Sitting of 11 March 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    British Rail
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase investment in British Rail.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): British Rail's investment expenditure this year will be the highest in real terms since 1962, and up to £4 billion is planned for the next three years—a 60 per cent. increase on the previous three years in real terms.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for that encouraging reply. Is he aware, however, of the astonishing contrast between the attitudes to public investment of British Rail's present chairman and his predecessor, both of whom were Government appointees? Is Sir Bob Reid's candour a direct result of the change of Prime Minister? Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Bob that British Rail needs annual investment—not subsidies—of between £1 billion and £2 billion for several years? I welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about next year's expenditure, but will it be additional investment in real terms? Exactly how much of what Sir Bob is seeking is the Secretary of State prepared to provide?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that the amount—up to £4 billion—that is planned for the next three years is a 60 per cent. increase in real terms. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a difference of view between British Rail's present and previous chairmen, but there is certainly a difference between what the Labour party is saying today and what it did when in government, when rail investment was substantially less than it is now.
    Mr. Jopling: Has my right hon. and learned Friend delivered an imperial rocket to the chairman of British Rail following the way in which BR managed the service during the week of hard weather? It is no use BR's having a massive investment programme, as it has, if it can neither design nor operate its equipment. Many days after the snow had stopped falling, BR was still running a skeleton service, there appeared to be no ticket collectors and hundreds of people must have gone through without paying, and at one stage there did not even seem to be any drivers to provide a minimal service.
    Mr. Rifkind: I sympathise very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. British Rail is conducting its own inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from that experience. I am also expecting to hear in the next few weeks the results of a review that I commissioned in December to see whether any lessons could be learnt from the experience of other countries with climates similar to ours, which might help to prevent a repetition.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the bridges owned by British Rail and for which it is responsible are now in a very bad state of repair? Will he put the point to the chairman of British Rail and perhaps provide resources to do the bridges up?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that British Rail has its own plans to improve and rehabilitate any bridges which may require such treatment. We shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of British Rail.
    Mr. Adley: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, in past years the present Government and previous Governments have always exhorted British Rail to buy British. Following the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), may I ask whether the Government are putting any pressure on British Rail to buy British, or is it free to look to the manufacturing capacity of other countries in regard to rolling stock and locomotives? Some countries can and do build locomotives to withstand much worse weather conditions than ours.
    Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we want the travelling public to have the best available rolling stock for the price that is paid. It is for British Rail to judge how that can best be achieved when seeking to purchase new rolling stock.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that what Bob Reid mark 2 is asking for is additional cash amounting to about £1·3 billion per year for some years to make up the investment shortfall, bearing in mind that the rolling stock and signalling equipment is 12 years older than it was when the Conservative Government were elected? Does he accept that Sir Bob is demanding cash, not an increase in the external financing limit, which would have to be paid for through even higher fares and even more overcrowding on our shockingly run railway system?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's premise is incorrect. I have read the transcript of what Sir Bob Reid said. He acknowledged that the Government were providing facilities for £1·3 billion of investment this year, and expressed his desire for that to continue over the next few years. As I said earlier, the Government propose expenditure of £4 billion in the next three years—a figure very similar to the one mentioned by Sir Bob Reid.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that among his plans for major reinvestment in British Rail he will consider ensuring that the operating companies obtain greater productivity from their employees? They have changed their definition of "on time" so that they can pay additional sums to their senior management, but a train that arrives 10 minutes late does not strike me, or the rest of the world, as being on time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the strange definitions that the operating companies have incorporated in order to pay themselves more money? Will he

    653
    also look at the subsidiary operating companies, which may operate genuine share schemes for their employees, and ensure that they benefit from the investment?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note with interest what my hon. Friend says. We are anxious to ensure that British Rail recognises the need for quality control and introduces realistic and acceptable incentives for its staff in order to obtain an improvement in the quality of service. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point.

    Roll-on Roll-off Ferries
    Mr. Terry Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the implementation of a higher standard of residual stability to existing roll-on roll-off ferries as recommended in the report of the steering committee for the research programme recommended by the Sheen inquiry in July 1987.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The United Kingdom has taken the lead in bringing about the consideration at the International Maritime Organisation of a higher standard of residual stability for existing roll-on roll-off ferries. In February 1991 the specialist sub-committee of the IMO on stability matters considered the United Kingdom's proposal and agreed that a higher standard of survivability should be applied to all existing roll-on roll-off passenger ships.
    Mr. Davis: It is now four years since the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, three and a half years since the Sheen inquiry recommended a programme of research into the problems with these vessels and more than a year since the steering committee for the research programme recommended that there should be an early international agreement to impose higher safety standards on existing roll-on roll-off ferries. When will something be done? The steering committee recommended that the Government should consider taking unilateral action if there was any delay at international level. When do the Government intend to do something, or are they waiting for another tragedy?
    Mr. McLoughlin: A considerable amount has already been done. The Government have spent a huge amount of money on research. As I said in my original answer, we have already taken this to the International Maritime Organisation. We have always wanted to reach agreement through the IMO, as it is the most useful means of enforcing safety regulations, but we have made it clear that if we cannot obtain agreement at the IMO, we shall consider acting unilaterally in the case of all ships operating in and out of British ports.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister must answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) put to him. When do the Government intend to take action? How long shall we have to wait for the IMO to make up its mind? It is clearly seeking to delay matters even further, and it has not suffered the tragedy that the United Kingdom suffered. We need to take action now to ensure that there is no subsequent tragedy such as that which led to the Minister having to go to the IMO and argue Britain's case before it.
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is universally accepted that the best way to act on safety matters is through the IMO. That is exactly what the Government are doing, but we have reserved the right, if necessary, to act unilaterally. That was applauded in two recent articles in Fairplay and Lloyd's List.

    Blackwall Tunnel
    Ms. Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that whenever repair and maintenance work is required in Blackwall tunnel, one bore is kept open for two-way traffic of private vehicles and small vans.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Two-way traffic is operated when necessary in the southbound tunnel. This is not possible for the north bound tunnel, constructed in 1897, which is too small for high-sided vehicles in both directions.
    Ms. Gordon: Is the Minister aware that daytime closures at the weekend cause massive traffic jams through the east end, particularly on Sundays? Last Sunday, not one policeman was to be seen, except those caught in the traffic jams, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked some of them whether they were from the traffic department they said, "Very definitely not, Sir." An irate constituent wrote to me telling me that he was caught for four hours trying to get home from Kent. [Interruption.] I remind the Minister that the old Blackwall tunnel—now the northbound bore —carried two-way traffic, including buses, until the late 1950s—[Interruption.]—and could do so again. That is perfectly feasible.
    Mr. Freeman: Despite the background noise, I appreciate the problems that the temporary closure of the tunnel has caused in docklands. Work will be completed after next weekend. I hope that the problem will be alleviated by the boring of a third Blackwall tunnel under the Thames, for which design contracts will be let shortly.

    Airline Competition
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the Government's policy concerning airline competition in the European Community with special reference to the access of new entrant carriers.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government will continue to press for a liberal single market in aviation in the European Community, in which competition can flourish and which possesses effective safeguards against behaviour that is anti-competitive or exploits the consumer.
    Mr. Steen: I regret the collapse of Air Europe, for which the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority bear no responsibility, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should ensure some protection from the bigger airlines, which are increasingly trying to destroy the smaller ones? Will he ensure that slots out of Heathrow and Gatwick are not used for unviable and uneconomic routes which make no money for the big airlines but which marginalise the small airlines and drive them out of business?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall comment on Air Europe in response to a private notice question at 3.30 pm.
    The allocation of slots is a matter for the scheduling committees of airports. It is desirable that those slots are used in a way that will best benefit the travelling public, which is how we would wish the scheduling committees to carry out their responsibilities.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Secretary of State accept that any pressure on slots which made it impossible for regional airlines to use Heathrow would have a deleterious effect on the average member of the travelling public and would not be a helpful way of increasing the availability of slots at Heathrow?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is correct, but she forgets that last Monday we announced that existing restrictions preventing new domestic services from applying to use Heathrow have been removed. The constraint on new domestic and international services applying to the scheduling committee for slots has also been removed.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is being given to improve further east-west road links to the channel tunnel.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): There are several major schemes in the national roads programme which will improve the main east-west routes to the channel tunnel and channel ports to meet expected demand into the next century.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome that confirmation, but may I impress on the Minister, as a delegation of East Sussex Members of Parliament impressed on the Secretary of State the other day, the urgency of improving east-west road links to the channel tunnel before its opening? If that is not done, communications to Sussex and further west will be such that it will absolutely impossible to take advantage of the new link with the continent.
    Mr. Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reported on my hon. Friend's meeting with him. I cannot guarantee that all the schemes in the programme will be completed for the opening of the tunnel, but the main ones should be completed, particularly the one between Folkestone and Dover. There are about 10 schemes for the A259 in the programme, which I hope will be brought to fruition.
    Mr. Aitken: At the risk of being called a southbound bore, may I press my hon. Friend for an answer an when the Government think that the channel tunnel will. open? Is he aware of the need for authoritative statement because of disturbing press reports about the likelihood of serious signalling and other technical equipment delays resulting in the tunnel being at least one year late? What is the true position?
    Mr. Chope: I have nothing to add to what has been said: mid-1993 is the date for the opening.

    Speed Reduction
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to reduce vehicle speeds on British roads.
    Mr. Chope: Current initiatives include new road hump regulations,.20 mph speed limit zones and speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles.
    Mr. Stern: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that comprehensive reply. That list shows the commitment of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department to the necessary reduction in speed limits. May I add to it the current proposals for increasing the likelihood of traffic light offenders being caught under the legislation? People who speed across traffic lights are a problem in major cities, such as Bristol, and anything that can be done to reduce it would be welcome.
    Mr. Chope: I agree that there are a large number of traffic light offences which are a danger to road users. The new powers being taken in the Road Traffic Bill will enhance road safety significantly in that respect.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister consider the problem which arises when the third lane disappears because of motorway works but traffic hurtles along at 70 mph plus, makes no attempt to reduce speed and tries to force its way in at the last minute, causing tremendous danger to many other motorists?
    Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Too many motorists drive recklessly and dangerously.

    Bicycle Lights
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the use of lights on bicycles at night.
    Mr. Chope: I continue to receive representations about bicycles being used without lights at night.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of road accidents involving unlit bicycles? Will he consider making it a requirement that all new bicycles sold should have front and rear lamps fitted?
    Mr. Chope: Some time ago we consulted on whether lights should be made an integral part of any bicycle before sale, but the overwhelming response was that the public did not wish that requirement to be introduced. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the number of bicycles without lights on the road at night. Bicycles ridden at night are required to have proper lighting, but one of the difficulties is a lack of enforcement. In 1989, the last year for which I have figures, only 1,250 people were convicted of riding a bicycle without lights, although I am sure that it is within the experience of every hon. Member that many more people than that seem to ride bicycles without lights at night.

    London Underground
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss future improvements to the system.
    Mr. Freeman: The next regular meeting will occur within the next two weeks.
    Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents suffer badly from overcrowding on the

    657
    District line and look forward with eager anticipation to the construction of the Chelsea-Hackney underground line. What progress is being made in the plans for that line? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the plans will include the construction of a new station at Stamford Bridge which, as well as serving Chelsea football club, will serve the new Chelsea-Westminster hospital which will also need adequate transport facilities?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend refers to the Chelsea-Hackney line. He will realise that we are talking about a new underground line between Chelsea and Hackney which will permit people living as far south as Wimbledon as well as those who live in Essex to come into central London. The service provided will therefore be much greater than is apparent at first blush from the description of the new construction works. Nothing is firmly resolved at this point about the new station or the possibility of extending the line south of the river into Wandsworth. The leader of Wandsworth council is coming to the Department of Transport shortly to make representations on that subject.
    Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of travelling on the London underground, particularly for women, is fear at night? Will he take up with London Underground its intention to withdraw the extra staff who have been on the southern part of the Northern line and ensure that they are not withdrawn? I have seen the improvements at Stockwell in terms of computers and television, but nothing makes people feel safer than knowing that uniformed staff are present at night.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady is right that the presence of staff on the underground and on British Rail contributes to a feeling of security, but obviously both nationalised industries must live within their means. The proposed staff reductions on the underground, including the Northern line, relate mainly to ticketing staff, but I will look specifically at the southern part of the Northern line to see what consequences there will be for staff, particularly those who could be on the station platforms.
    Sir William Shelton: My hon. Friend will be aware that a consultant last year recommended the continuation of the Northern line down to Streatham. Is he aware of the enormous importance that my constituents and I attach to that, and does he have any news of how it may be proceeding?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend has raised that matter assiduously with the Department of Transport, pointing out the benefits of extending the Northern line further southwards. London Underground is looking initially at the need for refurbishment and improvement on the existing Northern line. That is badly needed and it will follow what is being done to the Central line.
    I will certainly convey my hon. Friend's comments about extending the line to London Underground, which I am sure will take his representations into account in its planning.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister accept that no promises of improvement for the future will offset the misery that Londoners feel when travelling on London Underground now? Does he accept that the projected loss of 950 jobs, with the consequent closure of some stations and booking
    658
    offices and reductions in service, will thoroughly undermine public confidence in the tube system and jeopardise future ridership?
    Mr. Freeman: I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Lady's line of argument. As I have said, reductions of up to 5 per cent. in the number of staff are related mainly to London Underground's greater efficiency and ability to issue and collect tickets automatically. I believe that the confidence of the travelling public in the underground is much more related to increases in capacity in the system, which derive from the building programme, and to the improvements that will be manifest on the Central line next September, when new rolling stock comes into service, and on the Circle line when new, clean, refurbished and reliable rolling stock comes into service next year.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend seek immortality in south London by agreeing to the extension of the Chelsea-Hackney line south through Wandsworth—not only because many Wandsworth residents support Chelsea football club and want to go to its matches, but because there is not one inch of underground track between the Northern line and the Wimbledon branch of the District line?
    Mr. Freeman: As I have already said, we have merely safeguarded the Chelsea-Hackney line; its construction will depend on satisfactory completion of the east-west crossrail. No final decision has yet been made on the Chelsea-Hackney line. I understand the arguments either for extending the line or for changing its line of route so that it will serve Wandsworth, which is relatively under-provided for in transport terms. My hon. Friend has diligently represented his constituents' views on this score, and I shall certainly take into account what he has said.

    Shipping
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish his response to the report of the joint working party on British shipping entitled "British Shipping Challenges and Opportunities".
    Mr. McLoughlin: The working party report represents a jointly agreed analysis of the state of British shipping and its recommendations were developed as much by the Government as by the industry. The question of a separate formal response by the Government does not therefore arise.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware that in the past 15 years the number of ships owned and registered in the United Kingdom has fallen from 1,614 to 314, that in the same period the average age of British ships has increased from 6·5 to 13·7 years, and that the number of officers and ratings employed in our merchant fleet has declined from 81,000 to 20,000? The result has been that although 95 per cent. of our export and import trade is carried by sea, only one fifth is carried by British shipping. That not only has serious consequences for our balance of trade but represents the loss of an important resource which needs to be available in times of national emergency and defence. Does the Minister agree that Britannia no longer rules the waves and that it is high time the Government did something to reverse that savage decline?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I said, the joint working party has submitted its report and its recommendations are being followed by the Government. In the past the Government have recognised the need to provide assistance for the training of ratings and officers and that was achieved under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. There has been a large increase in the number of officers trained by the merchant fleet.
    Ms. Walley: The Minister's comments are amazing. He does not seem to realise that his Government have presided over the biggest decline in shipping in any of the leading maritime nations. The Minister said that there is no need for a statement from the Government, but there must be a need for them to do something about this. The Government should do something to ensure that tax concessions are available. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he carries on believing that there is no need for such a statement we shall see the end of the red ensign and we shall have no British merchant shipping fleet?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I could not disagree more with the hon. Lady. What the British merchant fleet would most dread would be a Labour Government.

    Traffic Increases
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is undertaking to evaluate the environmental effects of the road traffic increases forecast by "Roads for Prosperity".
    Mr. Chope: We have set up a joint study with the Department of the Environment to see what contribution the planning system can make to tackling the problem of CO2, emissions.
    Mr. Hughes: Have the Minister and his colleagues been working hard with the Department of the Environment to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that gas-guzzling vehicles are more heavily taxed at the next Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly not."]—or do they accept that the electoral consideration of not offending the motoring and car lobby will, as always with the Tory Government, override environmental matters, particularly in the Department of Transport?
    Mr. Chope: I cannot anticipate anything that might be in the Budget. It is worth pointing out, however, that even existing motor cars with 1300cc engines may vary by up to 40 per cent. on the miles per gallon achieved. It is open to the environmentally concerned motorist to purchase a motor car that is more fuel-efficient than another in the same range.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend, while helping in any way that he can to reduce emissions from motor cars, not fall for the blandishments of any lobby that is trying to persuade him to cut the road-building programme?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head, but he may have forgotten that his colleagues, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor), have recently been lobbying me for more investment in the road-building programme.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that his bland statements simply add to the list of things about which we have heard in the past 10 years, including lean-burn engines and all the rest of it? Does he agree that appropriate fiscal measures would do a great deal to clean up the environment? In Germany, 98 per cent. of cars have catalytic convertors fitted. Would not it be in the interests of the nation and its environment to introduce fiscal measures to reward those who purchase cars with lean-burn engines and catalytic convertors?
    Mr. Chope: The Government recognise that there may be a role for the taxation system in the process of ensuring the best improvements possible in our environment by trying to reduce CO2 emissions. However, it would not be right to suggest that that would be a total panacea.

    Aviation
    Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Airways to discuss the future of the British aviation industry.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of British Airways on 25 February. I meet Lord King on those occasions when there is a mutual interest in doing so and I should be happy to meet him in the near future.
    Mr. Soames: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. When he next meets the chairman of British Airways will he confirm that it is the Government's intention to strengthen, not weaken, the hand of the biggest and most important carrier in the United Kingdom? Will he also explain to him why the Government have decided to substitute Virgin Atlantic on a route to Tokyo which was previously held by British Airways and which will have a materially adverse commercial effect on British Airway's prospects? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in all his airline policies, he seeks to bring stability to what is at the moment an extremely chaotic industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have the greatest admiration for British Airways and the way in which Lord King, in particular, has chaired that company in the past few years.
    As for our decision on flights to Japan, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, notwithstanding the announcement, British Airways and Virgin will be able to offer improved services on that route this summer compared with last year. Both companies should be able to increase their revenues. It was a difficult decision to reach, but it was necessary. I do not believe that it in any way suggests a lack of confidence in British Airways—quite the opposite. It is a superb, strong airline and I believe that it, as well as the British public, will benefit from the competition from Virgin Atlantic.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Secretary of State seen in some of today's newspapers reports that British Airways is proposing to withdraw some of its services in Scotland, some think on the highlands and islands routes? Is not that socially undesirable and will he make representations if that proves to be the case?
    Mr. Rifkind: I saw the suggestion in one newspaper that British Airways was reviewing certain services, including some in Scotland. It is obviously for British Airways to

    661
    judge which services it wishes to provide. If there is a demand for services that are not provided by British Airways, other airlines may wish to take them over. That is a matter for the airline companies to determine.
    Mr. Dicks: Which decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend's Department or the Civil Aviation Authority over the past year or so have had the full support of British Airways?
    Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority is primarily to serve the interest of the travelling public in the United Kingdom. I believe that, on the vast majority of occasions, that coincides with the interests of British airlines, but if I ever have to make a choice between the two, my primary obligation will be to the travelling public.

    Aviation (Single Market)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress towards a single market in aviation.
    Mr. Rifkind: The European Community Council of Ministers is now committed to a single market in aviation by the beginning of 1993. A second, interim package of measures was agreed last June. Discussion is in progress on safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour, and the Commission is required shortly to being forward proposals on issues that remain to be settled in detail.
    Mr. Butler: Will the single market bring lower fares? If not, why not?
    Mr. Rifkind: All the evidence that we have shows that when restrictions are removed, bringing in freer competition, it results in downward pressure on fares. I hope that that will be the experience when the single European market is achieved.

    London Underground
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what service reductions have been implemented on the London underground during 1991; and what estimate he has of the effect of the reductions on road congestion in London.
    Mr. Freeman: London Underground Ltd. has recently written to hon. Members about service changes that it wishes to implement later this year. I understand that the proposed reduced train services would be only some 1·5 per cent. below the the potential maximum and that any staff reductions are intended to increase efficiency by, for example, taking advantage of automatic ticket machines.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that when there was a low fares policy on the London underground, in 1981 and 1983, there were reductions of 6 per cent. and 17 per cent. in car commuting? Does he acknowledge that there is a link between the two and that there is already a fall in ridership on the underground system which the service reductions that he noted will only exacerbate? Does he know that the chair of London Transport has acknowledged that there is expected to be a further reduction on ridership on buses? Where does he think that commuters will go if not into their cars? Will not this lead to further road congestion in London?
    Mr. Freeman: When the Labour party was in office, it encouraged the GLC, when it was responsible for London Transport, to implement a low fares policy. It ran the London underground as though it were a department of social services and, as a result, neglected investment. Since 1985, there has been a significant increase in patronage on the London underground.
    Ms. Ruddock: It is falling.
    Mr. Freeman: It is not falling. There has been a significant increase in capital investment. The Labour party neglected London Transport and put us in the position that we are in today.

    Air Fares
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the consequences of deregulation of air fares on the London to Amsterdam route.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The relaxation of restrictions on fares was part of a broader liberalisation agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. That allowed air carriers to use their commercial judgment in responding to customers' demands within a competitive environment. Air fares between London and Amsterdam are now lower in real terms than they were before the liberalisation agreement took effect.
    Mr. Marshall: Does not that show how beneficial deregulation can be? Can we look forward to more deregulation in the transport sector, in respect of both air fares and buses in London? What has happened to the number of passengers on the London to Amsterdam route since deregulation?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend that liberalisation is essential—not least to give passengers more choice, but also to provide better opportunities for travel from regional airports. That is indeed the history of liberalisation.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation for a national scheme of concessionary fares in outlying rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I see no need to change the present arrangements, under which local authorities decide what concessionary travel schemes to operate in their areas in the light of local needs.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister will be aware that when pensioners and others look at the differences between local authorities they are often upset to find that concessionary fares are available in one area but not in another, and they ask why that should be so. Often, the reason dates back many years to the time when schemes were originally implemented. The answer that local authorities give now is that, with the poll tax system, they simply cannot afford to introduce a scheme as they would be financially penalised for doing so. That is difficult to explain. Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment with a view to finding a way round the problem?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It may indeed be difficult to explain. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to explain something that local authorities should explain to their own constituents.

  THE ARTS

    Taunton Library
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has had any complaints over the adequacy of the public library facilities in Taunton.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I have had no complaints. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that provision of public library facilities is the responsibility of the local authorities—in this case, Somerset county council.
    Mr. Nicholson: I recognise that neither my right hon. Friend nor Somerset county council—with or without the community charge—has a magic pot of gold. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the splendid efforts of the staff of the Taunton library in assisting me, on occasions, and my constituents, the library is grossly undersized in relation to the size of the population that it serves? According to one estimate, it is only one quarter of the size that it should be to serve that expanding population, especially in respect of educational matters. As there is a proposal for a new building on the old Sainsbury's site in Taunton, will my right hon. Friend liaise with the local authority with a view to helping, if possible?
    Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend said. He has been closely involved in the efforts to persuade—if that is the right word—the county council to acquire new premises. I understand that, last week, the county council, in the light of other priorities, voted by a small majority against that course. However, if my hon. Friend sends me the full details I shall gladly look further into the matter. He will understand, of course, that I do not have any direct responsibility.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that the vote against the excellent and extremely successful Taunton library's plan for development had nothing to do with the will of the local authority, but resulted from the fact that Somerset is threatened with poll tax capping? Has not he read the Library Association survey which shows that, because of the poll tax, 27 library authorities have had to make severe cuts this year and at least 37 propose to do so next year? Is not it a fact that the library closures, unfilled vacancies, cuts in book stocks and the shelving of excellent plans like that in Taunton are the results of the Government's obsession with the poll tax?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman may be rather more ignorant of the Taunton library expansion plans than he gives the impression he is. The plans call for a new building and a site of over 2,000 sq m has been examined. By contrast, the size of the present site is 800 sq m. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not really know the site or whether the expansion is justified. Furthermore, the community charge levels that have been set make provision for the maintenance of proper library services throughout the county. One area in which the provision of such services is in question is the county in which lies the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.
    664
    Skinner). I am considering very carefully whether the library cuts that have been suggested in that area go beyond what is necessary for community charge purposes.

    Area Museum Councils
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the funding for the area museum councils.
    Mr. Renton: The Museums and Galleries Commission has increased its overall allocation to the area museum councils in England by 15 per cent. in the coming year. I am pleased to see that in the Portsmouth area this will allow the area museum service for south-eastern England to continue providing advice and assistance to the eight museums run by the city council and to the four other member museums.
    Mr. Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, especially those which relate to Portsmouth and increased funding. Will he confirm that there will be a proper businesslike approach to the expenditure that is being made available? Will proper training and marketing skills be developed so that the money is used to improve museums, as it should?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The aim of the Museums and Galleries Commission, working closely with the area museum councils, is to ensure that the money available—as I said, the commission is increasing its grant to the museum council in the area which my hon. Friend represents in part by 15 per cent. in the year ahead—is properly spent, that there is good training and that everyone concerned should be able in due course to qualify for a standard certificate, for example, to show that they have proper professional qualifications for the museum. In that respect, the MGC and the area museum councils are working together closely and well.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that area museums have a special function in that they are often the venues for travelling exhibitions of paintings? In Wales, there is probably only one great exhibition of paintings permanently on view and that is the Impressionist collection at Cardiff. It is important to many children and students outside Cardiff that the museums have proper funding so that good exhibitions can be mounted in them. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the poll tax, means that area museums are in dire danger of being unable to mount such exhibitions in the future because the authorities always cut arts funding first?
    Mr.Renton: The hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as spending on the arts is one of the discretionary areas of funding for local authorities. I hope that he will bring all his influence to bear to ensure that local authorities do not cut spending in this respect. It is not necessary for them to do so. The Welsh Arts Council has received a good increase from the Arts Council of Great Britain for the year ahead, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should be lending his weight to ensure that local authorities do not bear down on discretionary spending on the arts.
    Sir Peter Emery: When my right hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he consider especially some of the voluntary local museums? One in Honiton, containing a presentation of lace, is better than any other

    665
    in the country, yet it receives no financial benefit from the area museum councils. Some small museums do an immense amount of good for the locality and need to be encouraged as much as is humanly possible.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the lace museum in his constituency. As the area museum councils state in their recent. extremely good brochure entitled "Museums Working Together", they exist to help and support museums of all sorts from the smallest visual village museum to the largest city arts gallery. I see no reason, therefore, why the lace museum to which my hon. Friend referred should not receive help from the area museum council. My hon. Friend should suggest to the museum that it has another go.

    Arts Spending
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the total amount of money spent on the arts by local authorities in England in each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Renton: Local authority expenditure on the performing arts is discretionary and there is therefore no central reporting requirement. The best available estimates of net spending are those prepared by the Policy Studies Institute which draw on annual surveys by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. With permission I shall circulate the figures in the Official Report.
    The latest available indication of local authority support was provided in a recent Audit Commission report. It suggests that net spending in England and Wales in 1988–89 was about £160 million.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Does he accept that an inevitable and factual effect of the poll tax is that spending on the performing arts by local authorities has decreased as a proportion of their total budgets? That is inevitable because the spending is discretionary. Will the Minister assure the House that in the discussions that are taking place behind closed doors between Departments and at the Cabinet table on what the successor to the poll tax will be, local authorities will not be penalised for trying to keep museums and libraries open and will not suffer the draconian Government impositions that have been experienced by many boroughs such as the one which I represent? Libraries have been closed because of the local government taxation system that has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he is a member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is quite true.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating decisions that have not yet been taken. For example, the London Arts Board has not yet announced the amount of money that it will make to arts organisations in Southwark. As the hon. Gentleman will know, last year, Southwark arts organisations received a great deal of money from the LAB's predecessor organisation. It will announce its budget next week, so the hon. Gentleman should keep some of his indignation until he hears how much money it proposes to give.
    Following is the information:
    666

    Net Revenue Expenditure

    Year

    £ million

    England and Wales

    1979–80

    41·3

    1980–81

    50·5

    1981–82

    64·6

    1982–83

    87·2

    England only

    1983–84

    94·0

    1984–85

    98·4

    1985–86

    98·8

    1986–87

    99·1

    1987–88

    134·7

    Haymarket Theatre, Leicester
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will pay an official visit to the Haymarket theatre in the city of Leicester to discuss arrangements for regional arts funding.
    Mr. Renton: I have no plans to visit the Haymarket theatre in Leicester at present, but look forward to doing so in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Janner: I welcome the Minister's assurance. When he visits the Haymarket theatre, I hope that he will pay tribute to the theatre's work and the enormous efforts that are being made in Leicester to keep the arts going, through the Haymarket and other theatres, in such difficult times.
    Mr. Renton: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I know that the theatre has played a great part in that. Furthermore, the second Leicester international dance festival will open at the Phoenix arts centre on Friday 15 March. It will be an important arts festival, in which I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take an active part.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Privatisation
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken within his sphere of responsibility to safeguard the interests and career prospects of civil servants working in areas of responsibility affected by Her Majesty's Government's privatisation policies.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Within the Cabinet Office and Office of Arts and Libraries, no civil servants have been affected by privatisation policies.
    Mr. Michael: Is the Minister aware that, when some of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's operations were recentralised in Cardiff early last year, civil servants were promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies. Is he aware that some of those individuals are now threatened with compulsory redundancy? Does he accept that such matters cannot be left to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, nor to the Department of Trade and Industry, as the present and previous Secretaries of State of that Department are obsessive supporters of privatisation? Will he reassure the dedicated public servants who now work in the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff that he will take a

    667
    personal interest in the matter and bring objectivity and humanity to the consideration of their individual futures, which cannot be trusted to come from those two Departments?
    Mr. Renton: In his latter comment, the hon. Gentleman does an injustice to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. As the Minister of State told him in Committee last week, the civil service has arrangements whereby staff who are surplus to requirements in one Department are given priority when filling vacancies in other Departments. I have no doubt that the Export Credits Guarantee Department would make use of those arrangements if the occasion arose. I understand that the present estimate of the number of staff likely to be needed by the privatised company is about 600. It is possible that there might be 10 or 20 surplus people in Cardiff, depending on the timing of privatisation. That is not a significant problem and I hope that everything will be done to find good alternative jobs for those people.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the entrance examinations into the civil service and the calibre of personnel employed, it is likely that most of the privatised companies will wish to retain that excellent labour force? In the event of any of them having to go, does he agree that they are some of the most desirable employees in the labour market because of their great specialisations and their thorough vetting?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. His comments are very supportive for civil servants who, as a result of privatisation or relocation, might wish to transfer from the civil service. They will be highly qualified to find good jobs elsewhere.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans to meet representatives of the civil service unions to discuss morale within the service.
    Mr. Renton: I had the pleasure in February of meeting some of the civil service union leaders informally.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware of the low morale among civil service staff at the British Library? Because of the Government's refusal to back the wonderful new investment in the St. Pancras site with adequate money, the 3,000 new reading room places which are planned will have to be reduced to 1,100. More crucially, the transfer to that site is underfunded to the tune of £8 million. Cannot the Minister understand that the opening of the new British Library should be a cause of great civic pride? Why cannot the Government back success? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at what his equivalent in France is doing and see his commitment to and support for the Bibliotheque Nationale? Our much more impressive and comprehensive British Library is liable to open less satisfactorily than it should because of the Government's meanness.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is very myopic. He is incapable of seeing the good parts in the curate's egg which, in the case of the British Library, are very good. Will he give credit for the fact that the Government are investing £450 million in the project, which will bring together, for the first time in many years, most of the
    668
    British Library components in London? It will provide two new specialised reading rooms on a single site. It will provide vastly improved facilities and better conservation. The shadow Minister for the Arts should be blowing a trumpet in praise of the fact that we are developing the exciting new British Library site at St. Pancras.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that upsets morale more than anything else is dithering? As the Government made a firm promise some 18 months to two years ago to move the Ministry of Defence quality assurance unit from Woolwich to Teesside, but are now having second thoughts and vacillating, does my right hon. Friend understand that morale in the civil service unions would be much improved if the Government put into practice their promise to the people of Teesside?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before at Question Time and I understand the seriousness that he attaches to it. As he knows, it is a matter for my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, but I shall ensure that the points which he makes so strongly are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister realise that an additional reason for the low morale in the library service to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred is that civil servants realise that cuts are occurring in libraries throughout the country because of the Government's detestable poll tax? The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would get in touch with someone about the cuts in Derbyshire. Will he send someone with some money so that the authorities can operate the library service properly, instead of imposing poll tax capping, resulting in cuts in the library and music services?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has not read his brief well in terms of cuts in the library service in Derbyshire. Derbyshire county council has talked about closing 11 libraries. My libraries adviser has been to Derby. In his judgment, some of the cuts may not be proportionate to the cuts in expenditure by the local authority. He submitted a detailed report to me and I am considering what further action to take.

    "Next Steps" Agencies
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about progress with the "next steps" initiative.
    Mr. Renton: This initiative continues to go well. Last month I addressed the first conference of agency chief executives. I was very heartened by what they were able to tell me about the progress being made in their agencies to secure better value for money and quality of service.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which confirmed that the "next steps" initiative would lead to greater efficiency and a more responsive service. Does he agree that, despite what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, there has been a massive improvement in morale in the agencies?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The exciting thing about the initiative is that it is only just starting. At

    669
    present, there are fewer than 100,000 civil servants in the executive agencies and we hope that the number will increase by the end of the year by close to 200,000. The eventual aim will be to have perhaps three quarters of civil servants in executive agencies. Their dedication will lead to better financial performance, to management by objective and to giving better service to the customer.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that when accounting officers appear before the Public Accounts Committee to deal with the "next steps" initiative and privatisation, they will bring with them the very civil servants who were responsible for administering the changes in the Department in those two respects? Will the actual officials involved come before the Committee?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman will have to be more specific about what he has in mind. Civil servants appearing before the Public Accounts Committee will always be willing and anxious to be as helpful as possible, but they cannot know in advance the precise range of questions that will be directed at them. In fairness, the Committee cannot have a huge quantity of civil servants appearing before it.

    Disabled Employees
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many registered disabled people are employed in each of the top seven grades of the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: There are 21 registered disabled staff at grades 1 to 6, 30 at grade 7 level and many more who choose not to register. A more detailed breakdown of the top six grades is not available servicewide. A report on progress in the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service is being published this week in the magazine "Independent". I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the number of people employed in the top grades of the civil service who are either registered or not registered as disabled is insufficient and sad? In view of his personal concern about such matters, what positive steps will he take to improve the prospects for disabled people to compete on a fair and equal basis, which is all that they ask?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in many ways. This week, we are publishing the magazine "Independent"—I have a copy here, but it is an advance copy, so I cannot give it to him—which deals specifically with how to encourage more disabled people either to apply for jobs in the civil service or, once they have joined, how to make their needs better known so that they can be trained and properly promoted. I was talking just last week to those members of my staff who are especially concerned with disabled people. We are anxious to ensure that the civil service remains a lead employer in helping the disabled not only to take jobs but to be promoted as far as they possibly can be.

Air Europe
Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the collapse of Air Europe.
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Air Europe, which stopped flying last week, is now in the hands of an administrator. Its parent company, International Leisure Group Ltd., which also owns some tour operators, is also in administration.
It is disappointing that the companies have found themselves in this position due to financial problems. The Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for financial monitoring, has been in close touch with the companies throughout their difficulties, and I myself was made aware of them.
I understand that there has been some criticism of the CAA's handling of the problem, but I do not share it. It was for the authority to decide whether and when to take action. To have withdrawn licences or to make public statements on the financial affairs of the company while there was still a serious prospect of rescue would merely have precipitated the crisis and made it inevitable. The CAA would then have been exposed to much stronger criticism, without avoiding the inconvenience that has occurred to the travelling public. One also has to bear in mind the desirability of every opportunity being explored to try to safeguard the jobs of the almost 2,000 employees of Air Europe.
There is, of course, always some impact on customers in any industry when an event like this happens. The bonding scheme, which provides a fund for making arrangements for all charter passengers, has ensured that disruption has been kept to a minimum.
The lack of a similar bonding scheme for scheduled passengers has been commented on. Other airlines have been able to take up Air Europe's passengers, and this is to be welcomed. However, I believe the time has come to ask the CAA to consider whether some arrangement might sensibly be introduced for scheduled passengers. I have asked the CAA to report to me as soon as possible.
Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State accept that the collapse of Air Europe and its parent company, although due partly to the economic recession and to the Gulf crisis, has also been brought about by the Government's disastrous aviation policies—[Interruption.] Well, is a boom. It has been brought about especially by the Government's new air traffic distribution rules, which will cause further chaos and decline in Britain's aviation industry. Does the Secretary of State agree that the collapse of Air Europe is likely to be followed—[Interruption.]—Conservative Members should stop giggling and start listening—by similar financial difficulties in other independent British companies? Does he agree that the collapse will have a serious effect on services from Britain's regional airports? When did the Secretary of State and the CAA know about the problems of Air Europe, and what did either do before the collapse to try to prevent it?
What good is the Government's proclaimed liberalisa-tion of European routes if passengers on scheduled airlines are left with worthless tickets because of the bankruptcy of a particular company? Is it not a fact that the package tour
672
side of Air Europe's parent company was protected by a compensation bond worth £62 million administered by the Tour Operators Study Group, which is a competitor of ILG? Will the Secretary of State examine the structure of the bonding system, bearing in mind—[Interruption.] Listen. The Secretary of State did not mention this at all. He should bear in mind the fact that opinion within the travel industry is that the financial guarantee may have been withdrawn to prevent the entry into the British tour market of a German competitor, regardless of the disappointment, inconvenience and expense caused to British holidaymakers.
Mr. Rifkind: It is somewhat improbable that my statement on Tuesday on traffic distribution rules can have been relevant to the problems that the company faced. The company itself has not sought to make such a suggestion.
Both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport were aware of the difficulties facing the company. I note that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has not criticised the CAA. He is right not to criticise it because, I am sure, he shares my belief that it is desirable to try, as was being done last week, to safeguard the jobs of the 2,000 employees of Air Europe and to avoide the collapse of the company. It is significant that that attempt was made, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not criticising the CAA for the way in which it has operated. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's final point. I am not aware of any basis for his allegation.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the news of Air Europe's demise has been heard with considerable concern in my constituency? Is he aware that, in my view and that of many others, the CAA has behaved impeccably throughout the matter and has dealt with it with prudence and foresight? Nevertheless, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in expressing to the many people who work for Air Europe, who may now find themselves without jobs, our concern that everything possible will be done to get another airline flying in its place as soon as possible? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, Air Europe's demise is, sadly, due to a rather over-ambitious and eccentric management?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the difficulties faced by the employees of Air Europe. We have had that factor very much in mind. I hope, as will my hon. Friend, that the administrator who is now in charge of the affairs of the company will be successful in his efforts to find an alternative purchaser for those routes and for the facilities of Air Europe, so that as much as possible can be safeguarded and continued in the months to come.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many regular flight passengers were informed about the collapse only when they arrived at airports? Can he state when his Department heard about the collapse —the exact date—and does he now intend to do anything with other airlines and other Governments to try to handle the situation in the future?
Mr. Rifkind: We heard about the collapse only when the decision was taken by the company to invite the administrator to take over its affairs. That obviously

673
created inconvenience for the travelling public. However, that inconvenience would have been caused on whatever day the decision was announced. It is a regrettable inevitability whenever such a company ceases to operate.
Mr. Michael Colvin:Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that, in spite of his eccentricity, Mr. Harry Goodman did as much as anyone to promote free and fair competition in civil aviation within Europe and was immensely popular with his passengers, for whom he provided a first-class and popular service? Does he accept that what he has said about the possible introduction of a bonding arrangement for scheduled ticket passengers will be extremely popular? Will he confirm that that will need legislation, and does he feel that the mechanism for airline monitoring by the CAA is adequate? The fact that Air Europe was skating on thin ice about 12 months ago was known to everyone, and I cannot believe that the CAA could not have contacted him at least, and given him greater warning of what was likely to occur.
Mr. Rifkind: I have no reason to disagree with what my hon. Friend says about Mr. Goodman and his achievements. As far as extending bonding to scheduled passengers is concerned, it is right to ask the CAA to consider that proposal. Such a system will have problems as well as advantages, because it could have some implications for fares and therefore it is appropriate for these matters to be properly investigated. I understand that extending bonding would require legislation. I have no reason to believe that the monitoring responsibilities of the CAA are being carried out in anything other than an effective fashion, but obviously we shall wish to study closely the events of the past week to decide whether there are any factors that should be drawn to our attention.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What assessment has been made of the effect of the collapse on Manchester airport? Was there any contact at any stage before the collapse became a fact between the CAA and airport management in Manchester? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there has been in that city very widespread concern about the effects of the collapse on our airport?
Mr. Rifkind: The implications for Manchester airport will obviously depend upon the extent to which the administrator may be successful in finding an alternative purchaser for Air Europe, or for at least part of its activities. I am not aware whether the CAA had any contact with the airport authorities, but no doubt that matter can be addressed to the authority.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although I have enormous admiration for his stewardship of his Department, I find it difficult to accept his dismissal of any charges against the Civil Aviation Authority? Can he please tell the House when he was first made aware that the group running Air Europe had debts of £480 million which it could not service?
Mr. Rifkind: That is not a particular figure which has been drawn to my attention. I received a visit from the senior executives of Air Europe at the beginning of last
674
week, when they expressed optimism as to their prospects for rearranging their finances to enable the company to continue. I reminded them that it would be for the CAA, as the regulatory body, to decide whether they should be permitted to continue and that, if there were any question of the authority being dissatisfied with their being able to meet the normal statutory requirements, it would not be possible for them to continue. It appeared that there was a serious possibility of the company being rescued by the various attempts that were being made at the time.
Mr. David Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he is to consult the CAA on the possibility of introducing a bonding system for scheduled services. However, in view of the ever-increasing number of independent-minded families who book scheduled services for leisure purposes, rather than use charter flights and package tour holidays, does he agree that such a bonding system should be introduced now? There is a need for such a system now. Does he agree that having further consultations and delay is not the proper way to do it? Despite the problems in establishing such a system, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it should be introduced as soon as possible?
Mr. Rifkind: It is not a question of further consultation —as yet, there have been no consultations. Therefore, as there would be implications, for example for fares, it is right and proper that these implications should be identified. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that there are some anomalies in passengers on the same aircraft being divided between those who have the benefit of the bonding scheme because they come under chartered arrangements, and others who are experiencing the same difficulties and inconvenience but are not so covered. That is why I have asked the CAA to look into the whole question of whether bonding should be extended in the way suggested.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have another statement on aviation immediately after this one and, although it is not exactly the same subject, it has similarities. I shall take two more questions from each side and then we shall move to the next statement.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that probably the greatest victim of this collapse is the passenger, the person who has been saving up to make this major purchase, his second largest regular purchase after a motor car? Does he further agree that the industry has signally failed in that, for several years, it has been asked to appoint a tourism ombudsman but has not done so? Such a person could have intervened at an early stage. Ombudsmen already act in the public interest in disputes with building societies, banks, insurance companies and pension scheme promoters, but tourism is the one major consumer area without such a voice. Will my right hon. and learned Friend now intervene to appoint such an ombudsman?
Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's latter suggestion. He will appreciate that I am not responsible for tourism, but I shall draw his suggestion to the appropriate quarter. I agree that those who had hoped to go on holiday in the last few days with this airline have suffered serious inconvenience. Fortunately, the bond for charter flights,

675
which will apply to most of those people, will al least ensure that they do not suffer any financial loss as a result of this incident.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is now about 17 years since charter passengers were given protection by the last Labour Government. Is it not time that Government policy was governed by the needs of the consumer and not by the mindless ideology of deregulation? Can the Secretary of State imagine German companies going under in a similar way? Is it not time that he gave an assurance to the people who are affected by this breakdown that in future no Tom or Dick—or Harry—will be allowed to run an airline in this way?
Mr. Rifkind: It is a sad fact in aviation at present that a number of airlines throughout the world are experiencing serious financial problems. That is in no way peculiar to the United Kingdom. Of course it is the responsibility of the CAA to ensure that those who provide air services are financially and in other ways suitable persons to carry that responsibility.
Sir Robert McCrindle: While I recognise the clear difficulties which must have confronted the CAA, which had a choice between doing nothing and pulling the plug prematurely on Air Europe, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as the CAA was appointed by the House to be the watchdog of the consumer, it might have been wise to assume that not all of us necessarily read the financial pages of the newspapers? A low-key statement indicating that some talks on financial restructuring were proceeding might at least have placed in the hands of the consumer a decision whether to buy an Air Europe scheduled airline tacket. As a result, some people might have chosen not to fly, when all those people have effectively lost their money.
Mr. Rifkind: It is a matter of judgment as to what effect such a statement might have had. The more low-key the statement, the less likely the chances of it being reported in the press and, therefore, brought to the attention of the travelling public. There was a difficult decision to be made. On this occasion, I find it difficult to fault the CAA for the way in which it shouldered a difficult responsibility.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Did the Secretary of State consult the CAA immediately after being given the assurances at the beginning of the week, and if so, did the CAA assure him that the ariline was viable? If it did not, how is it that we have reached the situation in which, because the bond is being triggered, it is very unlikely that this airline can be sold as a viable company or that we will be able to retain the jobs and money of the people involved?
Mr. Rifkind: I received no assurances from the airline at the beginning of last week—only an indication of what it believed was likely to happen. It is for the authority and not the Department to make a judgment on these matters. The hon. Lady asked about the bonding arrangements. It was not only right and proper but necessary as I understand it for the bond to be called in; otherwise, those charter passengers for whom the bond is intended would not have been able to fly back to this country. They knew that the cost of doing so was covered by the bond.

