches perhaps I may be permitted to congratulate my noble friend and the Government on what is a considerable and long overdue easement of the criteria for mobility allowance. They deserve every congratulation and I am delighted that it has happened.
Lord Carter: I only wish that the same ingenuity could be applied to the definition of the severely mentally handicapped for the purposes of the mobility allowance.
Obviously at this time of the evening the Committee will accept Amendment No. 28 and I shall be pre-empted on Amendment No. 29. Concern has been expressed by the RNIB. The problem mainly concerns the eligibility of blind people for the mobility component. In a letter to Mr. Dafydd Wigley the Minister said that registered blind people would be eligible for the new lower rate mobility component of DLA. I know that the Government have tried to get it right. However, there is still doubt as to whether the wording is absolutely right in order to ensure that blind people receive the allowance.
I should like to withdraw the amendment, but perhaps I may have a word with the Minister outside the Chamber at some stage to see whether, through a drafting amendment, the anxieties that have been expressed can be addressed.
Lord Henley: I am very grateful for the congratulations of my noble friend. He will know from his experience as a social security Minister that one does not often receive much in the way of congratulations.
To take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of course I shall be prepared to have a chat on this matter at some stage. If it turns out that we are still not there I am sure that we could make further moves. I believe that we are in total agreement about what we are trying to achieve. I suggest that we agree my amendment now, and I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord that my amendment does exactly what I said it does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("either") and insert ("the mobility").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to remove the upper age limit of 65 for entitlement to the care component of the proposed disability living allowance. It would allow people who become disabled after the age of 65 to apply for all three rates of the care component of the DLA and would in effect mean that the attendance allowance could be abolished.
The cost of the amendment would relate only to the lowest £10 rate of the DLA as the two higher rates are already equivalent to the two levels of attendance allowance. Removing the upper age limit for
1572
entitlement to only the care component would be an important step forward to redress some of the discrimination which older people face with disability benefits.
The OPCS surveys—we seem to have to refer to them on almost every amendment with which we deal —show that 70 per cent. of adults with disabilities are over the age of 60. Age is also strongly associated with severity of disability. Almost half of the population with the most severe disabilities is aged over 75. People aged 65 or over are already excluded from the mobility allowance. We feel that the Bill will further discriminate against older people with disabilities by denying them the new lower rate of the DLA. The intention of this amendment is to deal with that problem.
The OPCS surveys showed that only a low proportion of people in severity categories 1 to 8 is in receipt of either attendance allowance or mobility allowance. Researchers noted that only among those in the two highest severity categories are more than half receiving any disability cost benefit. The surveys also showed that a total of 454,000 people with disabilities aged over 60 are in severity categories 9 and 10.
One of the arguments, which is either explicit or implicit in the Government's attitude, is that somehow disability is a natural part of the ageing process and therefore should not be compensated for in any way. That seems to be an argument used by the Government to defend the policy of denying help with the extra costs of mobility for people over the age of 65.
The OPCS report estimates that the prevalence of disability among people aged 60 or over is 35.5 per cent. Clearly the majority of pensioners are not disabled. In other words, it is not a natural part of the process of ageing. The disabilities faced by those who are disabled cannot therefore simply be dismissed as the natural consequences of old age. The OPCS points out that the limitations arising from ageing are properly considered as disabilities and are not a natural part of that process.
I know that the Minister will come back with cost as an argument. If it is cost he should let us know rather than produce a convoluted argument giving all the reasons that I do not find acceptable about the relationship between ageing and disability. We can understand should the Government accept the argument but say that it would cost too much to implement. It would certainly save the time of the Committee if the Minister were to say that rather than produce a long argument which would not be acceptable when the real reason is cost. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may or may not be amused to hear that when I first saw his amendment I wrote against it "the problems of ageing". He has argued both sides of his own amendment with great clarity. There is no doubt that as people age their mobility problems increase. The noble Lord will surely accept that. The great advantage of this Bill and the disability living allowance as currently proposed is that the care component will not only go on but will also be

1573
available, as is attendance allowance now, to people after 65. The mobility allowance on the other hand will essentially carry on as heretofore. In other words, if one does not apply and/or get the allowance before the age of 65, there is a cut-off point and one will not get it thereafter.
As the population gets healthier and therefore most people live unrestricted and mobile lives for longer, say to the age of 70 or 75, this amendment will become more and more important. I rather doubt—I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says—whether we have yet reached that point. We should however keep it in mind for the future.
Lord Carter: Here we have yet another example of the criteria differing for the two components of the so-called one new simplified allowance. In almost every amendment with which we have dealt, it is being revealed that attendance allowance and mobility allowance continue under the new title with different criteria. That is not awfully logical.
Lord Skelmersdale: Would the noble Lord like the cut-off for the first criterion?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord raised the question of costs. Obviously they are relevant and I shall come to them later. Extending DLA to people over 65 has been a recurrent theme throughout the debate on the Bill here and in another place. I admit that up to now the debate has centred on the mobility component. I am grateful that the noble Lord has not tried to raise that provision again because he knows that to bring it in would mean a cost of somewhat less than £2 billion. This amendment represents a new approach.
The Committee will be familiar with the reasons for directing new help through the Bill toward younger disabled people—those of working age and under. In commissioning the OPCS surveys, the Government were seeking, among other things, to identify areas of need which the benefit system was not addressing. The OPCS findings were that younger disabled people experienced a much greater income gap relative to their non-disabled peers than did pensioners. Those shown to be in the greatest need of assistance were younger disabled people whose disabilities did not qualify them for any extra costs benefit under the present scheme, especially those disabled from birth or early in life who, as a result, have had very little or no opportunity to work and save. It was very much with those considerations in mind that we took the course we did, in targeting younger people—for example, with the age additions to severe disablement allowance which we introduced in December last year—and in creating the new lower rates of DLA.
This is not of course to minimise the need to help poorer pensioners, including those with disabilities, and we have done so. I do not feel that it is necessary this evening for me to repeat what we have seen in the way of increased average pensioners' income over the past 11 or 12 years.
I know that the Committee is mindful of the concern that increases in pensioners' average income
1574
should extend to all sections of the pensioner population including those who are dependent primarily or even solely on state benefits. That is why from 1989 an extra £200 million a year over and above inflation has gone into help for pensioners on income-related benefits, including extra money for elderly disabled people. There will be a further £80 million from April this year. That sort of targeted help is the only serious way in which substantial sums of money can be directed to improving the position of those who need it most.
I understand the Committee's desire to try and take the opportunity of the Bill to go further in helping people who are both disabled and pensioners and I recognise that in moving this amendment the noble Lord seeks a commitment to something more modest than the £2 billion that would be required to extend the mobility component to the over 65s. Nevertheless, even with this amendment, we are still talking about a sum of £165 million which is not insubstantial in anyone's language. It has to be the task of government to weigh up competing priorities and find ways of directing help most effectively to those who need it. Our judgment has been that our main priorities over the last couple of years should be poorer pensioners, who received, as I mentioned earlier, an extra £280 million in the last couple of years, younger disabled people, who will get an extra £300 million by 1993–94 through The Way Ahead package, and families with children, particularly lone parents. That is an issue which we shall come to later in the Child Support Bill.
To return to the text of the amendment, as the noble Lord will know, we have taken the opportunity of this Bill to remove the upper age limit which currently applies to receipt of mobility allowance. There are no age limits for receipt of DLA once awarded—including receipt of the lower rates—and AA will continue to be available to those whose disabilities start after age 65. In this context I should mention that some 543,000 pensioners receive attendance allowance—that is 64 per cent. of all attendance allowance recipients. Over 170,000 pensioners currently receive mobility allowance. They form about 28 per cent. of the total MobA population. So it is false to claim that these benefits are completely unavailable to pensioners.
As I have already said, we are cognizant of the needs of pensioners. We have already done and will continue to do a very great deal to meet them. However, this Bill is purposely aimed at younger disabled people. The amendment, though well intentioned, is not the vehicle to extend provision to pensioners at a cost of £165 million.
Earl Russell: I am sensitive to the argument about cost which the Minister advanced, and which I expected him to advance. I agree that these are significant sums. However, if the Government do not meet the costs they do not go away. On whom should they fall? Do they fall better on any of the alternatives than on the Government?
We need to consider the situation in the round and the effects of allowing the costs to fall in various alternative places. It is possible that the old person