Transatlantic Air Routes
3.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the United Kingdom-United States air negotiations.
I am pleased to announce to the House that the United Kingdom has this morning reached an agreement with the United States that offers major new opportunities to British airlines on transatlantic routes. The agreement allows two new United States airlines to take over Pan Am's and TWA's Heathrow routes, but with fewer rights than are currently available to Pan Am and TWA.
In addition, the United Kingdom will get an unprecedented wide range of new opportunities to compete in United States markets. United Kingdom airlines—especially British Airways—were closely involved in shaping the package throughout the negotiation, and I am grateful to them.
United Kingdom benefits include, first, the designation of a second British carrier to operate to the United States from Heathrow; secondly, a new facility for second or third United Kingdom airlines to fly on certain existing routes; thirdly, a completely new right to fly to the United States via continental Europe and to fly on from the United States to Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, and the Pacific; fourthly, a new ability to make marketing arrangements with United States airlines, known as code sharing, to all points from which United States carriers code share to the United Kingdom; and finally, opportunities for the first time for joint ventures between United Kingdom carriers and carriers from other European countries. Any growth of United States airlines' frequencies to and from Heathrow will be strictly limited for a three-year period.
Both sides agree that there will be further talks aimed at liberalisation of the British-American market, allowing airlines on both sides to compete on equal terms for transatlantic and internal United States traffic, without the limitations and complications of the present bilateral arrangements. Those talks will address complex questions such as cabotage and inward investment.
The agreement has not been easy to negotiate. The latest round continued throughout the weekend, and I place on record my appreciation of the skill and persistence of our negotiating team. The package that it thrashed out is a splendid one, which benefits United Kingdom carriers and offers a wide range of opportunties for airlines to compete in offering better services to the travelling public.
Mr. Peter Snape: Will the Secretary of State clarify his statement that the two new United States airlines will have fewer rights than those currently available to Pam Am and TWA? What exactly does that mean? Is it not a fact that both new airlines, American Airlines and United Airlines, have a comprehensive internal network in the United States, unlike their bankrupt predecessors?
Who is to be the second designated British carrier to the United States from Heathrow? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman asking the House to believe that British Airways was
"closely involved in shaping the package"

677
when a second designation will obviously disadvantage that operator?
Which of the second and third United Kingdom airlines are to fly on certain existing routes? Will that not seriously divide British competition, to the detriment of our major national carrier?
Although the new rights to fly to the United States vis continental Europe will be useful in the long term, will that not involve agreement with other EEC countries? Will the right to fly on from the United States across the Pacific allow destinations to include Australia and New Zealand?
Is it not a fact that the code sharing to which the Secretary of State referred will depend on co-operation from rival United States airlines? What assurances has the Secretary of State received that such co-operation will be forthcoming?
As for cabotage and inward investment, will the Secretary of State confirm that much more discussion will be needed, and that, if any progress is to be made, the United States Congress will have to change its attitude considerably?
Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the package, far from being
"a splendid one, which benefits United Kingdom carriers",
represents a major victory for the United States, will divide and weaken the United Kingdom aviation effort, and is likely to make British Airways, for one, decide to reduce its comprehensive route network, in order better to marshal its financial resources for the transatlantic battle ahead?
Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. The limits on the new airlines that are to replace Pan Am and TWA are capped to the level of activity that those two airlines were planning for this summer. Thereafter, for the next three years, the two new airlines will be limited to a maximum growth equivalent to the services being provided by British airlines —whereas, under the existing Bermuda 2 agreement, their predecessors could have increased their operations to 150 per cent. of those of United Kingdom airlines.
The second designated British carrier is likely to be Virgin Atlantic Airways, because it is currently the only applicant.
Not only British Airways but other airlines were involved with our negotiating team, and were consulted during the long weeks of negotiations as to the kind of package that would, at the end of the day, be acceptable in terms of the interests of British airlines. I am grateful not only to British Airways but to the other airlines that have adopted the same position.
Of course the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that British Airways will see the matter purely in terms of the impact on the company itself; but I believe that, even when seen in that perspective, the agreement presents exciting new opportunities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am referring especially to the seventh freedom rights, which will allow British Airways in particular the opportunity, for the first time, to fly from continental locations across the Atlantic to the United States.
In its discussions with us, British Airways identified that as one of the most important objectives that it hoped the negotiation would achieve. I am delighted that such
678
opportunities have been agreed in the United Kingdom —almost for the first time anywhere in the world—and it is important that British Airways will be able to benefit.
The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that the discussions on cabotage and inward investment could lead to liberalisation only with the approval of the United States Congress, as well as that of the Administration. It is precisely for those reasons that we did not consider statements on intent by the United States Administration on those issues sufficient to form a crucial part of the existing package.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that no other country in the world treats its national flag carriers as badly as the Government treat British Airways? What are calculated to be the financial trading benefits to the United Kingdom and the United States? According to my estimation, and, I think, that of British Airways, we will lose and the Americans will gain.
Mr. Rifkind: That is simply not true. According to our estimate, British airlines will enjoy a gross benefit of some £200 million—more than the likely financial benefit to the United States from the substitution of United and American on the routes currently served by Pan Am and TWA.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of the probable benefits to British airlines in general, does the Secretary of State share my hope that the current staff reductions will be no more than temporary?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course we hope that that will be the case. I am aware that British Airways, along with many other airlines throughout the world, has been cutting down on the frequency of flights, and airlines—perhaps including British Airways—will no doubt make further announcements to that effect. That is a consequence of the general state of the aviation industry throughout the world, and it is therefore all the more important that new opportunities for growth for British Airways and other British airlines are provided.
We cannot ourselves ensure that the airlines take advantage of the commercial benefits available to them; our job as a Government is to provide the legal framework within which the opportunities become available for the first time. I have great confidence in, especially, British Airways under Lord King: in the past, it has shown itself very able to act as a competitive force when the need has arisen, and I believe that it now has the opportunity to show exactly what it is capable of achieving—even in circumstances that are difficult for all the world's airlines.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: May I place on record my appreciation of the skill and persistence with which my right hon. and learned Friend has pursued the opportunity available to him in achieving this deal? Is it not worth a large amount of money to British aviation interests? Has it any implications in regard to when an American airline might start a transatlantic service from Stansted?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As I said earlier, according to our best estimate, the United Kingdom will benefit by about £200 million. As for the use of Stansted, we believe that the agreement will result in a substantial increase in the

679
number of transatlantic flights provided by a number of carriers, both British and. American. Given the limited capacity of both Heathrow and Gatwick, it is probably only a matter of time before airlines will use the excellent opportunities provided by Stansted.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the Secretary of State persuade the House—perhaps he can—that we have not been had as suckers by the Americans in one respect? Has it been agreed that British aircraft on the other side of the Atlantic will be maintained and repaired at approximately the same prices as American aircraft? Has any agreement been reached on that crucial question?
Mr. Rifkind: The cost of the maintenance and repair of aircraft is the responsibility of the airline companies. Governments do not involve themselves in those negotiations. It is for the airline companies to negotiate with other companies, whether British or American, the precise contractual relationships.
Mr. Alan Amos: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a very good agreement for British passengers and customers. May I ask him to confirm that the agreement will help to bring about a competitive, multi-airline industry in Great Britain?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that it will help in that direction. Certain of the agreements that we have extracted from the Americans allow for a second and, in some circumstances, a third British carrier to use routes that in the past were only used by one carrier. That will maximise the opportunities for the British travelling public to use the British airline of their choice, something which the House will wish to endorse.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the feeling in greater Manchester that, all too often, the Government forget about Manchester airport. How many additional flights to the United States will Manchester get out of this deal? What did he ask for?
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give an exact answer. The airline companies will have to decide whether they wish to use these new opportunities. I repeat that the Government's responsibility is to liberalise the opportunities available to British airlines. It is then for the airlines to use those opportunities, according to their commercial judgment.
Mr. Robert Hayward: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the completed negotiations and echo his comments about the, negotiators, given that the American negotiators originally said that they wanted a straight swop, with no compensation whatsoever? May I ask him to take this opportunity to reiterate to the United States Government that we want an early decision on inward, investment for airlines?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend's latter remarks. He is correct to remind the House that the United States began by suggesting that the substitution of United Airlines and American Airlines for Pan Am and. TWA should be considered as merely a technical adjustment requiring no negotiation and no further changes. Due to the skill of our negotiators, we have received some extremely valuable concessions which have been identified by both British Airways and other British airlines as the ones that they wanted. I cannot emphasise too strongly
680
that the concessions that we have extracted from the United States were identified by British airlines as the price that needed to be paid if the two existing American airlines were to be replaced by two stronger American airlines.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, when the agreement was negotiated, the American airlines were in deep economic trouble? Therefore, the Government and their negotiators were in a strong bargaining position. They could have screwed the Americans into the ground, but, for some reason that the Minister is not prepared to give to the House, they have finished up with an agreement that is nothing less than a carve-up for the Americans and a victory for Bush.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's premise, although not his conclusion, is indeed correct—that the Americans on this occasion were the demanders. It was therefore appropriate for the United States Secretary for Transport, who enjoys the name of Mr. Sam Skinner, to be persuaded of the need to make important concessions.[Interruption.] I am not aware whether there is a family relationship between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the American Secretary for Transport.
Mr. Skinner: Uncle Sam tipped me off.
Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to represent the interests of his British constituents rather than those of his American namesake.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the Secretary of State has worked very hard to obtain a net benefit for British airlines, is he aware of the opinion that British Airways—our major airline company with a glorious record of achievement and profitability—has to some degree been less advantageously dealt with? At a time when many airlines are disappearing, at great expense to banks, the economy and the travelling public, does he accept that it would be a mistake to deal with new airlines more favourably than with established, leading airlines?
Mr. Rifkind: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, as a result of the agreement, quite apart from the other concessions that we have extracted to which I referred in my statement, the two new United States airlines have fewer rights at Heathrow than their two predecessors.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the Minister aware that there will probably be no growth in airline frequencies in the next three years, but have we anticipated the considerable growth thereafter at Heathrow? What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "joint carriers" at Heathrow?
Mr. Rifkind: On the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question; the ability of airlines to use the new opportunities will partly depend on the availability of slots at Heathrow, which takes us back to our exchange last week on the' constraints caused by the virtual full use of Heathrow. Joint ventures provide new opportunities for British Airways to join other European airlines in challenging American providers of frequencies on transatlantic routes. In the past, such joint ventures have been impossible or very difficult, but they will be permitted under our bilateral agreements with the United States.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the seventh freedom facility for

681
British Airways will be warmly welcomed? I congratulate him on negotiating that. Will he comment on the new facilities for the second and third United Kingdom airlines to fly on existing routes? Are any of the airlines that participated in the discussions interested in using those routes?
Mr. Rifkind: It is desirable that frequencies that are not fully used by the sole carrier permitted to operate on them should be available to other British carriers. I believe that there is some interest in using the new opportunities, but the airline companies will have to make a statement to that effect.
The opportunities available under the seventh freedom facility are a major step in the right direction. They were identified by British Airways as one of its major objectives in the negotiations, but were resisted very strongly by the Americans up to the last stage of the negotiations. I am particularly pleased, therefore, that they now form part of the agreed package.
Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State realise that the agreement is a poor deal in return for his decision to open Heathrow to all and sundry? Does he realise that he will never be in a stronger bargaining position to obtain cabotage within the United States? The agreement sells Britain short. Does that mean that he has given up all hope of achieving cabotage in the United States?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is clearly under a deep misapprehension. He seems to be unaware that British Airways and other British airlines thought that it would be inappropriate to seek progress on cabotage in the negotiations, because any realisation of our objectives on cabotage would justify the agreement not only of the United States Administration but of Congress, and that could not be guaranteed by the Administration. With the full agreement of British Airlines, we therefore concen-trated on concessions that the United States Administration were able to deliver, and therefore could be seen as bankable assurances in the way that I have described.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome the statement, but will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State comment on its impact on regional and local airlines and say whether the dominance of British Airways since it took over British Caledonian will be increased or diminished?
Mr. Rifkind: My statement is on British-United States agreement on transatlantic routes. I believe that it will lead to a net increase in flights across the Atlantic in both directions, which will benefit not only the airlines but the travelling public. I look forward to the day when there are direct flights across the Atlantic from regional centres in the United Kingdom rather than them being overwhelmingly concentrated from airports in the south-east.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage the routes that are operated by TWA and Pan Am from Heathrow to German destinations—Berlin and Frankfurt—being an
682
issue for negotiation between the Government and the United States Administration, or will the status quo persist?
Mr. Rifkind: I would have to check the precise details of the agreement hammered out a few hours ago. I think that part of the agreement is to put a cap on the exercise of the fifth freedom by American airlines at the level which is currently operated by Pan Am and TWA.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Following that question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for clarification on the fifth freedom in the United States of America, because, de facto, the Americans will have it with this arrangement within the European Community? I welcome the arrangement overall, but there may be an imbalance there. In the light of his open skies policy at Heathrow, which was announced last week, does this give rights to American carriers to have any slots at Heathrow?
Mr. Rifkind: No, the agreement has no implications for slots. That is not a matter for the Government to determine: it is purely the responsibility of the scheduling committee at Heathrow. Therefore, American or other airlines that wish to use Heathrow may find that slots are available for the future. As I said a few moments ago, there are constraints on the extent to which these new American airlines can provide fifth freedom services arising from this arrangement.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. and learned Friend has estimated the gains to British airlines at about £200 million a year which no doubt is at the expense of our continental competitors. Can we have another look at the other side of the coin? Has he calculated what the net gains to American carriers are in this deal, which is broadly welcome?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes. Although it is not possible to give an exact figure, either in our case or the American case, it is our view that the facilities available to United Airlines and American Airlines are unlikely to be worth as much as those available to British airlines. Indeed, the figure is likely to be £20 million to £30 million less in value. I must stress that those are the best judgments that can be obtained. Clearly they will depend on the extent to which the various airlines, British and American, use the new opportunities that are now available to them. That is not within our control.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Although I in no way underestimate the announcement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been able to make this afternoon, may I ask him whether he agrees that the principal aspiration of British Airways, as yet unfulfilled, might be said to be on the cabotage front, which is another way of saying that it would like to be able to pick up passengers in New York and fly them to Chicago or Los Angeles? Although I recognise that some reference is made in his statement to continuing negotiations on that extremely important matter, can he say whether the negotiations will start now or whether there will be an interval? Indeed, as Congress must put its imprimatur on this, how realistic is it to talk about this at all?
Mr. Rifkind: Both Secretary Skinner and I agreed that it would be desirable, in the event of a successful outcome of these negotiations, to begin talks on further

683
liberalisation as soon as possible. Cabotage was not included in these negotiations, with the agreement of British Airways and other British airlines, because it would not have been a power which the United States Administration alone could have delivered. Clearly, any further discussions will have to take place on the basis that if such a facility is to be permitted, it can be implemented only once the United States Congress has passed the necessary legislation. That is an inescapable part of the provision of cabotage opportunities, so it will be reflected in our attitude towards the negotiations.

Prescription Charges
4.13 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can be of assistance. Back-Bench Members certainly appreciate what you have often done during your time in the Chair to defend their rights. I genuinely mean that. At 3.30 pm, a written answer was given on prescription charges.
Since 1979, prescription charges have risen 17 times. There certainly should have been a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on such an important issue which certainly affects our constituents. Why is it that on such a crucial issue as prescription charges rising to £.3·40 per item a written answer is given but no statement? That will undoubtedly penalise people who are ill and who are not exempted. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will help us to get a statement from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is perfectly in order for a written question on these matters to be tabled—and answered. I understand that it is likely that there will be a debate on the matter anyway in due course.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Buying Agency Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Property Services Agency Supplies Trading Fund Order 1976 (Revocation) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities 1989 shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Wood.]

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1990–91
    CLASS V, II VOTE 3
    [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Transport Committee of Session 1990–91 on London Underground's Financial Deficit (House of Commons Paper No. 82).]

  London Regional Transport
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £124,318,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on support to nationalised transport industries and to ports; rebate of fuel duty to bus operators; and costs of drivers' testing and training.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  4.15 pm
  Mr. David Marshall: First, I thank the members of the liaison committee, particularly its chairman the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), for agreeing to the request from the Transport Select Committee to hold this debate today. I should also like to thank the members of the all-party Transport Select Committee for unanimously agreeing to accept my recommendation that we put in a submission to have this debate take place. The topicality of the subject has proved that it is in the public interest that the House should debate these estimates as they apply to London Regional Transport, and in particular to London Underground.
  I shall be brief, as I am aware that this is a short debate and that many Members, especially those from London, wish to participate in it. I also intend to confine my remarks to London Underground and not to discuss the wider aspects of LRT.
  In the past 18 months, the Transport Select Committee has held two one-off sessions interviewing the chief officers of London Underground. On each occasion, we decided subsequently to publish a report based on the evidence given to us as a result of our questioning of those chief officers.
  On each occasion statements were made to us which astounded us. Eighteen months ago, we were told that overcrowding was so critical that London Underground had to increase the fares to put people off using the system in central London. Now we are told that because of its poor housekeeping, it will have to cut services, which in turn will further exacerbate overcrowding and even, perhaps, create more safety problems.
  Only four months ago, we were told by the chairman of London Underground that the former finance director had many talents, but that controlling cash was not among them—what a condemnation that was of the process of selection and appointment.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with one who sat beside him on that Select Committee that we were also told—in view of an overspend of £93 million—that, apart from the financial side, it had been a fairly successful year? Does he agree that
  686
  if they were given the job of cleaning Oxford Circus station, the people who run the underground could mess that up too?
  Mr. Marshall: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's final point, but I agree that the statement to which he refers must have been the mother of all midleading statements.
  Although our report is short, it is all the better for that, and it highlights the serious financial situation facing London Underground. I can summarise the report by saying that in October 1990 there was an unforeseen deficit of £35 million, which rose to £93 million two months later and fell to £52 million net only after cuts worth £41 million were made.
  The causes of the deficit are listed by London Underground as lower revenues from property and fares, higher spending on safety works, and the failure of accounting procedures.
  The Select Committee concluded that the extra safety expenditure was justified, especially in the light of the Fennell recommendations. We believe, however, that the London Underground budget plan was greatly overoptimistic. Avoidable errors were definitely made in forecasting large revenue increases from property sales and fares when there were already signs of a slump, especially in the property and retail trades.
  The accounting procedures need to be overhauled thoroughly, as it took far too long for London Underground to realise that its financial position was unsound. The Select Committee recommended that one the Department of Transport is satisfied as to the justification of the accelerated capital spending, it should allow London Underground to borrow forward on the 1991–92 external financing limit. We also recommended that the Department should undertake a detailed review of London Underground's capital programme in the three-year period covered by the next public expenditure White Paper with a view to making further increases in capital grant.
  The Select Committee's main recommendations were that the internal review of the underground's financial systems should include improved financial accountability in the engineering projects directorate, improved monitoring by the finance directorate and closer co-operation between the two before the capital budget is agreed. We also recommended a clearer distinction between capital and revenue expenditure and accounting, and the proper authorisation and accounting of capital expenditure brought forward from future years. It should not have been necessary for the Committee to recommend such prudent measures, as they should have existed before the problems ever arose.
  It is fair to say that London Underground now appears to be overhauling its procedures. The Department of Transport has financed the deficit for this year to the tune of £55 million.
  Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman has just praised London Underground for overhauling its procedures, but can it justify having to sack 1,000 people because of its own managerial incompetence?
  Mr. Marshall: I shall deal with that later, but those redundancies are one of the saddest recent developments in a long sad history of mismanagement at London Underground.

  687
  Can the Minister tell me whether the £55 million, which has been advanced to finance the current year's deficit, is an addition to this year's money? Or is it simply borrowed from next year's money, and if so, will the situation get even worse next year?
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I had an Adjournment debate on 1 March on the subject of London Underground, when I raised that very point. My understanding is that the Treasury has the right to ask London Underground to offset that £55 million against its external financing limit next year.
  Mr. Marshall: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate, but perhaps I had other business that evening. I am grateful to him for bringing it to my notice.
  I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation. If, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) suggests, that £55 million must be clawed back from next year's money, it will make the situation even worse—the very point that the Select Committee has made.
  I should like to record my appreciation of our Committee Clerk Mr. Doherty and of the specialist assistant Mr. Thompson for all that they do for the Committee. Without the back-up of such good staff, the Committee could not do its work and produce reports.
  Our report concentrated on the reasons for the underground's financial deficit, but the story cannot end there. The consequences of the appalling financial mess inevitably lead to much greater problems and a serious deterioration in services. The ultimate responsibility for that must lie with the Government and it is at their doorstep that most of the blame must be laid. We have been asked to vote through the substantial supplementary estimate as the result of poor performances by London Regional Transport, London Underground and, most of all, by the Government.
  This year's cash crisis is a symptom of more fundamental problems. The current expenditure plans show substantial increases in the external financing limit grant of £669 million, £769 million and £1,039 million in the next three years. Much of that grant, however, will go on additions to the system—for example, on the Jubilee line, crossrail and the docklands light railway.
  The cash crisis has forced a stop on the planning work for the Northern line modernisation. In paragraph 35 of our previous public expenditure report, 'we stated our concern that the case for new tube lines should not obscure the need to improve the capacity and quality of existing systems. Suffice it to say that our call has been completely ignored. That has been borne out by the fact that most of the new money is for new projects and that very little will be spent on improving the existing system.
  Mr. Dicks: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we give more money to this group of incompetents so that they can waste it as they have wasted all the money that they have had before?
  Mr. Marshall: I shall suggest later that we should indeed give London Transport more money, but I should like to think that the additional money will be properly accounted for and used, and that the expenditure will be properly monitored. I hope that the management of London Underground have learnt their lesson and are on their way to putting their house in order.
  688
  The lift and escalator programme may be a casualty of the financial stringency. Lift and escalator availability hit an all-time low in the late 1980s due to the penny pinching of preceding years, regardless of what the Minister may say. In a large city like London, it is absurd that dead escalators should make life difficult for the elderly and disabled and cause dangerous congestion at stations and on platforms. Can the Minister say whether lifts and escalators will be a casualty of the latest round of penny pinching?
  Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. A large part of the Northern line runs through my constituency. At Tooting Broadway, the lifts were out of action for months, and at Tooting Bec they have been out of action for a year. We were repeatedly told that they would be in service "next month", but they are still not in service. We are told that that is due to lack of funding. In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), therefore, we should make the point that, although these people may not be fully conversant with how the underground system should be run, the problems on the underground system will never be rectified unless we have some money.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend gives a splendid illustration of the end result of the lack of investment in the underground system. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that such necessary and vital facilities in running an underground system will not be held up because of lack of finance. On the contrary, they should be greatly speeded up by the disbursement of additional finance, as that would be in the public interest.
  One of the great mysteries about London Underground is why, in the key financial years of 1986, 1987, and 1988, it underspent its grant by £123 million when so much needed to be done. The mess that it is in today did not happen overnight—it is the result of successive years of bad management. Oddly enough, there was a similar underspending by British Rail. It seems that, in the heyday of the previous Prime Minister, despite the Government-inflicted cuts in grants, both London Transport and British Rail management were so cowed that they exceeded the targets that the Government had set. Could that perhaps be described as machismo underspending?
  We are now told that sweeping changes are to be made in the 1991–92 operating budget, and they are not changes for the better. For example, 1,000 jobs are to go, peak hour services are to be cut, the Central line service is to be reduced from 72 trains to 70, the Northern line service from 86 trains to 84, the Piccadilly line from 72 trains to 69 and the Circle line by one train between April and June. Other cuts will be dealt with in more detail by other hon. Members.
  Mr Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman an update. It has been announced today that 800 further job losses are to be made in this financial year.
  Mr. Marshall: I am not grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, as it is even worse news than we had expected. One wonders where it will all end, and whether the underground will eventually come to a complete standstill.
  I am sceptical about the proposed increase from 30 to 34 trains on the Victoria line. There should never have

  689
  been as few as 30 trains in the first place. In view of all the difficulties on that line—the problems with wheels and so on—one wonders whether the increase will come about.
  The cuts will do nothing to increase safety or improve staff morale or to help to recruit and retain staff—inevitably staff will have to be taken on later—and they will not instil confidence in travellers, particularly women and the elderly or anybody who travels alone or late at night. Whether one is male or female, one no longer feels safe when one sees groups of people on the underground.
  When I became a Member of this House in 1979, I did not have the slightest hesitation about travelling on the underground—even on the last train. That is no longer the case. In fact, I do not use the underground after 10 o'clock in the evening. I feel a bit apprehensive—perhaps due to advancing years. There ought to be sufficient staff to make trains and stations safe for any intending passenger at any time. The new plans will result in the worst way to run a railway. I cannot think of words to describe the way in which matters are developing.
  We in the Labour party want substantially increased public investment in transport, but we want to see such investment well managed and properly monitored, with proper accountability. We do not want creative accounting or mismanagement. The buck must stop at the door of those who appoint senior officials in public companies—and such appointments are made by the Government of the day.
  It is not just the Labour party that wants proper management and accountability. The Confederation of British Industry has provided us with an excellent brief. Even if, as I suspect, the CBI has its Marshalls mixed up, much of the brief is to be commended. It says:
  "If London is to maintain its position as the world's leading financial and commercial centre, the transport system must be world class. The CBI believes that traffic congestion in London can only be tackled by an integrated traffic system, in which road and rail complement each other."
  On the need for better transport in London, the brief says:
  "An improved public transport system is essential because it transports 83 per cent. of commuters …
  On the Underground, after an increase of 64 per cent. in passenger kilometres between 1982 and 1989, an increase of at least 20 per cent. was predicted by the end of the century. More investment is essential if London Transport is to meet the growth in demand."
  That is the CBI's view. Does the Minister agree with it? If not, why not?
  The Government must stop chasing the fantasy of significant private sector contributions to transport, and accept that there must be a public commitment to the transport system of London, which is still the largest city in Europe. The Government must face the facts, as the CBI has done, and accept that the underground desperately needs more investment—not subsidies—if many more crises are not to come home to roost in the years ahead.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: A few days ago, I had an opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the level of service provided by the London underground. On that occasion, I made many of the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) has just made in his excellent speech. I received a courteous and informative
  690
  reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who made four main points. First, he reminded the House that we are dealing with an Edwardian railway.
  Mr. John Marshall: Victorian.
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend pointed out that we had to cope with the problems of our Edwardian and Victorian predecessors, and that that is a very expensive undertaking.
  The Minister made what I thought was a most welcome admission—that the problems of the London underground today are partly the product of many decades of neglect. Those decades span the periods of office of both Labour and Conservative Governments. The Minister then referred to the lack of investment and to the policies that the Government were adopting to deal with that problem. He also stressed the importance of safety. He pointed out that one way of dealing with the problems facing the London underground was to increase capacity. He reminded us that the Jubilee line extension, the east-west crossrail and the safeguarding of the Chelsea-Hackney line had been given the go-ahead, and he made the point that the extension of the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail were being fully funded.
  My hon. Friend the Minister explained also some of the improvements that are being made on the Central line, on which about £700 million is being invested. That will result in new rolling stock, new track, new ballast under the track and new signalling. As a result, an additional 5,000 passengers will be carried on the Central line during peak hours. All those developments are welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was also able to tell the House of a feature of the improvements that has exercised my mind and doubtless that of every other Member of this place who travels in central London. I refer to the improvement that is about to be made to the Circle line, with the introduction of new or refurbished rolling stock at the beginning of July.
  I welcome unreservedly all the developments to which I have referred. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister assured me that the management of London Underground Ltd. is, in his opinion, of high calibre. He said that the chairman, Mr. Wilfred Newton, who has already run the Hong Kong mass transit system, had given an assurance to the Select Committee on Transport that the management of London Underground Ltd. will be able to cope with the problems facing it.
  Mr. Dicks: As I did not have the opportunity to read the report of the Adjournment debate which my hon. Friend initiated, nor the Minister's reply, will my hon. Friend say whether the Minister said anything about the quality of the management of London Underground Ltd? Did he make any comment about the evidence given by Mr. Newton to the Select Committee on Transport? As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said a short while ago, there was a good financial director, but he could not handle money. Did my hon. Friend the Minister make any comment about London Underground Ltd. having a successful year save for a £93 million overdraft? Was it a successful year in London Underground Ltd.'s history? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) agree that, if the equipment, including the lines, of LUL are Victorian, the same must be said of the management?
  Mr. Shersby: I can tell my hon. Friend that I advanced those arguments. He probably knows that I read the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee on Transport in preparing my speech for the Adjournment debate. In reply to my arguments—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) would have advanced them had he been present—my hon. Friend the Minister said that Mr. Wilfred Newton
  "had no hesitation in taking the tough decisions that are needed to set London Underground's financial house in order. He said as much to the Select Committee on Transport."—[Official Report, 1 March 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1288.]
  We are considering the estimates and the future of the London underground. We are considering also London Regional Transport. It has been established beyond doubt that LRT's major problem is a lack of adequate funding. That has serious effects on the quality of the day-to-day service and on the deferment of longer-term capital investment. If the problem is to be tackled, we must consider how adequate funding can be made available. It seems that a number of sources are available. First, there could be funding from central Government. Secondly, there could be funding from London boroughs. Thirdly, there could be funding from joint business ventures, involving LRT and other commercial operators. For example, there could be schemes involving LRT and the London Docklands development corporation, or a combination of the other methods of funding that I have suggested.
  Funding by means of joint business ventures might appear on the face of it to be highly attractive, but I suggest that it is likely to take place only in relatively limited circumstances in which the commercial operator can see a commercial reward over a relatively short time. I suggest also that it is inconceivable that such funding would be made available to meet daily operational costs or to meet the major capital maintenance costs of the existing system—for example, new track on the Victoria line and the replacement or reconstruction of many old bridges and viaducts. We are talking about extremely big numbers.
  The second option of funding by the London boroughs is likely to be feasible only on a limited basis. That is where the boroughs see that they are contributing to the maintenance or the creation of a service that they would otherwise have to fund themselves—for example, local shopping bus routes. Given the position that the London borough councils face—they must restrain expenditure to keep their community charge at a sensible level—that does not seem to be a realistic option.
  There is no shadow of a doubt, therefore, that much of the funding over the short to medium term must come from the Government, as is the case in nearly all other major European cities and some cities in the United States. As a Conservative Member, I am not afraid to say that. Indeed, I believe that it is necessary to say it and that there is a great deal of cross-party agreement on the matter. It is easy for the Opposition to score points from the Government of the day because of the poor services provided by London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. I suspect that, if people studied the records, they would find that I probably did so myself when I was in opposition.
  It is now as incumbent on me as it is on Opposition Members to approach those problems without trying to score political points and to try to bring home to the
  692
  Government what is needed to deal with the problem. That may be wishful thinking, but, seeing the smiles on the faces of the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), I hope that, whatever the political point scoring in which they indulge, they will address the problems in this extra day's debate on issues affecting London.
  Central Government funding is necessary because much of the capital investment required by the underground services is simply not commercially attractive. The many projects to build new lines may take 20 or 30 years to provide a return on the capital investment and that is not an attractive possibility for commercial investors. Equally, the cost of replacing worn-out bridges and track has no commercial return potential, since it only prevents the existing service from collapsing altogether.
  There seems to have been some suggestion, perhaps emanating from the Treasury, that the costs of investment could be met by substantially increasing the real cost of fares paid by existing passengers, thereby avoiding the need for further Government funding. If that suggestion is serious, it is extraordinary. It implies that passengers who currently travel on unreliable and overcrowded services should pay more for the comfort of future travellers. Such a suggestion is commercially illogical.
  In my Adjournment debate on 1 March—I am sorry that the hon. Members for Deptford and for Stoke-on-Trent, North missed it—I tried to illustrate the problem of fares. I said that, in real terms, fare levels in 1990 were broadly the same as those in 1980 because the Greater London council's "Fares Fair" policy created a dip in the mid-1980s and fares rose again to their present level but have not gone up in real terms.
  We cannot ask passengers on the London underground to pay more for an extremely uncomfortable service. I liken it to an ailing department store or, perhaps more topically, to an airline with a reputation for worn-out premises or aeroplanes. Such a company could not suggest that its existing customers could pay even higher prices to fund better facilities in five year's time. If it did so, the customers would soon disappear and the company would go out of business. Instead, any such business would have to find commercial funding to improve its facilities. It would be necessary to convince its backers that its forecasts for future improvements in its business prospects justified the investment. The better facilities would ultimately be paid for by future customers, but only after the level of service had justified the price increase.
  London Underground is already losing passenger revenue as passengers are driven away by the combined effect of increased fares and massive deterioration in the service. It does not take much imagination to realise what would happen if there were substantial increases in fares. Most passengers would probably cheerfully pay more once they had a modern, frequent, reliable and customer-oriented service. I suppose that that is a classic case of cost-benefit analysis.
  The London underground is a critical part of London's infrastructure. Its present inability to provide a decent service has an impact on its customers and a knock-on effect on other parts of London's environment. Its rather unreliable and freqently unpleasant conditions ensure that a large number of individuals continue to commute to central London by car. That means that the Government and local authorities must continue to spend large amounts on road maintenance, improving parking

  693
  provision and parking restriction enforcement. The inadequate funding of London underground services ensures that further expenditure is necessary elsewhere. However, the nature of road expenditure means that it is not subjected to the same cost controls or to any form of balanced budget approach. It is taken for granted that building extra roads brings benefits elsewhere rather than being self-financing.
  The unpleasant and frequently nightmarish journeys that many commuters now face are making it increasingly difficult for London firms to recruit the skilled staff that they need. In my constituency, people often prefer to work locally, perhaps at Heathrow airport or for local firms, rather than undergo the daily grind of a journey to London. The result is that many firms are now considering relocating elsewhere and a number have already done so. Those who stay face huge productivity losses as a result of staff arriving late. I wonder how many have arrived late in the past few months, leaving aside the extraordinary and worrying events of recent weeks.
  An analysis of the problem leads to the conclusion that extra investment in London underground and British Rail services will lead to substantial savings and increased productivity elsewhere. That is precisely why most other European Governments are happy to provide major operating subsidies to their public transport networks. That brings us back to the CBI's attitude towards investment in the London underground and the need for our capital city to have a modern, efficient transport system if it is not to grind to a halt.
  In my Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport told me that the autumn statement is the proper time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce the rate of subsidy for London Transport. If, in his autumn statement, he cannot substantially improve on this year's figure and provide a long-term strategy for the financing of London transport, the country and London will have serious problems.
  London needs an immediate commitment to put its transport service into first-class shape. That must happen not only for the sake of its passengers, but to ensure the health of businesses in the capital. If those goals are to be achieved, London Underground clearly needs a substantial injection of large sums of money as well as the installation of a competent and dynamic management. The Chairman of the Transport Select Committee—the hon. Member for Shettleston—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) made that point. If Lord King of Wartnaby were chairman of London Underground Ltd. and had on his board people of the calibre of Sir Colin Marshall, Richard Branson, Michael Bishop and other leading distinguished and highly competent managers of our major airlines, I wonder whether they would be prepared to put up with the problems with which Wilfred Newton must now deal.
  If that action is not taken, there will be a serious problem in the long term for London Underground Ltd. More and more United Kingdom businesses will tend to decentralise, and multinationals will think twice before locating in London. The financial, management and other attempts that have been made to sort out London Underground's problems have been patchy and somewhat half-hearted. They will not do. If the work to make
  694
  improvements starts now, it will not take effect on a major scale for five to 10 years. If it does not take place soon, London could be at a great disadvantage in terms of being Europe's business and financial capital.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell the House more than he could during the short time available to him last Friday. I hope that my contribution and those of other hon. Members will provide powerful ammunition for him in making his case to the Treasury.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the debate and for the fact that this subject has been selected from the estimates. I support the motion, which provides for the granting of about £124 million to Her Majesty out of the "balances kept at the bank" for charges which must be paid by the end of the year because we are going a bit short. It is vital that the money is paid. There is one matter on which there is no divide between the Government and the rest of us—London Regional Transport and the Department of Transport need the money.
  We have already heard about the terrible state of London's transport. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who introduced the debate, and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) repeatedly came to the central point. I think that the hon. Member for Uxbridge made it six times. Without additional money from the Government, we cannot run a decent transport system in the capital. The hon. Member for Shettleston, who chaired the Transport Select Committee, made that point equally strongly, and also dealt with the state of the transport system. Various phrases were used to describe the bad state of affairs, the hon. Member for Shettleston referring to the long, sad history of mismanagement. We have heard that there is a need for new money not only for new work and new projects but for existing projects.
  Who is politically responsible for the mess? Almost uniquely in the House, my colleagues and I can ask that question in a political way. When the Greater London council ran London Transport, the Government argued that the GLC ran it incompetently, so they decided to nationalise it, although they were against nationalisation. Those of us who were selected to sit on the Standing Committee considered whether the transport system would be better or worse run by the Government. Because the Conservative party had a majority, due to the distorted way in which it is given a majority in the House the Government took over London Transport and managed it.
  As the hon. Member for Shettleston made clear, it appears that for three years London Underground underspent, even in terms of the restricted spending allowed by the Government. British Rail underspent in London. Public expenditure was curbed, but the relevant managers did not even spend the amounts allocated to them. It appears that, subsequently, incompetent financial management resulted in a large deficit this financial year.
  The House has had the benefit of a clear report from the Transport Select Committee on London Underground's financial deficit, with a memorandum showing that, on 3 December 1990, there was a shortfall of £53 million—broken down into £27 million in lower property receipts, £18 million in lower fares income, £8 million in additional

  695
  operational costs and £40 million in the costs of additional safety works. Reductions in project and operating expenditure came to £41 million. The Select Committee concluded that London Underground's money had not been managed properly.
  A thousand job cuts were recently announced. In addition, a leaked document from the passenger services director, Ian Athurton, announced that 798 posts were to go, comprising 458 station staff, 246 train crew and 94 maintenance men—so a further 800 staff face the axe.
  Whose fault is it that London Underground underspent for three years and, having got itself into a mess, now has to take draconian measures which will be hopeless at building up a proper management system for the long term? Is it the fault of the Secretary of State for Transport or, because this is a nationalised industry, is it the fault of Mr. Wilfred Newton? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Uxbridge is gesturing in a way that suggests an answer, but I shall not embarrass him by attributing a possibly unfair answer.
  Someone must take responsibility. London Underground was given a job to do and made a complete mess of it—I just managed to restrain myself then from saying something much stronger. Politically, someone must be called to account, because this is not good enough. I respect the Minister for Public Transport. He is committed to his job and to sorting out the problems that he inherited. Who takes the blame? Whoever takes it must go, or he will be acting against the principle of accountability.
  Mr. John Hargreaves, LUL's finance director, has been replaced by my namesake—so I suppose that he must be a relatively good man—Mr. John Hughes, the man from the Pru. He has been brought in to sort out London Underground's finances, and I wish him well. His first job is to review 1,773 redundancies. A report in the Evening Standard appropriately states that he must
  "cope with the backlash of passengers and the workforce."
  I wish Mr. Hughes well, because there will be a large backlash.
  Having asked the political question, I wish to suggest the political answer, and here I agree with the hon. Members for Shettleston and for Uxbridge. Decisions must be made by the Government because they hold the purse strings and because the method of raising money is under their control. Not enough is invested in London Underground. All other major capital cities invest more than we do. The Government subsidy in London is about 30 per cent. and falling. Paris invests 50 per cent. and Rome 80 per cent.
  We cannot expect to run a decent underground system without a large amount of Government investment As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, the private sector is not willing to invest in sufficient amounts to flake that worth its while. That has been proven over the years and is not in dispute. To catch up on what should have been clone and to develop a system capable of dealing with future needs will require a lot of investment. Much of the current investment is putting right what should have been put right before—making safer what the King's Cross disaster tragically proved to be an unsafe system.
  We need a co-ordinated plan, a strategy for London transport. Currently, a million commuters come in and out of London. It is predicted that there will be 1·2 million commuters by the year 2000. Bus use across London has
  696
  decreased by 30 per cent., yet I am advised that, in the rush hour, buses are filled only to the extent of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.
  There is congestion on many tube trains, as everyone who travels on them knows. There is also congestion on some bus routes. The fares are certainly not cheap—in many cases, they are expensive and off puttingly so. Our system discourages people from using public transport. The result is that they use private transport, which leads to even more congestion, with the result that business, jobs and employment are pushed out. The Confederation of British Industry made the same point as the hon. Member for Uxbridge. The London Chamber of Commerce also stated that people will not do the essential jobs in the city —jobs in the health service, in public transport, road cleaing and mending, and jobs in local authorities. There will be no one to run the capital city unless there is a properly co-ordinated transport system.
  I observe in passing that, uniquely in London, local authorities do not make a contribution. There is not a levy —as there now is in other metropolitan areas—made by the transport authority on the local authorities. That was one of the consequences of London Regional Transport legislation. Ratepyayers—or poll tax payers or post-poll tax age payers or whatever they will be called next year—do not contribute. Should they? I do not suggest that there is an easy answer. Many people come to London as tourists, business people or commuters—and perhaps they should pay an equal amount. Local authorities do not get their transport supplementary grant to help them fund public transport. It is based almost entirely—if not entirely—on road use and functions. That is an inherited distortion of the Government's system, which time and again biases all transport planning in Britain in favour of roads, to great common disbenefit.
  The first problem is lack of investment, the second is lack of co-ordination, and the third is the fact that there is no secure structure for investment. Unless we solve those problems, things will get worse. Public transport will become more congested and less well used.
  I will illustrate the rest of what I want to say by taking some examples from my constituency, in the way Members do. One of the largest passenger interchanges in London is at Elephant and Castle. Many bus routes, a railway line and the Bakerloo and Northern line intersect there. Many people change there every day—to go to work, for recreational purposes, for shopping and for visiting. Civil servants work over it in the Department of Social Security. Yet it is felt by many to be one of the grimmest underground stations to be found in any public transport system in the world. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment came recently, and the Government have been helping to improve the area by giving a £500,000 million city grant. That was welcome and was well spent on improving the underpasses at the Elephant.
  However, the layout of the booking hall is temporary and too small. The lifts are inadequate—there are only two and they are often broken. There are no escalators, but there would be space for them if they were integrated with those in the shopping centre. There are some completely unsavoury public conveniences, which are meant to serve a huge number of people but are often closed, ill lit or simply in such a foul state that people will not use them. The entrance to the Bakerloo line is closed. I went there on Saturday, to find it was closed for no good reason other than that it needs a bit of money to complete the work to

  697
  open it. Now, one has to go in through a hole in the wall into a half-finished place which looks like a war-time 1940s Polish film set, with light bulbs hanging on dangling wires and with uncovered brick work taken back to the bare bones. I spoke to a relief inspector on duty, whom I shall not embarrass by naming. He said that there were two vacancies for inspectors because it was so grim that people would not work there.
  The Elephant is a major interchange; the local authority is trying to redevelop the area and the business community want to do something. There are schemes for hotel development and civil service offices. Yet the Elephant is the pits.
  Improvements were started, but two weeks ago the money ran out and we were told that work would probably not start again for two years. Everything was left in a half-finished state. On Friday evening, after various approaches and meetings, after indications that this debate would be held and after it had been communicated to the management that I wished to go down to the Elephant, a rumour reached the work force that, some work would start again tonight. What a surprise! I welcome it and hope that it is rushed to completion, but a transport system cannot be run on a stop-go policy.
  We cannot expect people to use public transport if they are presented at the beginning of their working day with such a grim place. It leaves them feeling as though they have gone through purgatory before they even get to their desks. That is no way to run public transport. It is an obstacle course in human, physical, spiritual and mental endurance. We are not in the third world. We are supposed to be a first-world country, and we should have a first-world public transport system.
  Then recently we suddenly heard about what were called "a few modest changes." On 15 February, a letter from the head of public relations was sent to me and others, stating:
  "I am writing on behalf of London Underground's General Managers to advise you of some modest changes being planned for London Underground services from April."
  The modest changes consist of closing booking offices early, and taking staff away from some stations. Whether it be Borough, London Bridge or Rotherhithe, they will be left with no personnel on duty at the times of day when people are most vulnerable. It is not as though there is a camera system to ensure that people are monitored as they go down the stairs or in the lift. Many people live in those areas, and for some elderly people there is no other access.
  A councillor in Southwark told me that her mother who lives in Bexhill cannot come to visit her because there is no easy way for her to come if Borough station closes on Sundays or closes early. That was her easy access to get to her daughter's flat—by tube from London Bridge to Borough. She can no longer do that, and will not risk her life in a dark underground station in inhospitable surroundings, where there are no staff.
  I understand that the London passenger consultative committee, which we included in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 as part of the statutory consultative process, objected on Friday and that everything has been put on hold. I hope that that means that the changes will
  698
  be reviewed. We cannot encourage people to use the underground if stations are personnel-free, with no support staff, and therefore even more insecure.
  My last point is linked to London Regional Transport rather than to London Underground. A few weeks ago, people were told, among other things, of a change to the route of the No. 1 bus, which ran from Bromley through the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), through my constituency, over the bridge and into the west end. There were many complaints that the buses were always late or came in threes. The solution was a lot of little routes, but no through route. It would no longer be possible to come from Bromley without three changes.
  That is fine in theory, and the service may be more frequent, but it is not fine in practice. A friend of mine who has four young children says that she now has to pay fares for each part of the journey and to wait for each bus with her children or her luggage. One cannot be certain that the next bus will be there to meet the connection, without interruption of the service. Eventually, one has to stop at the Aldwych, where the underground station is to be closed. There will not be an underground station even at the terminus of the route, as there would be if the bus continued to Trafalgar square where there are plenty of connections. If one then wants to go to Trafalgar square and one cannot walk, one has to pay the higher-rate, short-hop fare of about 70p just to go down the Strand.
  What incentive is that for people to use the bus, for heaven's sake? People have already been put off using the tube—if they happen to be in a part of London in which they can get to a tube station. They may think of using the bus, but although they once had a journey all the way from outer London to the middle, they now have three separate journeys. If they do not have a travel card or pass, they will have higher fares, more inconvenience, and more risk of being in the cold and wet and of buses never coming. That is not the way to run a system.
  People are consulted but, so far, consultation appears to have had no effect. The public and their representatives —this is not a party political point—are telling Government and management what they want. They have been saying the same for years. No one says that we should do away with London transport, or that we do not want the buses or the tube. People want more, efficient, better, clean and hospitable public transport. Please, whoever is the Prime Minister and whatever local government finance system we have, can we get it right? I do not know why we have got it wrong for so long.
  Unless we get it right, we are condemning ourselves not only to unnecessary misery and inconvenience, and to messing up something that every other country appears to get right now, but to making our capital city less prosperous, successful and pleasant. We shall condemn millions of people to a life that there is no excuse for not helping to get right. I hope that at last, with an all-party consensus, we can get the message through that London transport needs attention from people who will put it right after decades of it going terribly wrong.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on the Front Bench, because, before he was promoted to his present position, he played a major role in

  699
  seeking to persuade London Regional Transport to improve the Northern line, which is important to him and to me.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked who was responsible for the present situation with London Regional Transport. He knows that a London Liberal Democrat can ask that question with relative impunity. The only thing for which London Liberal Democrats are responsible is the complete chaos that reigns in Tower Hamlets. If the experience in Tower Hamlets were multiplied across London, I should not like to say what would happen to London Regional Transport.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey watched television on Friday night. If he did, he will know that the present situation with London Regional Transport is due to the locust years when it was controlled by the Greater London council. There is a huge time lag between any decision to increase investment in transport and additional trains coming into service. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) was responsible, as Secretary of State for Transport, for ensuring a massive increase in investment in London Regional Transport. The hon. Gentleman also knows full well that none of the benefits of that investment will come through until many years after my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has left the House. The decision to increase investment and the ability to get planning permission for new lines and increased investment in rolling stock take many years to become effective.
  We are suffering now from the locust years when the GLC was controlled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who was far more interested in subsidising the fares paid by American tourists than in increasing the level of investment in London Regional Transport.
  Many of my constituents have the dubious pleasure of travelling every day by the Northern line. Some years ago, Keith Bright, the then chairman of London Regional Transport, at a meeting in the House, described the Northern line as "an abomination". He said that London Regional Transport, like any consumer company, would see that its reputation was determined by the worst part of the system. There is no doubt, for me and for many others, that the Northern line service is inadequate and unsatisfactory. Although the Northern line is now celebrating its centenary, the quality of service is more that of the Victorian era than a service that should prevail in the last decade of this century.
  I and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet have frequently complained to Keith Bright, to Tony Ridley and to Dennis Tunnicliffe. I want to reiterate some of my complaints about the quality of service and about the attitude of management. There is no doubt that the attitude of the London Regional Transport management is sloppy and complacent. Following the disaster at King's Cross, London Regional Transport appointed one chap to be in charge of two stations. When one goes to the stations, one can see how concerned London Regional Transport is about the image that it produces to the public.
  When I went to Hendon Central station this morning, I looked up at the clock. It told me that the time was 5.10 am. I could not decide whether I should have had another two and a half hours in bed or whether the clock was wrong. The clock, of course, was hopelessly wrong. It had stopped, and no one had bothered to start it again.
  700
  Later today, I was at Mansion House station wondering whether I would get here on time for Question Time. I looked at the clock, which said 9.58 am. The clock was still moving, because it then went on to 9.59 am. That shows a complete indifference to the needs of the travelling public. Even at 2.20 pm, the clock claimed that it was 9.59 am.
  Mr. Shersby: European summer time.
  Mr. Marshall: It was certainly wrong. It was either behind the time or ahead of the time, but it was not giving accurate guidance to the travelling public. This morning, as I went down the Northern line, I took note of the time at various stations. At the first station, the clock said 8 am. At the next station, the clock said 7.50 am. I was going backwards by some magic of London Regional Transport. The management's attitude should be less sloppy; they should be more determined to provide accurate information for the customer.
  Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend gave the game away when he talked about the management. Is he aware that the management say today that the 800 job losses added to the 1,000 last week are a sign that they are on the ball and a sign of their efficiency? Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
  Mr. Marshall: When one looks at London Regional Transport, one is reminded of the old adage of Harry Truman: "The buck stops here." Unfortunately, with London Regional Transport, the buck does not stop at quite the right place. There is no doubt that some of the top management at London Regional Transport have not been as efficient as they should be. I do not include in that criticism Mr. Wilfred Newton, who has joined London Regional Transport only recently. He has come with a high reputation from elsewhere in the transport industry and from within private industry, where he worked efficiently at Turner and Newall.
  It is not only the clocks on the stations that do not work: one thinks of the escalators and of the lifts. If one gets to Bank station and finds that all the lifts are working, one is likely to collapse with shock. It is a golden rule that at least one, if not two, of the lifts do not work. The same is true of the escalators. The escalator at Embankment station has not been working for months, and at London Bridge station, one escalator has been out of action for many months.
  The dot matrix system is meant to inform commuters on the Northern line which train is coming next. At Brent Cross station the other morning, the indicator said that the first train which was due in two minutes would go to Bank station. It said that the following train was due in three minutes. No train appeared for another five minutes. I do not know what happened to those two trains. They must have been some of the invisible trains of the Northern line which somehow manage to get on to the dot matrix system, yet do not manage to arrive at the station on time.
  Even when the trains arrive, one can almost guarantee that their destination will not be the destination that the dot matrix system said two minutes earlier that they would have. When I arrived at Hendon Central station this morning, the indicator said that the first train would go via Charing Cross. When it turned up, it was a Bank train. The public want decent. accurate information from London Regional Transport. If London Regional Transport

  701
  cannot operate a dot matrix system that gives accurate information, that says something about the attitude of mind within the organisation.
  Mr. David Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has just outlined an awful catalogue of mismanagement. However, he earlier laid all the blame on what he described as the "locust years" of London Regional Transport being controlled by the GLC. Does he not realise that it is now seven years since the GLC controlled London Regional Transport? How does he account for his description of events? Who is really responsible? It certainly is not the GLC.
  Mr. John Marshall: It is always a pleasure to give way to cousins, however distant, from north of the border. My argument about the GLC was that the level of capital expenditure that it determined has affected the number of new trains coming into service with London Transport in recent years. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) ignores the fact that, in a large organisation like London Transport, which employs many thousands of people, one cannot change an ethos overnight.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have had seven years.
  Mr. John Marshall: One cannot change the ethos of London Transport overnight.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, each year that the GLC controlled London Transport, from 1970 to 1984, its capital budget was set by the central Government of the day? Each leader of the GLC and each chair of finance had to go cap in hand to civil servants and Ministers to find out what capital expenditure they were allowed. Every time that we put up capital programmes, they were reduced in the initial stages by the Government of the day. That is an attack upon all Governments. If the GLC had had the freedom to run the system as we had wanted, these problems would not be with us now.
  Mr. Marshall: I do not know how wise it was to give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I suspect that it was not. When he was in control of the GLC, after his Paris coup, he was more interested in subsidising fares than in increasing capital expenditure. One of the first things he did, after he had stabbed his leader in the back, was to push fares down so that many non-Londoners and people who did not need cheap fares benefited. Every American tourist get a bonus from the hon. Member for Brent, East. He would have done better by going to the Government of the day and saying that he wanted to spend extra money to improve the quality of service offered by London Transport, rather than to give cheap fares to those who often did not need them.
  Those of us who travel regularly on London Transport, as I do, find that trains on the Northern line are often dirty, graffiti-ridden and somewhat infrequent. I have never understood why one of the first tasks for people who are sent to do community service cannot be to remove
  702
  much of the graffiti that they put on the trains and the streets of north London. The state of trains on all routes in London is a disgrace because of graffiti.
  I am able to give a typical example of the sort of arrogance which has afflicted at least certain members of London Regional Transport's management. I recently went on a deputation with the right hon. Edmund Dell to complain about a proposal for closure in my constituency. I took with me a petition signed by about 5,000 people. When I was with Mr. Tunnicliffe, I was assured that my comments would be considered. At the time, a member of the staff on the Hampstead and Highgate Express was being briefed by a London Transport press officer, who told him that London Transport had already made up its mind and would ignore the petition that we had handed in. Subsequently, that was denied by the chairman of London Transport, but the fact that a press officer could say that to reputable journalists shows a degree of arrogance and unwillingness to listen to what elected Members of Parliament and prominent ex-Members of Parliament are saying.
  I have frequently made proposals about the Northern line to London Transport and have received promises, but the Government have yet to receive proposals for the large-scale modernisation of the line. I welcome the fact that the money is being spent on a new station at the Angel, but the real bottlenecks are at Camden Town and Kennington, where much still has to be done. When London Transport altered its priorities and decided to improve the Central line before improving the Northern line, it got its order of priorities wrong.
  Whatever our complaints about certain routes in London, every hon. Member must congratulate the Government on the large increase in expenditure that has been agreed in recent years. For Londoners, one of the real frustrations is the long delay which occurs after a decision has been taken to increase expenditure. It is strange that Labour Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Shettleston complain that not enough Government money has been given to London Transport. The Secretary of State then comes to the House and announces that more money is to be spent and that more new routes will be introduced. The private Bill procedure is used to provide for new routes.
  What happens next? Do Labour Members of Parliament all stand up and sing "Hallelujah", and say that they will speed up the process? No, of course they do not. As we all know, Bill after Bill relating to London Transport has been held up by obstructive tactics, not from my colleagues on the Conservative Benches but from Opposition Members.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I think it is easier if someone else points this out—the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was unfair in his last observation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) spoke to a report which was agreed at a meeting when the majority of hon. Members present were Conservatives. As I understand it, that report from the Select Committee on Transport was agreed unanimously. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can suggest that that document was party political or that its strictures on London underground as regards the matters that we are debating today were not the subject of substantial cross-party agreement.
  Mr. John Marshall: I did not say that it was only Labour Members of Parliament who wanted more money spent on London Transport. It is slightly ironic that Labour Members of Parliament come to the House, criticise the level of expenditure on London Transport but, when the private Bill procedure is used to facilitate new routes in London, certain Labour Members have been obstructive, with the result that the procedure takes longer than it might have done.
  There is no doubt that the financial management of London Transport has not been of the highest. I cannot understand how any organisation can suddenly find that it is £50 million adrift. A private business would have discovered that something was wrong when it was £1 million or £2 million adrift. I am not surprised that the previous finance director of London Underground disappeared from the show. That underlines a much deeper malaise, and one wonders how deep the problems are.
  Sometimes, when bus routes have been put out to tender, London Transport has won and sometimes the route has gone to another operator, but I welcome the fact that tendering has always resulted in substantial savings, which must surely be beneficial.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister next introduces legislation to the House. we will give Londoners the benefits of deregulation of buses which have been enjoyed by the rest of the country. If we could deregulate London buses, there would be many more routes in the suburbs. Some people say that it would lead to more congestion. I do not agree for one minute that someone will run a route from Barnet to Bermondsey, but there would be many more local routes, which would benefit commuters in London and would lead to a better transport system for all the citizens of London.
  The improvement of transport in London is a herculean task. It cannot be done overnight. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State on the improvements that they have made and that we know they will continue to make.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), because he has touched upon many interesting issues that I wish to refer to. The Northern line passes through a great deal of my constituency.
  The statements that we have heard during the debate are obviously to be welcomed. Anyone who sees the debate on television or in the news programmes today, or reads about it in the press tomorrow and learns that there will be an improvement to rolling stock, will think that it is not before time. However, that thought will soon disappear, and people will start to say that they have heard it all before. Hon. Members from both sides of the House know from what constituents have told us that countless promises have been made about improvements to services, stations and manning levels. Sadly, that has never taken off. In the debate, we heard about welcome improvements that stemmed from the benefits of extra staff, but now we are told that the extra staff are to be removed.
  For the vast majority of Londoners, the underground is the major means of transport, but they all despair at the conditions in which they are forced to travel. The Northern line goes through the Balham and Tooting area
  704
  in my constituency. It is an utter disgrace today, and it will be the same tomorrow and next month and possibly next year. One cannot even say that, although the station could be a bit cleaner, at least escalators and the lifts always work and that the trains are always punctual. One cannot say much in its favour. I am sure that hon. Members who have the Northern line and possibly other underground services passing through their constituencies are frequently asked when the services will be improved.
  The Minister for Public Transport visited my constituency last summer and I wrote to him afterwards and thanked him, because his visit was well received. He met and spoke to the travelling public and travelled with them on the Northern line. Therefore, he cannot be in any doubt about how those travellers feel. If he made a return visit tomorrow, the same things would be said to him. No one has ever told me, and I am sure that no one told the Minister on his visit, that we have a good service. People cannot say that, because the service continues to worsen.
  There is no comfort on the trains, and many stations are dirty and stay dirty—not just for a day or two or at weekends when there is a shortage of staff, but week after week. As other hon. Members have said, lifts or escalators are often out of service for months. When the Minister came to my constituency I asked him to get off at Balham station. To his credit he said, "Of course I will get off. That is why I am making this visit." He saw there a lift that had been out of service for about eight months and asked when it was proposed to bring it back into service. He was told that it would be in use again as soon as possible, but we are still waiting.
  Eventually, such matters will be put right, but it is not long before there is another breakdown. That annoys people who want to use the service, and in the end they have to give up in despair.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If a ministerial visit cannot get the lifts working, perhaps a royal visit is required. If that does not work, we may as well all give up and go home.
  Mr. Cox: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have a chat to see whether the next visit can be upgraded.
  Against that background of despair, fares keep going up, and that also annoys people. Now we hear that there are to be further cuts either in staff or in services. The Northern line is the key service in my area. Sadly, it has a record for mugging offences not only late at night but during the day. Some of them take place on trains and passengers are terrorised. We are often told that women will not travel on the underground because of the fear of such crime, but many able-bodied men say that they will not travel on the line because they know what happens there, and that it could happen to them.
  To the credit of London transport—we must give credit where it is due—because of what was taking place, extra staff were employed. That resulted in a substantial reduction in crime on the Northern line from Clapham to Tooting Broadway, six stations in all. Confidence started to come back to the travelling public. Now we are told that the people who were employed to inspire that confidence are to be removed.
  I understand from handouts that London Transport classifies that as an efficiency measure. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how that definition came about. The

  705
  travelling public when they become aware of that definition, as some of them are, would certainly not agree that reducing staff is an efficiency measure.
  We are told that booking officies are to be closed at 8.45 in the evening. We can all imagine the scenario of a busy underground station with no staff on duty and the booking office closed. What happens if a crime occurs or a fire breaks out? Whom does one contact to report such matters? London Members with this branch of the underground in their constituencies are entitled to be told something about the thinking behind such decisions.
  I have received a letter dated 26 February from a constituent about this matter:
  "The proposals outlined are a complete and utter outrage to passengers and their safety. I suppose we can now look forward to a dramatic increase in crime again on the southern end of the Northern line in return for higher fare increases and the hollow promises of improvements in the quality of the service."
  I also had a letter from an organisation that is respected not only in my constituency but in the borough of Wandsworth, the Wandsworth society. It is a non-political organisation, to which people from all walks of life belong. They have spent a great deal of time looking at London Transport, certainly in my area, and they have voiced enormous opposition to what they understand will happen following the efficiency measures that I have mentioned.
  We have heard about conditions in Europe. I am a member of the Council of Europe and often go to meetings in Paris. Many comparisons are made between the Metro and London underground, and it is said that the Metro is a much smaller system. That may well be, but the real issues for the travelling public are the regularity and frequency of trains, the cleanliness of the stations and the number of staff. In those respects, the Metro is well above that which is provided for Londoners. No wonder the people of Paris use their system. The travelling qualities are better, and the overall cost is lower. On the Metro, one can buy a ticket for the equivalent of 30p, which permits travel on any part of the system. The Metro's individual services may be small in terms of the distances that they serve, but, overall, it covers an enormous area of Paris. We have much to learn not only from the French but from the Italians and others. Sadly, we do not appear to do so.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) know that, one year ago, road development was threatened in Wandsworth and adjoining boroughs. In my many years in politics, I have never known such enormous protest meetings as those which took place in the borough over that issue. They were arranged by a number of organisations, and it was a case of standing room only. At one meeting that I attended, it was estimated that there were more than 1,000 people present.
  The residents who attended those meetings were deeply concerned about not only the proposed road development but the provision of better public transport. That came over time and time again. They did not object to the prospect of paying more for public transport, provided that better services were made available.
  There is a need for a co-ordinated transport/traffic policy for London. Part of my constituency is not served by underground or British Rail services, but only by buses. That deficiency could be met by a transfer system that
  706
  allowed one to purchase a bus ticket that could be used on the underground or on British Rail, or vice versa. That would benefit many travellers, and would encourage the public to use the capital's transport system more than they do.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we encourage the public to use the capital's transport system at times when demand is already high, that will compound the problem? There are times —particularly peak periods—when so many people are using London Transport services that stations have to be closed and queues begin to form. That happens at Victoria, for example—to the great inconvenience of the public. Encouraging more people to travel could in itself exacerbate the problems that we are trying to overcome. There is certainly a case for encouraging more off-peak travel, but at other times, one would not want to do so.
  Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The solution is to provide a co-ordinated transport system. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned bus services. If they were made more reliable, the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) could be met far better than it is today.
  I never cease to wonder why we have failed over the years to develop the potential offered by the River Thames in providing transport for thousands of commuters, at least during the rush hour. In many European countries, river transport plays a vital role in their overall transport policy. Sadly, that is not the case in London. There is ample scope to develop that potential, and I hope that it will be examined as soon as possible.
  Hon. Members have commented on the efficiency of London Regional Transport's management. I am reminded what occurs when Ministers—particularly members of the Cabinet—are sacked, when we are told how wonderful and knowledgeable they were, but a few months later, it is said that they followed all the wrong policies. That is happening now, in respect of the Government's economic policies. When a former Chancellor resigned, we were told that he had been wonderful in revitalising the country's economy, but now all its problems are blamed on his management of it.
  The same happens in respect of LRT executives. I remember being told how marvellous and knowledgeable they were, but the first occasion that something went wrong, they left. I hope that whoever is managing London Regional Transport today will stay on long enough to fulfil their role in the way we want—and will have the authority to do so, in consultation with others, according to their abilities and knowledge of the system, for the benefit of the travelling public.
  We have been made many promises. Let us hope that those made by London Regional Transport's present management will be kept. If that happens, I am sure that the travelling public will accept that improvements will take time to achieve—provided that they see a commitment to enhancing the services that they use day in, day out. Londoners have sought such improvements for years and years, but they have been let down. The real test of LRT's management will be whether the services for which it is responsible will improve. Whatever we may say,

  707
  and whatever may be said by Ministers or London Regional Transport, that is the yardstick by which the people of London will make their judgment.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: If my reckoning is right, given the number of hon. Members in all parts of the House present who represent London constituencies, the score at the end of this welcome debate could be 10-nil against London Regional Transport. There is much cross-party criticism of the poor standard of facilities that it provides, and the Government must tackle the way in which LRT's management caters for public demand.
  We can reassure ourselves that there is no call for the construction of more major roads in London, to cope with the growing volume of commuters. As the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned, a year or so ago he and my hon. Friend for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) joined the campaign led by Wandsworth council which argued a strong, united case to the Government that the assessment studies presented by various consultants urging a mass of new roads—all of them seeming to converge on Wandsworth bridge and the borough of Wandsworth in general—were not welcome.
  To the Government's credit, they not only accepted that all-party case but a number of submissions made by other London boroughs. Road building is not the current buzz phrase, and I doubt whether it ever will be for the citizens of London.
  Seventy-five per cent. of commuters travel by rail to their places of work, making a total of 2·5 million travellers a day—a 60 per cent. increase since 1982. It must be evident to London Regional Transport and to Network Southeast that that trend will not go away, and that the problems it brings will not diminish. The public cannot be expected to continue to put up with dirty stations, trains that do not run on time and are overcrowded—and may break down at inconvenient points—and the broken-down lifts and escalators mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which seem to remain stationary for far too long.
  No one could claim that a shortage of resources is to blame. Investment of £3 billion is planned for the next three years, which will include the costs of the Jubilee line extension and the east-west crossrail. That is three times the amount that the Greater London council spent on London Regional Transport in its last year of existence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) strongly criticised the GLC, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will respond to that criticism. I believe that the GLC devoted far too much money to the revenue side and not enough to the capital side. That financial mismanagement had a knock-on effect, which we are now experiencing in the form of old rolling stock that is desperately in need of replacement—although some has now been replaced and there are plans to replace more.
  We must be careful when we compare London with other capital cities. The hon. Member for Tooting pointed out that the Paris transport network is smaller than ours, but we invest more per head in our network than do the authorities in Paris, New York and Milan—to mention just three of the capitals with whose systems ours is often disadvantageously compared.
  708
  Investment in public transport, as opposed to road traffic, has resulted in an interesting development. In Paris, the average speed of road traffic is 9 mph; in New York, it is 7 mph; in Brussels—which, as the location of the European Commission, represents the centre of the universe for many people—it is only 6 mph. In London, it is 11 mph. Some things are improving here and, rather than comparing London so unfavourably with other cities whose transport facilities can, in fact, be criticised fairly radically, we should set our own example. I simply urge my hon. Friend the Minister to call on London Regional Transport to improve its management considerably.
  There is much scope for improvement of the bus service. In 1989–90, £28 million was spent on improve-ments, and the number of bus miles increased by 3 per cent. during that period—although only about 14 per cent. of the total travelling public use the roads, which is considerably fewer than the number of rail travellers. As several hon. Members have pointed out, buses could benefit the public considerably. The routes, however, are often far too long: by the time a bus which started its journey in north London—which may be taking an hon. Member to his south London constituency—has sat around in traffic jams, it will be running seriously off schedule and often in a convoy. Two or three buses will arrive together at the bus stop, which is no use to travellers. LRT's management should give more thought to shortening routes and making it easier for buses to run on time.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If routes are shortened, there must be connecting routes so that people do not have to wait at the point of connection. Moreover, the cost of the entire journey must not be more expensive, or those who do not have travel cards will be disadvantaged. Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is logical.
  Mr. Tracey: I entirely agree.
  In parts of the capital, nearer the suburbs, smaller buses—Hoppas—are being used. They can move more flexibly through the traffic and can often negotiate roads down which a double-decker, or even a large single-decker, could not be driven. I think those buses must be used more.
  Not enough strategic thought has been given to London's transport facilities—certainly not as much as I expected when I was a member of the Standing Commit tee considering the London Regional Transport Bill in 1984. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, there was a good deal of discussion on both sides of the Committee. It was said that the Department of Transport would keep a close eye on the new body's strategy and that hon. Members would be able to debate the way in which London's transport was being run. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the Department is anywhere near establishing the strategic authority for London's overall transport network that we expected when we spent so many hours and weeks debating that Bill. A number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber served on the Committee. They know what was said.
  Reference has been made to the deregulation of London's buses. The Minister and his Department of Transport colleagues can learn lessons from the deregulation of buses in other parts of the country. It is about time that London's travelling public benefited from those lessons.
  6 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Between 1981 and 1984, I was leader of the Greater London council and had some responsibility for the administration of London Transport. Seven years later, with London Transport under Government control, Conservative Members still get up and say, "If only the Labour GLC had done something different, we should not be in this mess today." I intend, therefore, to refer to my discussions with a number of Secretaries of State for Transport between 1981 and 1984.
  As I said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), a Labour Government—with the support of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who at that time was Opposition spokesperson on transport—passed the legislation which transferred control of London Transport to the Greater London council. Capital expenditure control was still with local government. However, the Greater London council's capital expenditure, which included London Transport's capital expenditure, had to be agreed by the Government of the day. Otherwise, Greater London council money resolutions would not have been carried by the House. First, the Government, then the House of Commons exercised complete control over the GLC budget, not just when I was the leader of the GLC but throughout all previous GLC administrations.
  When Sir Horace Cutler went to the then Labour Government with the proposal to extend the Jubilee line to docklands, his proposal was vetoed by that Government —no doubt on Treasury advice. Labour, then in opposition on the GLC, supported Sir Horace Cutler's condemnation of the Labour Government for blocking proposals which were supported by the whole council and by people throughout London. Had the Government of the day not blocked the Jubilee line to docklands, it would by now have been operating for many years.
  One of the first acts of the new GLC Labour administration in 1981 was to go back to the Government with the same proposals. We did not need to ask for money. We did not expect the Government, after two years in office, to help the GLC to extend London's public transport. We were prepared, as happened with all our capital projects except housing, to make an investment from revenue towards capital improvements in London. But the proposal was vetoed. We also wanted to construct the Hackney-Chelsea line, but the Government vetoed the proposal. The Treasury, acting through the Department of Transport under both Governments during the last 20 years, vetoed successive GLC administration proposals for increased capital expenditure on London Transport. All Governments stand condemned, but I suspect that the major villains have been the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury rather than the Department of Transport.
  The Government are painfully inching towards many schemes that we welcome. They now accept that London, with a population of 7 million and providing work for people who travel in from much further away, must have a good public transport system. The Government's final recognition of that fact, in their dying days, has the support of the whole House. The tragedy is that it has taken the Government so long to recognise it.
  I remember my first meeting with the then Secretary of State for Transport. He has announced that he intends to
  710
  retire from public life—it is a tragedy that that did not happen 12 years ago. His deputy was at the same meeting. He went on to devastate the national health service, and he is adopting the same approach to education. I told the then Secretary of State that we had been elected with a clear mandate to cut fares, which were the highest in Europe, so as to attract people back to public transport and reduce road congestion. We also wanted to initiate a major programme of capital expenditure so that there would be a major shift throughout the coming decade towards an improved and expanded public transport system. I told him that we wanted to build the Jubilee line out to docklands and the Hackney-Chelsea line, and that we wanted to extend some of the existing tube lines and build our own buses which could be specifically geared to conditions in London—a modernised version of the Routemaster for which Londoners have always had an affection.
  All these proposals were vetoed by the Government when we debated the money resolutions. The GLC's chief officers had meetings with Treasury civil servants, at which they were told that they could not have this and they could not have that. We made the point every year that the Treasury was not giving us permission to spend enough money on London transport. Capital expenditure was needed. All that we asked was permission to spend. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State for the Environment's first act was to push through legislation giving the Government even more control over local authorities' capital budgets.
  Conservative Members get up and say that the GLC subsidised fares and did not embark on capital expenditure. One reason for that was that in their first days in office the Government took over complete control of every penny of every council's capital spending. If the GLC had been left with the freedom to go in for capital spending, we should have a public transport system that was equivalent to that in Paris. The Government should not blame the GLC for their own policies.
  We recognised that London Transport was not the first choice of transport for many people in London. The tubes do not run to many parts of south-east London. In many areas, people do not have access to the tube.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman talks about governmental control in 1981 and capital expenditure by local authorities. Will he confirm that councils were free to spend capital receipts if they generated them? It may be that, for ideological reasons, the GLC, when the hon. Gentleman was its chairman, did not want to generate any capital receipts.
  Mr. Livingstone: On the day we took office, we instructed our officers to identify all capital assets which could be released. We sold land and houses to generate capital. In a perfect world, we should not have sold that land or those buildings, but they provided us with capital to do a little more. We were not happy about it, but we did it because we wanted every penny that we could get for capital spending. Some of the sites that we had to sell broke my heart, but we decided that it was better to spend that money on public transport than to keep those sites. Moreover, money that had been allocated to unpopular road schemes that we inherited from Sir Horace Cutler's administration was switched to public transport.

  711
  At that first meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in June or July 1981, we said that, as the tube did not serve all parts of London, we had told British Rail that we would provide it with the same level of subsidy as we provided to the tubes so that all British Rail services in the GLC area could benefit from a fares reduction, in line with the GLC's fare reduction for London Transport. We wanted to create a common ticketing policy so that people could buy one ticket anywhere in London—a British Rail, London Transport or bus ticket—and use it anywhere in London. That policy has now been introduced for season tickets, which we welcome, but it has taken years to introduce it.
  I remember the words of the Secretary of State for Transport: "For every £1 of subsidy that the GLC gives to British Rail, I'll withhold £1 of Government subsidy, thereby completely negating any subsidy that you may give." That was an act of sabotage. Who lost? The commuters lost. Those who live in the Tory outer suburbs of London—in Bromley, Croydon and Hendon—were denied a fares reduction and the integration of public transport services. I said, "We want to increase British Rail's rolling stock. We shall provide whatever subsidy is necessary to run more trains and attract people to public transport." Once again, that was vetoed.
  The Government vetoed all those projects. Our only freedom was to cut fares and to squeeze whatever money we could from capital receipts to fund, the limited works that we could undertake. Had there been a Conservative GLC and a Labour Government, the evil hand of the Treasury would still have prevailed and would have vetoed the projects. Transport Ministers still have to bludgeon their way past the Treasury to get a little capital investment for London Transport.
  Until Londoners elect an authority to control transport in London, it will never be responsive to the needs of Londoners. So long as it is controlled by the Treasury, the main concern of which is national economic issues, Londoners will never get a fair deal on public transport. That is why there must be an elected strategic authority for London which can concentrate on tackling such problems.
  I would accept the judgment of any Londoner whom one stopped on the street in the three and a half years when the GLC was responsible for transport and the seven years which followed. Although the Government blocked all our capital investment programmes, when we cut fares we saw what we predicted—a movement of people from private transport to public transport. We saw an increase of about 10 per cent. in the use of public transport and a, reduction of about 5 per cent. in cars on the streets of London. That may not sound much, but it is the difference between the city moving well and effectively and being clogged up.
  Almost a decade on, people still stop me on the streets, tubes and buses and say, "If only we could have the GLC's `Fares Fair' policy back." After a decade of slander and lies from, Conservative Members— "slander" a ter-minological exactitude—people still remember that policy, which they enjoyed, because, after 30 years of decline in public transport in London, the system began to improve. The Government of the day, who did not want popular public spending, were determined to put in their cronies and friends to run it, and they have run it into the ground.
  That policy has been & disaster. Escalators can be out of action for three weeks, three months and sometimes more than a year. If that had happened while I was leader of the GLC, Conservative Back Benchers and Ministers
  712
  would have condemned it as an outrage and an indictment of socialism. I received letters if an escalator was out of action for three or four days. Nowadays, people are amazed if they can complete their journey with all the escalators working. At times, 30 per cent. of the escalators have been out of use.
  That has been a damning indictment, and I do not believe that it is right that the transport of the capital city should be a matter for central Government. Such problems will bedevil any Government who take office, however pro-public transport they are, because the body best able to run London transport is an authority elected primarily for that purpose which will be answerable to Londoners and therefore much more responsive to their needs.
  If the Government think that they have any popular support for their maladministration of London transport for the past seven years, I suggest that they put a simple question to the people of London: would they prefer Ken Livingstone to be taken down to Westminster tube and tied to the rails because of the maladministration of the GLC, or would they like the same fate for Ministers who have run London transport into the ground for the past seven years? I know whom Londoners would choose to sacrifice for the incompetence that has been visited on them. The only problem is that Ministers strapped to the Circle line would die of old age before a train came along.
  Public transport in London will be the nail in the coffin of every Tory who in the past decade has trooped through the Lobby as the Government have demolished London transport. Our message to the people of London at the election will be, "If you want to save London transport, get rid of the bunch of gangsters who have been running it with their cronies and friends, and elect people who not only want to run it but travel on it."
  6.15 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: Methinks the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will
  "remember with advantages
  What feats he did that day."
  He should remember, as we do, that many Londoners liked, and like, the idea of reducing fares to increase the attraction of public transport. However, they wanted to ensure that the increased income was invested in improved services. Sadly, the GLC's management did not lead to improved services.
  When the Conservative Government took office, they had to rectify the mess in which the economy was left by the previous Labour Government. We have turned the economy round, and can join forces across the Chamber to seek improvements to public transport.
  At Transport Questions today, I offered my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport immortality if he would extend the underground from Hackney to Chelsea south through Wandsworth. The stone masons are ready to erect his statue if he agrees. We were in Balham the other day discussing the possibility of erecting a statue to commemorate the famous people of Balham. We mentioned a Roman centurion because of Stane street, and Peter Sellers because of the gateway that he provided for Balham, but my hon. Friend, the "freeman" of Wandsworth borough, would be a fitting subject for a statue if he agreed to extend the Hackney-Chelsea line south into that barren territory.

  713
  The problem is that there is little public transport in south London. Anyone reading an underground map of London would think that London's southern border was the River Thames. Five small tube lines dip beneath the river.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bowis: I cannot give way; I am trying to speed through.
  Although 85 per cent. of commuters into central London use public transport, there is no public transport for them to cross boroughs south of the river and they must use their cars. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to persuade London Regional Transport to make the southern circular connection, bringing the east London line across to Balham, the Balham line to Clapham junction and up through the west London line to Willesden so that, at last, we have the outer circle line that south London so needs.
  We must provide more park and ride facilities on the outer rim of the underground network to encourage people to use it. When we consider access to the underground system, we must bear in mind people with disabilities, and ensure that, at all stations, trains are sufficiently flush to platforms.
  I know that I must be brief, so I shall refer quickly to one or two subjects on which I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister. I again ask him to speak to the management of London Regional Transport about Dial-A-Ride. It is being run for the convenience of LRT management. I want to ensure that the service is provided for the convenience of the users—those with disabilities. That does not necessarily mean imposing a regional structure on the system; it means allowing local people with disabilities to run their own service.
  I have to hand over to the Front Benches now, so I shall conclude. There are good signs of more investment in the underground and the Government can claim credit for that. More money is being invested in the underground than ever before and more in the whole rail system than at any time since the Conservative Governments of the 1950s. We now need a responsive management. My hon. Friends referred to the possibility of private assets being brought into the public transport system. The asset that we need above all is private management skills, so that better use can be made of public financial investment.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Ms. Joan Ruddock.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the guardian of Back-Bench Members' interests. It is outrageous that London Back-Bench Members cannot speak in a debate on London transport which affects their constituencies. A short debate of about three hours on this important subject—virtually the only such debate in the year—is a poor show. More time should have been made available so that Back-Bench Members, like myself, could defend their constituents' interests. The lack of time is offensive: I hope that you can get that message across to the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to take part in the debate, and I regret that he has not had the chance to do so. He will recognise that I am only following the conventions of the House.
  6.20 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I share the dismay of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who may wish to intervene in my speech. I hope that I defend the interests of his constituents as I do those of other London Members.
  I congratulate the Select Committee on Transport on its timely and concise, but damning, report on the finances of London Underground. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for his presentation as Chairman of the Select Committee. On 22 October, in advance of its deliberations, I wrote to the previous Secretary of State for Transport expressing alarm at the then newly identified and previously unforeseen deficit of about £40 million.
  I urged the Government to step in with a rescue package, but the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) replied that London Transport
  "like any other business must live within its means",
  and that he had no plans to
  "increase their grant ceiling for the present financial year."
  Months of unnecessary uncertainty have followed, but it is to the credit of the new Secretary of State that he has responded positively to the combined pressures of the all-party Select Committee report, Opposition Members and trade unions by increasing London Transport's grant in this financial year.
  Perhaps the Minister will bring us more good news today. He knows that, welcome though that increase is, it does not solve the continuing crisis of London's most important mass transit system, or set it on a secure financial footing for the future. Indeed, the Select Committee found a gross deficit in London Underground's finances of £93 million, leading to a net budget shortfall of £52 million.
  The Select Committee examined the causes and made some recommendations for immediate action. Sadly, it did not report substantially on the consequences of the deficit, although it ended its report by saying:
  "we are concerned that services to the public should be affected as little as possible."
  That is a pious hope. Drastic measures have already been announced by London Underground. I challenge the Minister to demonstrate today that the planned cuts in staff and services will not further undermine confidence in London Underground, lead to a further drop in ridership and yet another cash crisis.
  The Select Committee found that
  "poor forecasting of income from both property and fares made the 1990–91 Business Plan impossible to achieve."
  That statement came as no surprise to Members on this side of the House. We have constantly criticised the fundamental philosophy on which London Transport's business plans are based. The Government, oblivious of the fact that it is achieved nowhere else in Europe, have charged London Transport with making a profit. It is their wholly unrealistic and unjustified approach which led London Underground into flights of financial fantasy that ignored the collapse of the property market and the limits of passenger tolerance.

  715
  The Select Committee identified the three causes of the immediate crisis as a drop in ridership, a drop in property sales and the safety programme. A drop in ridership was inevitable. We predicted that it would occur if the Government persisted in their philosophy. Only a year ago, the chairman of London Transport said that his policy was to
  "price people off the tube."
  In August last year, the managing director of London Underground said:
  "I see no reason why the customer should not pay the cost of running the system, and that includes replacing assets and repairing trains."
  Ms. Gordon: Bus services are being cut, too.
  Ms. Ruddock: Indeed they are. The managing director went on to say that it would require five to seven years of real fare increases to achieve that objective. This year's increases are a good example. Tube fares rose on average 10 per cent., with some passengers facing an increase in season ticket prices of as much as 11·7 per cent.
  Does the Minister not accept that combining the highest tube fares in Europe with one of the poorest services is likely to prove a disincentive to passengers? Does he think it desirable for people to be priced off the tube? Does he think it desirable for people to take to their cars instead? Does he not accept that such consequences impose wholly unjustifiable costs on London's environment, hospital casualty wards and overall business efficiency, through increasing congestion and accidents on our roads? What does he make of Mr. Newton's admission in the Select Committee that, although the pricing-off policy was supposed to apply to peak hour travel, there has been a
  "reduction in discretionary demand"?
  Such a reduction in demand is a clear indictment of Government policy, exposing yet again the lack of strategic planning and co-operation in the capital's transport system.
  I shall digress to give the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is active in transport debates, but unfortunately cannot be with us because he is in Brussels. He has asked me to record tonight the fact that the closure of the Acton Railway works, wholly owned and operated by London Transport, has meant that rebuilding and major overhauls of some underground stock must now take place elsewhere. It is ludicrous that stock must now be run up British Rail lines to the Birmingham area to be attended to.
  My hon. Friend also points out that the new timetables for the Circle line trains to operate from April to July include some gaps of 15 minutes. He asks us to note that, in 1885, there was a regular timetabled service by steam-hauled trains on the Circle line, serving Westminster station at regular 10-minute intervals. Today, the service is worse than it was 100 years ago.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has referred to fares. If I had had the opportunity to make a speech, I should have talked about the impact of fares on the many people in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members who live on low incomes. Is my hon. Friend aware that, if a person on low income buys a five-day travel pass of the £2·60 variety, it will cost him about £13 a week? From April, income support will be £39·65 a week, and unemployment
  716
  benefit £41·40. So almost a third of such people's weekly incomes will go on fares, even before they have paid for their poll tax, food or rent. Is not that scandalous?
  Ms. Ruddock: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. As we have said repeatedly in the House, we have the highest fares in Europe for any comparable service.
  The other two causes of LUL's financial crisis were identified as falling receipts from property sales, and safety measures. On that score, the Secretary of State has much to answer for as well. Surely he must accept that it is nonsense to make public policy in an area as vital as the capital's mass transit system dependent on speculative gains in a notoriously unstable property market. Does the Minister accept that that source can no longer be relied upon? As for the £40 million deficit which is said to have arisen from additional safety works, the mind positively boggles. How could LUL not have been able to predict the pace at which it would do the works and thus know in which financial year the costs would fall? Why, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked in Committee, did not LUL immediately seek an extension of the external financing limit to cover these works?
  What proportion of the £62·55 million payment to London Transport announced on 14 February will go to London Underground? The Minister implied in an Adjournment debate on 1 March that £55 million dealt specifically with the cash flow problems of London Underground. As I understand it, that is not what London Underground believes. I repeat the question that has already been asked: is this a grant or is it forward borrowing against the EFL of 1991–92 which must subsequently be repaid? If it is forward borrowing on next year's EFL, does the Minister accept that the same cycle will repeat itself next year?
  The Select Committee's report has provided us with a quantitive insight into London Underground's affairs, but it is of course on quality that the travelling public will pass their judgment. Does the Minister accept that the recent reductions in service made by London Underground because of its financial difficulties are already undermining passenger confidence, and are thus likely to undermine the revenue base for the next financial year? We predict that the financial crisis revealed by the Select Committee's report is but the thin edge of the wedge. LUL is negotiating staff cuts amounting to close on 1,000 posts.
  In a recent Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) questioned the Minister for Public Transport on this same issue. The Minister replied:
  "there will be no significant change in service. I understand that the proposed staff cuts of 1,000 are related mainly to the introduction of new automatic ticket barriers … Those moves are designed to make the underground as efficient as possible. They are not a reaction to a financial crisis".—[Official Report, 1 March 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1290.]
  Mr. Tracey: Before the hon. Lady sits down, will she tell us how much extra money a Labour Government would spend on London transport? And does the hon. Lady have the approval for her answer of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to ask such silly questions. We are dealing with the Select Committee's report and the Government's policies.
  The Minister said that cuts in staff were not a reaction to a financial crisis. I say that LUL's staff would regard that statement as a joke, were the consequences not so

  717
  painful. LUL's senior managers appear to have done their best to follow the Government's line. Memos to staff speak of good housekeeping and efficient use of resources, but even the most loyal among them seem to think that the Government's financial policies have something to do with the problem. The general manager of the Northern line told his staff in a memo that the Government were faced with huge demands for education and health and as yet did not know the full costs of the Gulf war. The manager of the Victoria line—12 trains short for much of last year; six trains short now—told his staff that their new timetable will be more realistic to operate. As there are to be 10 fewer train operators, we can assume that there will be fewer trains. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that only 24 trains are running regularly now at peak times on the Victoria line.
  The manager of Central line acknowledges that the volume of his customer traffic fell by 4 per cent. in 1989 and by 5·5 per cent. in 1990. At Question Time today, the Minister denied that ridership was falling. Perhaps I can press him to say whether it is falling on Central line, and whether he expects a further fall in ridership on that line, given that it too is scheduled to sustain significant staff cuts and a 3 per cent. reduction in peak hour services.
  The actual list of job cuts over which the Minister drew a veil today includes but 300 booking office clerk jobs—out of a total of 980 jobs, including those of train operators, guards, leading railwaymen, station foremen, and passenger services support jobs and engineering operations. How does all that accord with the Minister's statement that the job losses are related to the automatic ticketing system and not in response to the financial crisis?
  It is our contention that the financial crisis is deep and continuing. We welcome any assurance that the Secretary of State can give about better financial management. Indeed, we would welcome an all-round improvement in management in LUL, but the problem remains: if the Government set unrealistic targets, London Underground will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. The current round of cuts will, I predict, be self-defeating. Booking offices at more than 100 stations are to have severely restricted opening hours and real time closures. Some booking offices are to be closed altogether, and some stations to be entirely unstaffed. Does the Minister really not believe that these closures amount to a reduction in service, or that ridership will not be adversely affected?
  Many people, especially women, are already deterred from travelling outside peak hours by the lack of staff on stations. These latest measures can only exacerbate their fears and contribute to yet further decreases in ridership —and to further problems for LUL's staff morale, to more violence against staff, to vandalism and to graffiti at stations. What does the Minister expect to happen to the crime figures?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) pointed out, those wonderful experiments on the Northern line which have proved successful and which Ministers have frequently applauded are to end. It appears again that, although the Minister was not aware of it at Question Time, the additional staff are to be withdrawn from the Northern line from April and reductions in the numbers of revenue protection and ticket office staff will also be implemented.
  718
  Does the Minister expect the crime figures to rise? Does he deny that this measure too is related to the cash crisis? If, as I suspect, he shares our dismay at the thought of the underground becoming less safe, will he see that the staff cuts are reversed?
  I could go on and on about the cuts, not least about the sad plight of LUL's award-winning cleaning and premises department, which was a success story—cleaner es-calators, platforms and station premises, even with reduced staffing—yet the department is to be chopped. What price safety, when the King's Cross fire showed all too tragically the need for a strict cleaning regime?
  Even all this is not the end of the story, however. Just before the debate began, I received a leaked copy of the passenger services directorate's proposed operating costs budget for 1991–92. It takes account of the so-called stage 2 cuts—the 1,000 jobs to which I have already referred —but it ominously looks forward to a further round of —stage 3—job losses totalling nearly 800 posts.
  It cynically argues that the management expect there to be industrial action as a result of the current 1,000 job cuts, and that that will provide the opportunity to put in place
  "more radical working practice and employment changes arising from Level 3."
  Those changes had already been rejected in 1989 by LUL workers, and it was agreed that they would not be undertaken. That is a cynical move.
  The level 3 changes will result in the loss of 248 train staff, 458 station staff and 94 train maintenance staff—a total of 798 posts. Does the Minister believe that LUL management should hope for industrial action in order to force through more staff cuts? Is that the style of management of which the Minister approves?
  The Select Committee's report must be seen as a dire warning of continuing financial crisis within LUL. It is all too evident that it cannot run a safe, efficient and passenger-friendly service without more Government financial support. It is patently clear that the Government's policy towards public transport in the City is a disaster. No number of promises for the future can make up for the fact that the day-to-day running of services falls far below the reasonable expectation of Londoners. The Government simply cannot blame that state of affairs on London Transport's poor financial management, although it is obvious that it was in such a state and needed to be tackled, the political responsibility for the mess clearly lies with the Secretary of State, who has set himself up as the strategic authority for transport in London.
  I trust that the Minister will explain how LUL fortunes will be turned around to provide the high-quality services and safe and affordable public transport that Londoners demand.
  6.40 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has encouraged a hare that has been running around the Chamber tonight to run even faster with her allegation that a further 800 jobs are to be cut imminently. I repudiate that claim.
  London Transport cannot complete its budget until my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has concluded the review of the external financing limit for 1991–92. However, the current budget, which has been drawn on a prudent basis, does not provide for a further

  719
  reduction of 800 jobs. That allegation is alarmist, unnecessary and without foundation in terms of its likely impact on London Underground. I am sure that budget options are under consideration by the middle management of London Transport, but I hope that the hon. Member for Deptford is not encouraging industrial action on London Transport.
  Ms. Ruddock: No—the management are encouraging that.
  Mr. Freeman: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is not giving such encouragement. I therefore hope that she will not give credence to leaked documents, which probably come from the unions involved, commenting upon options which have no foundation in reality.
  Ms. Ruddock: In fairness, the Minister should know that the document to which I referred comes from Ian Athurton, the passenger services director, and it was he who referred to industrial action.
  Mr. Freeman: I assure the hon. Lady and the House that there is no prospect of which I am aware of a further round of job reductions.
  The hon. Member for Deptford referred to 1,000 jobs which might be affected—I stress "might", as we are still talking about proposals. I have already said on several occasions from the Dispatch Box that the job reductions relate primarily to the introduction of modern ticketing equipment and that they will not jeopardise the safe and efficient operation of the underground. I would share the hon. Lady's concern if any hon. Member provided examples of where that safe and efficient operation was jeopardised.
  Mr. Cohen rose——
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman was denied the opportunity to speak because of the effluxion of time, but if he would like to come up and see me some time, I should be happy to spend half an hour with him.
  Mr. Cohen: The Mae West Minister.
  Mr. Freeman: I must get on, as I have only 16 minutes at my disposal.
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), the Chairman of the Select Committee, for not being in my place when he spoke. The Committee's report is most helpful and I hope that, in answering some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Deptford, I shall answer some of the points raised, by the Committee.
  The £55 million increase in grant that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has anounced is part of an overall increase which is higher than that, and includes additional provision for the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail. That provision is ring-fenced in the estimates, but the £55 million increase is for LRT, as we do not deal directly with the underground. That grant is a once-and-for-all increase in the cash resources available. The underground is part of LRT, however, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has sought to address with that cash increase the problems, rightly referred to in the Select Committee report, caused by property shortfall and unavoidable increases in safety expenditure and so on.
  720
  The hon. Members for Deptford and for Shettleston asked about the budget for next year and we are at present considering what changes are needed to the external financing limit for 1991–92. I am unable to make any announcement on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State tonight, but undoubtedly an announcement will be made shortly. We are realists, and we understand that, if there is a property shortfall, it reduces the resources available to LRT. My right hon. and learned Friend has already demonstrated that we appreciate the problems that London Underground faces by awarding the £55 million. We also increased the public service obligation grant to British Rail this year by £100 million.
  The hon. Members for Deptford and Shettleston also asked about distinguishing between the existing underground system and new schemes undertaken by LRT. This year, investment in the existing systems on the underground is at a record level of £400 million. I am aware that London Underground would like more money: I shall say something about that later. In the next three years, the grant for LRT will be £2·4 billion, and roughly £1 billion will be allocated for new lines—the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail—and £1·4 billion for the rest of the existing business.
  Hon. Members will appreciate that, judged by any historical standards, the £1·4 billion represents a substantial investment programme. It will cover the refurbishment of the Central line at £700 million—new carriages will be in use by September next year and the resignalling should be completed within three years. The Angel station on the Northern line will receive £72 million for new work—the sums to be allocated are enormous. Circle line trains will also be refurbished. Earlier, I said that I expected those new trains to come into operation next year, but I was wrong: they will be in operation from this summer. I invite the hon. Member for Deptford to enjoy with me those pleasantly refurbished, graffiti-free trains.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made a perceptive contribution and spoke about non-user benefits—I assume that that was the burden of his argument. He said that the underground would never be profitable in a commercial sense, and he is right. The new underground lines have been approved largely because of the decongestion benefits to central London. We apply that principle to light rail systems as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked about the future and to what extent London Underground Limited could, generate sufficient cash to replace its existing assets without having to find the resources internally to build the new lines. I do not anticipate that LUL will ever be able to generate sufficient cash to build new lines, but in the years ahead it might be able to find some of that cash without radical fare increases. I know that LUL would like to be in that position.
  During the summer, in the course of the public expenditure survey bidding round, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider proposals from LRT for additional investment. The Select Committee referred to that when it spoke of the investment programmes for the next three years. I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider any sensible proposition.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked who should take the blame for financial mismanagement. I do not want to get into a

  721
  detailed attempt at passing the buck, but the hon. Gentleman may be aware that LRT has appointed a new financial director, Mr. Sheppeck and that LUL has also announced a new financial director, Mr. Hughes. I hope that they will be able to contribute to a better system of financial control. The hon. Gentleman should be aware, however, that operating any nationalised industry, which is subject to cash controls as a commercial business is extremely difficult whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government. The revenue may suddenly fall, operating costs may suddenly rise for various reasons, and the industry has either to go to the Treasury for additional funds or to cut its investment programme. That problem has been with us for years.
  The problems of financial management, faced by both British Rail and LRT, are formidable. To blame them for getting the figures wrong is unfair and unreasonable. They have to operate under peculiar restraints. That is not to say that they should not be able to plan and control cash expenditure and to know the cash position. The Select Committee has done the House a service in pointing out the shortcomings in LRT.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey argued that LRT needed more money. In a timely intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) asked the hon. Member for Deptford what further resources a Labour Government would provide. He was put down and told that that was a silly question. My job is to defend not the operational record of BR or LRT but the Government's position on resources. We have doubled in real terms the resources available for LRT over the next three years.
  Granted, there is a significant burden for the new operating lines—the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail—but that burden falls on the taxpayer, because it is a non-repayable, non-interest-bearing grant. The money comes straight out of the Exchequer and goes straight to LRT. That is a creditable record, although we could do better, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider new investment schemes. In the next general election campaign, the hon. Lady will have to face up to what resources a Labour Administration would be prepared to put into London Transport.
  Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the Northern line. I always associate the hon. Member for Tooting with the problems of the Northern line, problems that we understand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is getting up at 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning to travel on the Northern line with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South so as to see the problems. I know that the Northern line is called the misery line, but we cannot sensibly afford the resources to refurbish both the Central line and the Northern line at the same time. The Central line refurbishment is costing £700 million. Refurbishment of the Northern line will follow.
  Mr. Cox: I have heard all this before.
  Mr. Freeman: When? Our constituents suffer from overcrowding—today, tonight, tomorrow morning. The Central line refurbishment is on schedule. A substantial sum is being spent on it; the new stock will come into
  722
  service in September 1992 and the resignalling should be finished two to three years after that. We shall make a start on the Northern line as soon as resources permit. Refurbishment of Angel station, which is on the Northern line, is costing £72 million.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South and for Surbiton both spoke about buses. The Government are grateful to them for their support for the principle of deregulation. This afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend published a consultation document on deregula-tion and privatisation of London buses. The document spells out the arguments for deregulation and tendering. I am sure that the House will return to the subject. Some 4 million passengers per day travel on London Buses. As has been said, that is the same number as travel on Network Southeast and London Underground combined—a substantial number. That patronage has not fallen.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said something about bus traffic being down by 30 per cent. If it is, it is not in London. There has been a fall in patronage in the provinces, but since 1979 the number of journeys on London Buses has remained unaltered at 1·2 billion per annum and the number of passenger kilometres has also remained unchanged, at between 4·3 billion and 4·4 billion per annum.
  I am glad that patronage in London is broadly holding, but our proposals for deregulation are based on the principle that we can bring valuable benefits to Londoners by providing for more services to be offered with new technology, servicing different parts of the capital at different times, by commercial operators. We do not want to see the end of the traditional double-decker red bus, and that will not happen, but we want to permit new operators to come in and provide a service so as to get more people travelling by bus.
  Some faint hearts have argued that deregulation will exacerbate the problem of congestion in Greater London, but the reverse is the case. Our aim is to reduce congestion in Greater London by persuading more people, of all ages and callings, to leave their motor cars at home, and to travel by bus. I am grateful for that welcome to the publication of the deregulation paper by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
  I am also grateful for the recognition by the hon. Member for Tooting that crime statistics on the Northern line, and the southern section of it in particular, have improved, in that there has been less crime. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) has asked me about crime statistics, and I will look at them. Crime statistics for London Underground as a whole have also improved, in the same way. The trend is encouraging. British Transport police are to be thanked and congratulated. In part, the improvement is due to the introduction of new technology such as cameras, panic buttons and mirrors, and the new technology which has allowed staff to be released from the mundane tasks of isssuing and collecting tickets.
  The hon. Member for Tooting referred to the escalators at Balham. I am told that they were working this morning and that they have been back in service two weeks after our joint visit. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are not working or that they have broken down. If they have, perhaps he will let me know.
  Ms. Ruddock: The special measures for the southern section of the Northern line included a 100 per cent. increase in staffing levels for particularly vulnerable

  723
  stations. That 100 per cent. increase will be done away with from 1 April. That was the point of my question and of that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall.
  Mr. Freeman: I understand that there is a relationship between the number of staff available and crime—that is true on British Rail and London Underground—although there is not an exact correlation between crime statistics and staff. At Question Time, I gave the hon. Member for Vauxhall an undertaking that I would pursue the point, because I share her concern about the fear felt by women travelling alone on public transport. This is not a party political matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton rightly drew attention to the GLC's low fares policy. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer here, but I thought that my hon. Friend was right. Irrespective of the permission which may or may not have been given for capital investment while the Labour GLC was in control of London Transport, by pursuing a low fares policy the GLC ensured that the resources needed for ploughing back as investment were not there. Whatever the rights and wrongs of 10 years ago, we have to address ourselves to the situation today.
  The underground is overcrowded. To go back to a policy of reducing fares would be ridiculous. It would result in less resources and more overcrowding when what is needed is more investment. That investment, on the whole, can come only from the Government. We have already supported a significant underground building programme and I dare say that more projects are yet to come.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton called for a strategy and, by implication, for a long-term co-ordinated strategy for London. Nothing about a co-ordinated or a long-term strategy is anathema to Conservatives. The hon. Member for Deptford smiles—perhaps she is surprised at that. Perhaps we have been hiding our light under a bushel all these years. Co-ordination must be at the heart of any sensible transport policy, and long-term thinking must be one of its essential features. Our policy should be seen to have both.
  The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Resolution [1 March].

  Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps it will be helpful if I make clear that the debate may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, is responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
  7 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney)I beg to move,
  That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
  The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £104·8 million in the 1990–91 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £4,418 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £1,941 million for 1991–92, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1991–92 main estimates for Northern Ireland are brought before the House later this year.
  Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account which as usual, are available in the Vote Office. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reminded the House, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the Order before the House today.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that, if law and order are not covered, the application of this expenditure is somewhat curtailed and we do not reap the benefits that we should reap?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
  Before drawing attention to some of the main features of the estimates, I should like to set them in the context of Northern Ireland's recent economic performance. At national level, we are experiencing a temporary downturn in economic activity as we make the adjustment to a low-inflation, more highly competitive economy. The Northern Ireland economy can be expected to follow a similar path. We can see this in the increase in unemployment during the past three months. The January figure of 97,500, or 14 per cent. of the work force, is disappointingly high, but it is still 1,700 below the figure for the same time last year.
  Another encouraging sign is that, in the year to September 1990, output in both the manufacturing and the production industries rose by 3 per cent. and the numbers in employment increased by 1,200. But we dare not be complacent. It is essential that we defeat inflation, in the interests of both the Northern Ireland economy and the United Kingdom as a whole. While interest rates are still higher than any of us would wish, I am encouraged by the recent sharp downturn in inflation and the prospect of further reductions in the coming months. Equally, it is important that local industry—employees as well as employers—recognise that prosperity and enduring employment depend on improving efficiency and competitiveness.

  725
  I now turn to the estimates. As is customary on these occasions, I do not propose to refer to every vote where supplementary provision is being sought. I shall concentrate instead on the main items.
  I shall start with the Department of Agriculture vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures. An extra £1·3 million is required for payments under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme, and £1 million for residual payments under former capital grant schemes. These increases are offset by reduced requirements under other capital grant schemes, particularly the farm and conservation grant scheme, where uptake and investment levels are lower than expected. The result is a token increase of £1,000 in the vote.
  In Department of Agriculture vote 2, covering local support measures, additional provision of £1·5 million is required, principally for disease eradication measures and for special temporary aid to the pig and poultry sectors. These increases are offset by additional receipts, mainly from timber sales, and by delays in the commencement of major fishery harbour development works. Again, this results in a token increase of £1,000 in the vote.
  Turning to the Department of Economic Development, token supplementaries are sought for votes 1 and 2. In vote 1, the main increase is an additional £11·5 million for factory building, as a result of increased demand from companies for custom-built industrial premises. This reflects the Industrial Development Board's continuing success in attracting internationally mobile projects to Northern Ireland.
  The Government will continue their efforts to encourage internationally competitive companies engaged in manufacturing and tradeable services to come to the Province, so as to create the conditions for growth in durable employment. My ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote Northern Ireland as a successful investment base and to challenge its negative image abroad. I know from my recent visits to the United States how essential it is to bring the positive attractions of Northern Ireland to the attention of potential investors, and I intend to continue to put this message across in the months ahead.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I hope that, when my hon. Friend addresses American audiences, he emphasises that Northern Ireland is a United Kingdom responsibility and that the observations of many Americans have come very close to interference.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly make it clear that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom.
  In Department of Economic Development vote 2, additional funding of £6·2 million is sought for the local enterprise development unit. This will enable LEDU to meet current commitments for selective financial assistance and to continue the development of a network of local enterprise agencies. There are now a total of 27 such agencies operating in the Province, providing work space and business support to local entrepreneurs, who are currently providing some 2,000 jobs.
  Also in this vote, an increase of £1·1 million is sought for the fair employment support scheme, owing to higher than expected uptake. This scheme offers private-sector
  726
  employers practical and financial help to implement best practice in relation to fair employment. Since the scheme was launched in March 1988, about 1,150 firms have taken advantage of it. That is very encouraging and shows that employers are facing up to their responsibilities in this important area.
  Elsewhere in this vote, an additional £920,000 is sought for the Northern Ireland tourist board for additional marketing activities, such as an 'Ulster-Canada Year' promotion, to promote Northern Ireland as a holiday destination. An extra £550,000 is also sought for capital grants to district councils to improve tourist facilities, such as visitor centres and picnic sites. The past few years have seen a welcome upturn in Northern Ireland's tourism, and these extra funds will allow us to build on our success in attracting a record 1·1 million visitors to Northern Ireland in 1989.
  As I said at Question Time some weeeks ago, it would benefit Northern Ireland and its tourist industry and would greatly benefit right hon. and hon. Members if they were to visit the Province. They would learn what a beautiful place it is, and would have their understanding put in a much more sympathetic and developed content than is apparent in the contributions of at least some of them.
  The Department of the Environment vote 1, seeks additional provision of £1·7 million for the maintenance of roads and street lighting. This is offset by reductions in other subheads and increased receipts from vehicle testing, leaving a token of £1,000.
  An additional £700,000 is sought for the Department's vote 2. The main increase is £6·6 million for the Housing Executive, bringing the executive's gross expenditure for the year to £467 million. This additional requirement is offset by almost £6 million in loans not taken up by housing associations—reflecting a more difficult housing market.
  The Department of the Environment vote 3 is also a token, because extra receipts, including those from water charges, offset the additional £2·9 million required for capital expenditure to improve water services. All told, an additional £96 million will be spent by the water service over the next three years to improve the already high quality of drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland, in line with European Community requirements. This is part of a major capital programme of £500 million, over the next decade or so, that will also improve facilities for treating sewage effluent, thereby protecting coastal waters. Northern Ireland's bathing waters are already among the cleanest in the United Kingdom. In 1990, all but one of the 16 identified bathing waters met the mandatory EC standards.
  Department of the Environment vote 6 seeks an extra £250,000 to provide an additional 24 full-time firemen to be employed by the fire authority for Northern Ireland, bringing the total to 849.
  I move on to the Department of Education. A net increase of £13·6 million is sought in vote 1. The main addition is £20·6 million for grants to the education and library boards. That is needed to cover pay awards and price increases amounting to about £14 million, and increased expenditure on mandatory student awards and on the youth training programme. A further £2·8 million is for capital grants. These increases are partly offset by reduced requirements elsewhere, especially a decrease of £4·6 million in employers' contributions to the teachers'

  727
  superannuation scheme, following a review of the scheme by the Government Actuary. I assure the House that the change will not affect the level of, or entitlement to, teachers' pensions, as will be apparent from the corresponding provision in vote 3 of the Department of Education.
  The House will be interested to learn that an additional £360,000 is included in the vote for expenditure on grant-maintained integrated schools. The 1989 education reform order provided for the setting up of that type of school where parents wanted them. I am pleased to say that 10 proposals for grant-maintained integrated status have so far been approved. Between them, the schools have about 2,300 pupils on their rolls. The extra resources sought will ensure that these schools receive the same level of financial support as other schools of comparable size. In addition to the 10 proposals already approved, two are currently under consideration and further proposals are expected. That is further evidence of the growing demand from parents that their children should be educated alongside children of other denominations in schools that value both traditions equally.
  In the Department's vote 2, a net increase of £1·9 million is sought for a range of services. The main increase of £2·3 million is for increased grants to the two universities in Northern Ireland. The increase has been recommended by the Universities Funding Council to cover expenditure on equipment and a computer network. Provision is also made in the vote for an initiative to improve access by disabled people to the arts.
  For the Department of Health and Social Services, an additional £20 million is sought in vote 1. This includes £14·6 million for health and social services boards. mainly to cover increased pay costs and service development. An additional £7·1 million is required for the family practitioner service to meet extra expenditure arising from the new general practitioner contracts and increased drug costs. The new GP contracts, which were introduced from 1 April 1990, are raising standards of care by making services more responsive to the needs of the consumer and by placing greater emphasis on illness prevention. Information to date shows that GPs are supporting the initiative, especially in areas such as immunisation, vaccination and health promotion.
  An additional £5 million is required in DHSS vote 3, including £2·4 million for health and personal social services. Of that sum, £1·7 million is for the independent living fund, reflecting increased demand. The aim of the fund is to give severely disabled people the help that they need to enable them to live independently in the community.
  In vote 4, which covers social security, an additional £50 million is sought. This covers revised estimates of the numbers receiving a range of benefits, but chiefly a technical payment of over £40 million into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund, and expenditure on industrial injuries benefits, which is now a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Minister say anything about money that is available for new hospitals under the health estimates?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are dealing essentially with supplementary
  728
  estimates. The funding to which he refers will be covered by the main estimates, with which we are not dealing this evening.
  Finally, I draw attention to vote 3 of the Department of Finance and Personnel, where an additional £700,000 is sought for the community relations programme. Improving relations between the different parts of the Northern Ireland community remains one of the Government's highest priorities. We have developed a range of programmes over the past three years to promote cross-country contact and appreciation of cultural diversity. These include programmes by district councils to develop community relations work at local level arid a cultural traditions programme that promotes appreciation of cultural diversity through the arts, the cultural institutions and the media, and through the Irish language.
  Mr. David Trimble: On that general point, and especially on the cultural traditions programme, does the Minister consider that it would be better for the programme to promote the traditions of both communities, unlike the conference organised next week, which will reflect the interests of one community only, judging by those who will participate in it?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he advanced that argument to me recently I said that it was a fair one that would be reflected to those who have responsibility for organising the programmes of the conferences. That includes next week's conference and any others which may follow it. He will agree that there was a degree of cross-community contributions to the two earlier conferences.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister prepared to say that unless on future occasions conferences clearly reflect both traditions, the Department will reconsider its funding of such projects?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows that the cultural traditions programme falls under the responsibility of the Council for Community Relations. As I said, a fair argument has been advanced by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) which I shall reflect to those who have responsibility for organising the conference. Knowing them as I do, I suspect that the argument will be accepted as a helpful contribution and that they will take careful note of it.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way to me for a second time. I take his point that the previous two conferences reflected both strands. They did so mainly because people from both communities were represented, partly through myself and my associates. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the restructuring of the cultural traditions group people representing our outlook were excluded from the committee charged with organising the conference? Will he take steps to ensure that those who administer the fund will try to restore their committees to bodies that operate on a representative basis?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his contribution in the earlier part of the development of the programme. I am happy to acknowledge that it was of real significance. As I said, he has advanced a fair argument. I shall reflect the concerns

  729
  that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to those who are responsible for organising the conferences.
  The Government's financial support for community relations work has been increased from about £500,000 in 1986–87 to £4 million in this financial year. That covers projects supported by the central community relations unit and the Department of Education. I expect that that expenditure in 1991–92 will be higher still. I am convinced that, over time, the programme will be seen to have contributed significantly to greater mutual understanding and to creating a climate where dialogue, rather than violence, is accepted as the means of resolving conflict. I am sure that that objective is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  In these opening remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will respond to the contributions made by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister of State for taking us so meticulously through the order. I shall not follow the customary practice on such occasions by going through the order in a similarly detailed way. However, I shall raise some specific items and then move on to the general problem of the economy of the Province. Before doing so, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister who is to wind up the debate and to the House as I have to leave at 9.45 pm. I have meetings in Leicester early tomorrow morning about a fire, which some people may have seen reported in the press over the weekend, so I shall be absent when the Minister winds up the debate.
  My first specific point concerns Government expenditure priorities. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced at the Central Community Relations Unit conference on equality of opportunity that a new main priority for public expenditure was to be designated, targeting social need. Although that is commendable, will the Minister press the Secretary of State to make a much clearer statement on that proposal and its implications in terms of resources and how it will interlink with other programmes and policies?
  Will the Government also make an early statement on their intentions regarding the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity? I am sure that the Government accept that the matter has been going on for far too long and is leading to great uncertainty. Will the Government make an early announcement as to whether they intend, as rumour suggests, to split electricity supply and generation in the Province? The Labour party's views are well known —that the privatisation of such a small energy producer is ridiculous in the circumstances. If the Government decide to split generation and supply, the result will be even more ridiculous.
  Will the Government make a statement on the resignation last week of the chairman of Northern Ireland Electricity? I presume that his resignation was not simply the result of personal pique. I am sure that the House
  730
  would be delighted if the Minister would say whether the chairman resigned because he disagreed with the thrust of the Government's proposals on privatisation.
  What are the Government's proposals on the possible gas pipeline between Britain and Ireland——
  Mr. Trimble: Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Marshall: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would learn to listen and hear the end of the sentence. My use of the word "Ireland" in this context is clear.
  Will the Minister comment on the possible gas pipeline between Britain and the island of Ireland and the possibility of a spur from that pipeline going to the Province? I realise that my question contains two hypothetical points. On a third hypothetical point, if a decision were taken to have such a spur to the north, could the gas supply be used for commercial purposes and not just for electricity generation at Kilroot?
  Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, in seeking to have a gas pipeline to Northern Ireland, members of the Ulster Unionist party are concerned about the whole of the United Kingdom. If a pipeline came from south-west Scotland, it would benefit many more people who vote for the Labour party in that part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it would be much safer to send gas from Northern Ireland to the Republic. It would be less of a target for the IRA if it went from north to south rather than came from south to north.
  Mr. Marshall: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I would have far more sympathy with his views if he had been among those who condemned Northern Ireland Electricity for importing South African coal into the Province, thus denying employment to miners in the Scottish coalfields.
  A further question concerns compulsory competitive tendering. We all realise that there are clear political differences on that issue and fears about it in Northern Ireland. What is the Government's latest position on compulsory competitive tendering in relation to the health and education boards and the district councils?
  The campaigns that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) have been fighting on behalf of local hospitals have the Labour party's support.
  The Minister said that there is now clear evidence that the Northern Ireland economy is in recession. Economic activity has continued to decline with little or no prospect of improvement in 1991. The signs have been emerging over several months—they have not appeared suddenly —and I am especially worried by the fact that, although there have been signs of a downturn in economic activity, only in recent weeks have we seen evidence of it in unemployment figures. In the coming months, unemployment could increase substantially. Despite the Minister's sanguine response, the problem will be overcome only by clear changes in the direction of Government economic policy, not just in the Province but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not seen this evening's Belfast Telegraph, in which attention is drawn to the fact that the recession will probably not bite quite so deeply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, because the industries that were brought in and could move out again as soon as the recession hit

  731
  them were lost 10 years ago, so it looks as though we shall suffer more lightly than the rest of the United Kingdom this time.
  Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman listened more carefully to my comments instead of being obsessed with his own thoughts and his need to comment, he would appreciate that I said that there had been evidence for several months that economic activity in the Province was declining, and there is no evidence that that trend will be reversed in the next few months.
  If the hon. Gentleman is correct—I accept his figures —and Northern Ireland will not be so adversely affected as the rest of the United Kingdom, that may be a source of comfort to some, but it will not comfort the thousands of people who will lose their jobs as a result of the economic downturn in the Province. Although the hon. Gentleman offers some consolation, in the medium to long term it does not offer any comfort to the people of Northern Ireland. As I said before his intervention, the long-term economic future of the Province can be assured only by dramatic changes in the direction of Government policy.
  All hon. Members from the Province should be worried about the threat that the single market after 1992 is likely to pose to the Northern Ireland economy. "The Regional Economic Review" published in February 1991 by Cambridge Economic Consultants gives horrendous figures. It predicts a loss of up to 40,000 jobs in Northern Ireland in the first 10 years of the single market. The review states:
  "For the Northern Region, the North-West and Northern Ireland in the absence of any strengthening in regional policy, substantial falls in employment are projected."
  As the House knows, the European Commission highlighted those manufacturing sectors in each member country that are likely to be vulnerable because of the single market. Unfortunately, some of them are major employers in the Province. They include clothing, carpets, glass, electrical machinery and aerospace products. The European Commission highlighted those sectors as being particularly vulnerable post-1922.
  What has been the Government's response to the recession and what is their likely response to the difficulties that we may face in the Province post-1992? Last year, we had a debate about reform of the Industrial Development Board, which will be one of the Government's main vehicles to encourage inward investment and further investment in the Province. I criticised that reform to some extent, and I repeat my criticism. I described the reform as "too little, too late" and as "timid and half-hearted" because of the Government's resistance to market intervention even when the market failed.
  I stand by that criticism. First, the proposals did not provide a comprehensive economic development strategy, which people in the Province—with the exception of the Government—generally agreed was necessary. Secondly, I welcomed the need to concentrate on investment other than capital—investment in training—but I said that it should not be an either/or situation. We must try to achieve a mix of different types of investment. Thirdly, I said that real jobs should remain a permanent feature of the measure of success of any policy. That certainly does not happen with the Government's policy.
  I welcomed, and still welcome, parts of the training and employment strategy, but it needs strengthening in two ways. My first point applies not just to the Province but to the United Kingdom as a whole. There needs to be clearer
  732
  recognition by companies of their responsibilities to provide training. Secondly, it is essential to seek the view of people other than just employers on improving the quality of training for young entrants in the labour market, on training for the unemployed and on retraining those already in employment. On that point, I differ from the Government. The Labour party believes that this strategy applies to trade unions, which should be automatically included, and to others with expertise—for example, the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and for those who work with the unemployed.
  Although the Government wish to keep within the guidelines laid down by the European Commission, in practice they fail to keep within the spirit of the provision of European Community structural funds. I repeat a charge which I made before from the Dispatch Box: the Government still refuse to apply genuine additionality in the operation of structural funds in the Province.
  It is instructive to compare expenditure in the Irish Republic and that in Northern Ireland. It is expected that, between 1989 and 1993, the republic will receive 3,672 million ecu, with only 793 million ecu going to Northern Ireland. Committee B of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body stated:
  "The average allocation of structural funds across objective 1 areas is 521 ecu per head. Northern Ireland will receive slightly below this average while Ireland will receive 1038 ecu per head … Per capita, citizens of Ireland receive about twice the amount received by citizens of Northern Ireland".
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, the percentage that given because Northern Ireland was an objective 1 area was increased by only about 8 per cent., just covering inflation, while the allocation was increased by more than 75 per cent. in the republic and by more than 100 per cent. in some parts of the objective 1 areas. We surely got a raw deal there. The Commissioner asked us why Northern Ireland Ministers did not submit proposals. That vital point must be ventilated in the House.
  Mr. Marshall: I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which reinforces my own.
  The regional secretary of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union in the Province, Mr. John Freeman, said:
  "It is becoming increasingly difficult to attribute the Republic's success in attracting structural funds to its low GDP. The Inter-Parliamentary Committee report"—
  to which I referred—
  "indicates that Portugal and Greece will only receive 687 and 672 ecus per head respectively. Yet these are undoubtedly the poorest countries within the Community. In the case of Northern Ireland, perhaps there is scope for looking at the quality of the projects put forward. Certainly, in the Republic, there is a much greater scale of consultation over projects … If Northern Ireland is to survive the intensely more competitive conditions post 1992, we reqnire more than moral exhortations from Government to compete better, we need a complete re-examination of our relationship with Brussels and better bids for a bigger proportion of the structural funds".
  The Opposition agree with those comments, but far more effort must be put into attracting increased levels of structural fund expenditure into the Province. What must be done to improve the long-term economic prospects in the Province?

  733
  The Minister for Public Transport, who wound up the previous debate said that the Government were prepared to accept the need for a co-ordinated and comprehensive strategy. I remind the Government that such an economic strategy is also required if there is to be any long-term economic development in the Province. First, such a strategy must include a proper level of investment in high quality training and retraining and it must ensure that resources are targeted efficiently, and not just in terms of the industrial development board's dubious definition of competitiveness. We must ensure that real employment opportunities are created in all geographical areas of the Province.
  Secondly, the strategy must ensure that the Province receives its proper share of the European Community's structural funds and that those funds are genuinely additional to existing levels of public expenditure. Thirdly, as part of a coherent and comprehensive strategy, there is a need to combine the functions of the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit to provide a single, one-stop development agency.
  Fourthly, as I said earlier, there is a clear need to impose a legal obligation on all employers to provide training. Unless there is such a co-ordinated, coherent policy, Northern Ireland will continue to lose out and could be further devastated by events after 1992.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted that the Minister took only 18 minutes to open the debate. I shall make my contribution by not speaking at all. I wonder if it would meet with your wishes if I were to suggest that all right hon. and hon. Members tried to limit their speeches to 16 minutes, so that everyone who wished to speak could be called.
  Mr. Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Opposition so wished, they would have had the right to wind up the debate. On this occasion —as on previous occasions—we do not intend to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will follow the conventions in these matters. I am equally grateful to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He will recognise that the Chair has no authority on such occasions to limit speeches, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will heed the wise advice, for which I am sure that we are grateful.
  7.42 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not make any promises about time, but I shall try to set a good example, as example is better than precept. It is all right for an hon. Member who is not going to speak to read us a homily on time, but we accept it in the spirit in which it was given. The debate can last until 11.30 pm, and I should think that we would want to take every moment of that precious time to debate the issues.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising issues which are of great importance to Northern Ireland's economy. We have serious problems, and we must face up to them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now experiencing what we have
  734
  been experiencing in Northern Ireland. In spite of all the eulogies paid to it, the Common Market will not solve our economic ills or bring us prosperity and employment.
  I remember what the former leader of the Conservative party said when campaigning for us to join the Common Market. He said that we should have no more unemployment, that we should enter a vast market which was just waiting for the ability, talent and skills of the British people to take it over. We never had unemployment to the extent that we now have until we joined the Common Market.
  The report to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred makes solemn reading for us all. If we lose 40,000 more jobs in 1992 and in the following years, the situation will be grave. The Common Market struck a tremendous blow to Ulster's agriculture-based economy. Intensive farming was reduced by almost two thirds because we could not buy animal feed at a competitive price. Therefore, the intensive farming sector was hammered.
  Shipbuilding and man-made fibres also come under the axe as a result of the Common Market's policy. There was a time when Northern Ireland produced 30 per cent. of all the man-made fibres in the United Kingdom, but' that industry has practically gone. We received a body blow when we joined the Common Market, and we shall continue to receive such blows.
  It will be noted that the three Northern Irish Members of the European Parliament have campaigned strongly for our fair share of the structural funds, but we did not get our fair share. We were diddled out of everything, because the 8 per cent. only covers inflation, which takes us back to where we started. It is no use saying that the Community recognises us as an objective 1 area when it is of no benefit to us.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, South highlighted what the Republic has been receiving. I have been highlighting that for years and shall continue to do so. The time has come when Northern Ireland should at least get back what it puts in. It does not get back what it puts in per head of its citizens. That is an important point. I do not know why the Departments are not eager to have the co-operation of their Members of the European Parliament. I have been in Europe for 10 years, but I and my two colleagues have only once been brought to Stormont and consulted on one matter.
  In those 10 years, the Departments have not been prepared to use the representatives from Northern Ireland. When we make our representations, we make them in a vacuum, because we have to find out what proposals are being suggested. I should have thought that the time had come when the Departments in Northern Ireland should make up their minds that they will get the money which is theirs by right.
  I trust that there will be a Damascus road experience. We could call it a Brussels road experience, except that I do not like Brussels. The Minister needs to be converted. I welcome to the Dispatch Box his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who represents agriculture. Northern Ireland's agricultural interests should never have been represented by a Member of the other place. Agriculture should be represented here, so that we can get at the Minister and the Minister can get at us; we can then have a fair exchange.
  I do not go along with the spokesman of the Ulster Farmers Union, who said that it was all right for a

  735
  Member of the House of Lords to be responsible for agriculture. With all due respect to the upper House, I believe that the man who speaks for Northern Ireland's agricultural interests should be in this House, so that elected representatives can deal with these issues.
  I am not raising matters tonight in order of priority; some of the most important matters will come later. I will take matters as they appear in the order. Agriculture is in a state of suspense, as I am sure the Minister recognises. We do not know what will happen. We had a visit from the Commissioner, but I do not know whether anybody was much wiser after he left Northern Ireland. One point that I do know—I will repeat what I have said before in the House—is that politics is being played with agriculture in Europe. When politics comes into it, we cannot expect a fair deal for the farming community—certainly not for the Ulster farming community.
  We all hear about small farms. Small farmers in Northern Ireland said, "We are going to be all right." Small farms in Europe are not 50 acres, 60 acres or 70 acres. They are pocket farms, some of only five acres, which grow a few rubbishy tobacco weeds. They will be highly subsidised as a result of future changes. The money will go to them and not to people who make their sole living out of farming. We have a serious problem in Northern Ireland, because people are being forced to leave the land. When a nation's toilers on the soil are forced to leave, it is a bad omen. We must do something.
  The Under-Secretary of State has come new to Northern Ireland, so he may not be conditioned by the general talk of the Northern Ireland Office, which, as we know, has a bad influence on Ministers. He has a fresh mind, and he will work with good staff in the Department of Agriculture. I had the privilege of being chairman of the agriculture committee, so I know the staff there.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be a fighter for Northern Irish farming in Europe. We need a fighter. The Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Silkin, was a fighter for the farmers. They called him the thug of Europe. The Minister needs to be a thug to deal with some of the thugs in farming with whom we have to deal in Europe. I will add nothing to my comments, because I am keeping my eye on the clock. I know that the Minister belongs to a denomination to which I do not belong, and that it believes in short sermons. My congregation believes in a proper sermon. A sermonette makes Christianettes, but a sermon makes good Christians. I am not in the business of making Christianettes.
  We expect the Minister to tell us something about progress on the difficult problem of fallen stock. It is not a problem that is isolated in Northern Ireland because it extends across the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is the sole Conservative Back Bencher here tonight, will also be interested in that problem.
  I am sure that the Minister knows that we are approaching the time when the problem will reach its apex, so we need to hear something from the Minister. I am sure that my colleagues, on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches, are aware of the problem. I believe that I can speak even for those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who do not fly the same flag that I fly on 12 July. I trust that we shall have a positive response
  736
  from the Minister tonight. If he cannot tell us that he has the full answer, he can encourage us by convincing us that he is going in the right direction.
  We are all worried about why the good chairman of the electricity board resigned. We all wonder what is happening. He has always been a friend of Northern Ireland. He is a man in whom I have the utmost confidence, and I shall be glad to hear the Minister's response on that problem. Can the Minister give me some idea tonight about what will happen on Rathlin island? The chairman was a good supporter of the Rathlin islanders. He met us and helped us, and I trust that his passing does not mean that the Government will write an obituary on the prospect of getting light and heat to the people of Rathlin island.
  It is no use having back-up health and social services if we do not have the foundations—the hospitals that are needed. If the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have something to say about Moyle hospital. I want to record my support for the campaign which has been waged for that hospital in Larne, which has the support of all right-thinking people in the area. We thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South for putting his weight behind that campaign.
  I want to raise a matter that affects my area and which also impinges on the area of the person who was forgotten —the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South did not mean to leave him out, even though he has crossed swords with him quite often.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise to the House for the omission.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his apology has been received in the good spirit in which it has been given.
  Other areas are having new hospitals. Indeed, some areas are having two new hospitals. The area that I represent has been bereft of all investment in new hospitals. What have we? A building in the area was to have a facelift. The hospital was built in 1861. It would take some cosmetics to give it a facelift. Would anyone bother to give a facelift to a woman of 25?
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Speak for the women of your own acquaintance.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the ladies of my own company would agree that if they started with the powder and paint after only 25 years, they would not do too well. Even a bachelor like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) agrees with that. I see that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is in full agreement with that. In 1841——
  Rev. William McCrea: Sixty-one?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No 1841–1641 was when all the Protestants were murdered and put into the Bann. It must be on my hon. Friend's mind. I know a little about history.
  The Minister should think of what the wise man, the noble Lord who was responsible in another place, but who lost his job, said about Coleraine hospital—that it was a "shambles". Yet it has been suggested that it should be given a facelift. Both Ballymoney hospital, which was opened in 1841, and the Coleraine hospital, which is part

  737
  of the same hospital area and was opened in 1861, were workhouses. They remain open as hospitals, with a lot of nissen huts around them. It is a disgrace. [Interruption.]
  I see that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) is getting a little impatient. He will just have to wait. He is not in the Newtownabbey council now. He is in the House of Commons and he will have to wait and remember that we are fighting in a life and death struggle to get proper hospitalisation for our people. Moyle council is a strange conglomerate, made up of independents, people who call themselves independent nationalists and others. They have all come together to say that we need this hospital, along with Ballymoney and Coleraine council. They all say that the time has come.
  If I went through the history of what has happened, I am sure that the House would be amazed. There has been nothing but report after report and expenditure after expenditure on this hospital area. What has happened? Nothing. The final report, which I have here, has proved conclusively that the only viable way forward is a new building on a new site.
  I must warn the Minister, because it worried me when he told our lobby that the new board would have to make a decision on this matter. The present board will be meeting at the end of the month to make a decision, and I trust that the Minister will tell the new board to carry out that decision. We do not want the matter to be reconsidered, and I do not believe that statutorily it should be. I believe that the law says that the board should make the decision. I know that the Minister can say, quite rightly that he cannot make a decision until he has had the board's decision—if I were in his place, I would say that. I accept that, but when he has the board's decision we want him to move as quickly as possible.
  I remind the Minister that the Public Accounts Committee said that there was too great a delay in building hospitals. If he goes by the Committee's guidelines, they will forward the work. I shall not read the guidelines, because I do not want my colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, South to worry any more. He might have a heart attack, and then he would need hospitalisation.
  If the Minister does not have this report, I shall gladly give him a free copy with my compliments, so that he can move forward as quickly as possible.
  I am not doing too badly: 16 minutes is just up and I am coming near to the end of my speech.
  Mr. Trimble: It has been over 20 minutes.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, it has not been over 20. The hon. Gentleman is misreading the clock. His glasses are not clean.
  There was a serious flood in the Ballycastle area. At first, when the Minister came to visit us, he told us that we would get nothing. That Minister is no longer with us. I am grateful that the Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry—I must give honour where honour is due—showed the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), Mr. Nicholson and my other two colleagues how we could get money. The Government took that route, and Ballycastle got the money.
  I am not being churlish, but I noticed that the statement did not pay any tribute to what the MEP did. That went down the river. However, the Government paid tribute to
  738
  themselves for getting the money. I do not care about compliments. I am happy as long as I get the money for people in the Ballycastle area.
  I am glad that we got that money for those farmers, but all the other people who suffered got nothing—not a penny. The Government have written to tell me that they do not think that they will give any money. I have here a list of people who have lost. One man has lost £3,658·74; another has lost £3,891; another has lost £3,900; and a lady has lost £4,973. I could go right down this list. I have sent it to the Secretary of State, who has all the facts before him.
  Those people have been told that they will not get one penny to pay for damage to their houses. Some of them were insured and the insurance companies are paying out, although they could have said that the flood was an act of God and that they would not pay. However, there will be a serious gap.
  What has the Department of Health and Social Services done? The Department has already offered people on supplementary benefit a £500 loan, but it has told them that they will have to pay it back. These decent people have said that they are not in a position to pay anything, so they have not asked for a loan.
  I went to one of the homes affected—I shall not mention any names—and asked whether anyone from the Northern Ireland Office had been to visit them. They answered, "Yes." I said, "What did they ask?" They told me that the Office had asked them to send a full list of all their losses. I asked whether the Office had made any promises about paying and was told, "No, not in so many words."
  Will the Minister seek some payment for these people —especially those on supplementary benefit, who are unable to raise money to refurbish their houses—to carry them over and to bridge the gulf?
  Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend refresh the Minister's memory? In recent times, there were floods in Omagh and Strabane, when people faced similar problems. Perhaps the Minister would give due consideration to repayments to those people too.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I urge the Minister to do so. I know that his colleagues will tell him that we are seriously worried about these matters.
  I do not want to delay the House or to prevent other colleagues from speaking, although I doubt whether they will take up all the time that they have at their disposal. Nevertheless, we shall give them the opportunity to do so.
  We have heard a little about culture tonight. We have also heard something about money. I should like to think that, when money is given, it would be for wholesome, clean and edifying culture. I am alarmed at what has happened recently in Newtownabbey, when a film was shown which is a blashemous and scurrilous attack upon the purity and sinfulness of the son of God.
  To depict Him in a sexual fantasy as he dies for our redemption on the cross is repugnant to all right-thinking people in our Province.
  I am aghast that the Arts Council should stoop so low as to sponsor this film festival and put advertisements in the local paper seeking to involve people who were not involved. It was said that Calor Gas was one of its sponsors of this film and it had to place an advertisement saying that it had not sponsored the film at all. It was said

  739
  that the mayor of Newtonabbey council was to be the special guest. Anybody who knows Councillor Fraser Agnew knows that of all people he would not be at such a festival. Of course the council did not sponsor the film. Those people were used as a cloak to make it appear that everything was respectable. We tried to get in touch with the vice-chancellor of the university, but he was away and nobody was in charge.
  Government money to promote community relations should be spent on wholesome things that edify the mind and do not cause moral and religious insults to large sectons of the community. I hope that I carry the Minister with me on that. When such things are done, we should know about them and know all the facts. There should be no cover-up, lying or cheating about the matter, as was done in this instance.
  I hope that the Minister will look carefully at what is happening to disabled people in Housing Executive property. The disabled should have the facilities they need. I have some cases with the Housing Executive in which a firm promise was made that, because of disablement, a downstairs toilet and downstairs bedroom accommoda-tion would be provided. The people were then told by the executive that it was short of money and that such facilities could not now he provided. The matter is now on the long finger. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that some other Northern Ireland Members agree with me.
  Such a matter is trying and serious. It is a big enough disaster to have a handicapped child in the home. Nobody knows the pressures on a parent or on a family, and I speak from pastoral experience. People are promised that proper accommodation will bring about an easement and their hopes are built up, only to be shattered. The Minister should have a look at that with the Housing Executive. In its care of the disabled and in its help for those families with disablement in their midst, the executive should be an example to all housing authorities.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) spoke about Northern Ireland Electricity. The Minister suggested that it will be privatised by Order in Council rather than by a Bill. Such a change in energy supply is fundamental. It affects everyone in the Province, from the newly born to the most senior citizen. To suggest that it should be taken through the House by Order in Council, a procedure with which no Northern Ireland Member agrees and which means that we cannot have full debate or table amendments to alter the proposal in any way, is almost beyond belief.
  Many things about electricity privatisation need to be debated. We need to decide whether to split generation and distribution. It is not good enough simply to suggest a change from a public monopoly to a private monopoly. I am shocked by the Minister's suggestion of an Order in Council.
  It is serious that the chairman of Northern Ireland Electricity should have stepped down at this stage. One wonders about the reason for his decision. Will the Minister reconsider this matter, which is of fundamental importance to the people of Northern Ireland? The principle has never been debated and the matter should be encompassed in a Bill.
  740
  I wish to deal with a problem regarding British Airways. The tourist industry has become smaller and there are fewer flights. The recent difficulties of Air Europe have left people overseas unable to get home. British Airways has served Northern Ireland well. It has operated from there for many years, while other companies have come and gone. We have great sympathy for that airline. However, we are disappointed that British Airways is to cut jobs in Northern Ireland. We had hoped that cuts would take place at the centre rather than on the periphery and that costs would be cut at Heathrow or elsewhere on the mainland.
  We have spoken to British Airways officials in Northern Ireland and have been reassured that there will be no change in the security operation there. Security will be as tight and as good as it has always been at Aldergrove international airport, which is in my constituency. Security at Aldergrove is second to none and is an example to airports in other parts of the world.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Although I agree with the thrust and tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech, before he heaps too much praise on British Airways, does he agree that many of us who have been coming to the House for many years know that British Airways was doing next to nothing for travellers coming to London until British Midland came on the scene and made British Airways pull up its socks?
  Mr. Forsythe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I was making the point that as there has been press comment on the subject, it would be most unfortunate if the travelling public came to believe that there will be a fall in security standards among any of the operators whose aircraft leave from Belfast for other parts of the world. We should be reassured by British Airway's pledge that its security will be as good as it has ever been. I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's other remark, but I support the concept of competition in the travel industry.
  I recently asked in a parliamentary question how many estates in my constituency that had been completed for at least 12 months had roads or footpaths that remain unadopted. The Minister replied that four Northern Ireland Housing Executive developments fell into that category, as well as about 40 private developments.
  Every building contractor must lodge a bond when he starts to develop an estate, and the Department of the Environment has the power to use that money to complete unadopted roads or footpaths at the developer's expense. I recently contacted the relevant Department about a small stretch of footpath on an estate in Ballyclare that has remained unadopted for 12 years, and was told that it would be dealt with, not this year, but in the next financial year—despite the fact that the DoE holds a bond for that work.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that people who move into an estate that continues to be developed for three years are expected to pay the full amount of the rates levied on their homes, when they can gain access to them only be wearing heavy, waterproof winter boots? Their carpeting and homes are continually made filthy as their children run in and out, because the roads and footpaths outside have not been made up, and do not have even a rough, basic foundation of tarmac. The Government and Northern

  741
  Ireland Ministers should take action to ensure that new home owners are not subjected to that nuisance for such a long period.
  Mr. Forsythe: I cannot but agree with my hon. Friend. On certain estates, builders do not complete two or three houses for various reasons, and the plots concerned are turned into dumps, to which people will travel for miles to dispose of their rubbish. Because a developer has not completed an estate, and cannot be made to do so, those who already occupy properties on it find that the value of their homes is falling—even though the rating valuation office does not agree. I hope that the Minister will examine that aspect, too.
  In another parliamentary question, I asked how many planning enforcements there have been in my constituency over the past few years. The Minister replied that there were two in 1987, four in 1988, and five in 1989. In 10 cases giving rise to problems of which I am aware, the Department is not enforcing planning conditions in five of them—and in the other five, there are difficulties because the Department is trying to do so. By a strange coincidence, most of the cases that the Department is trying to enforce involve individuals, whereas those that it seems incapable of enforcing involve large firms that are capable of taking on the Department, which is farcical. I understand that new proposals are contained in a planning order that will come before the House, but there is little point in introducing legislation if the Department will not enforce it.
  It has been suggested that there will be administrative changes to the Royal Mail service in Northern Ireland, and that it will not be operated as independently as it is now. One can understand the Royal Mail wanting to make improvements, but I hope that those concerned will remember that Northern Ireland is unique in many ways and that it faces special difficulties that are not experienced in the rest of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, it is essential that Northern Ireland retains local control of its postal services, while trying to effect general economies of the sort that the Royal Mail wants to see made.
  As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall end there.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is appropriate that the first part of the order deals with agriculture, because agriculture forms Northern Ireland's economic and social backbone. Agriculture sustains not just wealth and job creation, but the fabric of our community. I was interested to hear the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), when he spoke of the crisis confronting Northern Ireland's farming community vis-a-vis the fortunes of other participants in the European Community's grant aid programme.
  There is currently an income crisis in Northern Ireland's agricultural industry, brought about by a substantial increase in production costs at a time when net profits have been substantially reduced. That situation has been aided and abetted by the peripheral situation in which the industry finds itself in respect of its markets and imports.
  The problems are so acute as to justify a departure from the Government's general strategy at Brussels. If Northern Ireland is to sustain the fabric of not only its agricultural
  742
  industry but rural society, it is important that it should now be treated as a very special region. At a time when there is so much talk about rural regeneration it should be realised that a rural community cannot be regenerated if its livelihood is destroyed.
  Much has been said about the produce of the land; let me say something about the produce of the sea. The fishing industry is especially important to my constituency and I am particularly interested in the harbour development in Ardglass and the hoped-for development in Kilkeel. I was surprised and disappointed to hear the Minister say that there had been a delay in the harbour works owing to a lack of uptake of the available resources. As he knows, Ardglass harbour has experienced no major capital improvement for many years. His predecessor approved expenditure of £1·4 million last year, but a continuing study has identified a larger figure—approximately £2 million. I should like the Government to provide that money as soon as possible.
  Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it was necessary to re-examine the design of the sea wall. That is what caused the delay. He will be pleased to learn that the development is now at tender stage.
  Mr. McGrady: That is welcome news, which will give heart to the fishermen of Ardglass. They were very nervous about the prospect of facing another winter in such bad conditions. Kilkeel has similar difficulties, and a programme is needed to safeguard the increased number of vessels that are berthing there.
  The Department of Health and Social Security should look particularly at the problems faced by fishermen out of season, or in bad weather, when they cannot generate the income that is needed to sustain themselves and their families, and often cannot obtain sufficient benefit to top up that insufficient income. I know that the Department was considering their difficulties not so long ago, and I hope that its considerations will bear fruit soon.
  I want to deal next with votes 1 and 2, in respect of the Department of Economic Development. I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that—against the tide, as it were —there have been many success stories in relation to industrial development; unfortunately, my constituency cannot boast a share in that alleged prosperity. As the records show, in three years the invitees of the Industrial Development Board made only 10 visits to the entire districts of Down, Banbridge—with the permission of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—and Mourne. That does not constitute a fair or adequate attempt to distribute the wealth represented by inward investment to areas that have suffered such deprivations.
  A terrible plight now afflicts the yarn spinners of South Down, especially those employed by Castlewellan Yarns and Killyleagh Yarns, which are experiencing a very difficult period. One of those firms proposes a virtual closedown in June 1991. Only a short time ago, the IDB proferred some £6 million for the complete rebuilding of a factory in Castlewellan, and the equipping of that factory with the most up-to-date machinery. The employees were told then, and have been told recently, that the order books were full; if that is true, why the rundowns and closures? The position merits investigation at the highest level.
  Vote 2—and possibly vote 3; my copy of the document jumps from vote 2 to vote 4, and I assume that all the other

  743
  copies do the same—deals with tourism, potentially the second biggest industry in Northern Ireland and the provider of hope for the future. The indicative plan published recently by the Northern Ireland tourist board is imaginative, but requires urgent, indeed instant, implementation, backed up by a positive attitude—and funds—from the Department of Economic Development.
  I have always been surprised by the failure of the board to draw on the enormous potential of the Mourne and St. Patrick's country area, which has such emotive associations not only for the North American continent —to which we look for tourist development—but for Europe, many of whose cities have direct ties with the area because of the founding fathers who did their missionary work there. That connection should be pursued: European tourism is every bit as good as, and perhaps more reliable than North American tourism. The tourist board should produce a comprehensive plan, akin to the plan that has existed for years for Fermanagh lakes and the north Antrim coast, to tap that hitherto untapped source.
  We cannot, however, achieve anything in that regard without a positive attitude to the provision of low-cost accommodation. The Minister must reconsider the attitude of the planning departments in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and so forth. If he examines the topography of South Down, or consults a map, he will find that there is nowhere else where accommodation can be built; while the position is sensitive, that accommodation should and must be made available.
  Rural planning—or, rather, rural regeneration—seems to be the flavour of the year. The interdepartmental committee, now headed by the Department of Agriculture, has a report ready, while the Housing Executive has a report prepared on the regeneration of housing in the countryside. All that will come to naught, however, if the planning departments have not the drive, energy and foresight to adopt a creative attitude. In our debate last year, I asked the Minister to examine the project for Seaconnell, which is in the North of the South Down area, and epitomises what can and should be done to regenerate the countryside.
  I shall touch briefly on vote 1, on housing. From the report of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the statistics contained in it, it appeared that the new build programme is inadequate, irrespective of arguments to the contrary. New houses are being built where they are not needed, rather than where they are needed. Recent legislation on homelessness has created a further demand for resources by the Housing Executive which has not been met; certainly the Housing Executive has not been able to respond sympathetically to those who come to its offices complaining that they have no homes. Most are sent away without advice or sustenance.
  I welcome the Housing Executive's fine new study on rural housing. It is only at the consultative stage. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Housing Executive quickly to come to terms with its report and prepare policy programmes for implementation.
  I congratulate the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on their campaigns in respect of the Larne and Coleraine hospitals. I attended a meeting at Downpatrick in 1966 that was chaired by the then health Minister, Bill Morgan. He promised a new hospital for Downpatrick. Perhaps, 30 years later, that will come to fruition. We are not asking
  744
  for a multi-million pound hospital. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Department does not say that that is a board responsibility, while the board says that it is the Department's responsibility.
  The standard of health in Northern Ireland is a ministerial and departmental responsibility. The boards do not have the money; they can obtain it only from the Department. I ask it to provide us with the £10 million to £14 million for the new hospital. It is only a small amount. The programme is already two thirds accomplished, with the completion of the geriatric unit and the maternity hospital. It would be a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar; £14 million is just that, if one considers the size of the Department of Health and Social Services budget.
  We are faced with the threatened closure of many small rural schools in South Down. Unnecessary pressure is being exerted on schools such as Ballyclougan, a primary school in Saintfield. Both in the state and maintained sectors closures are threatened. I understand that the Southern Board has made comprehensive plans to close many rural schools in the Mourne mountains area of South Down. There is no point in a rural regeneration programme, under which all the Departments attempt to tackle rural degradation, unless the focal points of communities are retained—the school, the church, the village shop and the pub. Unless rural schools are retained, families will move away from the countryside and the efforts of all the other Departments will never bring them back.
  It is inexplicable that the Department has no museums policy, other than that for the national museum. The argument is that because there is no museums policy, no budget is required. I ask the Minister to adopt a comprehensive policy for museums.
  The Under-Secretary of State is now responsible for social security. It is difficult for families in need to satisfy the Department that they qualify for family credit. They have difficulty with the forms and with answering the many departmental questionnaires. I ask the Minister to draw on his professional experience as an accountant and himself to inquire how people in his Department can ask so many silly questions. How can he expect the people, in his Department who do not know the difference between capital and income, between expenditure and receipts to deal with these issues? They should try to get down to basics and provide aid for those who so obviously need it, by the very reason that they have applied for it.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I intend to make only a few points arising out of the appropriation order so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.
  Much has been said about hospitals in other parts of Northern Ireland. I intend to refer to the hospitals in North Down. I repeat the demand that I have made many times before for a new hospital for the whole area of North Down, which includes not only the Bangor area but also Newtownards and the Ards peninsula. I am, however, a realist. It may be some time before that hospital is built. We may have to wait for the restoration of a devolved Parliament in Stormont before that decision is made. Pending the building of that hospital, plenty of money will need to be spent on the existing hospitals in Newtownards and Bangor.