1575
concerned may sell his house. That might produce a considerable sum of money. However, uprooting people in their old age is not always a good thing to do. Finding them somewhere else to live may generate other considerable costs which fall on their children. But very often it occurs at a time of maximum outgoings in the lives of those children; often at exactly the same time as the costs of their children's further education. Thanks to measures which we have discussed recently those have increased quite considerably.
Such costs falling at the same time may well be more than a household can meet. I do not know whether it is in the public interest to force people to make that choice, but whichever choice they make the public will suffer. We have therefore a distinct possibility that if nothing is done the person concerned may end up in residential care. That could cost the Government a great deal more than the £165 million about which we now speak. From the Treasury's point of view, is not the amendment the best bargain on offer?
Lord Henley: With monotonous regularity if I may say so, in all social security Bills the noble Earl seems to suggest that any amendment which I argue will cost a great deal of money will somehow save the Government a great deal of money. If I were to listen to every point made by the noble Earl the social security department would be in profit very quickly! Sadly, that is not the case. We live in the real world, as I believe I have said on earlier occasions.
The noble Earl asked on whom the costs will fall. The cost of the amendment will fall on the taxpayers. The taxpayers already pay considerable sums into the social security system. Taxpayers and national insurance contributors are paying £55 billion or more. That is £20 a week for every man, woman and child in the country. Those are not inconsiderable sums. The noble Earl asks: if taxpayers are not prepared to pay, who should pay?
In the end one has to decide on priorities. In some cases an individual may be able to pay. The OPCS surveys considered the levels of income of disabled and non-disabled pensioners, and disabled and non-disabled people below pension age. Above pension age there is not the disparity of income which exists below pension age. It therefore seems right that priority should be directed towards those below pension age. For those reasons one must take cost into account. The same problem does not exist for those above pension age.
The cost is another £165 million. I am sure that even the noble Lord will accept that that is not an inconsiderate sum.
Lord Carter: The Minister's answer was not unexpected but it was disappointing. It is not the time of night to enter into a debate on the philosophy of support for people with disabilities and whether one should have an income and cost allowance irrespective of means if one is disabled. It is a major divide between the two major parties in their attitude towards disability. In a curious way the amendment is a side wind of that.
1576
I do not propose to start that argument. I shall read what the Minister said. I shall certainly return to the subject at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 10 at end insert:
("(2A) Where the claimant shows that there was good cause for a failure to claim a disability living allowance during a period throughout which he fulfilled the conditions for receipt of the allowance the first day of that period shall be treated as the date on which the claim was made.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment, which deals with backdating when good cause is shown, seeks to remedy a situation which I suggest is not only unfair but downright perverse.
In attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims there can be no backdating. That failure to be permitted to backdate a claim is carried forward in this Bill to DLA and DWA. I argue that it is both perverse and unfair on two grounds. The first is on the ground of public policy and, secondly and more particularly, on grounds of public mobility.
On the policy of backdating, up to 12 months is permitted in almost all related and relevant benefits. I remind the Committee that backdating is permitted in housing benefit, family credit, social fund payments, unemployment benefit, poll tax rebates, industrial injuries, sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, and severe disablement allowance. To claim backdating on such benefits one usually has to show good cause. "Good cause" is held to be,
"some fact which, having regard to all the circumstances including the claimant's state of health and the information which he has received and that which he might have obtained, would probably have caused a reasonable person of his age and experience to act (or fail to act) as the claimant did".
Let me give some examples of such good cause. A claimant may have misunderstood the system; for example, according to the CAB, where a claimant has made inquiries about one benefit for which he was ineligible and had wrongly assumed that the same rules applied to another benefit for which he was eligible but for which he did not then apply. Equally, language difficulty, illiteracy, or extremely technical documentation can sometimes be held to be good cause. Where claimants have been given misleading or inaccurate advice they are clearly permitted to backdate their claims. Where there has been a bureaucratic error—perhaps where staff have mislaid letters—may be good cause. As chair of a housing committee for a number of years in a good housing department I found that a steady, though small, proportion of requests for repairs, or applications to be included on the waiting list or a renewal of the waiting lists, regularly went astray—and I refer to a good department.
However, I ask the Committee to bear this in mind. It is also recognised that ill health can be a good cause for backdating the start of a benefit. I take the example of a hospital patient. It is assumed that there was good cause not to have claimed sickness or