  745
  The people of Bangor want their hospital to remain a general hospital. Some beds in Bangor hospital were closed recently by the Eastern health board. Those closures were described by the board as temporary, but I believe that it is part of a process that has been going for a considerable time. Bed closures result in a reduction in the number of doctors and nurses in a hospital. The board seems intent on running down Bangor hospital so that it is no longer viable as a general hospital but becomes merely a geriatric hospital. The people of Bangor, through me, protest at that possibility. My demand is that Bangor hospital should be brought up to standard as a modern general hospital which can provide medical services for nearly 100,000 people. The hospital serves a wide area and the number of people in that area who have reached retirement age continues to grow.
  The North Down Volunteer Bureau is a limited company and a registered charity which provides volunteering opportunities for unemployed people and a range of community care services in the area. It is one of a number of groups which receive funds from the training and employment agency through the community volunteering scheme. It has recently been informed that the scheme's budget for 1991–92 for the whole of Northern Ireland has been reduced from £854,000 to £600,000. That considerable reduction in financial help will have an adverse effect on the scheme, which provides such a useful service to the entire community in Northern Ireland.
  The community volunteering scheme provides volunteering opportunities for unemployed men and women between the ages of 18 and 64. It enrols suitable candidates to work for the good of the community. It restores self-confidence and a sense of achievement to unemployed people who are accepted by the scheme. It provides valuable training and supervision. It enables young people to decide whether they wish to pursue a career in social work. Above all, the scheme fosters community spirit and strengthens communities.
  The trained volunteers make home and hospital visits and provide transport and other practical help, wherever possible, for senior citizens and for chronically ill and mentally and physically handicapped persons. In addition, they are involved in working with children and providing support for one-parent families. It is a worthwhile charitable organisation. The decision to reduce the funding available to it means, in the case of the North Down Volunteer Bureau, a reduction from £57,000 to £24,000 in the coming financial year. That hefty reduction in funding will have major repercussions on the community care work of that charitable organisation. I urge the Minister to review that decision, so that its valuable work can continue.
  I can vouch for the needs of the elderly, who are trying to survive on a pension which does not adequately cover food, clothing and heating costs. They deserve to be able to live out their retirement years in dignity and comfort. The Government do not appreciate that senior citizens in Northern Ireland experience difficulty because the cost of living in the Province is far higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Electricity costs are much higher, and some pensioners' homes are heated only by electricity. During the extremely cold period, I visited pensioners who were burning only one bar of an electric fire because they
  746
  could not afford to burn two. Inadequate heating of their homes, and of their bedrooms in particular, is not good for their health. I urge the Government to consider their plight.
  I urge the Government to ensure also that all pensioners are provided with concessionary television licences. The present anomalies are a denial of natural justice and are ridiculous in their application. All pensioners living alone or with other pensioners should be eligible for a concessionary television licence.
  I tabled a parliamentary question urging the Government to establish an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment in its excellent report on Northern Ireland. Such an agency is urgently needed in the Province, where there have been many instances of environmental damage. It is vital to contend with the all too powerful influence of developers and speculators, who are interested only in fat profits and have no sympathy for the environment.
  I have advocated many times a change in the law to enable an objector to a planning application to pursue an appeal to the planning appeals Commission. The law favours the developer or speculator, who can take his application to apeal if it is refused. Many times, local residents have satisfied the planning department that an application would be detrimental to their area, but subsequently it has been allowed on appeal by the planning appeals Commission.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak shortly. I am trying to allow other hon. Members the chance to speak.
  Confidence in the planning process must be restored. That will be achieved only by ensuring that the Department of the Environment is seen as capable of defending the public interest and safeguarding the environment. The Department may have to employ more people in its planning office. The planning office in Downpatrick has more work than its officials can contend with.
  Bregenz house continues to be built on Bangor sea front without full planning permission. That is offensive to those who respect the laws and expect others to respect them. Why has no stop notice been issued? Will one be issued shortly? The Minister responsible for the planning section of the Department of the Environment arranged for one of his officials to discuss the matter with me, and I met him on Friday afternoon with representatives of other aspects of life in Bangor. I urge the Minister, who is seized of the planning application for Bregenz house—it is no longer a matter for Downpatrick planning office, but for the Minister—to meet some of the people of Bangor, who are anxious that the structure should be removed. That was set out clearly in a petition that I presented to the House on behalf of more than 5,500 people. Thousands more people would have signed it but for the fact that it had to be rushed in before planning permission was granted.
  I congratulate members of the Dundonald Green Belt Association for their energetic work in safeguarding the environment. They deserve the congratulations and commendation of the people of Dundonald and elsewhere. They made representations to the Minister, who met some of them in January. Sadly, however, they have seen the

  747
  radical alteration of the Dundonald area, where green hills, fields trees and hedges are being replaced by more and more houses densely packed into a number of developments.
  I join the Dundonald Green Belt Association in recommending to the Government the suspension of the proposed 1993 Belfast urban area plan land release, and a review of the necessity of releasing the full acreage. Some of the land earmarked for housing under the urban plan should be returned to the green belt area. Something must be done to preserve the rural aspect of Dundonald. It is imperative that a local area plan be produced for Dundonald, which is a distinct entity.
  The Minister stated that a local plan was never envisaged by the Department of the Environment,
  "as it is considered that the village and its environment are adequately covered in the Belfast urban area plan 2001."
  But that is not true. No attempt has been made to plan for the expanding population of the area or for new and larger schools and proper recreation facilities. Plans must be prepared urgently. I am thinking in particular of the people of Ballybeen, who lack the facilities which would make that large housing estate more agreeable and acceptable to its inhabitants. More must be done for the young people of the area, who need such facilities.
  Tullycarnet housing estate is another large housing estate which lacks soul. The Government must spend money on it to bring it up to standard and to ensure that its people have proper facilities and that its young people have recreational facilities which will keep them usefully employed and out of the hands of the police. I urge the Government carefully to consider Tullycarnet and Ballybeen to see what can be done.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the extra provision in vote I to the Department of the Environment for the road casualty reduction unit.
  Since 1980, there have been 328 accidents on the Larne-Belfast road. One hundred and thirty-five people have been seriously injured and 20 people have lost their lives. Eighteen of those 20 deaths have occurred since 1985. A nephew of mine was one of those killed, and I have known many of the others personally, so I know the sorrow and loss of such a tragedy to the families involved.
  The Larne-Belfast road serves the port of Larne, which is now the second busiest port in the United Kingdom and the busiest port in Northern Ireland. Between 8,000 and 14,000 vehicles use the road every day, yet 15 km remains single carriageway and only 5·5 km is dual carriageway. The Department of the Environment may argue that the dual carriageway is where the flow of traffic is heaviest, which may be true, but 14,000 vehicles must come from somewhere to reach the small piece of dual carriageway. Most get there after 15 km of inadequate single carriageway.
  The road has not undergone any substantial reconstruction since the 1960s, when the number of passenger cars using the port was fewer than 100,000 a year. Now, the number of passenger cars travelling to and from the port stands at 350,000 a year. More than 800 cars and vans use the road to the port every day, as do an enormous number of articulated lorries, coaches and buses —about a further 350,000 a year. In the summer months, the level of passenger vehicles using the road to the harbour increases further. Car or van-accompanied travel
  748
  continues to increase. It is predicted that the number of articulated vehicles will increase. More than 95 per cent. of Northern Ireland tourist car and passenger traffic travels by Larne, and therefore must use the Larne-Belfast road, which has been so neglected.
  Larne harbour is an extremely modern ferry terminal, with shops, buffet lounges, commercial driver lounges, foreign currency exchanges, car hire facilities and a tourist information desk. We have everything that the visitor could want, except good roads to and from the port.
  Larne Harbour Ltd. has ample land for further development. We all welcome the recent announcement that about 70 acres at Redlands will be further developed for warehousing, distribution, commercial and service facilities, and possibly a hotel development. A large area of land is leased to Larne Harbour at the harbour. One has no disagreement with that whatever—it is accepted—but before that land is transferred outright by the Industrial Development Board to Larne Harbour, the IDB should seek from Lame Harbour the equivalent in land to the value of that valuable site at the Redlands estate.
  Although the company may plan to encourage further development of that site, the restrictions which it may impose on developers will be less attractive than the conditions that the IDB may offer developers. It is important that we see that development, and even more important that we see continued progress and develop-ment of the Larne-Belfast road.
  We must bear in mind the growing numbers of visitors to the area. Last year, the port handled 1·6 million passengers, most of whom used the Larne-Belfast road. But the lack of development and of improvement of the road has definitely contributed to many serious accidents and to some of the deaths. Recently, a young woman—an only child and a constituent of mine—was killed on the road when flooding from nearby fields on the single carriageway resulted in her crashing into oncoming traffic. That might not have happened had the road been dual carriageway.
  Many of the accidents on the road involve articulated lorries. It makes no difference whether drivers on the road are local, and know it, or are strangers. The road is not safe, and it will not be safe or able to cope with the increasing volume of traffic until there is major reconstruction and upgrading.
  I hope that the Minister can tell the House tonight that never again will the road service of the DOE and policemen from Ballyclare have to sandbag the roadway to prevent water from flooding on to it off the fields. I hope that the report paid for by Larne borough council and by local industry recommending upgrading of the road will be taken seriously.
  We heard earlier about the imbalance of funding as between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Because of the additional money available to the republic, it has planned all sorts of grandiose road schemes for routes from Dublin towards Northern Ireland and to the republic's ports. We in Northern Ireland, however, cannot obtain the financial support from the Northern Ireland Office, the Government or from Europe to ensure that the Larne-Belfast road is fit to cope with the growing volume of traffic on it. I hope that the Minister will have some good news to give us.
  Under DHSS vote 1, table 3, I am sure that the Minister will have noted the considerable increase in funding that will be needed to complete Antrim hospital. Last year it

  749
  seemed that about £30 million would be needed; now it appears that £50 million will be needed. In Larne, we have an acute hospital that meets our needs. It is well staffed. Regional specialties are available for those who need them in Belfast, but 95 per cent. of patients receive the services they require in our local hospital. Proposals to transfer acute services from Moyle hospital have been rejected by elected representatives, by GPs and by the vast majority of people served by that hospital. The proposed scheme for the future of Moyle hospital is not accepted by the people it serves.
  We feel that the consultation to date has been a total charade. The wishes of the local people have been ignored at the expense of the opinions of unelected persons serving on the boards, mainly ministerial nominees or perhaps consultants who have a special interest in the new Antrim hospital, because they perceive that it will offer them greater career opportunities. Those people are supporting and promoting Antrim hospital at the expense of Moyle hospital in Larne.
  If a proper study was carried out and services between the northern and eastern boards were rationalised, savings in public expenditure would accrue and there could be a genuine reconsideration of the proposals for the future of Moyle hospital. I appeal to the Minister to support the retention of acute services at Moyle hospital until a full, impartial options appraisal is instituted by the Northern Health and Social Services Board and the Northern Ireland Office. We have made strenuous efforts to produce a convincing report, but we are not satisfied that it has been given proper consideration.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and others have expressed concern about future employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. If one adds to the threat of a decline in job prospects the high birth rate in Northern Ireland, one sees that the situation can only get worse. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to the difficulties experienced by a yarn-spinning company in his constituency. Such problems occur because there is no proper integrated plan that involves the spinning, weaving, finishing and manufacturing of textiles in Northern Ireland—if there was, it might help.
  There are many other issues that I want to address—for example, the quibble that has arisen about Department of Economic Development, vote 5. What advice has the Minister had from his consultants on the privatisation of Northern Ireland's electricity board? When are we going to know whether there will be any advantage from a privatised, profit-motivated electricity monopoly over the present, public-owned monopoly of electricity generation? Can the Minister tell us whether his consultants have advised him on the future of gas generation in Northern Ireland?
  We have waited a long time to hear news of the interconnector. We are still waiting for an announcement on phase 2 at Kilroot. Not only are domestic consumers in Northern Ireland purchasing the most expensive electricity in the United Kingdom, but our industry is being decimated by the high costs that it must pay. It is vital that some action is taken. Sadly, many sites that would be suitable for hydro-electric generation, although perhaps only small amounts of it, have not been exploited. I hope
  750
  that the Minister will encourage those who can do so to obtain a fair price for hydro-generated electricity and recoup the high capital cost of installing hydro-generators.
  In the funds voted for education in vote 1, there is no provision for nursery education. It is deplorable that we have such a low level of provision of nursery schools in Northern Ireland as a whole. A gesture was made many years ago, but nothing has happened since then. However, if primary schools were permitted to use empty classrooms, the problem could be met to some extent.
  Will the Minister bring us up to date on the position on subsidence from the salt mines in the Carrickfergus area, which is dealt with in vote 5? When is it likely that the roads that have had to be partially closed or whose use has been restricted because of subsidence will open again?
  Although I could say more, I am conscious that many other hon. Members hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so I shall end there.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) twitted me about the problem of fallen stock. It is not a subject that is frequently raised in Wolverhampton, although as a farmer I understand a little about it. There are other problems frequently on the minds of people in Wolverhampton who, for 25 years, received a prolonged university course in the advantages of parliamentary sovereignty and the importance of retaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. People in Wolverhampton know that Northern Ireland is a constitutional slum and that poor Northern Ireland still retains the debris of previous mistakes.
  On page 11 of the order, we see that £123,000 is being paid every year towards the maintenance of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is not possible for the English colonial masters and their loyal subordinates in the Northern Ireland Office to recognise that they have made a mistake, and so it is that each decade brings a new initiative from the Northern Ireland Office and those who temporarily happen to be in nominal control of it, aimed at bringing the benefits of legislative devolution to Northern Ireland.
  At the beginning of the 1970s, Stormont was abolished. There was an attempt at rolling devolution by Lord Prior, as he has now become, which gave rise to the Assembly on which we still spend £123,000 a year. Now we have the third initiative for the 1990s—the so-called Brooke initiative. All of them failed or will fail. All attempt that which is impossible. Now, as the corpse of the Brooke initiative occasionally kicks in its death throes, the various parties to the death walk around it, each hoping to be able to blame another for the death. Sadly, the poor thing was always likely to die, and it is difficult to see who can be justly blamed for its death—other than perhaps its father, the present Secretary of State, who has been so unwise as to give his name to it.
  As one listens to this debate, it becomes more and more obvious that the brave attempt of the Northern Ireland Office—admittedly, much stimulated by American influence—to bring legislative devolution to Northern Ireland has failed. Is it not now clear that it would be in the interests of Northern Ireland to move towards a system in

  751
  which the Province received some of the benefits of Westminster government that the rest of the United Kingdom enjoys?
  I remember an occasion which would not have occurred but for the expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly. The right to silence in Northern Ireland was being reduced, and in some circumstances obliterated, by Order in Council. Some people say that the constitutional nationalists approve of the Order in Council procedure. I do not understand that. I remember the anger that I and my kinsman the late Ian Gow felt on the night to which I refer. That procedure was a gross affront to the civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those who might be accused of so-called nationalist crimes —security crimes. The rights of those people were being taken away.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why someone might be accused because he was a nationalist?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that we are not dealing with Northern Ireland Office matters. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's remarks relate to the Northern Ireland Office, as distinct from Northern Ireland Departments.
  Mr. Budgen: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government persist in the Order in Council procedure because it is believed that we are about to have a new attempt at devolved government in Northern Ireland. The procedure is justified as being a temporary strategem. It has been demonstrated beyond peradventure that legislative devolution has failed. I therefore contend that it is unfair to Northern Ireland to persist in this highly defective system of altering people's rights by order in council.
  With reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I perhaps expressed myself badly. No doubt, from time to time, charges relating to security crimes are based on bad evidence. People who are charged are entitled to proper safeguards. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh ought to have had an opportunity to argue against the special provisions by which the right to silence of people in Northern Ireland was reduced, but he was denied that right by the Order in Council procedure. That is a scandal and a disgrace.
  In a debate such as this, many hon. Members speak about matters which in England would be the concern of local authorities—museums, housing and planning problems, and so on. In England, all such matters are dealt with in the first instance at local government level. It is surely a scandal that this so-called interim arrangement, which has gone on since the abolition of the Northern Ireland Parliament at the beginning of the 1970s, should be persisted in.
  It is said that we now have the good fortune to have highly political leadership in the Conservative party. I hope that, rather than looking for future allies in the centre of the political spectrum, and rather than flirting with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and his two outriders from London, the Government will accept our suggestions for measures to improve the government of Northern Ireland, which will be recognised justifiably as improvements and may attract the support of our old friends and allies in the Ulster Unionist party
  752
  along with others, perhaps, in other parties within the Unionist family. That is the course towards which honour, intellect and interest should drive the Conservative party in the next few months.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: We are debating supplementary estimates, but we must consider public expenditure as a whole in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) struck a chord with me when he talked about the way in which Northern Ireland is administered and the lack of consultation that ensues.
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Under-Secretary of State, is in his place on the Government Front Bench. He has done reasonably well so far with consultation. He has still, of course, to produce results on many of the issues on which he has consulted. I acknowledge, however, that he was not long in his comparatively new responsibilities for health in Northern Ireland before we had new twin theatres at the South Tyrone hospital in Dungannon. There are many in South and East Tyrone, right through into the Mid-Ulster area, who appreciate the speed with which the Minister brought that project to fruition. There had been many delays before the hon. Gentleman's appointment.
  The Minister has many other difficult issues to resolve. I had hoped to see nurses' regrading dealt with in the supplementary estimates. The Minister knows that I have communicated with him on the matter and that I am not satisfied with his interpretation of it. The Government said when the regrading process was undertaken that they would underwrite the cost. They underwrote the cost of phase 1, but they have not provided the money for the subsequent three appeal phases.
  We have heard about the ball being bounced back and forth between the Department and the boards, but the boards are extensions of the Department. Board officers had knowledge of and responsibility for the regrading. There is therefore direct responsibility in the Department to underwrite the decisions that were made. Unfortunately, it has failed to do so. In the area that comes within the southern board, there is a shortfall of about £700,000. In the western board area, it is about £300,000. I do not have the figures for the other two boards, but I imagine that they are sizeable.
  The Minister must decide whether there is to be a reduction in services to the consumer so that the proper commitment to the nursing profession is met within existing resources. Alternatively, he must recognise the Department's responsibility, as devolved through to the boards, to fund fully the initial payments for upgrading and the subsequent financial requirements following the appeals.
  The way in which the boards, which will operate until the end of this month, are replaced by boards that will be even more tightly aligned with the Department—their members will not include elected members of local government—worries many of us. We regard it as a diminution of the democratic process. The Minister has an opportunity to do something about it, but he must act urgently and tell us when the health and social services councils will be set up. They should already be in place, as should the boards. I have been speaking to chief executives

  753
  and officers of the various boards. They do not yet know who their new member will be, just a fortnight before they are meant to be in operation. There has been no handover.
  Only in the past day or two have district councils been asked to consider nominating members from the district councils to the health and social services councils. Instead of a cohesive, continuous process, the system by which our health services are administered is broken off, there is a gap, and then it is picked up again. It should not happen in that way.
  Other problems concern the cost of medicines and drugs, which is increasing more rapidly than inflation. Although the boards are funded according to the level of inflation, the funding is inadequate to meet the cost that they must bear for drugs and medicines, which is rising by somewhere between 14 and 16 per cent.
  The boards must deal with other factors, not least uncertainty about the price of fuel oils for heating hospitals, which will require careful consideration by the Department if the boards' budgets are not to break down half or two thirds of the way through the financial year.
  I concur with much of what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said about the environment. It appears to many of us that there is—dare I say it—chaos in various divisions within the Department of the Environment. The elected representatives, especially those who sit on district councils, are frustrated when, month after month, planners who come to our meetings heed not a word of the advice from those of us who are familiar with our areas and the problems.
  I have tried not to be parochial so far, but my constituency has an aging population. What happens to a husband and wife who have worked all their lives on a small farm and reared a family, whose members have perhaps decided not to continue farming? Often, if they want to sell their property, they cannot persuade the planners that they are entitled to a rood on which to build a retirement bungalow. They are encouraged to leave their farms and to move to an adjacent town or further afield. It is wrong that people should be taken out of the community in their old age. I hope that the Minister responsible will soften his hard attitude towards planning. There are also difficulties when a member of a family wishes to continue farming and to build himself a modern home on the farm and allow his parents to continue to live in the existing homestead.
  There is little understanding of the difficulties of a rural community. There may not be great wealth there, but, in our uncertain society, there is an opportunity to live a calm, peaceful and satisfying life. Having grown up in the country, having gone to a county primary school as a child and having taught as a principal in a small country school for many years, I regret the demise of our rural communities. The breakdown in communities, the closure of schools and churches and the disappearance of those small communities contribute to the unrest in Northern Ireland. If people are taken out of the country and put into a town where they have little in common with those already living there, their way of life, breaks down. All to often, over the past 20 years, children from those homes have become unstable and involved in anti-social activities. Something should be done.
  754
  I should like to deal with another matter, involving the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Agriculture, which must fall within the Under-Secretary's responsibilities—disposal of hazardous waste. We have talked to the hon. Gentleman about the disposal of fallen and diseased animals and I hope that he can tell us that some progress has been made. His Department has been working hard although, sadly, it is too late. Unfortunately, the Department of the Environment gave the impression at an early stage that there were innumerable sites where fallen animals could be disposed of. That information was inaccurate, and it took district councils some time to convince the Department how serious the problem was.
  However, the issue is wider than that. The problem of the disposal of hazardous waste concerns all of industry and includes the disposal of clinical waste from hospitals. Far too many hospitals are—to coin a phrase—flying on a wing and a prayer with regard to their incineration capabilities. If we tighten the requirement to provide safe incineration of clinical waste—as I hope we shall—the facilities of many hospitals will be found wanting. I believe that the Departments have been far too slow to provoke full public debate on the issue. Unless we have that public debate, there will be a lot of fearmongering. I do not want to denigrate Greenpeace as I agree with much of what it does, but there are times when it is wholly irresponsible and there is already far too much scaremongering.
  The NIMBY syndrome—"not in my backyard"— pervades the community when we talk about the incineration of toxic and hazardous waste. It is incumbent on the Department of Economic Development, on the Department of Health and Social Services and on other Departments to provoke constructive debate, so that we shall not face yet another crisis in five or 10 years. I look forward to funding for proper research and for the dissemination of information about that problem.
  There are other issues with which I wished to deal, but I shall refer briefly to just one that especially disturbs me —the use of angel dust in cattle feed. The Departments must provide resourcs to deal with that. I am sad that the European Community dictated that hormones should not be permitted as growth promoters in cattle. The Americans, who are much more fastidious than the Europeans, still use hormones. The outcome of the ban on hormones in the European Community has been an escalation in the use of angel dust. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue.
  9.43 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: By now, it is no doubt clear to the Minister that many problems press on the minds of hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The Minister is responsible for agriculture in the Province, so I am sure that he will realise that I come from a large agricultural constituency. I am sure that he will agree that the agricultural community has faced many challenges in recent years, especially with the advent of the quota system in milk and other products.
  Many farmers in Northern Ireland still feel aggrieved that quotas have ensured the decline of the family farm. In Northern Ireland, the family farm was the backbone of our Ulster society, but many small farms are no longer financially viable. Can the Minister give any hope to the hard-pressed farming community? Will the farmer with

  755
  fewer than 40 cows receive any relaxation in the quota system to enable the farm unit to become viable? Neither I nor any other hon. Member in Northern Ireland can stand idly by and watch the decay in and the destruction of our vital farming in Northern Ireland, robbing the community of the lifeline of former prosperity.
  I could understand the decay if the farming community wished to stand still and thus to stagnate, but that is not the case. The farming community is willing to play an active part in the future prosperity of the Province, as it has done in the past. What hope can the Minister offer the farming community that negotiations in Europe will secure a firm future for farming in Northern Ireland? A real dilemma surrounds agriculture, and some assurance and encouragement must be forthcoming from the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members have mentioned the problem of fallen and diseased animals. Can the Minister tell us what steps have been decided on by the Department? Week after week since the problem began, I have been inundated with calls from worried farmers, many of whom are at their wits' end, as I have mentioned to the Minister personally. Positive news from the Minister today would be most warmly welcomed.
  This may be an appropriate time to ask the Minister if he will make representations to the Minister with responsibility for the environment to take steps to permit farmers' sons and daughters to stay in the countryside. Surely it is time for more sympathetic planning decisions on dwelling in the countryside. Great frustration and anger are felt by many who have lived in the countryside and who have contributed all their lives to the well-being of the countryside, only to find themselves and their families parcelled up by some civil servant and hounded out of the countryside and into the towns.
  Before moving on to deal with some of the other Departments, I wish to make my voice heard on the problem of angel dust. We must have proper fines and proper action must be taken by the courts to ensure that those involved in such despicable practices do not gain financially compared with the rest of the farming community who desire to play their part properly. We must bear in mind the health and welfare of the people of the nation.
  With regard to the Department of the Environment, can the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on the Omagh bypass? Phase 1 has been completed, but it is essential for phases 2 and 3 to get under way urgently.
  The next matter directly affects the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I, too, represent a constituency which includes part of the Magherafelt district council area. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East will be concerned about the Magherafelt bypass. I recently received a letter from the Minister about the bypass and it was not helpful. The letter explained that the Government did not intend to construct such a bypass at present, but that any relevant survey in the Magherafelt town area would surely show an urgent need for such a bypass.
  Can the Minister inform the House about the date of completion of the Castledawson bypass? Its construction has a follow-on effect in my constituency for vehicles on their way to the M2 from Moneymore and Cookstown and
  756
  thus on industrial development. Is the construction of the Castledawson bypass on course and what is the expected completion date?
  Is the Minister aware of the frustration experienced by Strabane district council because its efforts for economic development have—I quote from the clerk of the council —been "thwarted by poor state of the roads from Strabane to Omagh."
  Surely an area of deprivation like Mid-Ulster deserves a better slice of the cake to ensure that local industrialists are able to compete in the wider challenge of the European market post-1992?
  Staying with the Department of the Environment, will the Minister give the completion date of the Cookstown bypass? Bearing in mind the serious nature of affairs in Cookstown, due to security checkpoints there, every assistance must be given to alleviate a problem which is doubtless hindering the industrial development of the area. Cookstown has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is imperative that the Cookstown bypass is put on course.
  Phase 1 from the Moneymore road to the Old Coagh road has commenced and has been carried out under a minor works programme, costing less than £200,000. The eastern distributor A29, which is so vital to the industrial development of the Cookstown area, would cost about £1·5 million. Bearing in mind the fact that industrial sites are on the opposite side of the town, the eastern distributor is a must. Will the Minister ensure that we have good news about that for the people of the Cookstown area?
  Staying with the vote for the Department of the Environment, will the Minister announce plans to permit local councillors to have a greater say in planning decisions? Does he understand the anger and frustration when so many Government officials only sparsely fulfil their obligations to consult district councils and, having done so, pay little attention to the representations made by local councillors about issues which are vital for their constituents? Does not the Department realise that elected representatives, who live in the community, have a genuine desire to protect it? It is not merely officials who have a desire to protect the community.
  The present position as regards the famous quotation, "location, siting and design" is totally unacceptable. It is used by officials in the Department to cover a multitude of sins. If a civil servant is, for some reason, unwilling to grant approval, the cloak of "location, siting and design" is usually the fancy term used in the refusal.
  Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by many councillors at a recent conference in Omagh, County Tyrone, about planning the countryside? What is the official reaction of the Department to the representations made at that conference?
  Staying with the Department of the Environment, and the Minister of State who opened the debate, I must tell the House that he has twice given wrong information about community relations at the Dispatch Box. He said that it was a unanimous decision of Magherafelt district council that a community relations officer would be employed. I listened on one of those occasions when he was speaking about Belfast city council and deriding it for not appointing a community relations officer.
  The Minister derided in the House the Unionist councillors in Belfast for not appointing that officer. After that, I read an interesting article, which said that Conservatives on North Down council did not take up the

  757
  Minister's offer either and voted against such an appointment. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. It would surely be wrong for a Minister to deride Ulster Unionists and Democratic Unionist councillors for not taking up his offer if members of his own party did not do so.
  The Minister gave wrong information. I and my colleagues on Magherafelt council did not vote for this position to be filled. It is disgraceful that I should be expected to vote along with Sinn Fein for a so-called community relations officer. The following week, those same councillors would not condemn the IRA bombing of the local labour exchange and the local UDR centre, which finally killed a man of 86 years of age. It is utter hypocrisy to suggest that we should vote in favour of a community relations officer who is seconded by Sinn Fein when that organisation has never taken a stand against the bombings and the killings in our community. I am glad to be able to put the record right because on two occasions the House was told that Magherafelt council, of which I am a member, voted unanimously in support of such an officer.
  I shall now turn to economic development. As I have said, I have the honour to represent a constituency with a large agricultural community. However, it is a sad fact that there is a lack of industrial investment in Mid-Ulster. Few industrialists have been encouraged to come to my Constituency. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and I understand how he feels.
  One of our problems in encouraging people to base industry in my constituency is the great lack of roads. We urgently need a proper roads network to encourage investment to this area of high unemployment. I have constantly brought to the attention of the House places such as Castlederg, a small town that has suffered more from terrorist activity than any other town of its size in the Province. What measures are in the Government's programme to bring real hope to those in Castlederg who have braved terrorism of the most vile nature?
  Recent job losses in Sion Mills are causing great anxiety and exceptional and additional Government measures are necessary if the area is to be made prosperous. I listened with interest to the information that Northern Ireland would not suffer as much as the rest of the United Kingdom in terns of job losses and industrial depression. That will give no comfort to my constituency, although it may do to those who know little of unemployment. Those who live in an area that has suffered grievously from unemployment for I do not know how long feel that it has been left to decay, while many others have received substantial financial support.
  Recently, the Government undertook an in-depth study of Castlederg, which was much appreciated. However, steps must be taken urgently to stop the decay. Now that the investigation has been completed, will the Minister say——
  It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

ESTIMATES
[1st ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd part]
MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put the deferred Question on Supplementary Estimates 1990–91 (Class VII Vote 3).

ESTIMATES

  CLASS VII, VOTE 3
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £124,318,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on support to nationalised transport industries and to ports; rebate of fuel duty to bus operators; and costs of drivers' testing and training.—
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of Estimates). and the Order (1 March).

  ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1991 a revised number not exceeding 66,800 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 a number not exceeding 66,550 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 a number not exceeding 171,060 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 4,955 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 117,000, for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 85,500 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 6,970 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (AIR) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 a number not exceeding 92,520 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 18,250 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,800 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1989–90
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £145,902,12200 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 168.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1990–91
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,544,032,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 170 and 232.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £520,002,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1992. as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 171.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing three resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.
  Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1991 and 1992; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 79].

  Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) to continue his speech, I may tell the House that five other hon. Members wish to participate. The debate can continue until 11.30 pm, so if they each speak for about 10 minutes, they will all be called, and there will still be time for wind-up speeches from both Front Benches. I hope that those time limits will be broadly borne in mind.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the two minutes taken by the business at 10 o'clock be added to our debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The answer is in the affirmative.
  10.3 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: Can the Minister say what steps will be taken to action some of the proposals in the Castlederg programme, to stave off the decay that is affecting that area? My constituents are desirous to assist themselves, but the Government must offer added incentives.
  Has the Minister heard of the Gibson plan for Mid-Tyrone, named after my friend and colleague Councillor Oliver Gibson, who had the vision and the initiative to compile a comprehensive scheme that identifies many of the needs in the area? I shall be obliged if the Minister will discuss it with the local council in the near future.
  Given the existence of the beautiful Gortin glens and the Ulster-American folk park at Omagh, the Government should initiate a worldwide drive to help tourism in the area. We in Mid-Ulster have a willing work force, but it needs encouraging. Will the Government encourage with grant aid multinational firms to that area of high unemployment?
  I pay tribute to the local industry that has mushroomed over the past few years; many concerns, however, have been strangled by high interest rates and inflation. Will the Minister encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist industry by introducing lower interest rates in the Budget?
  How can Northern Ireland industry compete with that of other EC countries, given the exorbitant electricity costs that we must endure? We deplore the additional costs that have been forced on the Province. What action will the Minister take to remove this intolerable burden from my constituents?
  What will the Minister do about the impending payoffs at Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital, which has been at the forefront of mental health care in the Province for many years and is now a vital employer in the Omagh area? Is he aware of the alarm and disquiet that is felt in that area? The nursing staff are gravely worried about the future of mental health care; their opinions must be taken into account. The senior officers have drawn up a hospital plan, but I should be deeply obliged to the Minister if he forwarded to me the detailed plan for community mental health care. Many of the changes are based on the development of community-based care: surely it is entirely unacceptable to wreck hospital care facilities without possessing detailed knowledge of community-based care.

  761
  The community is also concerned about the lack of home helps for the elderly who are forced to live in that community. Like other hon. Members, I wish to know when the Minister expects work to begin on the new Coleraine hospital. Has he read the comprehensive submission from those who are campaigning to save the Moyle hospital, for which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their support?
  There is much concern in my constituency about the question mark over the future of one of our local schools, Tullyhogue primary school. The school is an essential part of the local community, and I ask the Minister and the Department of Education to ensure that it is saved.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: In the interests of brevity, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to abide by your directive.
  The macro element of the debate seems to have been largely ignored in favour of the micro element. That may be a result of the Ribble Valley by-election, which has tended to focus all our attention on the more parochial issues. I shall follow suit; I will merely ask the questions, and request consideration of them.
  First, the north of Ireland badly needs a noise pollution protection scheme. According to what I can glean from parliamentary questions and answers, there is no clearly defined arrangement to protect people's health in that regard, as there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. The figures interest me; there is, of course, a constituency element in my interest.
  In England, a noise problem caused by a traffic scheme qualifies for legislation at 68 decibels; a noise problem caused by a military installation qualifies at 70 decibels. In Northern Ireland, the helicopter noise scheme run by the Minister of Defence qualifies at 72 decibels. In Canal street in Newry, in my constituency—one of the main streets, but a very narrow street—Newry and Mourne council has measured the noise level at between 74 and 77 decibels. Despite all my efforts, however, I have been unable to persuade the Department of the Environment to re-route the traffic from that street to a new bypass and an alternative route into Newry.
  In the interests of health alone, I suggest that the Minister, who is responsible for the health of all of us in Northern Ireland, should join me in trying to persuade the Department of the Environment and those in charge of road traffic to abolish noise pollution in that street. Noise pollution is as dangerous as any other form of pollution.
  As for the grants department of the Housing Executive for the southern area, there has been a problem in the Newry office, which is being resolved. The problem was caused not by those who have applied for Housing Executive grants but by the Housing Executive itself. The last people to suffer should be the people who live in the Newry and South Armagh areas. However, due to irregularities in that office, they have to wait an inordinate length of time. Only two or three grants are issued each month. That is unfair, and patently unjust, and it must be dealt with quickly. I have dealings with another grants office and have compared the speed with which grants are processed. One of the reasons for the slowness in processing grants is due to Housing Executive's problems.
  762
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to those with disabilities, and to the difficulty that they face if they want improvements to their homes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We all come up against that problem. Part of it relates to an insufficient number of occupational therapists to make the assessments. I have written to the Minister about the issue.
  Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, even if we had enough occupational therapists, we do not have sufficient money to carry out the work that needs to be done after assessments have been made?
  Mr. Mallon: That is a valid point, but money will certainly not be spent without an occupational therapist's report. Most areas want the number of occupational therapists to be increased, in the interests of the disabled.
  I appreciate how valuable the small rural school is, having been taught in one, and having worked in another. The rural schools acts as a cohesive element in village communities. In rural areas, as Northern Ireland is, schools are small units. Both board and departmental decisions should bear that in mind. The Southern education and library board has decided to withdraw all school transport from children not of compulsory school age, who therefore have to leave school at about 2 pm.
  One can imagine the effect of that on many schools struggling to retain their numbers and to remain open. Schools which have amalgamated have been hit the hardest. There have been closures due to insufficient numbers of teachers being available to supervise children; they also have to fulfil the new curriculum requirements. School transport is expensive, but it plays a vital part in keeping schools open.
  A matter which concerns the Minister's Department recently came to my notice. I wrote to the Minister, but unfortunately the matter was referred to a departmental head, so I take this opportunity to draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention. Severe disablement allowance will not be paid to 23 disabled people who attend school in the Republic because of the requirement that they must be resident in the north of Ireland for 10 consecutive days. Those young people, who suffer from profound deafness, attend St. Joseph's school for the the deaf in Cabra. When they become 16, they will not be able to avail themselves of that allowance; yet the area boards are paying for their education in the Republic. It is handier for them to travel there because of the direct train service. Such a circumstance was not foreseen when the legislation was passed, but it seems cruel that, because those terribly disabled people are furthering their education outside the jurisdiction, they are denied severe disablement allowance. I ask the Minister to consider that.
  I am concerned that community care grants are not being paid to some people for travelling to hospital. They have been told that they will not be paid retrospectively. When the small children of some of my constituents fell ill, their parents, who lived a considerable distance from the Crown buildings, were not able to avail themselves of those grants, because the office refused to pay them retrospectively. In some circumstances, it is surely impossible for parents to complete a form and all the formalities before visiting their child. That is a further anomaly that I ask the Minister to consider carefully.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I should like to take up some aspects of planning as they affect Northern Ireland.
  Planners, who are not elected, have enormous powers to alter a community, without being responsible to anyone in that community or to the wishes of the community in general. They operate under regulations that are so restricted that moral, spiritual and social matters cannot readily be taken into consideration.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that local councillors play only an advisory role and in practice have a limited influence on decisions, and that, whereas the applicant has power to appeal against a planner's decision, no such right is available to objectors.
  Planning permission was given to infill a quarry situated on the main trunk road to Belfast airport. Despite many objections, the application was granted. As a result, overloaded lorries, transporting hundreds of tonnes of clay, have deposited a deadly and dangerous film of slime on that main thoroughfare, I have received an avalanche of correspondence from constituents and others who use the road, complaining bitterly of the road surface and the state of their vehicles. Many people, including senior citizens, use the road to gain access to the countryside, but as it is impossible to walk on the footpaths because of the mud, they are forced to use the road, thereby increasing the risk to their lives and to motorists who may have to brake in treacherous conditions to avoid them.
  In addition, ratepayers must pay the Department of the Environment regularly to employ cleaning services. Despite all that expense, it is impossible to keep the road in an acceptable condition.
  I voice the concern of the residents of Balmoral avenue, who are incensed about a decision to designate that formerly highly desirable residential avenue as a main trunk route. Surely some other means should have been found for diverting traffic across this section of the city. Residents who must pay the exceptionally high rates levied on this prime area should not have to contend with this imposition on their right to live in some peace and tranquillity.
  Another worrying factor in present planning procedures concerns off-licences and liquor stores. These businesses can be set up without planning permission. That is causing great consternation among those concerned with the problems relating to the consumption of alcohol. Many of these establishments have been opened adjacent to church premises and other community projects. The conflicts of interest can easily be imagined, particularly when intoxicated lager louts who have been drinking in the proximity of their source of alcohol come into contact with more socially motivated people who have been attending church and community activities.
  Of equal concern in this undemocratic planning process is the problem created by the leasing of church buildings. Decisions are taken without reference to local opinion. Although in general the feeling is that listing buildings is a sound principle, in inner-city areas buildings of little architectural merit sometimes cannot be altered without infringing regulations. In one case, there is a need to dispose of a building no longer needed by the Church, but because of listing it is unsaleable, and unless it is sold, it will be destroyed by vandals.
  764
  In yet another area of the inner city, a Church building has been virtually walled in on one side by a prestige development. Such dilemmas posed by regulations over which no one appears to have any control are seriously inhibiting the mission of inner-city churches. The Minister should look seriously at that and take the matter up with the various church organisations with a view to redressing this seemingly bureaucratic procedure.
  Page 5, vote 1, deals with education. I am deeply worried about the introduction of formal tests for eight-year-olds, despite recommendations from the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council. The attainment testing of eight-year-olds could have serious psychological consequences on them. It is beyond comprehension that children at the tender age of eight could be forcibly reminded of the fact that they are below average. The reforms which the Minister seems intent on imposing on the educational establishment will have an adverse effect on our teachers. As the chairman of the Irish National Teachers Organisation stated at a recent conference:
  "It seems to have been a case of an English solution to an English problem which mysteriously got posted to Northern Ireland."
  The view of most, if not all, of the teaching organisations is that whatever the need for such a system on the mainland, there is no case or demand for it in Northern Ireland.
  In relation to page 5, vote 3, I express concern about the privatisation of domestic services in north and west Belfast. I am referring in particular to the tender by Grosvenor Cleaning Services. There are major doubts over the technical credibility of the company. It appears that no indication has been given of how the Grosvenor bid relates to comparator figures. There is concern that office cleaning comparators may have been used on what is essentially a social or health care contract.
  There is also concern about the health and safety standards in the contract, as there is a potential legal liability to the Eastern health and social services board if this inadequate proposal leads to injury to board employees, contractors' employees or the general public. There are sufficient grounds to justify the rejection of the Grosvenor bid on the grounds of technical credibility.
  In the Official Report of Standing Committee A for 19 November 1987 we read as follows:
  "Of course it is true that on numerous occasions I have said that authorities are not obliged to accept the lowest tender. If there are reasons to do with a particular contract such as the quality of the specification or the services that are directly related to the subject matter of that contract, authorities are entitled to take these matters into account and not for that type of reason accept that tender."
  I should like to take up again the problems of glass-fronted room heaters. The elderly cannot cope with these appliances, and there have been problems associated with fumes which are causing serious asthmatic problems. There are now alternative forms of heating which are more appropriate for the elderly—economy 7, for instance. Will the Housing Executive consider that alternative for people for whom solid fuel systems have run their course and replacements have become necessary?
  I should llike to mention elderly people who were originally transferred from inner-city areas to the highly elevated suburbs of Belfast, particularly north Belfast, because of redevelopment in their inner-city areas. After 30 years, they have grown elderly and cannot cope with the

  765
  conditions in those areas. I contend that, in such circumstances, they should be moved back whence they came to take advantage of the more centralised shopping facilities and flat living conditions. The elevated sites should be allocated to young families and more able-bodied people, who can more easily cope with that mode of living.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. William Ross: In reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Minister said that there was nothing in these estimates for hospital building which, he said, was covered in the main estimates. I was surprised to hear that, because I notice that the order supplies supplementary cash and provides money for next year, to the tune of £426·5 million, for the Department of Health and Social Services. I should be astonished if there was nothing in that sum for hospital building—I am sure that there is.
  That brings me immediately to the new hospital in Coleraine. With a little gentle urging from me, the Minister was kind enough to drop in and see a deputation about that hospital. I think that he found the people in it a most efficient and able group who presented their case admirably. The Minister knows perfectly well that the need for that hospital has long been acknowledged; it was one of the framework hospitals for acute services in Northern Ireland. The debate as to whether it should be green field or rebuild has been finally laid to rest by the option of appraisal. In any case, the hospital is needed.
  We are told that at one stage there was cash for part of the rebuild, but we know what Government cash is like —"Now you see it, now you don't." If the money was not spent on rebuild, it must have been spent on something else, so relief expenditure for other items should be available in some form. I hope that the Minister will listen to good advice, elect to rebuild, and let us get on with it. There is no need for delay. I offer him the following good advice from a letter written by an excellent source 117 years ago:
  "Don't throw good money after bad, build new; if you build, build wisely; of course you have a new building to suit its purpose, at moderate outlay. If you add and repair an old building not even originally constructed to suit their purpose, and certain to be deficient in the most essential requisites of health and comfort—you have at the end of all your additions and re-constructions a bad building, at immoderate outlay".
  The Minister will be delighted to know that that letter was written by one Florence Nightingale, who certainly knew what things were about. It was written on 29 January 1874 to the honorary secretary of the Belfast nurses home, but I could not have put the case better in relation to Coleraine hospital. I hope that the Minister will follow the good advice of the matron of modern nursing practice.
  Reference has also been made to hazardous waste. The Minister will be aware of the furore in my part of the world about the Du Pont proposal to build a toxic waste incinerator, or more accurately a hazardous waste incinerator. Some documents state that the Du Pont site produces 700 tonnes of toxic and hazardous waste per year, while others put it at 75,000 tonnes. The incinerator is an attractive proposal for the company because it means that it would not have to transport any of its waste off site while all its competitors in the island of Ireland would have to transport their waste to that site, thus adding to their
  766
  costs. The incinerator is a good commercial enterprise for Du Pont, which would have a monopoly of the disposal of such waste—there is nothing similar in the rest of Ireland. Under European Community regulations it would also be mighty difficult to get that waste out of the island to burn it anywhere else.
  Although there might be other ways in which to deal with toxic and hazardous waste, the normal practice is to burn it at specific temperatures. If we are to have such an incinerator anywhere in Ireland, the worse possible place is the upwind side of the island. The prevailing winds are generally west, south-west or south. They rarely blow from the north or the east. Given the problems and attendant hazards which arose from the incorrect burning of waste in the Irish Republic, if we are to have such an incinerator anywhere on the island it should be erected on the east coast so that any toxic fumes produced would at least be blown out to sea.
  I do not want the Minister to forget about the alarm generated a few years ago, when it was thought that a toxic cloud had been produced at the Du Pont works and was floating towards Londonderry. We were all thankful to discover that that report stretched the truth, but mistakes can happen and their consequences should be limited. To achieve that, it would be best to locate any incinerator where any possible fumes would be blown out to sea rather than across land.
  I believe that LEDU, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and the IDB, the Industrial Development Board, are supposed to bring manufacturing industry to Northern Ireland. LEDU primarily deals with the native-born people and I am concerned about its activities. I repeat the concern that I expressed last year. I have been less than satisfied with the help that LEDU has given in a number of cases. An applicant for a grant for the production of high-quality concrete props was turned down for the second time after being encouraged by LEDU to apply and incurring considerable costs in producing a plan. A saw mill was also refused a grant, on the grounds of a shortage of timber, although that small-scale operation had sufficient timber to carry on. I also recall a long delay before a fellow finally got a grant for tools to write inscriptions for tombstones. Although he made his living in that way, it was years before the grant was paid. That seems a bit daft to me.
  The problem may have been that people were already doing those things, and one might inquire whether it is wise to encourage applicants in such trades. However, LEDU fulfils a useful function in some sectors. It can give help and support at the lowest level where someone comes up with another way of doing something simple. It can also provide help and support in the final stages when a firm produces a plan, all neatly typed, with everything covered. LEDU then often pays the grant because all the preliminary work has been done.
  Unfortunately, there is a great hole between those two ends of the spectrum. It occurs when an individual is doing something that is new. I will cite two cases. One is that of a sock manufacturer, who found that the machines which were supposed to be simple to operate were not all that simple, but when he went back to LEDU for a bit more help, which would have saved the firm, it was not given and the firm went down the bunghole.
  The second case was more serious, and I have mentioned it in the House before. A constituent of mine came up with a method of jointing metal tubing—a

  767
  process with wide applications, especially in plumbing where lead in water is a problem. The concept is new, it works, and I believe that his products will come on to the market fairly soon. The case has caused me some heartache and pain as the impression given to the inventor by the LEDU leaflet was not fulfilled in practice, leading to a long and bitter exchange between him and that body.
  LEDU was not willing to grant further funding, because it was not prepared to let the inventor stay in control of the project. He was not prepared to accept that, and he was never satisfied that LEDU was directing him to the people who could give him the help that he needed with some of the difficult technical aspects of the project. He believes that, on one occasion, LEDU undermined his bargaining strength, and that it never set out a clear plan for how best to carry the project to fruition.
  I could take up the rest of the time allotted to this debate with the detail of that case, but I will not. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will look again not only at that case but at certain implications of it. I may well return to the matter in more detail another time. It is necessary to find a solution acceptable to all, because this is something that will be useful and could pay rich dividends.
  Beyond that case, we must find a more satisfactory way to deal with the individual who comes up with a
  768
  completely new invention or industrial application. We need to find a better way to fund research and development, right through from inception to arrival at the marketplace. That is especially true of patent costs, which are high. Often the backyard worker does not have that sort of cash. The Government should look carefully at setting up a fund to try to carry these projects through because they often involve people with little experience of the commercial world.
  We should finance our native inventors. That is a far better way to spend money than throwing millions at de Lorean and the like. Millions were invested in textiles in the 1960s, but that industry melted away when the going got rough. Millions were spent trying to build aircraft at Aldergrove. If £1 million per year were spent on encouraging our native inventors, and if the Government were prepared to lose many of the projects, because many will go under, that would be a better way to go about things. Some of the projects will succeed, and those which succeed will pay rich dividends.
  I suggest that the Minister talks to some of those who have been frustrated by the activities of LEDU. He will then understand the anger that they feel and perhaps reach a clearer understanding of what I am saying and try to make that organisation better.

  Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the others who have occupied the Chair this evening have been fortunate indeed. For almost four hours, Northern Ireland Members—people from both traditions in the Province—have spoken without any division or argument among themselves.
  The only note of controversy injected into the debate came from an Englishman. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—misery-guts that he is—took the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to task for having the audacity to attempt to resolve problems in the Province. The hon. Gentleman told us that the initiative had failed—indeed, that it had been pronounced dead from the very beginning. He came to the House, complete with his funeral garb, to deliver an oration at the funeral of what he called the Brooke initiative.
  The members of my party certainly do not want that initiative to fail. We recognise the very real need for progress towards the creation of structures in Northern Ireland. It was this House and the party of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West which took the Stormont Parliament from us. It is their fault that we do not have a local body with legislative powers. If some of them had been able to look into the future, they might not have been so quick to put their hands to the destruction of Stormont.
  However, the hon. Gentleman was right about at least one thing. He recognises that the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House is far from satisfactory. It should not be necessary to bring day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues here. However, I make no apology for raising in this debate issues that some hon. Members may consider trivial.
  I want to start on a note of thanks to the Government. The last time I took part in an appropriation debate I raised a matter of concern to not only myself but the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). I permitted the hon. Gentleman to intervene when, during my speech, I referred to Merton park, for which he and I, as Members of Parliament, share responsibility. Unfortunately, he did not return the favour this evening. He and I recognised the inadequacy of the way in which Merton park was being dealt with. The Minister undertook to look into the matter, and I was given the opportunity to speak to a number of officials. I am glad to say that it has been decided that there should be a fully integrated scheme, which will greatly enhance the lives of the people of Merton park. I trust that the Minister and his officials will ensure that good ideas will be translated into action and that the necessary finance will be available.
  I realise that, because of the time restriction, I shall be able only to put down some markers. I hope that the Minister of State will draw to the attention of his ministerial colleague who is responsible for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment the crisis in relation to grants for the repair and improvement of houses. The system is now so bogged down that only people with financial difficulties get any money out of the scheme, and they have to wait a considerable time for grants to come through. The Minister is guilty of very false logic and very false economy. The rate of unfitness of
  770
  property will increase considerably before very long. The housing stock is not being repaired and improved sufficiently. It is a major problem, and I urge that funds are freed for such an important purpose.
  There has already been reference to planning issues. The hon. Member for North Down rightly talked about the difficulties that objectors have if a planning department recommends approval of the application. There is no automatic appeal for objectors. The hon. Gentleman will recognise—he was the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly—that the environment committee was able to wring out of the then Minister a concession that if two thirds of the members of a district council expressed serious concerns, there could be an article 22 inquiry. The hon. Gentleman and I recognised that the concession did not go far enough. That is a process that operates as a result of the grace and favour of the Department, but perhaps it has established itself to some degree in custom and practice. Many of us would like it to be established in planning law. A planning order is coming before the House, and I hope that the Minister will incorporate such a provision within it.
  I think that the Minister should go even further because the two thirds restriction is unnecessary. A majority in a district council would be satisfactory. Planning is one area in which there has been great contention between the political parties within district councils. In some instances that is right, but the Minister should not be concerned if the district council is merely referring the matter to an appeal tribunal.
  There are serious difficulties with enforcement because the Department is so slow to act. The most outrageous scheme can be pursued for a long time without the necessary action being taken, and this is causing great annoyance. Steps must be taken to accelerate the enforcement procedures. I recognise that there are legal difficulties, but the Department must be capable of finding means of ensuring that enforcement procedures operate much more speedily.
  During most appropriation order debates over the past three or four years I have referred to ex-post-facto applications. In most instances they are made by those who decide to build now and apply later. The applications are increasing in number and because of the slowness of enforcement procedures there is no official response for a long time. I have suggested that the Minister incorporates a penalty clause in the new planning order that is to come before the House which requires someone who builds without planning permission to pay 10 times the penalty that is normally imposed in Northern Ireland. The Minister has not, unfortunately, taken up the suggestion. In a recent schedule that came before a district council in the area which I represent, 25 per cent. of the applications were ex post facto. That shows how planning laws are being flouted.
  As for roads, I thank the Government for the progress that has been made with the construction of the dual carriageway between Supermac and the Upper Newtownards road. I am glad that it was decided at the Belfast urban area plan hearings that the Castlereagh roundabout should have not a flyover but an upgraded traffic light system. That system has been put into operation and it seems to be working successfully, as are the traffic lights at the Castledona junction. Those schemes were urged on the Government by the local council and

  771
  they were reluctant to implement them. The schemes were implemented, however, and they have proved to be successful.
  I ask the Minister to consider the serious traffic problem at Ryan park, just up from the Castlereagh roundabout. I suspect that, before too long, I shall have to inform the House of a fatality there. The traffic moves quickly and young children have to cross the road to get to buses. There have been several near-misses. The Department has been pressed consistently on that matter, but, as yet, has taken no satisfactory steps to avoid the problem. I urge the Minister to consider this matter before a fatality occurs.
  I turn to the education vote and transport to schools. In my constituency, there was a primary school at Clarawood. It was very much the centre of the area. All the life on the estate revolved round the school. It was used in the evenings for community purposes. All the young people in the area went to the school. The Government, as part of their rationalisation programme, decided to scrap it. They said that they could not allow a school with such low attendance to continue.
  The children were forced to go to Orangefield primary school, some two miles away by road; but it was not two miles away if one had to cross a muddy field. The Belfast education and library board has decided that, whether the rain comes down in torrents or whether there is snow on the ground, the young children have to go across the field because it will not provide them with the transport to go by road.
  Mothers with young children of four or more are forced to wade across the field in the worst of weather. They must even cross a river which has a plank across it. The Belfast education and library board believes that that is a fit route by which parents can take their children. That is unsatisfactory. This step was taken only to provide financial savings. As the board took the local school from the area, it has a responsibility to provide children with the kind of minibus used by many other schools in the area which probably have less need. I urge the Minister to use his influence with the board to deal with this matter.
  The Government's record on allocating funds to district councils for sport and leisure services is abysmal. They have cut so much that district councils looking for the normal grant aid for leisure provision now get nothing. The councils' capital programmes have come to a halt, unless they are prepared to put all the burden on the local rates.
  The cuts in community services are beginning. Local communities suffer because the Government want their finances to look better, and do not mind local government finances looking worse. The Government are quite happy about the rates going up and the blame falling on local councillors. They do not want to take the blame, all hough the responsibility has been theirs for a long time. I urge them to put funds into the education budget so that the programme of capital expenditure on leisure centres and other educational provisions and important community work can recommence in the Province.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I appreciate that time is now rather limited, so I will keep to the period suggested. For that reason, I will have to be brief in some of my comments.
  From the debate a few weeks ago on the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1990, the Minister will remember that I made some comments about Spelga hospital in Banbridge. He will appreciate the considerable concern in the local community about the threatened closure of that hospital before proper refurbishment of the main Banbridge hospital is carried out. I hope that there will be a speedy resolution of the uncertainty, and that the matter will be resolved appropriately. The concern about Banbridge hospital is heightened by the fact that there is no casualty unit there at present, because of a lack of senior staff. I hope that something can be done about that.
  I want to mention some Department of the Environment matters concerning planning. I am sure ghat the Minister knows that Craigavon district is unique in Northern Ireland, as the only area for which there is no statutory development plan. Well over 20 years ago, there was a non-statutory plan, but it has long since been superseded by the failure of the Craigavon new city concept. Planning in the area is carried out on an unsatisfactory basis.
  I realise that there has been a recent study on the Craigavon central area and that there is talk about having studies on the Portadown and Lurgan town centres, but is that the right way to proceed? Should we not be thinking in terms of producing a proper development plan for the whole of Craigavon, rather than building up a patchwork for the central area, for Portadown and for Lurgan?
  Two specific matters are causing concern in the area. Under the central area plan, it has been proposed that there be a link between the M1 and the centre. As the Minister may be aware, that link would run over land that was originally vested in the mid-1960s for the new city. A number of years later, when that project was not carried through successfully, the land was surplus, and it was disposed of to the original owners. They were encouraged to invest considerable sums in bringing the area back under control and to put other investments into the area. They are now threatened with that area being re-vested. I want that matter to be looked at carefully. The concept of a link is good, but we want it to be routed so that it does not involve the re-vesting of surplus land, which has been disposed of.
  I raised the matter of the blight in the centre of Lurgan in the appropriation debate last May. I understand that that stems from a throughpass proposal which was part of the original new city proposals. The throughpass was planned to go from Arthur street to Malcolm road. As a result, part of the centre of Lurgan has been blighted for over a decade. Some work has been done by housing associations to try to recover the area.
  Is the throughpass proposal really necessary? Like most of our Ulster towns, Lurgan has a broad central street running through it. There are occasional traffic problems, but they are no greater than in any other substantial town in rush hour. I should like people to study closely whether the throughpass proposal is necessary. If the proposal were

  773
  finally to be dropped—it has effectively been dropped for 20 years, because nothing has been done to implement it —the blight would be removed. A considerable area in the centre of the town could be redeveloped, which would be for the town's benefit.
  I want to raise a matter that may seem small, but which is important to the people concerned. During the very cold winter weather, I became conscious of the plight of people affected by Housing Executive renovation schemes. They had been rehoused temporarily in caravans during the cold weather. There was obvious inconvenience, and additional costs were incurred.
  I discover that there is provision under legislation for the executive to make payments to compensate people who have been displaced temporarily. The payments are made on a standard basis without any regard to the costs incurred, yet the Department has the power to make regulations and I understand that that power has not been exercised. Can that be looked at? Can the regulations make provision for the special additional costs incurred everywhere during the recent very cold spell?
  I had hoped to deal with two substantial points at some length. One relates to a matter that is the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development and of the Industrial Development Board. Last week, I dropped a note to the relevant Minister telling him that I propose to raise the matter in this debate. I am sure that it is not a lack of interest in the subject that has caused him not to be here this evening. The difficulty was caused by an imaginative proposal which was started a number of years ago by the Northern Ireland Aeronautics Technical Training Aviation company—which is a mouthful, so I shall hereinafter call it NIATTA.
  The proposal emerged in the late 1980s. It is a good proposal and tends to build upon skills that exist within Northern Ireland, both in terms of aeronautics and engineering. The proposal identifies a need for aeronautical training for engineering and servicing aircraft. Essentially, the proposal comprises two phases. The first is to train engineers, who may be used to service aircraft in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, which is important skills training, would build upon existing skills in Northern Ireland and would equip people for useful employment there or elsewhere.
  The second stage of the development would comprise the establishment of a substantial servicing operation locally, which would be viable if the necessary investment were made and could provide up to 1,000 highly skilled jobs.
  Since its inception, the progress of the proposal has been a sorry tale. Way back in June 1988, there was a meeting, as a result of which the secretary to the then Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development replied to NIATTA saying:
  "if you are willing to set up a commercial aircraft servicing and training company as a prerequisite to the actual aircraft servicing phase of the business the Department would consider grant aiding the training of employees".
  In August 1988, it was stated that the grant aid would be on the same training basis as on the mainland. However, in November that year, the proposal from the Department of Economic Development—as it was then —was to reduce the grant to less than 40 per cent. of the equivalent on the mainland. Despite that, a detailed
  774
  business plan was submitted to the Industrial Development Board. Unfortunately, it has not responded effectively to the proposal. In March 1990, it requested additional information, which was provided on two subsequent occasions—in June and October 1990—giving detailed cash flow projections for the first phase of the development, not merely for one but for three years.
  Unfortunately, there has not been a positive response from the IDB, which keeps saying that it needs to have a detailed business plan for the second phase. In the nature of the business, that is unrealistic. The first phase concerns training of engineers who are working on servicing, but the second phase of establishing a servicing operation in Northern Ireland would require detailed knowledge of what hangars and runway facilities were available, what level of training would be achieved, what qualifications would be achieved and what relationships there would be with particular companies. That is an unrealistic request.
  However, sufficient information is available to enable a decision to be taken on the first phase. Regrettably, the IDB is not responding to that proposal, which would be extremely valuable. It is an imaginative proposal, but it seems that the IDB is too earthbound in its attitude to the matter to be able to respond to it.
  I am sorry that the Minister is not available to reply to my remarks, but I hope that these comments will be carried to him, so that he can come back to me.
  The other matter of substance, which I touched upon in an intervention on the Minister at the beginning of the debate, concerns the way in which the cultural traditions programme has been developed. I must explain the arguments that I mentioned indirectly then.
  As part of the cultural traditions programme, there have been a series of conferences—the third will take place later this month. There are a total of nine major participants in terms of speakers and chairmen of working groups. When one examines the nine, one finds that, using the criteria spelled out in the current employment legislation to determine the ethnic origins of persons involved, five seem to be of Irish origin—using the term in its widest sense. Four of them can be identified, using the criteria in the legislation, as nationalist or belonging to the nationalist community. The fifth is perhaps not, but he is a civil servant, and I expect that his politics will not enter into the matter.
  Consequently, we find that four of the five Irish participants at the conference on cultural traditions can be attributed to one community group, and that there is no one who can be regarded as representing the Ulster British tradition, at a conference which is supposed to deal with the traditions of both communities. I told the Minister that this was inadequate, and he acknowledged that that was a fair argument. The cultural traditions group may make the defence that it had invited a person to represent the Ulster-British viewpoint because an officer of my party, one of the honorary secretaries, was invited. That is no excuse.
  Mr. Mallon: He was in Dublin.
  Mr. Trimble: The conference has not yet taken place. The group knew that he could not attend because the Saturday of the conference coincides with the annual general meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council. All officers of the council are elected annually, so that officer could not possibly have attended. It is not as if the cultural traditions

  775
  group did not know that, because I had exactly the same problem last year when I could not attend the conference because of the annual general meeting. The group knew that, so I am not prepared to accept its excuse.
  Mr. Beggs: Who is the chairman?
  Mr. Trimble: I shall come to that.
  The background to this matter is that the cultural traditions group was formed a couple of years ago and the then chairman, hon. Members will be amused to hear, was a man whom I regarded with considerable suspicion; I told him so, so I am not saying anything behind his back. I doubted his attitude to the matter, but at least he recognised the need to include representatives of both communities. Consequently, he approached me in my capacity as chairman of the Ulster Society, because, outside the loyal orders and political parties, that society is the only body in Northern Ireland which is committed to promoting the Ulster-British culture and heritage.
  He invited me to join the conference committee, which I did, and we made a contribution to that first conference. Because of my involvement in a by-election last year, I was not able to undertake the same role in the second conference. The commitment from our society came from its secretary, Gordon Lucy. As a result, there was an input to the second conference.
  For the third conference, my colleague was ignored. Gordon received no notification of any meetings of the conference committee. There was complete silence, and then we find the present conference arranged with an unbalanced membership. That is particularly annoying, because the theme of the conference is European issues, and the deputy chairman of my society is uniquely fitted to deal with that subject, because he is a recognised authority on the ethnic and cultural disputes in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has said, there has been a change in the chairmanship; I am afraid that the present chairman, Dr. Maurice Hayes, does not seem to display the same sensitivity as his predecessor. I hope that that will be examined.
  Finally, I should like to deal with a couple of brief matters. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) spoke about the way in which Northern Ireland matters are handled in the House as a constitutional slum. A happening this evening reminds me that there is some truth in that. In conducting its affairs, the Northern Ireland Office tends to arrange for things to happen across the water in Belfast, and does not always arrange for people over here to know.
  Earlier this evening, I received a telephone call from the BBC in Belfast asking whether I could comment on a draft Order in Council which, apparently, was published today in Belfast. Other hon. Members may have received a similar request. Of course, it is not available in London, and one cannot comment on it. Hon. Members who attend to their duties in the House find themselves at a disadvantage about what is happening on the ground in Northern Ireland, and that is unsatisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West went on to criticise the provision in the appropriation order relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly I am afraid that I do not share his criticism. I am glad to see that there is some expenditure to keep some aspects of the Assembly going because there is a need for a regional administration or government, call it what we will.
  776
  Hon. Members spoke about the problems that we face vis-a-vis Europe and the concepts of additionality. Dealing with regional and structural funds in the absence of a regional administration makes things worse. The European Commission and its civil servants go to other major European countries to discuss the operation of regional policy. When they go to Bavaria and want to know how regional policy should apply to that area, they can speak to the Government of the Bavarian Land, who will give a view. Unfortunately, when the Commission comes to talk to people in the United Kingdom and goes to Scotland and speaks to the Scottish Office, it does not get a Scottish answer: it gets a Treasury answer. If it speaks to the Northern Ireland Office, it does not get a Northern Ireland answer but a Treasury answer. The problem of additionality rests primarily with the Treasury.
  We in Northern Ireland in particular feel the absence of a regional administration, but that problem is not confined to us, and it should also be tackled. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my final comments have strayed from the subject of the order, but I will now conclude my remarks.
  11.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate—perhaps more wide-ranging from one direction than the order warranted. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) follows one of his predecessors as a Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton in having a special place in Northern Ireland's history.
  The debate was conducted with great courtesy, with all the speakers from the Province exhibiting great oratorical skill. They served their constituents with distinction, and spoke with care and in great detail. I shall try to cover as many points as possible in the time available to me.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who kindly gave notice that he could not be present for the end of the debate, expressed concern about the Province's economic situation and its possible impact on employment levels. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his excellent opening remarks, the upturn in unemployment in recent months is extremely disappointing, but it must be seen in the context of the sustained period of employment growth that Northern Ireland enjoyed over the past four and a half years, when unemployment fell by almost 28,000.
  The recent upward movement in Northern Ireland's unemployment level is less marked, proportionately, than in Great Britain, and we hope that it will be short-lived. It would be silly of anyone, including me, to make any predictions, but much of the employment downturn has been in sectors such as distribution, hotels and catering, which are particularly sensitive to changes in demand—and I suspect that they will recover quickly when demand picks up.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South drew attention to the Cambridge university report. I regret that its predictions were at the pessimistic end of the forecasting spectrum, but the Government recognise that the completion of the single market entails both challenges and opportunities. It is for individual firms to respond to them, and the Government's strategy is aimed at

  777
  encouraging local companies to improve their competi-tiveness and to take full advantage of the opportunities on offer.
  The time ahead will not be easy, but Northern Ireland companies are well suited to meet those challenges and to exploit those opportunities. The hon. Member for Leicester, South spoke of targeting social need—some-thing in which I have a particular interest, as have my colleagues. In allocating public expenditure resources nationally, we have consistently recognised the greater needs of Northern Ireland. That is reflected in the higher levels of public expenditure per head of population.
  The targeting of social need priority seeks significantly to accelerate improvement of the social and economic conditions in the most disadvantaged areas and of the people of Northern Ireland. The thrust of priority is to address need, which is defined as deprivation or disadvantage, as identified by objective criteria, wherever it may exist in the community, and to apply any action even-handedly to all who fall within the objectively defined categories.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned the provision of a natural gas pipeline between Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. The technical and economic feasibility of using gas for power generation is being assessed, several possible routes for a pipeline from Great Britain are being examined, and seabed surveys have been completed. The crucial issue will be the price of gas delivered to the power stations by comparison with existing fuels.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and the resignation of its chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, has already paid a well-earned tribute to Dr. Schierbeek's sterling service in his capacity as a board member of NIE, as deputy chairman and, for the past five years, as chairman. I, too, wish him well in the future. Following his resignation, there was speculation about the Government's proposals for the privatisation; any comment would, I think, be best reserved until the publication of the White Paper later this month. There will then be ample opportunity for all the various interests to make their views known.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South also mentioned training and employment. He asked why the Government did not consult interested parties, other than employers. The Training and Employment Agency has an advisory board, whose members have been chosen because of the contribution that they can make to the agency's activities. They include representatives from industry and commerce, but also from education and, indeed, from trade unions and community organisations. I believe that the board will act as an important catalyst in forging effective partnerships between the agency and the business community.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised a number of important points, one of which concerned Rathlin island. I assure him that NIE and the Department of Economic Development are considering the possibility of providing a mains electricity supply for the island, and that the departure of the good Dr. Schierbeek will not alter that. Various types of installation
  778
  have been identified, but a preliminary application for grant has already been made to the European Community under the Valoren scheme which, if successful, could partly finance the project. I certainly hope that progress will be made.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the agricultural difficulties arising from the EC proposals. I acknowledge that those difficulties exist. The Commission's initial proposals—and the MacSharry leaks before them—met with considerable opposition; the only subject of universal agreement seemed to be the need for reform of the CAP. Budgetary constraints, however, are likely to force the Commission to present stringent price proposals in 1991, The United Kingdom welcomes reform of the CAP, but any measures that are taken must not discriminate against the larger efficient farms in the United Kingdom. Even the small farms in Northern Ireland seem to be regarded as large compared with many in Europe—a point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North with telling passion. Certainly the farms in Northern Ireland, however small, are efficient by many European standards.
  I believe that the CAP should indeed be a common agricultural policy, and that the harm should not affect any particular area. I intend to fight fully for the interests of Northern Ireland agriculture; on my first day in the job I said that I would be its champion, and since then I have discovered that it is not only a battle worth fighting, but a battle for people who are worth supporting. Agriculture is an important part of Northern Ireland's economy.
  Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned fallen animals. Regrettably, progress has been painfully slow and extremely delicate; almost every day I have had to struggle with the issues, and my officials—especially the permanent secretary—have tried very hard to get all the interested parties together to find a solution. We need co-operation from all those involved in Northern Ireland agriculture—not only the food producers and the by-product manufacturers but the feed compounders, the renderers and, indeed, local authorities. The district councils have an extremely important part to play. The Department of Agriculture, however, has a catalyst role, and also a veterinary role.
  I hesitate to say this, but I know that hon. Members want to know the most up-to-date position. I am close to announcing that a solution has been found, but I warn hon. Members in all parts of the House that at least twice during the last two months I have been close to announcing a solution. Therefore, I hope that my wishes will not be dashed at the last hurdle, as they were on those occasions. I hope to make an announcement next week. I am grateful for the patience and the good advice I have received from hon. Members during the last three months. I believe that a solution is likely to be announced next week. I shall write to all hon. Members immediately that happens.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to flooding. I am grateful to him for what he said. I recognise fully the difficulties faced by those who are not farmers but also suffered from the flooding. The farming community's gratitude for the assistance that it received, after the initial difficulties, from the ADOP funds was heartwarming.
  The Government have made it clear that they do not normally compensate for insurable losses, or losses which arise from weather abnormalities, but an exception was made in the case of North Antrim flooding due to the extreme severity and the permanent nature of the damage.

  779
  I am pleased, therefore, that we were able to offer some assistance to those farmers. Nevertheless that does not alter the general principle. Naturally I understand the issue raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), but that must fall within the normal pattern.
  Mr. William Ross: The principle that the Minister has applied to the North Antrim floods must surely apply to the October 1987 floods as well.
  Mr. Hanley: I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman does, but it was well before my time as a Minister. Serious floods have occurred on many occasions, but the damage is not always so permanent as it was in the glens on that evil night. I maintain that the compensation that we have offered is as far as we can take it at this stage.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask about capital expenditure for hospitals. This year we allocated £44 million for capital expenditure on hospitals, thus ensuring that the momentum is maintained. That is an 18 per cent. increase on the previous year. Major projects are under way in the Province, which should be very proud of its capital expenditure successes in this financial year. When completed, the new hospital at Antrim will cost £35 million. Regional cardiac services at the Royal Victoria hospital are being expanded. A new 120-bed geriatric unit at Gransha in Londonderry has recently been opened. Construction work is starting on a new 72-bed unit at Whiteabbey hospital. A new linear accelerator has been announced, as well as a new headquarters for the blood transfusion service. Many people over here wonder how Northern Ireland gets away with it.
  Many hon. Members referred to Coleraine hospital. I was very pleased to meet members of the action committee, albeit briefly and I look forward to meeting them again in the near future. I spent four hours last Friday carrying out research into various issues put to me by the Northern health board. I also visited the Antrim site. I was most impressed by that hospital. I shall be visiting Coleraine in the near future. A local newspaper said that I planned to visit the Coleraine site for four hours. To stand in a green field, even as a Minister with responsibility for agriculture, for four hours might test my patience. What I meant was that I should be concentrating on the issue for at least four hours last Friday. I shall be visiting the site and taking representations from all parties in the near future.
  It is understandable that hon. Members should want to spell out the needs of hospitals in their own areas, but the Government have to consider the overall needs and the best means of addressing them. We have rules on major capital expenditure which require detailed investment appraisals of all the costs and benefits of the feasible options. I am pleased that the Northern board recently completed an appraisal of the Coleraine hospital and recommended a new-build hospital on a green-field site. The board is consulting local interests. I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North and other hon. Members that my decision will be taken as expeditiously as possible. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the matters that he raised on other hospitals, including the Moyle and Downpatrick. I am dealing with the concerns that have been expressed.
  780
  The hon. member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said that Northern Ireland Electricity should not be privatised by Order in Council. There are many other issues to be considered, but essentially this is a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. There will therefore be extremely full consultation when the White Paper is published.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned rural development, for which I was recently given ministerial responsibility. He suggested that the Minister responsible should visit the Seeconnell site. I visited the area three months ago, and I found it an inspirational example of community development. Such a bottom-up approach, with the initiative coming from local people to try to keep the area based on agriculture and its young people on the land, is exactly what we are looking for. I was therefore pleased to be able to give them some money from the 1·4 mecu that we received from the European Community for pilot projects, of which Seeconnell was one. The £20,000 that it received will help with its feasibility study.
  The hon. Member for South Down mentioned reductions in farm incomes in Northern Ireland. I can only agree with him and regret those reductions. There has been some good news, but last year was bad. The Government recognise the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, and it will be one of the factors that we take into account when taking a robust stance in Europe.
  The hon. Member for South Down mentioned many other issues, such as the activity of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit in the Down district council area. The story is excellent, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. The IDB has 12 customer companies in the Down district area employing 1,200 people. There are two industrial estates—one is full and the other is filling up. LEDU has 83 client companies in the Down district area. The IDB arranged nine inward visits to the Down area.
  I shall write to the hon. Member for South Down about the troubles with the spinning industry, but he will recognise that one of the major customers in Brazil has collapsed, which is one reason why workers have been laid off.
  I thoroughly agree with the comments of the hon. Member for South Down about family credit forms. I welcome his suggestions and will bring them to the attention of those concerned to promote increased take up of family benefit and other benefits. The forms are full of gobbledegook and are difficult to complete. Even a chartered accountant would experience difficulty with some of them.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr.Kilfedder) mentioned Bregenz house, of which I saw the details the other day, and I know that the hon. Gentleman presented a petition to the House which is being considered by the Department.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North will return from fighting for Ulster in the far east on Thursday. I look forward to giving him details of all the various roads that were mentioned in tonight's debate.
  Health councils, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), will be set up as soon as possible. District councils are being asked to nominate members in the next

  781
  three weeks and we are advertising in newspapers for the other members. I agree that the subject of waste disposal is absolutely vital.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that farm incomes are low. The rural development programme has been based on an inter-departmental committee. We recognise that planning issues are extremely important, and I plan to have a meeting with my fellow Under-Secretary of State to discuss them. The other answers to his questions will be forthcoming [Interruption.] The message says that I may have the extra two minutes, thanks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that noise was a form of pollution and I thoroughly agree with him. I shall make sure that in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, we shall look at that matter afresh. I shall certainly look into the disablement allowance case when I have Hansard to hand.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) talked about competitive tendering standards. Although I cannot comment on the specific tender, I can say that quality of service is the overriding concern in every contract. All work undertaken in bringing forward this initiative has fully taken standards into account. I shall deal with educational assessment in writing.
  I have dealt with most of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North. In response to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I know that my hon. Friend well knows Craigavon's particular problems and circumstances, as do I. I have visited it regularly and I know that my hon. Friend will respond.
  In the time available, I have tried to answer as many of the points raised in the debate as I can. I will arrange for written replies to be sent on the outstanding points. I know that Northern Ireland Members in particular welcome the opportunities provided by appropriation debates to raise issues which concern them and their constituents. They would not expect me, therefore, to be able to cover everything in response. This evening is for them, and they have, understandably, focused on some of the problems facing Northern Ireland.
  In the nearly four months that I have been a Northern Ireland Minister, I have also come to recognise the positive
  782
  side to life in Northern Ireland, which is often overlooked. I have been struck by the friendliness and enthusiasm of the people, by their determination to overcome setbacks and difficulties, and by their hopes for the future. I have even enjoyed the company, advice and good will of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have greatly helped me to carry out my job and welcome my tasks. I am also impressed by the exciting developments in the pipeline in the Province——
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    TRAFFIC AREAS (REORGANISATION)
    That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991, dated 12th February 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

    REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
    That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    CONTRACT AWARDS
    (COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY PROCEDURES)
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8162/90, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H.M. Treasury on 26th February relating to compliance with the Community rules on procedures for the award of supplies, works and certain services contracts by operators in the energy, telecommunications, transport and water sectors; and supports the Government's intention to press for an effective means of encouraging compliance by providing appropriate remedies for suppliers and contractors harmed by a breach of those rules and which places appropriate responsibility on member states.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

  Scottish Regiments
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The Ministry of Defence is properly reviewing the structure, personnel and assets of the three armed services in the light of envisaged defence needs, following the ending of the cold war and the reunification of Germany.
  This evening I wish to draw attention to the concern in Scotland about the speculation which has been rife over the future of Scotland's regiments and military bases. In an early-day motion I drew attention to the fact that, in the 300 years since the Act of Union, Scotland has contributed massively towards the British armed forces. Scottish regiments have a record of being in the thick of battle in defence of our British national interests. I also drew attention to the fact that the vast majority of Scots have welcomed the many military bases located in Scotland.
  The points that I wish to make this evening are political, economic and strategic. The Ministry of Defence should reject the current conventional wisdom that the United Kingdom no longer needs to maintain a viable, European theatre, credible, conventional and nuclear deterrent capability. The idea is that somehow there is a peace dividend that will produce massive cuts in the defence budget and substantial reductions in manpower and equipment. The conventional wisdom was wrong about the Falklands and out-of-theatre naval operations. Thanks to the existence of the through-deck cruiser, now known as the mini-aircraft carrier, and the Harrier aircraft, linked to the skill and courage of our professional military, the politicians' chestnuts were pulled out of the fire and the Falklands were retaken.
  Conventional wisdom was also wrong about the middle east, and was again spectacularly wrong about Iraq and the Gulf. Does anyone seriously believe that the United Nations will not look again to the United States and Britain for military support to prevent further military aggression; or that in this dangerous and unstable world, we shall not again be forced to act militarily to defend our national interests; or that a nuclear-capable and politically unstable Soviet Union may not be more dangerous than a stable cold-war Soviet Union? Can we ever be sure that the Soviet military, which has transferred more tanks than the British Army possesses to the Soviet navy in an attempt to circumvent conventional arms treaties, may not be tempted to indulge in risking military adventures against democratic neighbouring states or former COMECON states, even if only to divert attention from its domestic problems?
  Events in the Gulf have clearly shown that our Community partners cannot be guaranteed to make common cause against a dictator, even when the dictator, as in the Gulf, is threatening vital European interests. At first, Germany was against the United Nations moves, while France and Italy, at the beginning, can best be described as having dithered and wobbled. Belgium's refusal to co-operate and supply ammunition demonstrat-ed that common weapons and ammunition are of 'value only when they are available. Belgium's refusal was a poor reward for our having freed that country twice this
  784
  century, and it contrasted badly with the ready United States assistance given to the United Kingdom during the Falklands war.
  I believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that, instead of making defence cuts, we should invest in new technology and smart weapons. We cannot ignore the low casualties and the importance of aerial supremacy, linked to control of the sea lanes, which produced a massive military victory in the Gulf.
  There are sound military and British reasons for changing "Options for Change" to "Options for Improvement and Capability". Such a policy would call for modern, flexible, out-of-theatre rapid deployment forces, with a European conventional and nuclear capability. There are also sound strategic and economic reasons, as well as military reasons, for maintaining Scotland's military bases and regiments. General Schwarzkopf is reported to have told the Jocks that the Gulf war could not have been successfully concluded without them. The Prime Minister said in Scotland last week that the Jocks were in the Gulf because they were the best troops to do the job.
  One lesson of the Gulf is that modern, highly trained professional soldiers can be in battle in battalions made up from a number of different regiments. I hope, however, that that important experience will not lead Ministers into making the mistake of believing that regimental loyalties and traditions are no longer important in battle conditions. First, commanders must have troops from different regiments under their command. Consequently, in peace time, recruitment and retention are essential ingredients if adequate wartime numbers of professional and trained troops are to be available. In that respect, Scotland's regiments have a contribution to make as their record of recruitment and retention is of the best. If one excludes periods such as last year, when recruitment was frozen the Scottish regiments have always been able to find enough recruits of the right quality. If mixed battalions are to be used, it is better to reinforce success and to keep the regiments with the best records of recruitment and retention.
  There is an old military axiom, "back success", and that axiom will apply even if the cavalry of the future operates helicopters instead of tanks or if the mechanised mobile infantry go into battle in helicopters instead of armoured personnel carriers.
  My message is simple—back success. Cap badges and traditions, coupled with local community support, will be even more important in the future. If we keep Scotland's regiments, we shall keep Britain's ability to respond to unplanned-for military needs. My hon. Friend the Minister has a good Scottish name and it will not be lost on him that the very existence of the unique Scottish regiments will contribute greatly to maintaining the Union. That Union is constantly under threat from narrow nationalist and socialist nationalist political activists—some in this House. For that reason alone, we should not abandon the regiments, and we should have no truck with the conventional thinking that claims that we no longer need the regiments in a modern professional Army.
  I cannot envisage a British Army without the highland and lowland regiments. I cannot imagine circumstances when there would be no Black Watch, Gordons, Royal Scots, Argylls or King's Own Scottish Borderers—the list

  785
  of regiments is endless. Their absence would be unthinkable, as it would mean no Union, no Britain, no future for us from north of the border in the House.
  The Royal Air Force bases in Scotland made a great contribution to the Gulf air force. Leuchars, Lossiemouth and Kinloss all made their respective contributions with the Tornado, Jaguar, Nimrod and Buccaneer. The various helicopter and RAF regiment units also played a distinguished part in the Gulf war and less well-known bases contributed specialist contingents to the Gulf.
  I trust that the lessons of the success of all three versions of the Tornado aircraft will not be lost on the Government. Although all the aircraft and crews made their own unique contributions, the Tornado made a particular one. Aerial supremacy was achieved first by the low-level sorties of the GR1. That supremacy was maintained by a mix of low and medium-level attacks against airfields and radar sites.
  The Tornado crews vindicated the need for low-level practice missions throughout Scotland's glens. Many such exercises take place in glens in my constituency, but my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I have never criticised the need for low flying.
  We owe a massive debt to the RAF air crews. I remind my hon. Friend that RAF pilots who are able to execute battle sorties cannot be produced at the drop of a hat. It is important to remember that a pool of experienced, combat-capable pilots and air crews are essential for more than just low-level flying.
  In that respect, search-and-rescue crews must also be available and capable of operating behind enemy lines. Privatised search and rescue crews would not and could not be available for such tasks. There may be short-term financial arguments in favour of such privatisation, but there are even more compelling strategic reasons for maintaining an RAF and Royal Navy search-and-rescue capability. Is it not about time that the Wessex flight at Leuchars was re-equipped with the all-weather Sea Kings?
  I should also mention the contribution made by the royal naval helicopter workshop in my constituency. The Almondbank workshop may not be well known outside the Royal Navy or Perthshire, but it has a work force of highly skilled and highly motivated people who made an important contribution to Royal Navy helicopter serviceability and availability.
  I should also mention the Royal Marine base at Cawdor. The home of 45 Royal Marine Commando is also an important base in Tayside, and the people of Angus welcome the continuing existence of the base.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me speak next of Rosyth naval base. The leaks about the future of that base were at best disturbing and at worst a kick in the teeth for the crews of the minehunter flotilla that performed so magnificently in the Gulf. It is no secret that the Rosyth mine-hunters were the only effective mine-hunters in the Gulf. Without them, the United Nations coalition naval force would not have been able to operate in the northern Gulf, and that would have had profound consequences on the conduct of the campaign.
  I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence will accept that we in Scotland do not believe that it is sensible—militarily, politically or economically—to contemplate closing the base. Instead,
  786
  Ministers should be arguing the strategic importance of location, the economic importance to central Scotland and the political contribution to maintaining the union through the continuing operation of the base.
  I understand that different studies have shown that savings can be made simply by a reallocation of responsibilities and a reduction in staffing levels, leading to as big a saving as would be achieved by putting the base into care and maintenance. During this short debate, I do not have the time to deal in depth with the huge pile of facts which show that the Government would be unwise to contemplate closing Rosyth.
  This is an argument not between the Labour and Scottish National party Members of Parliament and a Tory Government, but between the political logic of recognising the contribution made by the Scots to the maintenance of the union through Scotland's regiments and military bases. It is politically unwise to ask the Scots, who represent 9 per cent. of the population, to accept the presence of nuclear-capable submarines in the Clyde and the Forth and also to accept the loss of regiments and bases, when their contribution both in personnel and bases has always been well in excess of the 9 per cent. That fact was recognised by the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Scotland.
  Let me make my position crystal clear. I accept that there must be change, that modern, smart weapons are expensive, that we may require smaller, more technically capable armed forces, and that highly complex weapons platforms, be they ships, tanks or aircraft—fixed wing or rotary wing—will probably call for a radical change of procurement policy and maintenance. This in turn will call for greater specialisation, both in bases and the rationalisation of suppliers. In many instances, there will be no opportunity to obtain competitive tenders and Rosyth, for example, could become a minehunter and fishery protection specialist base with another base, say, specialising in aircraft carriers and another in nuclear submarines.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will see that I expect them to reject the original "Options For Change" and instead to argue for a military capability based on recent. real, hot war experience—not on political or military theory, but on the realities and logistics of moving, deploying, supplying and, in the end, of fighting a war with smart weapons and the latest technology. Scotland has a contribution to make. We want to make that contribution both in the regular forces and in the territorial reserves and the auxiliary forces. At a later date, I hope to be able to enlarge on that. We shall fight to retain our regiments and bases. There are no soft options, and the Scottish Conservative party, of which I am a vice-chairman, is determined to maintain the unique Scottish contribution to the armed forces, because we recognise its value to the Union and to Scotland's economy.
  11.49 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I warmly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said. It is an interesting coincidence that, in the 1960s, I initiated an Adjournment debate with a view to saving the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. We won that battle, and I hope that we are setting out to ensure that the remaining Scottish regiments retain their full

  787
  position. My family has a long relationship with the highland regiments—a relationship stretching over many generations. Tonight, I speak for all the Scottish regiments, including the King's Own Scottish Borderers —my constituency regiment.
  When the "Options for Change" were announced, I urged caution. Later, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to pause while the international situation was so involved and so uncertain. It seemed to be quite the wrong time to proceed with a major reorganisation of our services. Certainly, we want to see some peace dividend, but we must proceed carefully. I think that all Members of Parliament want to have some influence on the "Options for Change". We know that work is going on apace, and we are very concerned about it. Positions are being taken up, and before we know what is happening, announcements will be made and the machinery will swing into motion.
  We have seven battalions in Scotland, plus, of course, the Scots Guards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said, they are the best recruited in the Army. The Scottish regiments have a particular family tradition. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will recall the sad event at Brize Norton on Friday to honour the three young Jocks brought home from the Gulf—three soldiers who had very close family connections with the Queen's Own Highlanders, one of the most distinguished regiments.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the training situation in Scotland. We have only Glen Corse. If we lose it, we shall be left with Ouston, near Newcastle. It is very important that Scottish recruits should be able to go to a training depot in Scotland.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said about Royal Air Force and Royal Navy facilities in Scotland—with particular emphasis on Rosyth. We often hear that 15 to 20 battalions may have to go. Is it to be a question of equal misery, or are certain regiments to be chosen, and the situation to be worked out on the basis of merit and recruiting standards? We could probably get rid of 15 battalions without losing a cap badge. Sadly, that may mean losing some of the Gurkhas and the second battalion of the Guards Brigade. In that situation, we should not be far from achieving the reduction that seems to be required.
  But it would be a sad reward for magnificent service in the Gulf if our soldiers were to come home and find that some of their regiments were to be disbanded or amalgamated. There would be serious political and military consequences. We should not underestimate the effect in Scotland of a drastic reduction. It would have a serious impact on morale and on the effectiveness of our services. I ask my hon. Friend to proceed with the greatest caution and the maximum consultation.
  11.53 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate and on raising this issue. I welcome the opportunity to reassert the continuing importance of Scotland to the operational effectiveness and support of the armed forces. The Scottish people have a long association with our armed forces—a tradition of which they have every right to be proud. I should like first to outline the range of defence activities
  788
  undertaken by the three services in Scotland. I shall then, insofar as it is possible at this stage of our work on "Options for Change", say something about the future, which is, of course, the principal concern in this debate.
  Recent events in the Gulf are stilt very much in our minds. Scotland has made a significant contribution to the international community's campaign to liberate Kuwait. I hope that there will be time, later in my speech, to describe something of the scale, breadth and quality of the effort devoted by service and civilian personnel both to meeting operational emergencies such as the Gulf conflict and to discharging a wide range of peacetime tasks.
  Starting, as is traditional, with the Royal Navy, at the Clyde submarine base at Faslane, the contribution of the work force towards ensuring that we have been able to maintain at least one of our Polaris submarines on patrol since 1969 cannot be overestimated. It is a task that it will continue to fulfil when Trident replaces Polaris in the mid-1990s. The work force also provides invaluable support to a number of nuclear and conventionally powered submarines which operate from the Clyde base. The building work that has been going on at both Coulport and Faslane comprises one of the largest construction projects in western Europe, which must have brought inestimable benefit to that part of Scotland.
  On the east coast, Rosyth naval base currently serves as the home port for a squadron of destroyers as well as for most of the Navy's minor war vessel flotilla, which carry out a myriad tasks, including mine counter-measures and fisheries protection.
  Aside from the two naval bases and the royal dockyard at Rosyth, Scotland also supports the Navy by providing bases for the Marines and the Reserves, armaments, stores and fuel depots, training and research establishments and the naval air station at HMS Gannet. Scotland therefore makes a full and varied contribution to all aspects of naval operations.
  As for the Army, Scottish regiments are among the oldest in the United Kingdom. Two good examples of the strength and length of this tradition are the Scots Guards, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred, which can trace its history back to 1642, and the Royal Scots, the First of Foot, originally raised in 1633, which is the senior British infantry regiment. Scottish regiments have distinguished themselves in battle time and again for over 300 years, from Waterloo and the Crimea—where the Sutherland Highlanders formed the thin red line—to the major campaigns of both world wars.
  All Scottish regiments have elements on operational tours at the moment. Indeed, 72 per cent. of the Scottish divisions' manpower is currently on operations. For example, the 1st Battalion the Gordon Highlanders returned from Ulster last December and is at present the spearhead battalion, which means that it is on reduced notice for worldwide deployment. Both the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion the Queen's Own Highlanders are on their second operational tour in Ulster in under 12 months.
  The Royal Air Force is strongly represented in Scotland, with four main bases. It was no surprise to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North macle reference to that. With its two squadrons of Tornado F3 aircraft, RAF Leuchars has long played an important role in the air defence of the United Kingdom. Since the 1970s, RAF Kinloss has been home to three squadrons of

  789
  Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, carrying out antisubmarine and anti-surface shipping roles. RAF Lossiemouth has two squadrons of Buccaneer maritime strike attack aircraft and the Shackleton airborne early warning squadron. Lastly, RAF Buchan, in conjunction with the facilities at Benbecula and Saxa Vord, provides ground-based air defence radar coverage for Scotland and the area to the north of the United Kingdom mainland.
  As for the future, I am of course aware of the strength of feeling attaching to the options for change work announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last July. I recall that when it was necessary in 1968 to announce a reorganisation of the structure of the Army, the reaction of Scottish Members showed clearly that Scotland is fiercely jealous of its regiments, and rightly so. I assure the House that Scottish regiments will get the same fairness and impartiality of treatment that will be given to all units in the British Army when we plan for change.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House during the Gulf debate on 21 January, we are continuing to study the broad proposals for change with our allies. In view of the collapse of communism in eastern Europe and the end of the cold war, it remains our intention to move towards the new force structures by the mid-1990s. However, we are not yet in a position to take final decisions on the size and shape of the armed forces. I wish to make it clear that, contrary to recent speculation in the press and elsewhere, no decisions have yet been taken regarding Scottish regiments, or indeed any other regiments.
  Of course, we are still examining the scope for rationalisation, especially in the support area—for example, a study is under way into the possible closure of Rosyth naval base, but I must emphasise that here again no decision has been taken. The whole range of fleet support activities is being examined as part of the restructuring of the Royal Navy under "Options for Change". There should be no doubt that we need to achieve substantial savings in support costs if we are to sustain appropriate force levels. The present round of studies should be completed shortly, and their recommen-dations will obviously need to be considered carefully before any decision is made.
  Initial work showed that the closure of Rosyth naval base might contribute significantly to the support savings for which we are looking under options. Further work into the implications of closure was therefore Commissioned to provide some of the evidence needed for an informed decision. In reaching a decision, we shall wish to consider
  790
  all relevant factors, including the post-options force levels, the MOD's financial position, strategic and operational requirements and the implications for employment, the local economy and naval and civilian personnel.
  Final decisions on options for change will depend on many factors, including lessons learned in the Gulf, discussions with our NATO allies and developments in our relationship with the Soviet Union. I am sure that the House will understand that we need to draw the correct lessons from the Gulf conflict, assess the risks remaining elsewhere in the world and plan carefully for cautious and measured change.
  I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the significant contribution which Scotland has made to the successful participation by our forces in the international community's campaign to liberate Kuwait.
  The five Royal Navy mine counter-measures vessels, HMS Hurworth, Cattistock, Atherstone, Dulverton and Ledbury, which have played a leading role in countering the mining threat to allied ships in the northern Gulf, are all based at Rosyth. Their success is in no small part due to those at the base who helped in preparing the ships for this difficult and dangerous task in a very short time. The naval supply and transport office at Rosyth, the armament depots at Crombie and Beith and the NATO armaments depot at Glen Douglas have all given superb support to forces in the Gulf through the efficient provision of armaments, food, fuel and general naval stores.
  Scottish regiments were well represented in the Gulf, although I have seen some rather exaggerated estimates in early-day motions and in the press. They provided Challenger tanks and M109 guns for 7th Armoured Brigade, Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicles for 4th Brigade and manpower for special tasks such as casualty evacuation, handling of prisoners of war and reinforcement of field hospitals. We estimate that about 9 per cent. of the total of Regular Army soldiers who served in the Gulf were from Scottish regiments. Of course, not everyone serving in a Scottish regiment is necessarily Scottish, and the figure of 9 per cent. does not take account of the fact that many other personnel of Scottish origin will also have served in the Gulf in units with no specific ties to Scotland such as the Royal Engineers or the Royal Corps of Transport.
  I emphasise that the strong representation from Scotland was purely coincidental——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals, by species, were killed during the last year for which details are available specifically for the provision of cell or tissue material for research or experimental purposes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 controls scientific procedures only on living animals and no statistics are collected of animals killed by the exempted methods set out in schedule 1 to the 1986 Act for in vitro work.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department proposes in respect of those recommendations of the Medical Research Council inquiry team investigating the conduct of experiments on animals by Professor Wilhelm Feldberg at the National Institute for Medical Research laborato-ries, Mill Hill, London, which relate to the functions and decisions of the Home Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office accepts the Medical Research Council inquiry report's finding that, as a result of a failure by Professor Feldberg and Mr. Stean to maintain anaesthesia of sufficient depth, up to four rabbits were caused avoidable suffering.

  Primary responsibility for ensuring that procedures regulated by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are carried out properly at an establishment lies with the holder of the certificate of designation. In the light of the report, officials have discussed with the certificate holder for the National Institute for Medical Research proposals for improving the management, control and monitoring of animals procedures at the institute, which he is now considering. We have also asked the MRC for the evidence of the alleged deliberate breaches of the Act referred to in the report.

  As for the two recommendations contained in the report relating to the Home Office, initial proposals have been put to the Animal Procedures Committee about the position of aging licensees and we shall consider what action may be necessary when the committee has completed its consideration of the issues arising from this case.

  We do not accept the recommendation in the report for an increase in the number of animal (scientific procedures) inspectors. Although the report suggests that inspectors should be more closely involved in monitoring the treatment of animals during experiments, this is principally the responsibility of personal licensees, who have a duty under the law for the care of their animals. It would be impractical to expect inspectors to be present whenever animal procedures are carried out.
  334
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the estimate of the number of wild-caught primates, by species, currently held in British scientific institutions for the purposes of experimentation;

  (2) how many wild-caught primates were used in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years for experimental purposes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistics about the origin of primates held or used are not kept centrally. In general, smaller primates, like marmosets, are bred in captivity. Primates larger than rhesus or cynomolgous monkeys are difficult to breed successfully in captivity, even abroad.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific provision is made in each of the police authorities in Wales for the enforcement of wildlife protection legislation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constables in each of the police forces in Wales that each force has well-established liaison arrangements with those other agencies which have an interest in wildlife protection. The allocation of resources to the enforcement of wildlife protection legislation is a matter for chief officers.

  Escapees
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which prison Lydia A. Gyamifi escaped on 8 February 1988; and whether she has since been recaptured.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Lydia A. Gyamifi absconded from Her Majesty's prison Askham Grange and is still unlawfully at large.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West of 28 February and 1 March,Official Report, columns 568 and 648, on recapture of escapees, which of the escapees were on drug-related offences, which of the escapees were in debt to the courts; and which escapees' passports are in the possession of his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The 10 women concerned had all been convicted of drug offences. None is known to have been in debt to the courts at the time of absconding from prison. The passports of five of the 10 women are in the possession of the Home Office.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Metropolitan police precept for 1990–91 per community charge payer, and also the police precept per community charge payer for each of the English counties.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Metropolitan police precept for 1990–91 was 112·79 per head of relevant population. County police forces in England and Wales do not produce identifiable precepts; their budgets form part of the expenditure of the relevant county councils, which precept on the community charge collection fund for the totality of their needs.

  Welsh Police Forces
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present state of the police forces in Wales.

  Police strength1

  Establishment2

  Civilian strength1

  Number of officers returned to operational duties 1985–89

  Dyfed-Powys

  936

  943

  243

  21

  Gwent

  1,001

  1,009

  290

  23

  North Wales

  1,339

  1,351

  439

  28

  South Wales

  3,123

  3,168

  1,111

  134

  Total

  6,399

  6,471

  2,083

  206

  1 As at 31 December 1990.

  2 As at 1 April 1990.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between 5 January 1990 and 7 March 1991 we received 187 such letters from Members of the European Parliament. As I explained in my reply on 4 April 1990, at column 638, to a question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), where Members of the European Parliament raise matters that are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As to other correspondence, replies would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission about the desirability of maintaining the practice of not televising tobacco-sponsored sporting events; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires the ITC to draw up and consult about a code on the sponsorship of programmes. My right hon. Friend was consulted about the present code, which lays down standards for any broadcast coverage of tobacco-sponsored events. Whether to cover such events remains a decision for the television companies.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation about the exposure of tobacco brand names and logos in television coverage of sponsored sporting events; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. The BBC is, however, aware of the special issues raised by tobacco company sponsorship which are fully reflected in its guidelines to programme makers. The BBC observes the terms of the voluntary agreement reached between the Minister for Sport and the Tobacco Advisory Council in 1987.
  336
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is set out in the table:

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Wide publicity has been given throughout my Department to the aims of the eighth No Smoking Day, to take place on 13 March.