1577
invalidity benefit or disablement allowance either up to 13 weeks after hospital admission or three weeks after discharge, whichever was the earlier.
Does not the Committee consider it perverse and unfair that ill health is a good cause for backdating other benefits until it comes to those benefits which are designed to compensate for ill health? If one seeks housing benefit, and one suffers ill health, it can be backdated. But if one has ill health and seeks attendance allowance, ill health is no longer a good cause. In other words, ill health is a good cause when it is related to benefits for the able but not for the disabled. Is that fair?
Indeed, backdating on showing good cause is even permitted for some of the benefits that disabled people may claim, such as invalidity benefit and disablement allowance, but not for attendance allowance or mobility allowance. Is that consistent? Will the Minister inform the Committee why it is acceptable to backdate the claim for validity benefit or disablement allowance but not for attendance allowance or mobility allowance? I make it clear that although the wording refers to the period from which it started, we are happy to acquiesce if the Minister were to accept a subsequent amendment allowing backdating for up to 12 months to bring such a clause in line with other benefits.
One reason for arguing in favour of the amendment is that it is inconsistent with public policy across a whole range of benefits where ill health is regarded as good cause except when you already suffer from it. Secondly, I argue that the system is particularly unfair because when claiming benefit disabled people are more disadvantaged than almost any other group in society. Many of their professional workers are uninformed about the benefits available. For example, a close relative of mine lost two years' attendance allowance for nursing her husband because her GP's knowledge of benefits—a kindly, elderly man who has since retired—began and ended with orange badges. Often disabled people do not know or are not told about their entitlements by professional staff.
Disabled people are also less likely to have physical access to premises to where the information is available; for example, post offices, trade union welfare rights offices, advice centres, surgery notices, community centres and town halls. They are all places where the able bodied could expect to acquire information about rights, eligibility and forms. By definition, the disabled have less access to these things.
Therefore the issue becomes one of take-up. It is the problem with all targeted benefits but it is especially acute among the disabled. In its survey the OPCS registered surprise that in category 10, the most severe category of disability, a quarter of those who should receive attendance allowance were not doing so. That point was also made in the ninth report of the House of Commons Social Services Committee of October 1990. The implication was that they were unaware of their entitlement and when they did become aware they were unable to backdate their claims to these benefits.
In rejecting a similar amendment the Minister in another place made two points, although not persuasively. First, he rejected the principle of backdating on the grounds of self-assessment; that it would produce some difficulties that were not present in other forms of benefit where backdating was permitted. I suggest that, as after six months a professional review would take place, that argument would be irrelevant. In any event, self-assessment already applies to a whole range of benefit claims, but that is not held to rule out backdating for good cause.
Secondly, the Minister in another place indicated that he hoped to increase take-up through publicity campaigns, which are welcome. But he also admitted that the forms would be longer and more complex and that that would discourage applications. In any case, publicity would not help the mentally handicapped or those too ill to know about it. Furthermore, he had to acknowledge that the disabled would suffer the additional physical difficulties of acquiring forms, filling them in and posting them in order to lodge them in time. All those problems are greater for disabled people.
If in terms of public policy a wide range of benefits can be and are backdated for the able bodied, and if a number of benefits relating to the disabled are also backdated, why is the old attendance allowance and mobility allowance (now the new DLA and DWA) not permitted to be backdated for good cause? The present situation is perverse and unfair. I hope the Minister will indicate that in future policy will rectify the situation. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Henley: There appears to be a mistake on the Marshalled List. The Committee has agreed that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Amendment No. 31 relates to Clause 1 but has mistakenly been listed as being in Clause 2. I do not blame the noble Baroness for that error but I must put it on the record.
The noble Baroness said that according to the OPCS survey a large number of people in the severest categories are not in receipt of attendance allowances to which they are entitled. I must remind the noble Baroness that the surveys were conducted in 1985, since when take-up has increased dramatically. Earlier I stressed the increased take-up of both the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance since 1979. We on this side of the Chamber are proud of that and no doubt Members on the other side will wish to reflect on the increase since they were then in government.
The question of backdating claims for disability allowance was debated at length in another place. It will be impossible for me to avoid repeating what was said by my right honourable friend the Minister of State on that occasion in resisting the amendment. However, I have positive comments to make which I hope will go some way to reassure the noble Baroness about our plans for dealing with claims for disability living allowance.
Determining entitlement over a past period for any benefit is never easy. But in respect of most benefits that decision usually hinges on facts which can be

1579
ascertained readily; for example, the date of leaving work, date of birth and so forth. The disability living allowance is not like that and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The questions of whether a person has care or mobility needs, at what level, when the needs first arose and whether they have become more serious require more sophisticated judgments.
To attempt to make such retrospective judgments the adjudication officer would need much more evidence than we plan to collect under the new self-assessment procedures. In particular, the officer would need to know when the claimant's circumstances first reached the point where he satisfied the conditions of entitlement. That is no easy task where many claimants are suffering from progressive disorders. In addition, the officer would need to know what prevented the claimant from making his claim at that time so that he could decide whether there was good cause for the delay.
I should therefore prefer to tackle the problem of late claims by more positive methods. I have no doubt that the more sensible way forward is to reject the amendment, leave the Bill unamended and instead to ensure high levels of public awareness about the benefit I through a well-targeted and extensive publicity campaign.
We recognise that an effective campaign—and by that I mean one that encourages disabled people to claim benefits and to claim them on time—must go much wider than traditional methods of publicity. We shall therefore be looking to use more targeted methods such as the extremely good publications which many voluntary organisations produce. Indeed I regard the role that the disability organisations and disabled people have to play in the planning and execution of the publicity campaign as crucial. That is why my department has already set up groups involving some of the organisations and disabled people themselves to help us plan and test the materials.
I am concerned, however, that once a person has decided to claim DLA he or she should not risk losing benefit because it takes time to marshall the evidence in support of the claim. In another place my right honourable friend the Minister of State indicated that the Government wished to consider more carefully a suggestion made by the Disability Alliance to avoid this difficulty.
I am now glad to be able to report that it is our intention to introduce a scheme very much as the Disability Alliance suggested: we intend to make generally available a short leaflet with a tear-off slip. This slip would be sent in by the claimant in order to obtain a claim pack. Assuming the completed pack was then returned within a reasonable time—perhaps a month or six weeks—the date of claim would be taken as the date of receipt of the tear-off slip. So the claimant could take time in filling in the claim form and in obtaining supplementary evidence without the fear of losing benefit. The adoption of this system underlines again the Government's willingness to listen to what the disability organisations have to say and to respond accordingly.
1580
I hope that what I have said about the difficulties which a backdating provision would present for the new assessment arrangements, together with the commitments I have given about publicising the new benefits and dealing with claims, will lead the noble Baroness to reconsider the need for this amendment.
Lord Mancroft: Whether one accepts the very strong arguments of the noble Baroness or rejects, which I do not, the argument of my noble friend, which I believe is very sound, the amendment is open ended. Presumably that means that a claimant could claim back five, 10, 15 or even 20 years because the amendment makes no mention of 12 months. Even if we accept the argument of the noble Baroness, we could not possibly accept this amendment as presently drafted.
Lord Henley: I believe that that is correct. However, whatever the length of time, it creates a very difficult job for adjudication officers in terms of the retrospective judgments which they would have to make about the state of a claimant two months, six months, a year or 10 years ago. There would also be the problem of deciding whether there was good cause for delay. However, as my noble friend says, this is a very open-ended amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. However, I wish to query the two main clusters of reason—facts and publicity —which he gave in suggesting to the Committee that it should reject the amendment.
The Minister suggested that other benefits were based on facts. Therefore, it was easy to ascertain when those benefits should run from and that investigation would be relatively easy. However, he suggested that that does not apply to these two benefits and, therefore, that was where the dividing line fell.
I do not believe that the Minister has met the case which I tried to advance—namely, that some of the benefits associated with disability—for example, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance —have exactly the same problems as the DLA and DWA as regards backdating.
I accept the Minister's case that, when one is in receipt of housing benefit and one's income suddenly falls, that is clear, factual and objective. However, other benefits where backdating is permitted do not have such a core of easily and publicly ascertainable facts. They rely on a method of self-assessment. That is found to be acceptable in other areas of public and social policy. If it is acceptable in such areas and the political will exists, then it is acceptable here. The issue is political will.
Secondly, the Minister said that he preferred to go down the route of high levels of publicity and targeting. That is welcome if targeting is targeting and not fine-tuning. However, the problem is that there is only a comprehensive take-up of benefits if they are universal. Clearly it is inappropriate to speak of universality of benefits when considering the disabled. However, the only benefits which have high take-up without stigma and where there is widespread