  Postal and Proxy Voting
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what newspapers and magazines were used to advertise the availability of postal and proxy voting during the period before the 1987 general election; and at what cost.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Advertisements were placed in the following newspapers. The campaign cost £431,000.

  Sun

  Daily Star

  Daily Mirror

  Today

  Daily Express

  Daily Mail

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  News of the World

  Sunday Express

  The Mail on Sunday

  The Sunday Times

  The Times

  The Guardian

  The Independent

  The Daily Telegraph

  Financial Times

  Morning Star

  The Observer

  The Sunday Telegraph

  News on Sunday

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers' Negotiating Rights
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the European trade union committee for education on negotiating rights for teachers; and if he will make a statement.
  337
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I received a letter dated 22 December 1990 from the European trade union committee for education about teachers' negotiating rights on 3 January 1991

  Autism
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has undertaken a full evaluation of the work of the Higashi school for autistic children in Boston, USA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department has not undertaken a full evaluation of the Higashi school, but is continuing to seek information about its principles, methods and effectiveness.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in his Department; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of work places provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mr. Eggar
  In addition to the Department's two main sites in London and Darlington, there are 41 HMI local offices each containing fewer than 12 members of staff. The Darlington site has a holiday play scheme for which in 1990–91 parents paid £4 per day for the first child and £3 for each subsequent child. The net cost to the Department of the provision was £3,800 which is expected to rise to £4,000 in 1991–92. There are plans to provide nursery facilities at the Darlington site but no plans for after-school child care.

  The Department has no plans to provide any on-site child care provision in London. However, the Westminster holiday play scheme, supported by this and other Departments, is available during each of the school holiday periods to employees' children. In addition, the Department is considering with other Departments the establishment of interdepartmental creche facilities in London and commuting areas.

  Science and Engineering Research Council.
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider additional funding for the next financial year for the Science and Engineering Research Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The science budget for 1991–92 has already been fully allocated to the five research councils and related bodies.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish details of all voluntary-aided city technology colleges that are planned and their intended locations, together with(a) the cost to local
  338
  authorities, (b) the total public expenditure involved and (c) the amount of sponsorship (i) pledged and (ii) confirmed; who the sponsors are; and if he will make a statement on their legal and financial status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am still considering the legal and financial implications of proposals that voluntary-aided schools with the characteristics of city technology colleges might offer a worthwhile new means of extending the undoubted benefits of the CTC programme.

  Education, Norfolk
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the percentage increase in teachers employed by Norfolk county council between 1961 and(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990 in actual and full-time equivalent terms and the percentage increase over the same period in the number of children being educated by Norfolk county council, excluding nursery pupils and nursery teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information for individual local authorities for 1961 and 1970 is not readily available on a basis comparable to later years because of local government reorganisation in 1974. The table gives the requested information for 1980 and 1990.

  Maintained Primary1 and Secondary schools in Norfolk

  Teachers

  Actual number (thousands)

  Full-time equivalent (thousands)

  Pupils Fill-time equivalent (thousands)

  1980

  6·3

  6·0

  115·9

  1990

  6·4

  5·8

  99·4

  Per cent. change

  +2·5

  -2·6

  -14·3

  Northern Region
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give the numbers attending full-time courses at(a) universities and (b) polytechnics in the Northern region in 1980 and 1990, together with the percentage change.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is given in the table. Data for 1990 are not yet available.

  Full-time and sandwich students in higher education courses at Universities and Polytechnics in the Northern Region

  1980–81

  1989–90

  Percentage change

  Universities

  12,575

  13,702

  9

  Polytechnics

  10,093

  17,742

  76

  Total

  22,668

  31,444

  39

  Source: Universities Statistical Record.

  Further Education Statistical Record.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many meetings he, his predecessor, his Ministers and his Department's officials have had with representatives of the tobacco industry since 1 January 1989; and if he will list the dates, venues and purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Atkins
  I met representatives from the Tobacco Advisory Council on 12 December 1990 at their request to
  339
  discuss a range of issues relating to tobacco sponsorship of sport. Department officials meet representatives from the tobacco industry at meetings of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship—COMATAS.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the current annual total sponsorship of sports by tobacco companies; if he will list these individually; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest available information, provided by the Tobacco Advisory Council, on the total sponsorship of sports in the United Kingdom by British tobacco companies is £5·329 million for the year ending 31 March 1989. A breakdown of this figure is not available. This sum compares with £7·699 million in 1986–87.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will invite representatives of the health professions to participate in his Department's current negotiations with the tobacco industry on the control of tobacco sponsorship; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will report on the progress of his Department's negotiations to date with the tobacco companies on the control of tobacco sponsorship of sporting events; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no current negotiations with the tobacco industry on the control of tobacco sponsorship of sporting events.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No special arrangements have been made for No Smoking Day, but staff who need help and advice can, as always, obtain this from our staff welfare service.

  Disabled Teachers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what advice his Department gives to TASC—the teaching as a career unit—regarding the recruitment and employment of teachers with disabilities;

  (2) what advice he is seeking on the recruitment and employment of teachers with disabilities in preparation for new guidelines for LMS;

  (3) what advice he has given to local education authorities regarding the employment of teachers with disabilities.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department's guidance to employers, teacher training institutions and other bodies is contained in circular 1/88, "Physical and mental fitness to teach of teachers and of entrants to teacher training". My right hon. and learned Friend sees no need for any further advice to TASC or to LEAs or in connection with LMS regarding the recruitment or employment of teachers with disabilities.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the proportion of teachers employed by each local education authority who are disabled.
  340
  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Institute of Food Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the new Institute of Food Research building at Reading university has been completed; when staff will start to occupy it; what is the latest estimate of the cost of its construction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Agricultural Food Research Council expects that the new building for the Institute of Food Research on the campus of the university of Reading will be completed in June this year. Scientists on the present Shinfield site will transfer to the new building in August. The estimated cost of construction is £9·6 million. This new building will provide the Reading laboratory of the IFR with excellent facilities to house the strong scientific programmes on microbiological food safety, consumer sciences, molecular sciences and biotechnology under way at Shinfield. It will also enhance the institute's position as an internationally recognised centre of excellence in food sciences.

  Education, Gloucestershire
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) administrative staff and (b) teaching staff were employed by Gloucestershire education authority in each year from 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  The total employees of Gloucestershire local education authority in March 1990 were as follows:

  Number

  Full-time teachers and lecturers

  4,600

  Part-time teachers and lecturers

  2,800

  Full-time other employees

  2,000

  Part-time other employees

  3,800

  These figures include the nursery, primary and secondary schools sector, special and further education and central administration. Comparable figures for other years are not available.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils attended schools administered by Gloucestershire education authority in each year from 1981 to 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  The number of pupils attending maintained schools in Gloucestershire each year from 1981 to 1990 is as follows:

  Year

  Pupils on Roll

  1981

  87,450

  1982

  84,752

  1983

  82,009

  1984

  80,115

  1985

  78,797

  1986

  76,913

  1987

  76,019

  1988

  75,264

  1989

  74,550

  1990

  74,133

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the proportion of total education spending which is spent on the provision of central services in respect of each local education authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest available information for England relates to LEA spending on central services for schools which are categorised as discretionary excepted items under local management of schools. The eighty-seven LEAs that introduced local management of schools in April 1990 have published budget statements for 1990–91 which show how much of the potential schools budget is withheld from schools to be spent on discretionary excepted items. The figure for each LEA is given in the table. Comparable information is not available for the FE or other education sectors. Information about Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  1990–91 Budgets Percentage of potential schools budget spent on discretionary excepted items

  Local education authority

  Discretionary exceptions as percentage of potential schools budget

  Westminster

  22·02

  Kingston upon Thames

  21·54

  Haringey

  20·64

  Waltham Forest

  20·35

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  20·25

  Merton

  20·21

  Richmond upon Thames

  20·02

  Bromley

  19·30

  Cambridgeshire

  19·25

  Coventry

  19·07

  Bexley

  18·67

  Oxfordshire

  18·63

  Enfield

  18·50

  Harrow

  18·48

  Hounslow

  18·41

  Oldham

  18·36

  Ealing

  18·34

  Humberside

  18·29

  Wolverhampton

  18·23

  Dorset

  18·15

  Calderdale

  18·14

  Knowsley

  18·09

  Bury

  18·08

  Avon

  17·70

  North Tyneside

  17·70

  Wiltshire

  17·65

  Isle of Wight

  17·52

  Cumbria

  17·47

  Sheffield

  17·39

  North Yorkshire

  17·38

  Lancashire

  17·34

  Redbridge

  17·29

  Nottinghamshire

  17·28

  Wakefield

  17·13

  Somerset

  17·09

  Birmingham

  16·96

  Devon

  16·89

  Durham

  16·87

  Sandwell

  16·76

  St. Helens

  16·73

  Wigan

  16·72

  Gateshead

  16·71

  Derbyshire

  16·63

  Barnsley

  16·62

  Kirklees

  16·62

  Sutton

  16·56

  342

  Local education authority

  Discretionary exceptions as percentage of potential schools budget

  Cornwall

  16·43

  Norfolk

  16·38

  Brent

  16·37

  Cleveland

  16·37

  South Tyneside

  16·24

  Havering

  16·13

  Dudley

  16·02

  Bedfordshire

  15·98

  Essex

  15·97

  East Sussex

  15·91

  Cheshire

  15·69

  Barnet

  15·64

  Salford

  15·63

  Trafford

  15·62

  Tameside

  15·60

  Shropshire

  15·40

  Staffordshire

  15·39

  Northamptonshire

  15·26

  Kent

  15·13

  Buckinghamshire

  15·12

  Liverpool

  15·09

  Lincolnshire

  14·87

  Warwickshire

  14·76

  Solihull

  14·69

  Doncaster

  14·55

  Surrey

  14·43

  Suffolk

  14·34

  Walsall

  14·28

  Rochdale

  14·26

  Hampshire

  14·22

  Bradford

  13·96

  Leeds

  13·88

  Rotherham

  13·87

  Northumberland

  13·46

  Gloucestershire

  13·22

  Sunderland

  13·14

  Barking and Dagenham

  12·99

  Sefton

  12·56

  West Sussex

  12·51

  Berkshire

  12·32

  Bolton

  10·90

  Special Needs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make regulations under section 13 of the Education Act 1981 relating to the approval of independent schools to admit pupils with statements of special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales have today laid such regulations before Parliament and issued related circulars. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to lay amending regulations made under section 12 of the Education Act 1981 relating to the approval of special schools, on which he issued a draft for consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Secretaries of State for Education and Science and Wales have today laid before Parliament regulations to amend the Education (Approval of Special Schools) Regulations 1983. The Department has also issued circular 3/91, which replaces circular 6/83 and explains the updated requirements for the approval of special schools. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: The details of such appointments are listed on pages 15 to 17 of the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 1990", which is available in the Library. There are no part-time posts remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has made for continuing the payment of Government grant-in-aid to the Sports Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 January 1991, c. 511]: Parliamentary approval for my Department to make grant-in aid to the Sports Council will be sought in a spring supplementary estimate for the schools, research and miscellaneous services vote—class XI, vote 1. This will provide for expenditure of £1 million in addition to £14,161,000 transferred from the Department of the Environment for the last quarter of 1990–91. The additional expenditure will be offset by a saving elsewhere on the vote. Pending Parliament's approval, urgent expenditure against this additional £1 million will be met by repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

HEALTH

  Funding, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) of 21 February,Official Report, column 239, how much expenditure has been allocated to Leeds from regional and central funding in each year since 1979 (a) at 1990–91 prices and (b) as a percentage of the 1990–91 expenditure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the table. The source and notes to my earlier reply remain applicable.

  Leeds health authorities—total expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  Year

  Revenue expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  As a percentage

  £000 (at 1990–91 prices)

  As a percentage

  1979–80

  187,054

  74·6

  16,751

  112·7

  1980–81

  204,642

  81·6

  20,751

  139·6

  1981–82

  206,799

  82·5

  23,862

  160·6

  1982–83

  205,284

  81·9

  21,602

  145·4

  1983–84

  210,709

  84·0

  19,566

  131·6

  1984–85

  213,272

  85·0

  13,742

  92·5

  1985–86

  215,733

  86·0

  13,334

  89·7

  1986–87

  223,665

  89·2

  10,273

  69·1

  1987–88

  235,516

  93·9

  10,623

  71·5

  1988–89

  245,116

  97·7

  14,136

  95·1

  1989–90

  250,762

  100·0

  14,862

  100·0

  Note: The figures have been expressed at 1990–91 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator. The percentages are calculated on those constant-price values but are related to 1989–90 (the latest year for which actual expenditure data are available).

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name the members of the group representing the interests of national health service trusts at his most recent meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Two seminars for NHS trust chairmen were arranged last month. I attended on 25 February, when 26 of the 57 trusts were represented. All the chairmen had been invited to attend the seminars. A list of the names of trust chairmen is held in the Library.

  Pharmaceutical Licensing Authority
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to support the creation of a central EC pharmaceutical product licensing authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the Government's stated policy to support in principle the European Commission's proposals for the future licensing of medicines, including the creation of a central licensing authority.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances, and by whose authority, children are placed on child protection registers; how many children are on such registers in the London region; how many of these do not have an allocated social worker; what similar figures are available for other parts of the United Kingdom; what are the present legal responsibilities of local authorities towards children on the register; how these will alter when the Children Act comes into force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A child's name is normally placed on the child protection register following discussion at a case conference, convened by the social services department or by the NSPCC in areas where this function is undertaken by the NSPCC in agreement with the social services department, when abuse or potential abuse is confirmed and an inter-agency agreement is made to work co-operatively to protect the child. When a registered child moves the child should be registered at once pending the first case conference in the new area.

  The latest information about the number of children on the registers in London boroughs who are not allocated to a social worker is published in "Child Protection Services in London, Aspects of Management Arrangements in Social Services Departments, 31 December 1989", together with numbers on the registers at the time at which the survey took place. Copies are available in the Library. Similar information is not available centrally for the rest of England.

  The most up-to-date information about numbers on child protection registers relates to 31 March 1990. This information is collected from all local authorities in England and is published in the provisional feedback "Children and Young Persons on Child Protection Registers, year ending 31 March 1990, England". Copies are available in the Library.

  Similar statistics covering the rest of the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Wales and for Scotland.

  The present legal responsibilities of local authorities towards children on the register are the same general

  345
  duties as those towards all children under the Child Care Act 1980: to promote the welfare of children and the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, to investigate the possible need for care proceedings and, if necessary, to take them.

  When the Children Act comes into force children on child protection registers will generally be children in need and entitled to the provision of services set out in section 17 of the Act, whether or not they are looked after by the local authority. Generally the powers to investigate are greater than before, particularly where there is refusal of access to the child.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of money spent by the South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service on(a) preparing its declaration of intent to apply for national health service trust status and (b) hosting seminars on material prepared by the accountants, Parnell, Kerr and Foster.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chief ambulance officer of the South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service for details.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to achieve effective industry self-regulation in food safety and food hygiene;

  (2) which sectors and organisations within the food industry (a) operate and (b) propose to operate voluntary codes of practice in respect of food safety and food hygiene;

  (3) if he will list by sector those food industry organisations that have submitted proposals in respect of achieving effective industry self-regulation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the responsibility of the food industry itself to produce safe food and, like the Richmond committee, the Government encourage self-regulation. Although comprehensive information is not held centrally, we are aware of a number of food industry organisations which have prepared or are preparing guidance on food safety issues for the benefit of their members.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list seminars, workshops and other meetings, indicating whether they were addressed by(a) Ministers or (b) civil servants, on the issue of food safety and food hygiene in each of the years 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ministers and officials from the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office have addressed a large number of conferences, seminars and other meetings to publicise the Food Safety Act 1990 to consumers, enforcement authorities and the food industry. A complete list could not be suppplied except at disproportionate cost.

  Cholesterol Testing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to make cholesterol testing more widely available.
  346
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Standing Medical Advisory Committee was asked to consider the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic cholesterol testing and reported in May last year. Because the report indicated that this is an area of divergent medical opinion, it was decided to issue the report for widespread consultation. Consultation has now been completed and a large number of responses were received. We expect to be in a position to consider the findings soon.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received 94 such letters. As with other correspondence, replies would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned if the original letter had been copied in this way.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of deaths from lung cancer he attributes to smoking; how many such deaths occurred in people under 65 years of age, and in all age groups, in the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the total number of people whose deaths were registered in England and Wales in the years 1985–89 with an underlying cause of malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung; and the number of those aged under 65. It is estimated that at least 90 per cent. of these deaths can be attributed to tobacco smoking.

  Number of deaths with lung cancer1 as underlying cause of death, England and Wales, 1985–89

  Year

  All ages

  0–64 years

  1985

  35,792

  10,665

  1986

  35,257

  10,094

  1987

  35,138

  9,549

  1988

  35,302

  9,571

  1989

  34,581

  8,936

  1 International classification of diseases (9th revision) code 162 —malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the national health service of treatment of smoking-related diseases for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 4 July 1990 at column 594. This estimate is not sufficiently precise to justify the calculation of yearly figures, although it is checked on a regular basis.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days his Department estimates are lost due to smoking-related illness; what is the estimated cost to the gross national product from such days lost; and if he will make a statement.
  347
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Royal College of Physicians has estimated that over 50 million working days are lost each year due to smoking related disease. The likely cost in terms of lost production is about £2,200 million to £3,200 million.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the fourth annual report of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We expect the committee's fourth annual report to be published by the summer.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's negotiations to date with the tobacco industry on the control of tobacco advertising.

  Date

  Venue

  Purpose

  30 January 1990

  Department of Health

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords) met the Tobacco Advisory Council to discuss the draft EC Tobacco Advertising Directive

  31 January 1990

  Department of Health

  The Secretary of State met the Tobacco Advisory Council to open negotiations on updating the voluntary agreements on tobacco advertising and product modification

  27 March 1990

  Department of Health

  Officials met the Tobacco Advisory Council to carry forward negotiations on updating the voluntary agreements

  15 May 1990

  Department of Health

  Officials met the Tobacco Advisory Council to carry forward negotiations on updating the voluntary agreements

  14 November 1990

  House of Lords

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords) met the Tobacco Advisory Council to discuss the implementation of EC Directives on Tobacco

  23 January 1991

  Department of Health

  The Secretary of State met a representative of Imperial Tobacco Ltd. to discuss various tobacco related issues.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of acute beds in national health service hospitals and the total number of in-patient bed days per annum he estimates are used by patients suffering from smoking-related diseases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of bed-days attributable to smoking-related disease was estimated in 1985 to be between 2·8 million and 4·8 million a year. The current figure is likely to be of the same order.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has of the relationship between consumption of cigarettes, particularly by children, and increases in prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 13 January 1989 at column 768. We are not aware of any new studies which have become available since 1989.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the Health Promotion Research Trust.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The funds given to the trust by the tobacco industry will soon be exhausted. I understand that the trustees are prepared to examine other possibilities for continuing the work of the trust.
  348
  Mr. Dorrell
  Discussions have been under way with the tobacco industry on updating the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising since the beginning of 1990. Some progress has been made, but the industry is reluctant to conclude a new agreement until it is clear about the impact on its business of European Community directives to complete the single market. We are pressing the industry to conclude a new agreement in the near future.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings he, his predecessor, his Ministers and his Department's officials have had with representatives of the tobacco industry since 1 January 1989; and if he will list the dates, venues and purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials regularly meet the tobacco industry to discuss a whole range of issues including the working of the voluntary agreements and EC measures on tobacco. Following is a list of the main meetings since 1 January 1989:

  Oral Tobacco
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ban the sale of all new oral tobacco products in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The supply of oral snuff products was banned in the United Kingdom on 13 March 1990 by means of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. On 21 December 1990 the regulations were quashed by the divisional court on a procedural point. We have appealed against that decision.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a full copy of the research commissioned by the committee for monitoring agree-ments on tobacco advertising and sponsorship; if he will list the subjects covered by that research, the period this research covered and the findings of this research; who was commissioned to undertake this research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Details of the research commissioned by the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship are contained in the first, second and third annual reports of the committee, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office—ISBNs 0 11 321138 4, 0 11 321225 9 and 0 11 321306 9—copies of which are in the Library. In addition, Coopers and
  349
  Lybrand Deloitte has recently completed some research on the tobacco industry's adherence to the cigarette voluntary code for promotions with specific reference to direct mail. The period covered by the research was 1989 to 1990. Details will be published in the Committee's fourth report. My hon. Friend is aware that the original research reports are not published because the industry, which meets half the cost of the research, has objected on various grounds. This position was set out in the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave him on 27 October 1989 at column 631.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The membership of the committee is as follows:

  Mr. D. Adams—Welsh Office

  Mr. R. R. Boxall—Gallaher Ltd.

  Mr. W. J. Burroughs—Department of Health

  Mr. N. M. Hale—Department of Health

  Mr. D. R. Hare—Tobacco Advisory Council

  Mr. B. C. W. Heard—Imported Tobacco Products Advisory Council

  Mr. T. S. Heppell—Department of Health

  Mr. A. King—Scottish Office

  Mr. P. Middleton—Imperial Tobacco Ltd.

  Mr. W. C. Owen—Tobacco Advisory Council

  Mr. E. D. Oxberry—Rothmans (UK) Ltd.

  Mr. J. Scott—Department of Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland)

  Mr. P. J. Vaughan—Department of Education and Science

  One place on the industry side of the committee is temporarily vacant. The post of independent chairman is also temporarily vacant following the resignation of Sir Peter Lazarus in January. The Government and the tobacco industry hope to make a new appointment to this post shortly.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will invite representatives of the health professions to

  Indicative Allocation

  Bid

  Amount of allocation not taken up

  Per cent, of grant allocation not taken up

  £

  £

  £

  Salford

  110,000

  nil

  110,000

  100·0

  Bromley

  130,000

  76,160

  53,840

  70·1

  Bolton

  120,000

  98,200

  21,800

  22·2

  Havering

  90,000

  75,000

  15,000

  20·0

  Redbridge

  110,000

  100,000

  10,000

  10·0

  Tameside

  90,000

  84,000

  6,000

  7·1

  Essex

  560,000

  531,600

  28,390

  5·3

  Hampshire

  550,000

  532,888

  17,112

  3·2

  Bury

  70,000

  67,900

  2,100

  3·1

  Surrey

  370,000

  364,399

  5,601

  1·5

  Oxfordshire

  200,000

  198,940

  1,060

  0·5

  Sefton

  110,000

  109,685

  315

  0·3

  Avon

  370,000

  369,437

  563

  0·2

  Stockport

  110,000

  109,807

  193

  0·2

  Hereford

  220,000

  219,649

  351

  0·1

  Nottinghamshire

  400,000

  399,700

  300

  <0·1

  Warwickshire

  170,000

  169,995

  5

  <0·1

  Hammersmith

  150,000

  149,940

  60

  <0·1

  350
  participate in his Department's current negotiations with the tobacco industry on the control of tobacco advertising; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department's own professional advisers have considerable expertise in these matters and are represented at the negotiating sessions.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  National No Smoking Day has been publicised widely in the Department. The following activities are planned for 13 March:manned information points in building foyers with publicity and leaflets on leading a healthy lifestyle, and encouragement to enrol for stop smoking courses sponsored by the Department.
  opportunities for smokers to hand in their cigarettes and enter a prize draw.
  publicity in staff canteen.
  exhibitions by the Occupational Health Service and the Look After Your Heart project manned by professional advisers available to give advice on giving up smoking.

  The aims of national No Smoking Day and the initiatives outlined above have the full support of Ministers in the Department.

  Mental Health Grant
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities which have indicated that they are not taking up the full amount of the new mental health specific grant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The local authorities which have indicated that they are not taking up the full amount of the new mental illness specific grant are;

  Bed Closures
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate for the number of hospital bed closures during the current financial year; and when figures will be available on an area basis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not routinely collect this information centrally, since bed numbers are not a good indicator of levels of service in the national health service. It is for each health authority to determine the level and mix of health service provision in its area, taking account of local circumstances and the increased resources available to them.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why it has been decided not to make the needles used with Novapen syringes available at no charge to people who receive a free supply of insulin on prescription.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS supply arrangements for insulin pens and needles need to be considered together. Subject to our normal evaluation of individual brands, including Novapen, we would consider making pens and needles prescribable as an alternative to syringes, if this could be done without additional cost. Discussions with suppliers are currently in progress.

  Laboratory Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the survey of laboratory backlogs and workload carried out in the second half of 1990 referred to in his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 240.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The survey dealt only with those district health authorities in which the processing time for cervical smear tests was over one month on 1 July 1990. These are listed in the table with the length of the backlog and the number of smears received in the period March to May 1990. Since the length of backlogs changes over time, the current position is likely to vary from that shown. Two out of three health authorities processed smear tests within the requested one month.

  Survey of laboratory backlogs and workloads: July 1990

  DHA

  Backlog (weeks)

  Smears Received March-May 1990

  Northern

  North West Durham

  7·5

  3,171

  Newcastle

  5·5

  24,053

  North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  Yorkshire

  Hull

  7

  13,116

  East Yorkshire

  Grimsby

  6

  5,684

  Bradford

  6

  12,956

  Airedale

  Wakefield

  6

  5,589

  Trent

  South Derbyshire

  6

  16,061

  Nottingham

  12

  22,205

  Doncaster

  12

  7,942

  Rotherham

  8

  n/a

  Sheffield

  6

  14,420

  East Anglia

  Cambridge

  12

  8,254

  352

  DHA

  Backlog (weeks)

  Smears Received March-May 1990

  West Norfolk

  6

  n/a

  North West Thames

  North Bedfordshire

  8

  6,396

  Barnet

  5

  n/a

  North East Thames

  North East Essex

  12

  8,155

  Southend

  11

  11,144

  Haringey

  5

  4,623

  Basildon and Thurrock

  13

  8,091

  Redbridge

  14

  5,260

  West Essex

  10

  6,933

  Mid Essex

  6·5

  8,769

  Enfield

  5·5

  n/a

  South East Thames

  Canterbury/Thanet

  5

  7,510

  Dartford/Gravesend

  5

  6,144

  Medway

  5

  8,244

  Tunbridge Wells

  7

  6,167

  Greenwich

  12

  3,975

  Bromley

  7

  9,300

  Lewisham and North Southwark (Guy's)

  13

  3,630

  South West Thames

  Worthing

  9

  n/a

  Merton/Sutton

  5

  n/a

  South West Surrey

  7

  n/a

  Wessex

  West Dorset

  5

  n/a

  Portsmouth

  8·5

  n/a

  Southampton

  5

  n/a

  Swindon

  7

  n/a

  Bath

  8

  n/a

  Oxford

  Oxfordshire

  5·5

  n/a

  East Berkshire

  10

  10,915

  Aylesbury Vale

  5

  12,969

  South Western

  Bristol and Weston

  5

  14,911

  Frenchay

  Southmead

  Cornwall

  7

  11,651

  Exeter

  7

  11,959

  Torbay

  7

  6,708

  West Midlands

  Herefordshire

  6

  4,443

  Worcestershire

  8

  5,557

  Shropshire

  7

  12,295

  South Warwickshire

  6

  7,349

  Central Birmingham (part)

  5

  8,072

  West Birmingham

  5

  8,010

  Coventry

  5

  10,569

  Mersey

  Liverpool (part)

  5

  4,016

  St. Helens and Knowlsey

  6·5

  5,820

  Chester

  6

  6,161

  North Western

  West Lancashire

  8

  1,491

  Bolton

  7

  7,698

  Rochdale

  10

  4,174

  Stockport

  8

  3,212

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the consideration of the fitness of applicants to run private care and nursing homes to include an assessment of the fitness of persons holding office in companies in ownership of homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sanctions are available to registration authorities when a successful prosecution for the operation of an unregistered home does not lead to the closure of the home.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It would be open to the registration authority to take fresh proceedings against the person running the home.

  The Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will, if it becomes law, extend the requirement to register to residential care homes with fewer than four residents.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action can be taken by registration authorities against private or voluntary residential care or nursing homes which fail to produce and provide residents with a written complaints procedure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Persons registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 are required to inform residents in residential care homes in writing how any complaints will be dealt with and to see that complaints received are fully investigated. If this requirement is not observed the response of the registration authority will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The objective will always be to ensure that an effective complaints procedure is in place.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a requirement for the public display of complaints procedures within residential care and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about NHS prescription and related charges and optical vouchers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today laid before the House regulations for increases in prescription charges in the national health service in England and Wales which will take effect from 1 April 1991. The prescription charge will increase by 35p from £3·05 to £3·40. The increase of nearly 11·5 per cent. reflects the higher cost of the pharmaceutical services and will provide about £17 million extra income to the resources available to the health service in England and Wales.

  The new charge will continue to represent less than half the cost of an average prescription to the NHS. The existing exemption arrangements under which about four out of five of all prescription items are provided free of charge remain unchanged. The four-monthly and annual prepayment certificates will continue to be available, the
  354
  fees for which will increase from £15·80 and £43·50 to £17·60 and £48·50 respectively. The effect of the wide-ranging exemption arrangements and the continued availability of prepayment certificates is that a charge will be paid in respect of less than 20 per cent. of all items dispensed in the NHS.

  The charges for elastic stockings and tights, fabric supports and wigs supplied through the hospital service will also be increased from 1 April, as set out in table A.

  Turning now to general dental services, at present those patients who are liable to pay a dental charge contribute a fixed proportion—75 per cent.—of the cost of each course of treatment, up to a maximum of £150. The House has already been informed that we have no plans to increase the proportional charge. However, the maximum charge has remained unchanged since 1988 and, from 1 April 1991, it will be raised to £200.

  I am pleased to announce increased help for people who receive vouchers towards the cost of their spectacles. Overall the value of spectacle vouchers will increase by 6 per cent. from 1 April and the most frequently prescribed A, B and D vouchers will go up by 7·2, 6·1 and 6·5 per cent. respectively. In addition we shall be making changes to the voucher regulations to ensure that people with certain unusual optical prescriptions will be entitled both to free NHS sight tests and to the highest value spectacle vouchers.

  Voucher values for the hospital eye service will rise by 6 per cent. for spectacle vouchers and 11·5 per cent. for contact lens vouchers. The maximum charge payable by patients will also increase.

  The revised voucher values are set out in table B.

  Table A

  New hospital service charges from 1 April 1991 (present charge in brackets)

  Elastic Stockings and tights, wigs and fabric supports

  £

  £

  Each elastic stocking

  3·40

  (3·05)

  Tights supplied through the hospital service

  6·80

  (6·10)

  Surgical brassiere

  14·50

  (13·00)

  Abdominal or spinal support

  19·00

  (17·00)

  Stock modacrylic wig

  29·00)

  (26·00

  Partial human hair wig

  74·50

  (67·00)

  Full bespoke human hair wig

  108·00

  (97·00)

  Table B

  National Health Service Spectacle Voucher Values

  Voucher

  From 1 April 1991 £

  Present value £

  A

  19·30

  18·00

  B

  30·50

  28·75

  C

  48·00

  47·00

  D

  37·00

  34·75

  E

  61·00

  59·75

  F

  102·00

  100·00

  G1

  102·00

  100·00

  H1

  232·15

  228·85

  Complex lenses

  Single vision

  3·60

  3·50

  Bifocal

  19·25

  18·75

  Prisms per lens

  Single vision

  4·10

  4·00

  Bifocal

  5·10

  5·00

  Tints per lens

  Single vision

  2·05

  2·00

  355

  Voucher

  From 1 April 1991 £

  Present value £

  Bifocal

  2·55

  2·50

  Photochromic per lens1

  Single vision

  2·05

  2·00

  Bifocal

  2·55

  2·50

  Small Frame Supplement

  35·20

  34·50

  Supplement for Special Facial Characteristics1

  35·20

  34·50

  1 Hospital Eye Service

  2 Per Lens

PRIME MINISTER

  Purchasing and Distribution
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the full annual cost, including overheads, of his Department's purchasing activity.

  The Prime Minister
  The full cost of the purchasing activity in the Cabinet Office for the current financial year is estimated to be £26 million.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people in the Cabinet Office are wholly or substantially involved in purchasing stores and distribution activities.

  The Prime Minister
  The number of people involved either wholly or substantially in these activities is nine.

  Value for Money
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures of performance are employed by his Department to ensure value for money.

  The Prime Minister
  Although the nature of much of the Cabinet Office's work precludes assessment by way of formal performance measures, the identification of value-for-money targets is an integral part of the Department's planning and budgeting system. The system provides for the regular monitoring of progress towards targets and their achievement.

WALES

  Duffryn Workshops
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will ensure that the West Wales training and enterprise council is adequately funded to avoid Duffryn Workshops in the Afan valley closing during the next month.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I announced on 28 February that over £8 million additional funding would be made available for employment training in Wales in 1991–92. It is the TEC's responsibility to determine which training providers can best meet the training requirements of the locality and to contract accordingly.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of education at primary level in Ceredigion and Dyfed.
  356
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The pattern of provision of maintained primary education in Dyfed is for the local education authority, not for me. However, in response to concerns expressed by some parents, mainly in the Teifi valley area, I have asked the local education authority for details of its introduction of categorisation of primary schools in terms of their use of Welsh as a medium of teaching.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to help smokers give up smoking on No Smoking Day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Welsh Office staff have been fully informed about this year's No Smoking Day and reminded of the standing invitation to join a smoking cessation group.

  European Community
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has visited Brussels concerning his Department's responsibilities in the European Community.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since becoming Secretary of State for Wales on 4 May 1990 I have not visited Brussels to discuss matters relating to Wales and the European Community, but my Department is in close contact with the European Commission and the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels, with officials visiting Brussels regularly to discuss specific policy interests. I am, of course, ready to visit Brussels when it becomes appropriate to do so in pursuit of my departmental responsibilities.

ENERGY

  Gas Turbine Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many licences he has issued for combined cycle gas turbine power stations; what information he has on how many are under construction or for which construction contracts have been let; and which companies are building the plants.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The following combined cycle gas turbine generating—CCGT—stations have been given planning consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989:

  Deeside Power Development Company Ltd.—Deeside Industrial Park, Clywd

  Energy Resources Company Ltd.—Keadby, Humberside

  National Power plc—Killingholme, South Humberside

  National Power plc—Little Barford, Bedfordshire

  PowerGen plc—Killingholme, South Humberside

  PowerGen plc—Rye House, Hertfordshire

  Teesside Power Ltd.—Wilton, Cleveland

  The following applications for consent for CCGT generating stations are still being considered:

  Barking Power Ltd.—Barking, London

  Coryton Cogen Ltd.—Coryton, Essex

  National Power plc—Didcot, Oxfordshire

  National Power plc—Staythorpe, Nottinghamshire

  PowerGen plc—Plymouth, Devon

  Rugby Power Co. Ltd.—Rugby, Warwickshire

  Texaco Ltd.—Angle Bay, Dyfed

  357
  The following projects incorporating CCGT technology have received approval under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976, that is, to establish an electricity generating station to be fuelled by natural gas, or for the conversion of an electricity generating station with a view to its being so fuelled:

  Barking Power Ltd.—Barking, London

  Berisford Bristar plc—Brigg, South Humberside

  British Nuclear Fuels plc—Calder Hall, Sellafield

  British Sugar plc—Bury St. Edmunds

  Rugby Power Co. Ltd.—Rugby, Warwickshire

  Coryton Cogen Ltd.—Coryton Essex

  Deeside Power Development Company Ltd.—Deeside Industrial Park, Clywd

  National Power plc—Killingholme, South Humberside

  National Power plc—Little Barford, Bedfordshire

  PowerGen plc—Rye House, Hertfordshire

  Sheffield Heat and Power—Sheffield

  Shell UK Exploration and Production—Shellhaven, Essex Texaco Ltd./Mission Energy—Angle Bay, Dyfed

  Wiggins Teape—Stoneywood Mill

  The following projects incorporating CCGT technology have received approval under both sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, that is, to establish an electricity generating station fuelled by natural gas and to enter into contractual arrangements for obtaining a supply of natural gas for an electricity generating station, or to extend any such arrangements:

  The Boots Company plc—Beeston, Nottingham

  BP Chemicals Ltd.—Baglan Bay, West Glamorgan

  British Sugar plc—Wissington, Suffolk

  Hawker Siddeley—Corby, South Humberside

  Hawker Siddeley—Peterborough

  ICI plc—Wilton, Cleveland

  Lakeland Power—Roosecote, Cumbria

  Leicester Energy Ltd.—Raw Dykes Road, Leicester

  Occidental Petroleum—Flotta

  PowerGen plc—Killingholme, South Humberside

  Ranger Oil/PowerGen plc—South Denes, Great Yarmouth

  Teesside Power Ltd.—Wilton, Cleveland

  The further information requested by the hon. Member covers commercial matters for the companies concerned.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in his Department; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department's staff are located at seven sites. In addition, there are various small offices where some two to three staff work. My Department does not provide nurseries, holiday play schemes, or after-school care and has no current plans to do so. However, my Department has participated in the holiday play scheme organised in the Westminster area by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Purchasing and Distribution
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people in his Department are wholly or substantially involved in purchasing stores and distribu-tion activities.
  358
  Mr. Wakeham
  These figures are reported annually to the Treasury's central unit on purchasing. The number reported for 1989–90 was seven.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the full annual cost, including overheads, of his Department's purchasing activity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  These figures are reported annually to the Treasury's central unit on purchasing. The amount reported for 1989–90 was £293,000.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many letters he has received, since 4 January 1990, from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice, where the former are concerned, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr Young) on 4 April 1990, at column 629.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has no plans to publicise this occasion, but a two-day exhibition on various health-related issues is being organised for early April as part of the Look After Your Heart campaign. An important feature of the exhibition will be making information and advice available to staff about smoking.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Yefim Rokhvarg, Iosef Roginsky and Evgeny Pisarevsky of Leningrad who have been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Mr. Pisarevsky's name was included in a list of cases brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities in advance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent visit to Moscow. We shall take account of the cases of Mr. Rokhvarg and Mr. Roginsky in our future representations.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Vladimir Kodess, David Gurevich and Yuri Gindin of Leningrad, who have been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We can certainly raise these cases with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations
  359
  have been made in respect of Lev Lazarevich Kunin and Pavel Izakson of Moscow, who have been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Mr. Kunin's name was included in a list of cases brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities in advance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent visit to Moscow. We shall take account of the case of Mr. Izakson in our future representations.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Vladimir Gorodetsky, who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have now added Mr. Gorodetsky's name to the list of cases regularly brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities and will make firm representations in support of his application to leave the Soviet Union.

  Ghana
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made recently to the Ghanaian Government concerning law No. 78 which allows for execution for political offences, and of law 4 which allows imprisonment without access to legal advice.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made no recent representations about these laws. We maintain regular ministerial and official contact with the Government of Ghana and they are well aware of our concern at some of their internal policies and on those concerning human rights issues.

  Immigration
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current length of time applicants wishing to join spouses in the United Kingdom are having to wait for interview by British high commission staff in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; and what action is in hand to reduce waiting times.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 20 February, at column 175. During the past two years we have considerably reduced waiting times in the Indian sub-continent. No first-time applicant for settlement now waits longer than nine months for interview. We have increased staffing levels in Bombay and New Delhi. The construction of new premises in Islamabad, Dhaka and New Delhi and the move to new premises in Bombay will improve administrative procedures and are expected to reduce waiting times.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of workplaces for civil servants in his Department; what proportion of the total number have an on-site nursery facility; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide a holiday play scheme; how many and what proportion of workplaces provide after-school child care facilities; what charges are made for use of any facility; what the net cost has been for the provision of these facilities; and what estimate he can make of any future expenditure.
  360
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  DIPLOMATIC WING

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is located in 15 buildings in the United Kingdom. Members of the Diplomatic Service also staff over 200 posts overseas. None has an on-site nursery facility, holiday play scheme or after-school child care facility at present, although places in the Westminster holiday play scheme, administered by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service, are open to FCO staff working in the Westminster area.

  An on-site workplace nursery is being set up at Hanslope park, near Milton Keynes. Start-up costs are currently estimated at £45,000.

  AID WING

  The number of workplaces for Overseas Development Administration staff is three. None has an on-site nursery facility or provides after-school child care facilities. Two provide a holiday play scheme; places on the Westminster holiday play scheme are open to staff at the third. The ODA also provides accommodation for the Westminster holiday play scheme.

  Details of charges, net cost and future expenditure in respect of the two workplaces which provide holiday play schemes are as follows:

  A

  B

  Charges made for use of facility

  £3·25 per child per day plus £5 annual registration fee

  £5 per child per day

  Net cost of provision of facility

  £850 (1990–91)

  £1,600

  Estimate of any further expenditure

  The Aid Wing expects to support both schemes in 1991–92 but precise figures are not yet available

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned.

  A separate arrangement applies in respect of consular cases raised by MEPs. Our normal practice is to copy our response to the appropriate hon. Member in view of the direct personal involvement in such cases of the latter's constituent.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This Department will be publicising No Smoking Day with posters and leaflets. Giving up smoking also features as part of this Department's programme of occupational health for both the diplomatic and aid wings of the FCO.

  Israel
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the help and support being given by Her Majesty's ambassador in Tel Aviv to British firms seeking contracts in Israel for housing Soviet immigrants; and what progress has been made in discussions with the Government of Israel in that regard.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Discussions are continuing between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Israeli authorities concerning the establishment of a line of credit to finance housing projects to be located in Israel. This will have to be on the condition that none of the funds are to be spent on housing in the occupied territories including east Jerusalem.

  Jordan
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the difficulties experienced in Jordan in obtaining dried milk for babies, as a result of an embargo imposed at Aqaba by United States forces; and whether he has taken any steps to relieve this situation.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no information to suggest that activity in support of United Nations sanctions against Iraq by United States forces in the Red sea has created a shortage of dried milk in Jordan.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Westminster County Court
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any counter-notice was served in respect of a notice to terminate the lease of Westminster county court.

  The Attorney-General
  Notice to terminate the lease of Westminster county court has not yet been given. No counter-notice has therefore been served.

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many convictions have been quashed by the Court of Appeal criminal division since the coming into force of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on 31 July 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  Between 1 August 1989 and 22 February 1991, a total of 382 convictions were quashed.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many retrials have been ordered by the Court of Appeal criminal division since 31 July 1989.
  362
  The Attorney-General
  Between 1 August 1989 and 22 February 1991, four retrials were ordered.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons convicted after a trial on indictment had their sentences remitted by the Court of Appeal in each of the last two years.

  The Attorney-General
  The Court of Appeal has varied the sentence pronounced in the court in the following number of cases. These figures include cases which were committed for sentence to the Crown court as well as cases tried on indictment. The latter are not held separately.

  Cases

  1989

  1,314

  1990

  1,526

  Incendiary Weapons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Government have ratified the 1981 specific conventional weapons convention and the protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons.

  The Attorney-General
  The United Kingdom signed the convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects on 10 April 1981. It has not ratified the convention or accepted the protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons—protocol III to the convention.

ENVIRONMENT

  Woodland (Planning)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to call in any application by a local authority to itself for permission for any development which would destroy ancient woodland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. My right hon. Friend's policy is to exercise his power to call in planning applications very selectively, and generally only when planning issues of more than local importance are involved. However, my right hon. Friend will pay close attention to any request by the Nature Conservancy Council that a planning application which affects ancient woodland which has been classed as a site of special scientific interest should be called in for his decision.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), then the Minister for Housing and Planning, announced on 25 July 1990, Official Report, column 372, that my right hon. Friend intends to amend the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (England) Direction 1981 so as to require local authorities to report to him any development proposal by them or on their land which would conflict with the development plan, to enable him to consider calling in such proposals for his own decision.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of community charge payers in Exeter who(a) received

  363
  rebates in 1989–90 under the rates rebate scheme (b) received relief in 1990–91 under the community charge relief scheme and (c) will receive refunds under the community charge scheme.

  Mr. Key
  An average of 8,327 households in Exeter received a rate rebate in 1989–90; around 16,800 individuals in Exeter have benefited from transitional relief in 1990–91. No information is yet available on the number of people in Exeter who will be helped by the community charge reduction scheme. However, if Exeter district council sets its charge for 1991–92 at or above its scheme charge of £344, a couple living in an averagely rated property who have not moved since 31 March 1990 could look forward to a joint reduction of £183.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what income was received from the standard community charge in(a) Westminster and (b) Rotherham during 1990–91; what is his estimate of this income in 1991–92; and whether this income is taken into account in the determination of standard spending grant.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: Income from standard community charges is not taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement.

  Budgeted income from standard community charges (£million)

  1990–91

  Westminster city council

  4·5

  Rotherham MBC

  11·0

  1 Pre-capping estimate.

  The information for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sum will be provided from central funds in support of the local authorities of(a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster and (c) Rotherham in 1990–91; and what is the estimated (1) expenditure, (2) central support and (3) per capita expenditure of each of those authorities in 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: The information about central Government support is as follows:

  External support 1990–91 £million

  External support 1991–92 £million

  Wandsworth

  213·5

  235·9

  Westminster

  153·5

  188·1

  Rotherham

  119·5

  124·2

  The external support is paid to the receiving authority's collection fund. It finances expenditure by policy and fire and civil defence authorities as well as expenditure by the charging authority.

  Information regarding their budgeted expenditure in 1991–92 has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment by these authorities.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by Sheffield.

  Mr. Key
  Government grants, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate 364
  external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, per head of relevant population in 1990–91 are £309 in Sheffield.

  Tyne and Wear UDC
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) of 27 February,Official Report, column 528, if he will indicate how the figure of 5,500 as the number of jobs created as a result of the existence of the Tyne and Wear UDC was calculated;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 661, how his Department calculated the figure of 1,630 as the number of jobs created or gained, to March 1990, in the Tyne and Wear UDC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The jobs figures of 1,630 to March 1990 and 5,500 to date have been derived from three sources by the Tyne and Wear development corporation:

  1. Property development projects in receipt of city grant for commercial end use.

  2. Business development projects where financial support is given or committed to assist relocation or expansion.

  3. Property and business development projects promoted and assisted by the Corporation, in the main on sites they have developed, but not involving direct grant assistance.

  In all cases the jobs figures are based on actual employees together with jobs estimated by the company to be created within two years of the completion of the investment to which the company is committed.

  Habitats Directive
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he is doing to speed up progress towards the adoption of the habitats directive; and what is his estimate of the cost of ensuring effective implementa-tion of the directive.

  Mr. Trippier
  In recent months my Department has taken an active part in discussions with our European Community partners to agree a text for a directive. I intend to reinforce our support at the Environment Council on 18 March. The cost of implementing the directive in the Community as a whole is expected to be substantial, but definitive figures are not yet available. The United Kingdom system of nature conservation is relatively well developed and the additional costs in the United Kingdom are not expected to be great.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the total cost of the Royal Parks Constabulary for the last three years and the number of serving officers and establishment.

  Sir George Young
  The figures are:

  Manpower

  Year

  Cost £

  Authorised

  Actual

  1987–88

  2,381,000

  164

  151

  1988–89

  2,876,000

  163

  156

  1989–90

  3,346,000

  163

  152

  365
  The cost figures exclude accommodation and super-vision which are not separately identifiable. Manpower figures are as at 31 December of each year.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the differences in pay and conditions of service for the Royal Parks Constabulary from equivalent Metropolitan police force ranks.

  Sir George Young
  Basic pay rates in the Royal Parks Constabulary are set at 85·5 per cent. of the equivalent rates for Home Department police forces. Officers receive the same rate of London weighting, but they do not receive the special London allowance paid to officers in the Metropolitan police. RPC officers are members of the civil service pension scheme which is non-contributory. Metropolitan police officers are members of the standard Home Department forces pension scheme which is contributory. Other conditions of service, including discipline codes, are similar for both forces.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State far the Environment if he will list the number and types of vehicles used by the Royal Parks Constabulary.

  Sir George Young
  The Royal Parks Constabulary currently has a fleet of 28 vehicles:

  Number

  Saloon cars (Ford Escort/Vauxhall Astra)

  6

  Vans (Ford Transit/Freight Rover Sherpa)

  8

  Personnel Carriers (Ford Transit)

  2

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Crimes

  Arrests

  Crimes

  Arrests

  Crimes

  Arrests

  Crimes of violence

  51

  25

  28

  14

  37

  25

  Sexual offences

  62

  47

  77

  41

  74

  42

  Burglary

  45

  1

  52

  9

  47

  5

  Robbery

  33

  3

  28

  5

  16

  5

  Theft

  420

  95

  448

  58

  470

  76

  Criminal damage

  70

  27

  80

  24

  59

  20

  Other

  338

  414

  347

  333

  332

  320

  TOTAL

  1,069

  612

  1,060

  484

  1,035

  493

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Royal Parks Constabulary's duties and responsibilities were last reviewed.