1581
information tend to be old age pensions and child benefit. That is because they are universal. Where there is a desire to have a clawback through the tax system, that is another argument.
These benefits continue to have a less than adequate take-up not just because they are targeted benefits which depend on prior knowledge of their existence but because the group which they are designed to aid —the disabled—are by definition less in the public arena where they may acquire that information which will allow them to take up the benefit.
I take up the point about posting the slips. However, that is a minimal concession. That will overcome some of the literal and physical problems of posting a claim in a post box. However, it does not address the issue that if one is in good health, one can be expected to know about benefits. If one then puts in a late claim because of ill health, that will be backdated. But if one is in ill health and is entitled to a benefit or seeking to receive a benefit to meet ill health, one is not entitled to back-date. That remains perverse and the Minister, I regret to say, has not answered that point. I have been wondering whether to press this amendment but, considering the point about open-endedness, it may be best to come back on this at Report stage. In that context I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): In view of the error in the Marshalled List I think I should once again put the Question that Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Management of disability living allowance and attendance allowance]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 20, leave out lines 6 to 12 and insert:

("100B.—(1) Subsections (2) and (4) of section 100A above shall apply to a decision on a review under subsection (1) of that section as they apply to a decision of an adjudication officer under section 99 above but as if the words "made after the end of the prescribed period" were omitted from each subsection.

(2) Subsections (1),(2) and (4) of section 100A above shall apply—

(a) to a decision on a review under subsection (2) or (4) of that section; and

(b) to a refusal to review a decision under subsection (2) or (4) of that section,

as they apply to a decision of an adjudication officer under section 99 above.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 32, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 34. These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert ("or
(d) the decision was that a person is or was at any time terminally ill for the purposes of section 35(2B),
1582
37ZB(5) or 37ZC(8) above and there has been a change of medical opinion with respect to his condition or his reasonable expectation of life,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply corrects an omission in the Bill. Similar powers already exist elsewhere in the Bill for an adjudication officer to review on these grounds the earlier decision of an adjudication officer. This amendment ensures that an adjudication officer may be able to review such a decision when made by a social security or disability appeal tribunal or a commissioner. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I understand that this is a drafting amendment but it refers to cases of people who are terminally ill but whose medical condition may show signs of improvement, although they in fact remain terminally ill. If the medical opinion changes, the person may lose his or her benefit even though, as a result of the medical condition, the person may not even be aware that he or she is in receipt of benefit. One can also think of remissions in cases of terminal cancer, for example. Is there a chance that a doctor may be reluctant to diagnose a person as being terminally ill if he thinks that his diagnosis could subsequently be challenged by the adjudication officer if the patient does show some sign of improvement even though he may still be terminally ill and it may be uncertain how long he has to live? I think there might be difficulties here. Have we misunderstood the point?
Lord Henley: I must stress that this amendment merely corrects an omission in the Bill and it is no way new policy. I am glad of the opportunity to reassure the noble Lord of our intentions. We certainly do not intend to seek to review cases simply because someone who has been awarded DLA or AA under the special rules lives a day longer than six months. Anyone who qualifies under the terminally ill rules will be entitled to that highest rate for care for life, whether weeks or months are involved.
Lord Swinfen: May I make just one point? I am wondering whether a doctor would be unwilling to diagnose someone as being terminally ill because that might frighten the individual concerned and it could have a very serious effect on his or her health. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what would be the position in such a case.
Lord Henley: This has been a difficult subject. The noble Lord, I am sure, will remember our debates on the Social Security Bill last year. We are well aware of the sensitivity surrounding terminal illness and the important factor involved when the patient does not know he is terminally ill. I hope that doctors will also be sensitive to that and certainly in our claim forms we have made provision for this eventuality. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 23, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert:
("(6) Subsections (1), (2) and (4) of section 100A above shall apply—

(a) to a decision on a review under this section; and

(b) to a refusal to review a decision such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above,

1583
as they apply to a decision of an adjudication officer under section 99 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 24, line 2, after (""(1) (bb)"") insert:
("(aa) in subsection (3A), "(3)" were substituted for "(2)";").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 76 as well. These are merely technical drafting amendments, intended to clarify the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 24, line 38, after ("refer") insert ("for advice").
The noble Lord said: This is simply a drafting amendment to clarify the text of this part of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to raise this point, but we have h d a whole succession of amendments which are merely drafting amendments. I should be grateful if my noble kinsman would explain in a little more detail exactly what are the implications of this amendment.
Lord Henley: I shall be delighted to explain to my noble kinsman. This amendment clarifies that where an adjudication officer refers a DLA or attendance allowance case to a departmental doctor, this reference shall be for advice only. This puts beyond doubt the thrust of the new adjudication and assessment arrangements, which is that adjudication officers will be responsible for decision making, calling on readily available support and advice from departmental doctors where necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 25, line 48, at end insert ("and paramedical staff including qualified physiotherapists and occupational therapists.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 37 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.38 and 39. I am delighted to say that they have all-party support. They deal with the composition of disability appeals tribunals. I say at once that this is a welcome part of the Bill in principle. It is the detail that we seek to improve. It is important to make absolutely sure that the members of a disability appeals tribunal have experience of dealing with the needs a disabled people. I am sure that we are all agreed on that.
However, as the Bill stands it is actually possible for a disability appeals tribunal to consist of a medical practitioner with no working knowledge of a claimant's disability, and a chairman and another member who have no knowledge of the needs of disabled people. That could lead to mistakes which adversely affect the claimant. The three amendments seek to ensure that such mistakes are avoided.
Amendment No. 37 aims to include paramedical staff on the medical panel; for example, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. They are often more in touch than medical practitioners with the
1584
day-to-day effects of various disabilities. Amendment No. 38 would ensure that at least one member of the tribunal was disabled. We are not asking that the member should have the same disability as the claimant, merely practical experience of daily living with a disability.
Finally, Amendment No. 39 seeks to ensure that the medical practitioner has a working knowledge of the claimant's disability. This is important in view of the attention paid to the opinion of the medically-qualified person on a medical or semi-medical matter, even when that person knows nothing about the particular disability of the claimant. Moves towards self-assessment and to "demedicalise" the assessment and adjudication procedure have been widely welcomed by disability organisations. The Minister himself spoke on the subject at Second Reading on 26th February. He also said at col. 886:
"We have listened carefully to what individual disabled people, their carers and their representative organisations have had to tell us about how claimants perceive the whole business of claiming disability benefits".
It would be illogical and sad if the aims of these welcome changes to assessment and adjudication could be frustrated by appeals tribunals where it was still possible to have the majority of members without a working knowledge of disability. I very much hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will be able to say that he has listened yet again and can respond positively to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was glad to support these amendments to which I have added my name. Amendment No. 38 seeks to,
"ensure the appointment of a disabled person on each such tribunal".
If the Government feel that it is a good idea to have a disabled person on the tribunals we cannot see why the Bill has to say "have regard to the desirability" instead of saying, as the amendment does, "ensure the appointment of".
There is another reason why I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 38. When I first entered the House in 1987, for some time afterwards I ran a campaign, with the able assistance of the noble Baroness and others. There was a standard phrase in the parliamentary draftsman's manual to be used describing in schedules the reasons for appointing or not appointing people to tribunals. There was always the standard phrase to exclude "anybody with a disability, or for any other reason". We managed to get this excluded from a number of Bills and we have not seen it for a long time now. I think it has disappeared from the standard draftsman's manual.
However, I wonder if the idea is still around. Old habits die hard. I see that when the amendment was moved in Committee in another place Miss Ann Widdecombe, the Under-Secretary of State, replied:
"Ensuring there was a disabled person could lead to unreasonable delay".
Mr. Scott, the Minister for Disabled People, when he was discussing the issue with the all-party disablement group, said that it was more likely that disabled people would be sick and not turn up and it

1585
would therefore be more difficult for replacement disabled people to be found. I know Mr. Scott well and that he has considerable understanding and sympathy for disabled people. Why he should have allowed himself to make such a remark I do not know. It is important that we strengthen the point that the tribunal should have a disabled person on it. I cannot see why the Government is unable to accept these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 38.
Baroness Seear: I support these amendments. It is very important that on these tribunals there should be a variety of people with a variety of experience and training. By itself, being a medical practitioner does not carry the certainty that there is such a range of experience. Including physiotherapists and occupational therapists and people who deal with different aspects of the problems of the disabled is very important indeed. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendments. As the noble Baroness said when speaking to them, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, as a general rule, have a much better knowledge of physical disability in particular than have medical practitioners. It is interesting that in both Norwich and Southend, where John Groom's Association for the Disabled has in recent years opened homes for severely disabled people, they have had difficulty in finding medical practitioners who are willing to take disabled people on to their lists for the simple reason that they believe that they will have to spend far more time looking after them and that that will be a burdensome cost to the practice. That means that many medical practitioners have little or no real experience of disability and its effects on the disabled person. Therefore we must try to make certain that the medical practitioner has some genuine experience and knowledge so that he is of proper use to the panel. That is fairer to the claimants. Today it should not be difficult to find physically disabled people whose education and experience will suit them to sit on the panel. The situation may have been different years ago but not today. I am delighted to support all three amendments.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am not a great expert on tribunals and who sits on them. It is very easy for me to see what the supporters of these amendments are aiming at; namely, that it is not simply the old-fashioned established medical person who should be on the panel, but experts who deal more closely with the disabled and their problems on a day-to-day basis. That is very good and the right way to proceed. What worries me is that we may be slightly over-egging the pudding and making matters too complicated. I wish to be corrected if I am wrong. Amendment No. 37 adds to "medical practitioners",
"paramedical staff including qualified physiotherapists and occupational therapists"—
that is, four people who may not all be easily available at one time. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is disagreeing with me. The way I read the amendment is that all those people have to be present. It would be a pity if one were to make the provision so
1586
complicated that it would be difficult to get all these people, including a disabled person, together on the tribunal. It would be difficult to assemble the tribunal quickly enough to make a judgment. It would be a pity to make the matter over-complicated. That is my only concern.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord on that matter. The tribunal will consist of three people; one drawn from the medical panel, one from the lay panel and the chairman.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments because they give me the opportunity to explain the Government's intentions for the disability appeal tribunals. I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts these amendments. I honestly believe that there is very little between us on this matter. I assure the noble Baroness that we fully recognise the important role that professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists will have to contribute in terms of membership of DATs. Their experience of the difficulties faced by disabled people will be invaluable. We sincerely hope that in his recruitment of members for the second panel the president will include members of these professions. Indeed, that is more than a hope. I know that it is the intention of the tribunal president to do so. I hope that that is of some reassurance. I know that the amendment was designed to add such people to the first panel. But that would then mean that there could be DATs without a medical practitioner as one of the members. That runs the risk of the tribunals not having available someone who can interpret and advise on the medical evidence which DATs are inevitably going to use. In turn, that could result in adjournments which would not be a good service for disabled people.
The second of the amendments would ensure that a disabled person was appointed to each tribunal. I understand completely the sentiments behind this. No one could have a better understanding of the needs of disabled people than disabled people themselves. The provisions of the proposed Schedule 10A make clear that the Government recognise how essential it is that as many disabled people as possible are included in the panels and on the individual tribunals. In no fewer than three places the schedule makes reference to the membership of disabled people. However, we need to recognise the practical difficulties which the president may face in setting up DATs. Early planning suggests that each panel may need to consist of something approaching 1,000 people. That is a considerable task that we have set the president, Judge Holden. These are largely uncharted waters. There are risks that if we are too prescriptive about the membership of DATs, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, we shall just end up with massive delays initially, which again is not the standard of service for which we are aiming.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord has referred many times to the OPCS survey. Having revealed that there are 6.5 million disabled people, will it be that hard to find a disabled person to serve on a tribunal?
Lord Henley: What I was trying to say is that the amendments as drafted are too prescriptive. It depends on how the noble Lord would want to define disabled people and whether he would just define them by means of the 6.5 million in the OPCS survey. It is asking a good deal of Judge Holden to be absolutely sure that he has the requisite number. I was saying that these ate uncharted waters. The position may be different in other parts of the country.
As I was saying, there are risks that if we are too prescriptive serious delays might result. What the Bill does is to make quite clear the ideal that at least one disabled person should be on every DAT. It is for the president—it is far better for the president to do this than the Bill itself—to deliver that ideal to the best of his organisation's ability.
There are practical considerations to be taken into account with the third amendment also. I fear it would present the president with an impossible task in matching knowledge with disability. Perhaps I can allay concerns about the scope of knowledge of the medical practitioner by saying that it is our hope—it is a hope which is shared by Judge Holden—that the vast majority of medical practitioners on DATs will be general practitioners rather than the consultants who currently serve on medical appeal tribunals dealing with mobility allowance. This change in approach emerged from responses to last year's consultation exercise, where the point was made that what is needed is not specialist knowledge but rather a broad appreciation of the difficulties faced by disabled people, combined with an ability to understand what may sometimes be complex medical evidence.
Perhaps I may now say a few words on the role of medical practitioners on DATs. I appreciate that many of the qualms that people have about doctors on tribunals stem from the medical examinations and "walking tests" which are conducted routinely by medical appeal tribunals. That is not what we would want to happen for the new benefits. We have made clear that in future we do not want to place such a heavy reliance on what must inevitably be snap-shot examinations. Instead, the emphasis must be put on the evidence supplied by the claimant and those best placed to know the continuing effect that his condition has upon his life.
In view of the comments which I have made, I am willing to consider whether it would be possible to make an amendment to the Bill which prevents members of the DAT conducting such routine examinations and tests, while ensuring that the processes are in place which guard against undue delay because there is insufficient medical evidence available in the DAT. I shall consider the matter further with a view to returning on Report with proposals as regards the issue relating to medical practitioners being on the tribunals. In the light of the explanations and assurances which I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for what he said. I should also like to thank those who supported the amendment. I believe that over one-third of those present in the Chamber actually
1588
spoke in its favour, although that observation may perhaps be a reflection on the quantity of Members in the Committee at present. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, does not think that we are over egging the pudding. My intention was to put the OTs and the physiotherapists on the medical panel. I believe that what the Minister said in response to the first amendment—namely, that he was going to put the OTs and physiotherapists on the lay panel—shows how much importance is attached to the medical practitioner.
I am still unable to accept that one cannot have a disabled person on each panel. I am not quite sure about the Minister's argument as regards delays. I do not believe that he is arguing illness as was the case in another place.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may clarify the matter. I was certainly not putting forward illness as an argument. Indeed, I was at great pains to stress during the passage of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill through this place that disabled people generally have much lower levels of sickness than other people. The argument concerns delays in the initial composition of the panel. We see it as an ideal and Judge Holden accepts that fact. However, we believe that what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve is too prescriptive.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): The Minister has almost taken the robust words he used during the passage of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill out of my mouth. They were certainly written down in my notes to quote back at him if his argument was based upon illness. I am delighted that he accepts that point. However, I wonder whether he would agree to meet with me and discuss the matter so that I know exactly what is in his mind as regards his proposed amendment. In other words, can we have a little talk between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings about his proposal?
Lord Henley: I can certainly give the noble Baroness that assurance. If she would like to meet me at Richmond House, she could then verify whether the accommodation and access for the disabled are suitable for her own wheelchair.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I would be delighted to do so. However, can he say whether the conditions have been improved since the occasion of my last visit?
Lord Henley: I cannot answer that question as I am not sure when the noble Baroness last visited Richmond House.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am most grateful to the Minster for what he has said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Disability living allowance and attendance allowance: amendments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("at the higher rate").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to exempt the people in receipt of the

1589
new lower rate of the mobility component from vehicle excise duty. Recipients of the full rate of mobility allowance are exempt from the duty. Vehicle excise duty is payable by able-bodied motorists in order to pay for the use of roads. Essentially, able-bodied motorists have a choice between the use of their car, upon which they pay the VED, or the use of public transport. However, because public transport is largely inaccessible to disabled people they do not have that choice. Therefore, the logical argument is that they should not have to pay the excise duty. The logic of the argument has been recognised by the exemption of those who receive the higher rate.
As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to extend the existing remission to those people who are in receipt of the lower rate. The cost to the Government of making such an extension would be small. In fact, I believe that the argument would appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Russell: it would not be direct expenditure, it would simply be money which was not recouped by taxation. Indeed, it could be said in terms of public expenditure, "Now you see it, now you don't".
Bearing in mind the fact that the rate of benefit for the lower component is just £10—in other words, hardly enough to pay for taxis or a car for someone who is not independently mobile—we feel that it is appropriate to extend the relief from excise duty to people who are receiving the lower rate. The fact that such people cannot qualify for the higher rate of mobility allowance does not mean that they will automatically be able to use public transport. Indeed, the need for a car can be just as great with challenging behaviour as for those with a physical disability.
While we are talking about excise duty, there was a leader in The Times which repeated the arguments that have been made many times for the abolition of excise duty and its replacement with an increase in the tax on petrol. It prompted a lady from Menai Bridge in Gwynedd who is in receipt of mobility allowance to point out that one aspect not mentioned in that approach to the abolition of excise duty is that,
"currently recipients of Mobility Allowance are not required to pay car tax, and would therefore be penalised to the tune of £100 which most of them can ill afford".
Perhaps the Minister will also respond to that point because it is linked with what we are discussing.
The purpose of the amendment is, as I said, to exempt people in receipt of the new and lower rate of mobility component from excise duty and the remission which already exists for those in receipt of the higher rate. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord will not expect me to comment on any claims made in leaders in The Times that vehicle excise duty might be abolished. He should remember that vehicle excise duty is not primarily a responsibility of social security Ministers. It is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be wrong for me to comment at this stage of the year. Nevertheless the department takes a keen interest in ensuring that those people whose mobility is severely restricted are helped
1590
as much as possible with normally inescapable motoring charges. To that end the Government have been successful in establishing receipt of mobility allowance as a passport to exemption from vehicle excise duty.
It is a matter of some pleasure to note that, like mobility allowance, since 1979 there has been an enormous increase in the number benefiting from the exemption. I can well see the noble Lord's argument that mobility allowance as it currently stands is a convenient proxy to identifying those people who merit road tax exemption and that the introduction of the lower rate therefore provides the Government with an opportunity to extend that exemption. Obviously any arrangement must be open to change. Nonetheless, I can see a clear distinction between the case for exemption for those currently in receipt of mobility allowance and that for the people whom we anticipate will be helped by the new lower rate mobility component.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that inability, or virtual inability, to walk often obliges mobility allowance recipients to use their own private and adapted transport on the roads, either as drivers or as disabled passengers. Such individuals often find the use of public transport impossible. It is because their freedom of choice for mobility is restricted that they are in practice not taxed. However, the new lower rate is aimed not at people who cannot walk or use public transport but at those who require guidance or supervision for most of the time. Consequently, those freedoms of choice in exercising mobility will not be so severely curtailed.
Of course the new lower rate will inevitably leave some people with severe disabilities on one side of the line. I do not want to go into again the philosophy behind the introduction of the lower rate, but I believe that that approach has some justification, which I hope the noble Lord will accept. I can assure him that I have taken careful note of the points he made, but I must ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: Some time before we finish with the Bill in this House we should add up all the differences in the criteria between the two components and the parts of those components in the new simplified benefit. I understand what the Minister said, and I shall read it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 27, line 23, at beginning insert:
("(1) In section 37(1) of that Act (Invalid Care Allowance) after the words "severely disabled person" shall be added the words "or persons" and after the words "that person" shall be added the words "or persons". (2)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 41 is grouped with Amendment No. 42, so with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to both of them at the same time although they deal with different points, linked only by the fact that they are both concerned with invalid care allowance. As the Committee is aware, the invalid care allowance is the one allowance which goes to the person who does the caring. The

1591
other benefits which we have discussed have been quite properly in the interests of the people in need of care. The invalid care allowance is intended for the person who loses time and usually also work, and therefore pay or earnings and very often pensions prospects, by virtue of the caring they have to do.
I find one provision extraordinary. It must be an oversight. The Bill says quite understandably that the 35 hours a week must be devoted to caring. Some limit must be set and 35 hours is acceptable, although we could argue about it. However, that is not the purpose of the amendment. What I find extraordinary is the requirement that the 35 hours must be devoted to one person. If someone is caring, they lose time caring and it is quite irrelevant whether they are doing it for one person or two.
It is not at all uncommon that a woman—it could be a man but it is usually a woman, a daughter—finds herself with two increasingly doddery old parents. One may be rather blind, the other slightly paralysed. They are both able to do a certain amount for themselves but they need a great deal of time and attention. The person may be running around after both of them, helping them to dress, concerned with the important business of preparing meals and all the other tasks they have to carry out. This may add up—and there is no argument under the Bill that this may be so—to 35 or more hours a week.
Because the carer is devoting the time to both parents instead of one, why on earth she cannot have the invalid care allowance passes my understanding. If she spends 35 hours a week or more on caring, regardless of whether she is looking after a father and a mother, a couple of old aunts or whoever it is, logically the important point is that she is losing this time, giving it up and losing the opportunity to earn or do whatever she wishes with her time. The fact that it concerns two people and not one seems logically to make not the slightest difference. The point of the amendment is to remove the provision that she can only receive the allowance provided she shows that she spends 35 hours on one person. This must be an oversight. I cannot see the sense of it at all.
Perhaps it would save time if I dealt also with Amendment No. 41, although it is not the same. I should declare an interest here as president of the Carers National Association. Under this amendment, the carer is able to obtain the invalid care allowance—and it is more often a man than the Committee might expect—only if the person whom they are looking after comes into the two higher categories. It is not available for the lower category. The conditions for people in the lower category are pretty discouraging for the carer. They are concerned with bodily functions and attention from another person for a significant proportion of the day, whether during a single period or a number of periods. That can add up to quite a number of hours over the week by the time one has done it often every day.
Then we come back to the meal which invalids are unable to cook for themselves, which presumably means that the carer is expected to cook a meal every day. We argued about how much we knew about that
1592
earlier today. It is not cooked in a few moments, and if it has to be done every day for people in the lower category, and if the carer has to run round coping with all the disabled person's bodily needs, which, as the category states in the Bill, may be frequent, the time will reach nearly 35 hours.
Once again, there is confusion about the problems of the carer as distinct from the people being cared for. There is the loss of time in regard to the invalid care allowance. The time burden on the carer can be just as great and reach the 35 hours for the lower rate. The carer may not have to carry out quite such serious tasks. The burden may not be so great in the sense of severity, but it can be great in time. It is the time devoted by the carer, not the condition of the person being cared for, that should surely be relevant in determining whether an invalid care allowance should be awarded. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I wish to support these amendments. In this morning's copy of The Times a word that was new to me appeared in a football report. The word is "incohension". I can only define that as a combination of a lack of cohesion and incomprehension. I have been looking for a chance to use it. The Government's attitude on this matter is a classic example of "incohension". As the noble Baroness has said, it makes no sense at all to restrict the invalid care allowance to a person who is caring for one person. We hope the Minister can explain why that is the case. Further, I understand that the ICA is not available if the person being cared for is on the lower rate of the care component.
In Standing Committee in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Miss Widdicombe, argued,
"there is no link between ICA and the new lower rate either in terms of the purpose for which the benefit is paid or in terms of objective need … ICA is intended only for those for whom being a carer is effectively a full-time occupation. To qualify they must spend at least 35 hours a week caring for a disabled person".
If one spends 35 hours a week caring for a disabled person on the lower rate, one apparently fits that description. I suspect that the real reason for this provision is cost. However, will the Minister explain, other than in terms of cost, why the ICA is not available for carers who are looking after people who qualify for the lower rate?
Lord Henley: I am glad the noble Lord had the opportunity to introduce that marvellous new word. "Incohension" no doubt describes admirably the policies of the noble Lord's party. I shall deal with the two amendments in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List; that is, I shall deal with Amendment No. 41 first and then Amendment No. 42. However, I believe the noble Baroness spoke to the amendments the other way round.
These amendments seek to extend entitlement to ICA to a different group from the current client group. At present there is a very strong link between ICA and AA, which we have carried forward in this Bill by tying receipt of ICA to the higher two rates of the care component. This reflects what has always been the acknowledged purpose of ICA, which is to extend

1593
some help to those for whom caring is a full-time occupation. This amendment would bring people for whom caring is a more informal occupation into entitlement. Whether that is the right course raises important considerations of principle and equity. Just as importantly, we need to consider whether any such provision could be made to work.
The principle behind ICA is that of providing some help for those whose main occupation is caring for a severely disabled person; and it is linked to the disabled person's entitlement to AA—or in future to the equivalent rates of the care component in DLA. These are the carers who have to be our primary concern. I have no shame in saying that. It is a matter of priorities.
We should look too at the actual need for care. As the noble Baroness is well aware, we intend the lowest rate of the DLA care component to go to people whose care needs are not at all of the same magnitude as those of people who qualify for one of the higher rates. Perhaps I may turn the issue round. If we are looking at a disabled person who requires so much looking after that it is a full-time occupation for his carer, then that is not the sort of person who will be coming onto the new lower rate of the DLA care component. A person who is that severely disabled should be receiving one of the higher rates. Generally speaking, caring for people receiving the lowest rate, for however many hours a week, will be a much less onerous task than looking after a very severely disabled person. It is likely to involve lighter tasks, such as helping a person in or out of bed, helping with bathing or with a course of medicines, or, as the noble Baroness suggested, with the abstract test of preparing a meal.
To address the second amendment specifically, we appreciate that someone who has to care for two or more disabled members of their household, all of whom qualify for the lower rate, could be in a more difficult position. We recognise that there is a genuine point here, and we have undertaken to see whether anything could be done. This is not an easy nut to crack. It would be hard to distinguish between the types of care activities which would warrant the award of ICA and those which form the normal activities of a household. We would also be targeting a very small group, and that in itself could cause difficulties.
Nonetheless, we recognise the immense value of the work done by informal carers, who give their services in a wide variety of ways. I cannot at this stage guarantee any action but I assure the noble Baroness that we shall keep the matter in view as we strive to ensure that provision for carers meets the needs of people who undertake those important responsibilities.
I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Earlier, my noble friend gave an undertaking in respect of severe disablement allowance to cater for the needs of between five and 10 people. I believe that he will agree that figure. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness will cater for far more than five or 10 people. It may be a small
1594
number of people but if my noble friend can bring in regulations, as he has promised, which will help from five to 10 people, I am sure that he or his advisers can devise a method for helping the rather larger group of individuals who are looking after more than one person in the family.
Lord Henley: I do not accept my noble friend's point. In announcing that concession to my noble friend, I was referring to a group which is very easily defined, the wives of servicemen. That is a group which is much easier to define than the group to which the noble Baroness referred.
Earl Russell: I appreciate the problem of priorities but my noble kinsman has not explained to the Committee precisely what the priorities are which make him regard the amendment as a low priority. If one is dismissing something as a low priority one has to explain that it is because something else is a higher priority. We are entitled to hear what it is.
Although we need to consider priorities and costs it creates problems if one applies either of those criteria to an extent which destroys the logic of the benefit. The logic of the benefit here is that the invalid care allowance is given because of the consumption of the carer's time up to an amount of 35 hours a week. So far as I can see, my noble friend is quite right. That is equally true whether one is caring for one person or for two or whether one is caring for someone who is receiving the allowance at the higher rate or at the lower. It is just as much an occupation of time and therefore just as much within what I cannot describe as the meaning of the Act but might describe as the equity of the Act.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to my noble kinsman for suggesting something that does not involve increased expenditure of money but somehow saves us money. I have said that we will keep the matter under review. I have accepted that there could be problems here. It is a very difficult problem to get round. I do not think that I can take the matter further.
Baroness Seear: In view of what the noble Lord has said and the lateness of the hour, I shall not press the amendment. I shall wait to hear what the noble Lord says at Report stage. If what he says at Report stage is no better than what he has said today I shall certainly press a similar amendment at that stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 29, line 8, leave out paragraph 14 and insert:
("14. The words "(other than attendance allowance and disability living allowance)" shall be inserted—

(a) in section 52(3) of the 1986 Act (adjudication as to income-related benefits) after the words "benefit under that Act"; and

(b) at the end of paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 7 to that Act (adjudication as to certain former benefits).").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Although this is a consequential amendment, perhaps I may take the opportunity

1595
to ask my noble friend to investigate —I do not ask him to give an answer now—why the 1986 Act, referred to in Schedule 2, on page 29 of this Bill, is the only Act not to have its chapter number.
Lord Henley: My noble friend will understand that I cannot answer immediately, but I shall certainly investigate the matter to which my noble friend has pointed and write to him.
Lord Skelmersdale: I thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 29, leave out lines 25 to 28.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 82. These are consequential amendments which result from the dissolution of the attendance allowance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 30, line 10, at end insert:
("Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c.41)
.In Schedule 11 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (judges etc barred from legal practice) the following entry shall be substituted for the entry beginning "President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals"—
"President of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals or regional or other full-time chairman of such tribunals".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is entirely consequential on the introduction of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Regulations supplementary to ss. 1 to 4]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("a disability living allowance") and insert ("one or more disability living allowances;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50. This batch of rather complex amendments has a simple purpose; namely, to avoid problems with aligning award periods in existing cases in the first year after DLA comes into operation.
As I explained in the context of earlier amendments on Clause 1, the Government believe that the alignment of award periods is right in principle and offers real advantages to claimants in terms of reducing the number of times that their cases need to be reassessed. However, we have looked carefully at the situations which may arise in transferring existing attendance allowance and mobility allowance cases to disability living allowance and have concluded that some problems might arise if awkward periods are aligned at the outset. We think that the solution is to defer alignment in these cases until April 1993. There is no disadvantage to claimants in treating the two components separately for an initial period.
I hope that the Committee accepts my explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord wish to move Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 en bloc?
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 50:
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("consisting") and insert:
("(bb) may direct that a disability living allowance so treated as having been awarded shall consist").
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("so treated as having been made").
Page 8, line 42, at end insert:
("(cc) may direct that in specified circumstances a person whose award of disability living allowance has been terminated by virtue of the regulations shall by virtue of the regulations be treated as having been granted a further award of a disability living allowance consisting of such component as the regulations may specify or, if the regulations so specify, of both components, and as having been awarded on the further award either component at such weekly rate and for such period as the regulations may specify;").
Page 8, line 43, leave out ("such awards") and insert ("awards made by virtue of paragraph (b) or (cc) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 9, line 15, after second ("made;") insert:
("(hh) may direct that in specified circumstances a claim for attendance allowance, mobility allowance or disability living allowance shall be treated as not having been made;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 to 54. The aim of these amendments is to avoid the need to duplicate action on claims for disability living allowance, attendance allowance or mobility allowance. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I have been asked to ask whether the Minister could either write to me or perhaps tell the Committee now what is meant in Amendment No. 51 by the words "specified circumstances". That seems a little mysterious.
Lord Henley: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me but I think it would be best if I write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord has spoken to Amendments Nos. 52 to 54. Is it his wish to move them en bloc?
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54:
Page 9, line 15, after second ("made;") insert:
("(hj) may direct that in specified circumstances where a person claims attendance allowance or mobility allowance or both, and also claims disability living allowance his claims may be treated as a single claim for such allowances for such periods as the regulations may specify;").
Page 9, line 15, leave out ("and").
Page 9, line 18, at end insert ("and
(k) may direct that, at a time before the Attendance Allowance Board is dissolved, in specified circumstances cases relating to attendance allowance shall be subject to adjudication under the system of adjudication for such cases introduced by this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
1598
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  POLITICAL UNION: INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
  POLITICAL UNION: INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th MARCH
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th MARCH
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
  THE GULF WAR: AUTHORISATION FOR AIR ATTACKS
  THE GULF WAR: AUTHORISATION FOR AIR ATTACKS
  EC ENVIRONMENT POLICIES: STRENGTHENING
  EC ENVIRONMENT POLICIES: STRENGTHENING
  RURAL HOUSING PROGRAMME ALLOCATIONS
  RURAL HOUSING PROGRAMME ALLOCATIONS
  DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATIONS: CHARGES
  DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATIONS: CHARGES
  WATER RESEARCH CENTRE: REPORTS
  WATER RESEARCH CENTRE: REPORTS
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIONS: GRANT AID
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIONS: GRANT AID