  Sir George Young
  An inspection of the force was carried out by one of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in 1980. The constabulary and its arrangements have since been strengthened to reflect the increased emphasis on security protection which now forms an important part of its duties.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has discussed with local authorities the winding-up of the urban development corporations and the transfer of their functions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the proposed dates for the winding-up of the 10 urban development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  UDCs were given indicative lifetimes at designation. On that basis, their projected wind-up dates would be:366

  Number

  Land Rover

  1

  Motorcycles (BMW)

  11

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the duties of the Royal Parks Constabulary in the hours between locking the park gates and unlocking them.

  Sir George Young
  Of the 21 parks, gardens and open spaces policed by the Royal Parks Constabulary, 10 are fully closed at night. In the closed parks officers check unoccupied premises—park yards, restaurants, sports clubs, and so on—and prevent unauthorised access to the locked areas. In addition, some of the closed parks have security-sensitive premises located within them and officers carry out security patrols.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of arrests and successful prosecutions by type of offences for the last three years of the Royal Parks Constabulary.

  Sir George Young
  All persons arrested by the Royal Parks Constabulary are handed over to the Metropolitan police for processing. My Department does not keep a central record of the outcome of prosecutions. The numbers of reported crimes and arrests are:

  Year

  First Generation:

  London Docklands

  1996

  Merseyside

  1996

  Second Generation:

  Black Country

  1997

  Teesside

  1997

  Trafford Park

  1997

  Tyne and Wear

  1997

  Third Generation:

  Bristol

  1994

  Central Manchester

  1993

  Leeds

  1993

  Sheffield

  1995

  We are keeping their lifetimes under review, and will discuss the implications of wind-up with local authorities and others in due course.

  Electricians
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward a mandatory registration scheme for electricians.
  367
  Mr. Yeo
  No. I am satisfied that the existing self-regulation of electrical contractors is operating satisfactorily.

  Value for Money
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures of performance are employed by his Department to ensure value for money.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department's annual report—Cm. 1508—sets out a comprehensive range of performance measures associated with my expenditure programmes and in chapter A 11 describes a number of other mechanisms used by my Department to secure value for money.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 16, what estimate he has made of the number of civil servants involved, technically or administratively, in requests from neighbouring Arab states in the Gulf for help in cleaning up oil slicks.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In my Department, which has had the lead in environmental aspects of the Gulf conflict, around 20 civil servants have been involved to some degree in responding to these issues, including requests for assistance from the Gulf states. For about five staff, this has been a major part of their work. In other Departments closely involved the position is similar.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by district or London authority in rank order the percentage of budgeted community charge so far received by each authority, starting with that authority which thus far has received the largest percentage.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many people within the city of Gloucester will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme;

  (2) what amounts will be made available to residents of Gloucester as a result of the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Key
  Information on the total number of community charge payers in each charging authority who will benefit from a reduction and the amount of reduction scheme grant payable to each authority will be available once charging authorities have submitted their claims to my Department. However, a couple who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in a property that had an average rates bill for the Gloucester area could look forward to a joint reduction in their bills for 1991–92 of £197.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, given declared community charge levels by each district authority, what is the increased payment per couple which will be required before the community charge reduction scheme applies.
  368
  Mr. Key
  Many chargepayers will receive reductions even if charging authorities set their personal community charge below or at the same level as last year.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Posters advertising the day and information leaflets will be displayed in all the Department's main offices throughout the country and an article placed in the in-house journal. Guidance has been given to all staff on damage to health caused by smoking. Welfare officers are on hand to give help and advice to staff who wish to give up smoking and on the availability of cessation classes.

  Housing, Waveney
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the criteria for housing investment programme allocations for non-urban authorities; and how they were applied for 1991–92 for Waveney district council;

  (2) how the general needs index applies to Government grant aid for housing purposes for Waveney district council for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Housing investment programme—HIP— allocations for 1991–92 for non-metropolitan district authorities, including Waveney, as well as for metropolitan districts and London authorities, were made in part by references to an objective measure of need—the generalised needs index—and in part on the basis of recommendations by my Department's housing regional controllers to reflect their knowledge of local needs and circumstances. Local authorities were able to explain their needs and priorities to the Department in their annual HIP returns and strategy statements and subsequent HIP meetings.

  The generalised needs index is not used directly in the distribution of Government grant aid, although both housing revenue account subsidy and specified capital grants, mainly for house renovations, are available to authorities in support of housing investment programme expenditure.

  Housing Authorities
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local housing authorities wishing to become enabling authorities instead of direct providers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has issued guidance to all local authorities on how to develop their enabling role: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy and placing a copy in the Library. I am pleased by the extent to which many authorities are responding to encouragement to adopt a mainly enabling role, assessing the needs of their areas and helping housing associations, private landlords and developers to meet those needs, rather than concentrating exclusively on direct provision of council housing.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report from Victor Hausner and Associates on their research into the use of the urban programme in creating employment opportunities for black and ethnic minority communities in the inner cities.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the final report of this research project soon.

  Saltley Renewal Area
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the purpose of the visit by the Minister for Housing and Planning to the Saltley renewal area on 26 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I visited Saltley to see the progress being made in regenerating this area of older private housing in Birmingham and to meet some of the residents. I am impressed by the partnership between the city council, the Heartlands urban development agency, the housing associations and the residents and the way in which the programme for improvement is being carried forward, using to good effect the additional resources which we have made available over several years.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his present policy in respect of the dry storage of radioactive material.

  Mr. Trippier
  Other than on licensed nuclear sites, no person shall keep, use, or cause or permit to be kept or used, radioactive material unless he is registered under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 or exempted from being so. Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to sign the order varying the Dartmoor national park boundary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The statutory period for representations ended on 28 February. A decision on the boundary variation order will be reached as soon as we have considered all the representations made.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures he has in respect of the volume of disposal of low-level radioactive waste(a) at Drigg and (b) at local authority landfill sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest figures showing volumes of low-level radioactive waste disposals to the disposal facility operated by BNFL at Drigg, Cumbria are set out in the BNFL publication "Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment 1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Small amounts of low-level radioactive waste are authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for
  370
  disposal at local landfill sites following careful safety assessments in each case. However, the Department does not maintain a central record of the volume of waste involved in these disposals.

  Colliery Spoil
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the Ove Arup report on the monitoring of the use of the evaluative framework for the disposal of colliery spoil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Although there has been a decrease in the amount of colliery spoil produced in recent years, its disposal is still a problem. Version 1 of the evaluative framework, published in 1987, was designed to assist decision making on future disposal schemes for deep mine colliery spoil. It has encouraged systematic investigation of both environmental and financial aspects of alternative options.

  My Department commissioned research to monitor the effectiveness of the framework and it has now been modified to include the lessons learnt. The contractors have now submitted their main research report to my Department and published version 2 of the evaluative framework. I have today placed copies in the House Library. I am sure that the publication of this updated version will improve its usefulness to both the local authorities and the coal industry and will help resolve many of the problems that have been experienced.

  London Boroughs Grant Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to approve a budget for the London boroughs grant scheme; and what steps he is taking to ensure the future well-being of those schemes approved for the current financial year.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 6 March 1991]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to approve a budget for the London boroughs grants scheme. This is a matter for agreement by the constituent boroughs. However, at the request of the London boroughs grants committee, he has agreed to exercise his power to set a limit on the maximum expenditure of the scheme in 1991–92 and has set it at £30·155 million.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the current parliamentary Session he has had local authority planning applications referred to him which contravened both the local county structure plan and the local rural areas plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  At present, local authorities are required to report to my right hon. Friend only those proposals which would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the development plan. In 1990 local authorities reported to my right hon. Friend 278 proposals which, in their opinion, materially conflicted with a development plan.

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the legal benzene limits in petrol in other countries of the world; and what is the legal benzene limit in petrol in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  The benzene content of petrol in the United Kingdom, in common with all the other EC member states, is limited to a maximum of 5 per cent. by volume by EC directive 85/210/EEC. The Department of Energy does not hold information on legal benzene limits in non-EC countries, but we understand that there is no country which imposes a lower legal limit.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of benzene in(a) four-star petrol, (b) three-star petrol and (c) unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1988 petrol quality surveys in the United Kingdom market suggested a range of benzene contents for leaded petrol of 2·9 to 4·7 per cent. and for unleaded petrol of 3·4 to 4·5 per cent. Three-star petrol is no longer sold in the United Kingdom.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many genetically modified organisms have been released to the environment in the United Kingdom in the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment since 1986 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of releases

  1986

  1

  1987

  3

  1988

  6

  1989

  5

  1990

  113

  1991

  2Nil

  1 In 1990, in addition to 13 small-scale field trials, one product —a genetically modified bakers yeast—was cleared for marketing.

  2 In 1991, no releases have taken place to date. One trial has been cleared to take place later in 1991.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expects to save from community charge benefit in Scotland as a result of the introduction of the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Mellor
  Some £15 million.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if community charge reductions operative from 1 April will be taken into account in the calculation of future retail prices indices.
  372
  Mr. Maples
  Yes.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the reduction in the retail prices index, if the community charge were abolished and the expenditure transferred to the central Exchequer.

  Mr. Maples
  It is not the practice to provide estimates of the effects on the retail prices index of such hypothetical changes to the public finances. The effects would depend on how the expenditure currently financed by the community charge would subsequently be funded and how the Central Statistical Office would treat the abolition of the community charge in the RPI.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the real and the nominal exchange rate of sterling against(a) the deutschmark, (b) the United States dollar and (c) the yen, between the last quarter of 1986 and the last quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  The nominal and real exchange rate changes between the last quarter of 1986 and the third quarter of 1990 are shown in the table. There are several ways in which changes in the real exchange rate can be measured. The table shows the changes indicated by the different increases in GDP deflators over the relevant period.

  Change 1986Q4 to 1990Q3 per cent.

  DM/Sterling

  $/Sterling

  Yen/Sterling

  3·38

  30·15

  17·93

  121·36

  245·73

  345·82

  1 Real DM/Sterling.

  2 Real $/Sterling.

  3 Real Yen/Sterling.

  Data are not yet available to calculate real exchange rates up to the fourth quarter of 1990.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of provision for child care for civil servants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1989 the Treasury gave Departments discretion to contribute towards the costs of child care facilities where this offered value for money and could be contained within existing departmental running costs limits. Information on how much has been spent on child care is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Birds and Animals (Seizures)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state any conveniently available figures for the number of occasions in the past five years when Customs officers have delivered seized specimens of birds or animals to airlines for return to their country of origin.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Live creatures seized by Customs under endangered species legislation are, whenever feasible, returned to their country of origin for
  373
  eventual release back into the wild. This is in accordance with one of the principles established in the Washington convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Figures are held centrally, in conveniently accessible form, only from 1989 onwards. In that time there has been one operation involving the return of birds to Turkey.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quarantine arrangements have been made in the new Stansted terminal for wild birds and other animals confiscated in accordance with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. Quarantine facilities are not generally available at, ports and airports. Their absence does not impair Customs ability to enforce the controls on endangered species.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action was taken by Customs and Excise officials in relation to the unlawful concealment of goldfinches in the luggage of Mr. I. H. of Wood Green, Essex, discovered at Stansted airport on 18 September 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Action was taken to seize and forfeit the birds under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  Civil Servants, South Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the career structure for civil servants employed in south Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Although there are no central plans specific to south Wales, my right hon. Friend keeps all aspects of the staffing of the civil service under review.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since 4 January 1990 Treasury Ministers have received 79 letters from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or United Kingdom matters. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Alcohol Duties
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what he bases his February forecast of a 13·3 per cent. increase in the revenue from alcohol duties for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Several factors were taken into account in deriving the forecast which is based on the 374
  Chancellor's 1990 autumn statement. The most important of these were the forecast growth in real consumers' expenditure in 1990, the 1990 Budget changes in excise duties on alcoholic drinks and the path of revenue receipts in the year to date at the time the forecast was made.

  An estimate of the revenue outturn in 1990–91 will be available when the Chancellor issues his 1991 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of(a) an increase in the taxation of tobacco products and (b) decreasing the taxation of tobacco products in his forthcoming Budget; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received many letters this year about the taxation of tobacco products. Those asking for a freeze outnumber those asking for an increase. I do not propose to list all those that have written. However, most of those asking for a freeze consist of small shopkeepers acting on a campaign organised by the Tobacco Alliance while the majority of those asking for an increase consist of various health organisations, regional health authorities and members of the public.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield, in current and in real terms, from tobacco tax in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what is the estimated yield for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following is the available information:

  £ million

  Tobacco Duty Receipts

  Estimates of VAT on Tobacco Expenditure

  At Current prices

  At 1989–90 prices

  At Current pices

  At 1989–90 prices

  1985–86

  4,459

  5,470

  920

  1,130

  1986–87

  4,755

  5,650

  990

  1,180

  1987–88

  4,767

  5,450

  1,000

  1,150

  1988–89

  4,990

  5,380

  1,050

  1,130

  1989–90

  5,035

  5,035

  1,080

  1,080

  The 1990 autumn statement forecast of receipts in current prices from tobacco duty for 1990–91 was £5·5 billion. Comparable forecasts for the other elements shown in the table are not available. The next estimate for the yield from tobacco duty in 1990–91 will be published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the retail prices index of raising the tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes by(a) 20p, (b) 32p and (c) 50p; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If the increases in tax were fully reflected in cigarette prices the direct effects on the retail prices index would be approximately as follows:

  Increases in tax on 20 cigarettes

  Percentage points effect on RPI

  20p

  +0·4

  32p

  +0·6

  50p

  +0·9

  375
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would arise in a full financial year from raising the tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes by(a) 20p, (b) 32p and (c) 50p; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The revenue yield from these tax increases can be estimated by using the tax revenue ready reckoner in table 4.7 of chapter 4 of the 1990 autumn statement.

  Capital Transfers
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he issued any instructions in the period 1982 to 1987 to allow exemption by the Inland Revenue on capital transfers between companies from capital duties; and when such transfers were treated as gifts;

  (2) if he will publish the guidelines used in exempting capital transfers between companies from capital duty in the period 1982 to 1987;

  (3) if he will furnish an estimate of the value of capital transfers between United Kingdom stockbrokers and their parent banks exempted from capital duty in the period 1982 to 1987 by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: Capital duty was charged not on capital transfers but on contributions of capital to a company—for example on the formation of the company. The scope of the duty was laid down in legislation.

  It is not clear what information the hon. Member has in mind. If he will write to me I shall be able to consider his points in more detail.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the circumstances in which a person in receipt of mobility allowance is not required to pay(a) VAT or (b) car tax on the purchase of a motor vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: All handicapped persons, including those in receipt of mobility allowance, are eligible for VAT and car tax relief when they purchase a motor vehicle, but only if that vehicle has been designed or substantially and permanently adapted for their use.

  Cigarette Prices
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the ratio of the price of an average priced packet of 20 cigarettes to the average weekly wage in each of(a) 1961, (b) 1971, (c) 1981 and (d) the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The table shows the average price of 20 cigarettes as a percentage of average gross weekly wages for adult male manual workers in manufacturing industries.

  Per cent.

  October 1961

  1·4

  October 1971

  0·9

  October 1981

  0·8

  October 1990

  0·7

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government since 1979 to assist in the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have an impressive record over recent years on measures which assist people with disabilities to find and keep employment and to develop within it. My Department has lead responsibility within government for this matter and in 1989–90 the Department spent around £400 million on helping 225,000 people with disabilities through its general and special programmes and services.

  Initiatives aimed at improving the prospects for people with disabilities, including their employment prospects, are promoted by Government Departments in co-operation with a range of agencies and organisations. Measures taken since 1979 by my Department and other Government Departments are listed in the table. Other measures introduced before 1979 have also been continuing since then. People with disabilities can also participate alongside non-disabled people wherever possible in much mainstream provision as is not mentioned here.

  1979: The Fit for Work Award Scheme was introduced by the Department of Employment Group.

  1981: The Department of Employment Group replaced Disablement Advisory Committees by Committees for the Employment of Disabled People.

  1981: A review of the Department of Employment Group's Employment Rehabilitation Service was undertaken.

  1982: Report by the Department of Employment Group on its Review of Assistance to Disabled People.

  1982: The Department of Social Security's Mobility Allowance, for people who are unable to walk or virtually unable to walk due to physical disablement, was made tax free.

  1982: The Department of Trade and Industry introduced support for Information Technology projects for people with disabilities.

  1983: The Department of Employment Group guaranteed a one year training place under the Youth Training Scheme to all those leaving school without a job to go to regardless of race, sex, religion, or disability up to the age of 18 years.

  1983: The Department of Employment Group introduced the Disablement Advisory Service which helps advise employers on how to integrate people with disabilities into their workforce and promote good employment and development policies.

  1983: The Department of Employment Group's Individual Training Throughout with an Employer scheme was introduced under which people with disabilities were placed with an employer and given training in a skill or semi-skill on an individual basis.

  1983: The Department of Employment Group introduced its Release For Training scheme which provided support for people with disabilities already in employment who were experiencing difficulties which required a period of essential training.

  1983: The Department of Employment Group introduced the Professional Training Scheme which provided assistance, to a maximum of three years, for people with disabilities who had been refused an LEA grant, to help meet the costs of courses of higher level study, including university courses.

  1984: The Department of Employment Group launched the Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.

  1984: The Department of Employment Group published a report on Proposals for the Development of the Employment Rehabilitation Service.

  377

  1984: The Department of Employment Group's Asset Centres were set up to provide assessment and rehabilitation services in areas not well served by Employment Rehabilitation Centres.

  1984: Introduction in Scotland under the Building Standards (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984 of Part T `Facilities for Disabled Persons' which ensures that account is taken of the needs of people with disabilities in the construction of most new buildings and during alterations and extensions of certain existing buildings.

  1985: The Department of Employment Group introduced the Sheltered Placement Scheme to enable individuals with severe disabilities to work in open employment alongside non-disabled workers.

  1985: The Department of Employment Group introduced the Wider Opportunities Training Programme aimed to help unemployed people, including people with disabilities, to improve their competitiveness for employment or further vocational training.

  1985: The Department of Employment Group introduced the Job Training Scheme which provided vocational training to those who were unemployed to help them compete in the labour market and had relaxed eligibility rules for people with disabilities.

  1985: The Department of Employment Group set up the Residential Training Unit to provide funds centrally for Residential Training. Four residential training colleges and a number of private training colleges are supported to provide training in a wide range of courses and catering for a variety of disabilities, most offering qualifications.

  1985: The Department of Employment Group introduced the Other Training Arrangements scheme which provided additional funding to purchase training for people with disabilities where mainstream training precluded certain skill areas or specialist provision was needed.

  1985: The Building (Fourth Amendment) Regulations 1985 require new offices, shops, single storey independent educational buildings and other single story buildings in England and Wales to which the public is to be admitted to be constructed with suitable means of access for people with disabilities.

  1985: The Companies Act introduced a requirement for Directors' Reports for companies with over 250 employees to state company policy on the recruitment, retention and development of staff with disabilities.

  1985: The Office for the Minister for the Civil service issued a Code of Practice on the Employment of People with Disabilities in the Civil Service which aimed to help departments and agencies to achieve equality of opportunity for people with disabilities and to make full use of the skills and abilities they possess.

  1986: The Department of Trade and Industry launched the 'Concerned Technology' scheme which supported Information Technology projects such as information provision (e.g. through computer databases) for people with disabilities and the purchase of home work units for people with disabilities.

  1986: The Department of Employment Group introduced two year Youth Training Scheme providing vocational training leading to specific qualifications. Premium grants were available for a number of high quality training places for young people with special needs, with additional funding for young people with disabilities with particular training needs. Other special arrangements for people with disabilities included extension of the YTS guarantee up to the age of 21 years for people with disabilities who needed to stay in full time education, relaxed eligibility criterial and residential training where appropriate.

  1986: The Health and Safety Commission's action programme on occupational health encouraged employers to have access to occupational health advice. This assists job retention and job adaptation when people in work become disabled.

  1987: The Building (Disabled People) Regulations 1987 came into force applying access regulations for people with disabilities to three additional categories of multi-storey premises: namely, factories, independent educational establishments and premises to which the public is admitted.

  378

  1987: Under the Department of Employment Group's New Job Training Scheme four special schemes were introduced to help people with disabilities gain maximum benefit from training. These were:

  Special Aids to Employment;

  Adaptations to Premises and Equipment;

  Personal Reader Service for the Blind; and

  Communication Service for the Deaf.

  1987: The Department of Employment Group published its Asset Evaluation Report which identified the strength and weakness of Assets and Employment Rehabilitation Centres.

  1987: The Department of Employment Group published its report on the Development of the Employment Rehabilitation Service.

  1988: The Department of Health made available sophisticat-ed "Environmental Control" equipment designed to be used in employment or education with the users' own computer.

  1988: The Department of Employment Group evaluated its Sheltered Placement Scheme.

  1988: Employment Training was introduced by the Department of Employment Group to help unemployed people gain the skills and experience needed to compete for jobs locally. Aspects of Employment Training which particularly assist people with disabilities, include relaxed eligibility criteria; individual training plans; in depth assessment; part-time training; residential training; and special help and provision where necessary.

  1988: The Department of Employment Group's Special Training Provision was introduced as part of Employment Training to pay for the more specialised assessment and training needs of people with disabilities and could also be used for training lasting up to a maximum of two years where extra time was necessary.

  1989: Local housing authorities given wide discretion under the Local Government Housing Act 1989 to approve disabled facilities grants for works to make a dwelling or building suitable for the accommodation, welfare or employment of a disabled occupant.

  1989: The Department of Transport's "Transport and Disability—A Statement of Aims and Priorities" was issued setting out the improvements to public and private transport which have opened up new opportunities for people with disabilities and identifies the aims for the future.

  1989: The Department of Employment Group published Building on Ability, a guide for training people with disabilities.

  1990: The Department of Employment Group introduced Youth Training with new fiexibilities for young people with disabilities.

  1990: The Office for the Minister for the Civil Service updated its Code of Practice on the Employment of People with Disabilities in the Civil Service.

  1990: The Department of Employment Group published a consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" aimed at ensuring the Department's services meet the needs of people with disabilities in the 1990s.

  1990: The Department of Employment Group published an evaluation of their special schemes for people with disabilities and consulted on the need for change.

  1990: "Employment and Handicap" was published, reporting on research funded by the Department of Employment Group which was undertaken by the Social and Community Planning Research to estimate the size of the population of people with disabilities who might be eligible for or need help from Department of Employment Group services.

  1990: The Department of Employment Group published a research paper on the policies and practices of employers entitled "The Employment of People with Disabilities".

  1990: The Department of Social Security published "The Way Ahead" announcing its proposals for a new benefit (Disability Working Allowance) to provide better help and opportunities for people with disabilities wishing to work.

  379

  1990: The Department of Employment Group introduced a new symbol for employers to adopt to show their commitment to good policies for the employment of people with disabilities.

  1990: The publication of the Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Working Allowance Bill.

  1990: The Department of Employment Group announced its aim to make an offer of a place to unemployed people with disabilities on one of its four main employment and training programmes—Employment Training, the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, the Job Interview Guarantee and Jobclubs.

  1991: The Scottish Office Education Department commis-sioned research into the post-school placement of children and young persons with Record of Needs, including how different educational placements influence a young person's later changes of employment.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider introducing a communicator service for employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, following his Department's evaluation of special schemes for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: The consultation period for the evaluation paper ended on 1 February 1991. My Department is currently analysing the responses received. We will consider carefully all suggestions made for changes to the schemes, including the suggestion that a communicator service should be introduced for employees who are deaf or hard of hearing.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what local monitoring arrangements he has in place to ensure that training and enterprise councils are aware of, and provide for, the special training needs of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: Each training and enterprise council is required to set out in its corporate and business plans how it intends to meet the needs of people with disabilities. These plans are subject to approval by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  Specific contractual requirements common to all TECs include providing appropriate training to people with special training needs, including those with a disability. My Department has produced guidance on how to plan for and deliver training to meet those needs.

  TECs' performance against their plans will be regularly monitored by my Department. In addition, the Training Standards Advisory Service will be appraising the quality of training offered by TECs including provision for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the closure of employment rehabilitation centres for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: My right hon. and learned Friend has received very few representations about the possible closure of individual employment rehabilitation centres.

  The Government's intentions for assessment and rehabilitation services were set out in the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" published in June 1990. These involve improving geographical coverage and our capacity to respond flexibly to the needs of people with disabilities through establishing local employment service assessment
  380
  teams and increasing the extent to which, particularly in rehabilitation, services are purchased from voluntary and other appropriate organisations.

  Comments were invited on how the plans for developing rehabilitation might most effectively be implemented. Analysis of comments received on the consultative document is not yet complete.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to the recommendation of the Employment Select Committee's first report on disability and employment for full Government commitment to improving the 3 per cent. quota system; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Chairman of the Committee to express his pleasure at the participation of the Committee in the consultative process, to say that the Committee's report will be given full consideration along with all other responses received and to commit himself to keeping the Committee informed on progress on all the issues that it raised.

  In the consultative document we made no firm proposals about the quota scheme, but invited comments on its merits and demerits. We are still considering the responses, including that of the Employment Committee.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the responses to the recent consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" supported the introduction of legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of disability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The consultative document invited comments on the merits and demerits of various legislative approaches to securing good practice in the employment of people with disabilities. A number of respondents have expressed support for legislation which they describe in a variety of ways, some more precisely than others. It is not possible to state the percentage which support outlawing unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of disability without the risk of oversimplifying or misinterpreting views and giving misleading information. We are still considering the comments we have received.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, following his consultation on the employment and training of disabled people, he will consider introducing a legislative framework on the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" we sought comments on the merits and demerits of the existing legislative framework on the employment of disabled people and possible legislative alternatives. We are still considering the responses we have received.

  Census Enumerators
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the effect of advertising for census enumerators in jobcentres has been on the seasonally adjusted increase in unemployment figures in January.
  381
  Mr. Jackson
  The effect, if any, is likely to have been extremely small because recruitment began in early January and for the vast majority of jobs advertised the period of employment will not commence until late March.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government's consultative docu-ment "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" invited comments on the merits and demerits of the quota scheme. We are presently considering the response to the consultations.

  Chemical Testing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has formulated any response to the European Community Commission's EINECS proposal on chemical testing.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no EINECS proposal on chemical testing. EINECS is the European inventory of existing commercial chemical substances, a list of approximately 100,000 chemicals which were on the European Community market between 1 January 1971 and 18 January 1981. Such substances are exempt from the notification scheme for new substances established by the sixth amendment to the European Community dangerous substances directive.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which committees of the European Community on which Her Majesty's Government are represented are currently reviewing the subject of chemical testing.

  Mr. Forth
  Her Majesty's Government are represented on three main committees which review industrial chemical testing. Those currently in existence are:The competent authorities committee for the implementation of directive 79/831/EEC.
  The national co-ordination committee for testing methods which oversees all testing methods.
  The technical progress committee which is responsible for approving changes in legislation for testing methods.

  P and O
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has made to the ruling of the International Labour Organisation in respect of the dismissal of staff involved in an industrial dispute with the P and O shipping company in 1988; what is the relationship between the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the ILO conventions on freedom of association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There has been no such ruling. Having considered certain complaints from the National Union of Seamen, the International Labour Organisation's commit-tee on freedom of association—CFA—has made certain recommendations. The CFA has referred these to the ILO committee of experts. The Government will continue to respond fully to all parts of the ILO supervisory machinery on this matter as and when appropriate.
  382
  The Government remain convinced that nothing in United Kingdom general employment legislation—includ-ing the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as subsequently amended—is incompatible with guarantees afforded by ratified ILO conventions.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 96 such letters were received between 4 January 1990 and 1 March 1991. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  North of England Building Society
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will invite the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service to meet the North of England building society and the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union to discuss arrangements by which the request of the building society's staff to be represented by the union could be considered.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will invite the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service to meet the North of England building society and the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union to discuss arrangements by which the wishes of the building society's staff to be represented by the union can be met.

  Mr. Forth
  No. In any matter of this kind, it is entirely for the parties concerned to decide whether or not to seek the assistance of the independent Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the Devon and Cornwall 'TEC budget for adult training has been reduced in the current year; what plans he has to reinstate these cuts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The contract with Devon and Cornwall TEC is at present subject to negotiation.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from TECs over delays in announcing financial arrangements for the current year and over the withdrawal of approval for courses without prior consultation or notice.
  383
  Mr. Jackson
  I have received several representations from TECs on a variety of financial issues. It is for TECs themselves to decide on the arrangements for contracting with training providers.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which training and enterprise councils have signed operational contracts since July 1990; and if he will list the organisations represented on the TEC.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following training and enterprise councils have signed operational contracts since 1 July 1990:

  South East

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Heart of England

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  London

  AZTEC

  South West

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Staffordshire

  Walsall

  East Midlands and Anglia

  CAMBSTEC (Central and South Cambridgeshire)

  Greater Peterborough

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Suffolk

  Southern Derbyshire

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  Bradford and District

  Leeds

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Wakefield

  North West

  Bolton and Bury

  Manchester

  Stockport and High Peak

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  Northern

  County Durham

  Northumberland

  Wales

  Gwent

  Mid Glamorgan

  North East Wales

  North West Wales

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Wales

  TEC board members are directors in their own right and do not serve as representatives of any organisation. An up-to-date list of directors of each operational TEC is held in the House of Commons Library.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A number of localised initiatives will be taking place and literature has been widely distributed. My Department provides support throughout the year to smokers who wish to give up and will continue to do so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Flakt System
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the Flakt system to recover and recycle flue gases from waste incineration plants; and if he will evaluate its applicability to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Flakt system is one of a number of systems for cleaning flue gases.

  I understand that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is involved in the enforcement of pollution control legislation relating to waste incincera-tion, is aware of the class of pollution abatement system to which the Flakt type belong. However, it is for individual operators of plants which produce flue gases, rather than my Department or the inspectorate, to evaluate particular technologies which may help such plants to meet the requirements of pollution control legislation.

  Unsolicited Sales Literature
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to ban the sending of unsolicited sales literature by fax.

  Mr. Redwood
  The branch systems licence under the Telecommunications Act 1984 provides for people not wishing to receive unsolicited sales literature by fax to place their fax numbers on a special register. Anyone sending such unsolicitied material to a number on the register will be in breach of the licence and ultimately the Director General of Telecommunications can remove the right to operate under the licence from a persistent offender, making him unable to use his telephone systems. The arrangements for the register are being finalised by the director general in discussion with interested parties.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he proposes to refer the current arrangements for the distribution of newspapers, together with the recently introduced reduction of terms to retailers, to the Director of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently looking at various aspects of newspaper wholesaling, including distribution arrangements, carriage charges and the reduction in terms to retailers recently introduced for certain national newspapers. The director general will decide in the light of these inquiries whether further action
  385
  under the competition legislation is warranted. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate what the outcome of these inquiries will be.

  EC Insurance Directive
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the third insurance directive of the EC will come before the Council of Ministers; and whether it is the intention of the EC that this directive will be subject to the Cumul rule.

  Mr. Redwood
  The European Commission sent its proposal for the third non-life insurance directive to the Council of Ministers on 27 July 1990. The proposal for the third life insurance directive will be sent to the Council shortly. The Commission has proposed that the third non-life directive should be adopted by the Council in the course of 1992 and the third life directive by December 1992. Both directives propose the abolition of the ability of member states to restrict Cumul.

  EC Trade Marks
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress his Department has made in seeking to secure the planned new EC trade marks office in a United Kingdom location; and what consideration he has recently given to specific United Kingdom sites, including the London borough of Harrow.

  Mr. Leigh
  The location of the Community trade marks office has become linked with the wider issue of the location of other Community bodies, on which there has been no progress in recent years. In view of the uncertainty in timing, no consideration has recently been given to specific sites. However, the United Kingdom bid to locate the office in London remains on the table.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he expects the United Kingdom to meet its obligations under the Community trade marks harmonisation directive before 31 December; and when he expects to publish new domestic trade marks legislation to implement this and related objectives.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on Friday 1 March,Official Report, column 656.

  Post Office Staff
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will direct the Post Office to act in accordance with best practice in the matter of relocating displaced Post Office staff in Quadrant.

  Mr. Leigh
  The reorganisation of Quadrant is an operational matter for Post Office management and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on the relocation of staff.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the changes which took place among senior Post Office Quadrant staff in 1990 and the reasons for departures of staff.

  Mr. Leigh
  Matters of appointment and termination of employment of Post Office staff are a matter for the Post Office and its employees.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters he has received, since 4 January 1990, from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice, where the former are concerned, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  DTI Ministers have received 78 communications from Members of the European Parliament since 4 January 1990. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  National House Building Council
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make a statement on the National House Building Council reference made to him recently.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report "Structural Warranty Services in Relation to New Homes" was published on 6 March 1991. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House together with a copy of the Department's press notice announcing publication. At the time of publication the Secretary of State also announced a period of consultation on possible changes to the rules of the National House Building Council, to eliminate the adverse effects identified by the Commission.

  Coffee
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he received the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the soluble coffee market.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of soluble coffee for retail sale within the United Kingdom was received on 8 January 1991. It was published on 8 March 1991 and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Digital Exchanges
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has of investment in integrated services digital networks in Wales; and if he will list by geographical location the networks so far completed in Wales and those for which definite plans exist;

  (2) what estimate he has of investment in integrated services digital network 2 in Wales; and if he will list by geographical location the integrated services digital network 2 installations in Wales and those for which definite plans exist.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The information requested is primarily for the telecommunica-tions companies concerned.
  387
  British Telecom offers two types of ISDN service, ISDN 2 for small to medium-sized organisations, and ISDN 30 for large organisations. ISDN 2 is currently available in Cardiff, Cwmbran, Llanrumney, Neath, Newport Gwent, Port Talbot, Rhyl, Swansea and Wrexham. By the end of March 1991, the service should also be available in Llanelli, Maeglas and Pembroke. By the end of 1991, British Telecom plans to make ISDN 2 available in every major high street and business centre, subject to identified market demand. ISDN 30 is now available to all large organisations whose digital switchboards can be connected to a local digital exchange.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has of investment in the installation of digital exchanges in Wales; and if he will list by geographical location the exchanges so far installed in Wales and those for which definite plans exist;

  (2) what estimate he has of investment in the upgrading of cabling in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The information requested is primarily for the telecommunications companies concerned. British Telecom has a running investment programme of approximately £100 million per annum for network modernisation in Wales and the Marches. Almost every major town is now served by a digital exchange. In addition, Mercury's digital trunk network extends to Swansea, Cardiff and Newport.

  Telephone Cables (Al Jubayl)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will request the Saudi Arabian Government to speed up the provision of a telephone cable in order to operate the 20 Mercury telephones waiting to be installed in Al Jubayl.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: I am informed that Mercury Communications Ltd. is now in the process of providing equipment so that its 20 payphones in the Al-Jubayl area may become operational. The complete system is scheduled to be in service within 10 days.

  International Space University
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's bid to obtain the siting of the international space university in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: The British National Space Centre has offered a grant towards the costs of holding the 1991 session of the international space university in the United Kingdom. The Government would welcome the presence of ISU here this year, but space industry sponsorship will also be sought.

CIVIL SERVICE

  International Organisations
  Rathbone
  44. Mr. To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he is encouraging more civil servants to apply for postings in international organisations of which Britain is a member.

  Mr. Renton
  We attach great importance to Britain's being properly represented in international organisations.
  388
  With that in mind we have launched the European fast stream which is aimed at preparing British candidates for the recruitment competitions of the European Community institutions.

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how the "next steps" initiative will affect services to the general public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  "Next steps" is already delivering improved service to the public. We have recently published a White Paper—Cm 1261—giving many examples of what agencies are doing to consult their customers and give better service. We should see more and more of this.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how equal opportunities is incorporated in training at the Civil Service college.

  Mr. Renton
  Equality of opportunity is an integral part of each of the management development, fast stream, and personnel management training programmes. Management skills courses in this area are also provided for line managers and equal opportunities officers.

  Child Care
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to ensure that there will be adequate funds for and co-ordination of the London child care project, the proposed central London nursery and the London ring; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The office of the Minister for the Civil Service provides appropriate co-ordination for the London child care project. Decisions on establishing and funding child care facilities are for Departments and agencies. In total, there are now 10 nurseries and over 70 play schemes in operation across the country, with more planned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Traffic Statistics
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of vehicles passing along Hightown road in Newtownabbey between Mallusk road and Upper Hightown road per 24-hour period; and what was the maximum and minimum hourly traffic flows at the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  Latest traffic survey figures for the Hightown road between Mallusk road and Upper Hightown road are:

  Date of survey

  Total traffic flow vehicles per day

  Maximum vehicles per hour

  Minimum vehicles per hour

  18 February to 1 March 199

  3,433

  169

  3

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of vehicles per
  389
  24-hour period passing along (a) the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena, (b) the B59 between Doagh and the A36, (c) the B98 between the A26 and the B59 and (d) the B53 between the A26 and the A36; and what were the maximum and minimum hourly traffic flows in each case for the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some of the information requested is not available. Traffic survey figures that are available for the roads in question are:

  Date of survey

  Total traffic flow vehicles per day

  Maximum vehicles per hour

  Minimum vehicles per hour

  (a) January 1991

  15,568

  1,695

  21

  (b) August 1980

  1,847

  206

  1

  (c) July 1982

  2,002

  1

  1

  (d) June 1990

  752

  1

  1

  1 Not available.

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of vehicles in Newtownabbey passing along(a) the Hightown road between Hamin park and Glengormley, (b) the Antrim road between Glencairn park and Glengormley, (c) the Ballyclare road between Glencairn drive and Glengormley per 24-hour period; and what were the maximum and minimum hourly traffic flows in each case at the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  In November 1988 the maximum hourly traffic flows for the roads in question were:

  Location

  Maximum vehicles per hour

  Hightown road

  714

  Antrim road

  712

  Ballyclare road

  718

  The remainder of the information requested is not available.

  Downshire Hospital, Downpatrick
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have been held with staff and trade union representatives about the continuing retraction of mental health services in the Downshire hospital, Downpatrick, located in the Down and Lisburn unit of management.

  Mr. Hanley
  The changes in services at Downshire hospital, which are fully in line with the Department of Health and Social Services regional strategy, have been the subject of detailed discussions with staff on the site. The Down and Lisburn unit of management's draft business plan 1991–92, which reflects the Eastern board's response to the regional strategy, was discussed with the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 29 October 1990 and I understand that a further meeting has been offered. Alongside the formal trade union consultation process, three seminars have been held in the last month with staff on the site.

  Rural Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many area co-ordinators will be appointed to the rural development division of the Department of Agriculture; and where they will be located;

  (2) what is the membership and terms of reference of the recently established Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland;

  (3) when the Department of Agriculture will publish a summary, conclusions and recommendations in respect of the work of the interdepartmental committee on rural development.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked officials to prepare a summary of the work, conclusions and recommendations of the interdepartmental committee on rural development. This will be available for publication when the pressures of establishing the Rural Development Council and the co-ordination structure for rural development within the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland permit.

  Work to establish a Rural Development Council is under way with the intention to have it in operation early in the 1991–92 financial year. Membership will be drawn from a wide spectrum of rural interests and I will make a further statement as soon as possible.

  While the number of co-ordinators ultimately required will depend on the workload which arises, initially three will be appointed and located in the south, west and north of the Province.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place about the allocation of funding to the Housing Executive to enable it to execute a programme to address increasing rural unfitness; and if the Government will allocate special funding to undertake a programme of rural rehabilitation.

  Mr. Hanley
  Rural housing unfitness is a complex problem largely confined to private owner-occupied properties. The means of tackling it is therefore through the renovation grants scheme and the executive's continuing grants programme which is targeted on those individuals and properties most in need. Funding for the executive's grants programme has been provided in response to its annual stategy review which supports its bid and is discussed as part of the public expenditure survey process.

  The executive recently issued a consultative document "Leading the Way" as a means of reviewing its rural housing policies and has conducted an extensive series of meetings with various interested local groups. Following an analysis of the detailed responses to this exercise the executive will be presenting its proposals to the Department for further consideration and discussion.

  Education and Libraries Boards
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many field officers have been employed by each of the education and library boards in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years;

  (2) what has been the cost of employing field officers by each of the education and library boards in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.
  391
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of field officer posts in each board's curriculum support service in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and the associated estimated cost was as follows:

  Number of posts

  1989–90 Estimated cost (£ thousands)

  Number of posts

  1990–91 Estimated cost (£ thousands)

  Belfast

  30

  409

  38

  568

  Western

  48

  677

  56

  880

  North Eastern

  43

  615

  53

  799

  South Eastern

  42

  582

  50

  777

  Southern

  43

  632

  51

  786

  Figures are not available for earlier years.

  Cancer
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is any evidence that the incidence of cancers has increased in recent years in the coastal areas of Northern Ireland as compared with inland areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the incidence of cancer is not normally collected on the basis of whether a person lives in a coastal or inland area. However, an independent committee investigating patterns of disease with a possible association with radiation which reported in 1989 found no evidence of a higher incidence of childhood leukaemia in coastal compared with inland areas.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any evidence that the incidence of cancers has increased in areas affected by the fallout from Chernobyl.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many cases ex-gratia payments have been made in respect of claims for family credit; and what were the criteria on which such ex-gratia payments were made.

  Mr. Hanley
  Only one ex-gratia payment has been made since the introduction of family credit in April 1988.

  An ex-gratia payment is made where the Department of Health and Social Services is satisfied that an officer has wrongly advised a person and this has resulted in loss of benefit; where a person has provided all the information required but the Department of Health and Social Services failed to take the necessary action; and where it is clear that a person gave the Department of Health and Social Services information that indicated prima facie entitlement to benefit but the Department failed to follow it up.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of pensioners in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  At 31 March 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, 215,604 people were receiving retirement pension and non-contributory retirement pension.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pensioners in Northern Ireland are in receipt of income support.
  392
  Mr. Hanley
  On 31 May 1989, the latest date for which information is readily available, the number of income support recipients aged over 65—men—and 60—women —was 55,680.

  Source: 5 per cent. sample.

  Security Force Operations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many instances ex-gratia payments have been made in response to claims for compensation as a result of security force operations or installations; and what were the criteria on which these payments were made.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ex-gratia compensation is paid by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland where property was damaged in the course of action by Army technical officers to clear suspect explosive devices. The criteria for making such payments are:—

  (i) that the RUC gave instructions for the ATO's action;

  (ii) that the RUC are satisfied that the claimant was not criminally involved in the incident;

  (iii) that there were no explosives found in the vehicle or property.

  Payments have been made under this scheme since 1982. In the 1989–90 financial year compensation was paid in 148 cases and in this financial year to 31 December 1990 compensation has been paid in 108 cases. Ex-gratia payments made by the Ministry of Defence are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans his Department has to help smokers give up smoking on No Smoking Day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Health Promotion Agency and health and social services boards are responsible for promoting good health in Northern Ireland. They are involved with other organisations in drawing public attention to No Smoking Day and the hazards of smoking, in encouraging smokers to stop on that day, and in assisting and supporting those who wish to give up smoking altogether. I was pleased to launch the campaign leading up to No Smoking Day recently. Other initiatives being taken include the widespread distribution of material, the provision of clinics to help smokers give up the habit and the organisation of numerous local events throughout Northern Ireland to promote No Smoking Day.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that no accident-damaged motor vehicle which has been written off by an insurance company can be imported into Northern Ireland, repaired and/or re-registered and sold without first undergoing an MOT examination.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. Decisions about write-offs are taken on economic grounds and many vehicles involved in road accidents are not written off. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that his or her vehicle is roadworthy.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the tonnage and average price of grain exported from the United Kingdom was(a) generally and (b) separately for each country to which grain was exported in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  The table shows the tonnage and value in 1989 and 1990 of United Kingdom exports of cereals. The list of individual countries shown is restricted to those for

  United Kingdom exports of cereals1

  Country

  1989

  1990

  Tonnage (000 tonnes)

  Value (£000)

  Tonnage (000 tonnes)

  Value (£000)

  EC countries

  1,768

  208,404

  2,804

  334,364

  of which:

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  450

  52,821

  720

  85,346

  Federal Republic of Germany

  489

  56,670

  72

  9,245

  Greece

  27

  3,336

  112

  13,761

  Irish Republic

  127

  16,390

  145

  18,751

  Italy

  303

  35,542

  724

  83,814

  Netherlands

  332

  38,642

  605

  71,824

  Spain

  2

  7

  419

  50,206

  Non-EC countries

  4,794

  370,691

  3,700

  282,151

  of which:

  Bangladesh

  164

  14,502

  —

  —

  Bulgaria

  164

  11,206

  —

  —

  China

  258

  27,090

  713

  59,425

  Cuba

  321

  25,598

  184

  10,653

  Egypt

  52

  5,767

  175

  11,308

  German Democratic Republic

  363

  26,679

  36

  2,597

  Iran

  608

  49,463

  135

  10,321

  Iraq

  130

  11,163

  —

  —

  Norway

  157

  11,939

  47

  3,739

  Saudi Arabia

  452

  31,719

  139

  9,956

  Soviet Union

  1,682

  120,098

  1,687

  132,952

  TOTAL

  6,562

  579,095

  6,504

  616,515

  1 Excluding rice.

  2 Less than half the units shown.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many days' supply of grain are currently in store in the United Kingdom(a) in intervention storage and (b) in all storage; and what the figures were for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Curry
  United Kingdom intervention stocks of cereals in mid-February 1991 represented around 12 days' supply compared with 11 days, 20 days and 25 days at the middle of February 1990, 1989 and 1988 respectively.

  The latest available information on the quantity of grain in commercial storage is in the form of estimates of stocks of wheat, barley and oats at 31 December 1990. Adding these estimates to the intervention stocks at the time gives total storage figures representing about 238, 256, 286 and 286 days' supply for December 1990, 1989, 1988 and 1987 respectively.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the stocks of grain which will be in store at the end of June(a) in Britain, (b) in the EC and (c) in the world, expressed in tonnes and days' supply; and what is the latest estimate of the stocks of grain at the present time in (i) Britain, (ii) the EC and (iii) the world expressed in tonnes and days' supply.
  394
  which the amount exported was in excess of 100,000 tonnes in either year. Total value has been provided instead of price because of the difficulty of providing meaningful comparative figures for the latter.

  Mr. Curry
  Current estimates of cereals likely to be in store in the United Kingdom and the European Community as a whole at the end of the 1990–91 marketing year on 30 June 1991 are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Days' supply

  United Kingdom

  3

  55

  European Community

  31

  79

  These figures are based on the Commission of the European Communities balance sheet for cereals.

  The International Wheat Council's estimate of world stocks of grain is an aggregate of national figures based on different definitions of marketing years and therefore does not relate to a particular date. However, the council's latest estimate for world stocks for the end of the 1990–91 crop year is 242 million tonnes or around 62 days' supply.

  The latest estimate of current stocks of grain in the United Kingdom is for 31 December 1990 when the total was 13 million tonnes, representing about 238 days' supply. Estimates for the European Community and the world are not available.
  395
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the total amount paid by each member state of the EEC in cereals co-responsibility levy for each year since the co-responsibility levy has been operative, expressed in both the member state's national currency and in pounds sterling and (b) the total tonnage of cereals produced in each member state of the EEC, showing in each case how much per tonne the co-responsibility levy represents.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest information provided by the Commission of the European Communities on cereals co-responsibility levy receipts in each member state was given to my hon. Friend on 18 December 1990,Official

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Production MT

  Receipts divided by production ECU/T

  Production MT

  Receipts divided by production ECU/T

  Production MT

  Receipts divided by production ECU/T

  Production MT

  Receipts divided by production ECU/T

  Belgium

  2·1

  2·48

  2·3

  8·24

  1·9

  7·27

  2·2

  5·86

  Denmark

  8·0

  0·23

  8·0

  1·51

  7·3

  1·32

  8·1

  4·37

  Germany

  25·9

  0·65

  25·5

  2·55

  23·8

  5·58

  27·1

  2·48

  Greece

  4·3

  0·20

  5·3

  0·28

  5·1

  1·19

  4·6

  1·35

  France

  56·1

  0·18

  50·1

  2·07

  52·2

  5·84

  55·9

  5·57

  Ireland

  1·8

  0·43

  1·8

  2·30

  2·0

  4·70

  2·0

  3·34

  Italy

  17·1

  0·59

  17·8

  2·10

  17·4

  1·93

  16·6

  3·39

  Luxembourg

  0·1

  0·69

  0·1

  4·19

  0·1

  2·80

  0·1

  3·00

  Netherlands

  1·1

  0·70

  1·3

  17·01

  1·1

  18·37

  1·2

  5·62

  Spain

  20·3

  —

  16·0

  2·42

  19·8

  1·72

  23·1

  3·03

  United Kingdom

  22·5

  0·43

  24·5

  2·56

  21·7

  3·31

  21·1

  5·50

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the cereal sector.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1990 United Kingdom cereals harvest is estimated to have been 22·4 million tonnes. Yields were higher than in 1989 and the quality of both wheat and barley crops were good, with a marked increase in supplies of malting barley. Ex-farm prices for breadmaking wheat have been 5 to 11 per cent. higher than last year for most of the season, feed wheat prices 4 to 7 per cent. higher and feed barley prices 2 to 6 per cent. higher; premium malting barley prices have generally been 7 to 12 per cent. lower than last season. By the end of February some 146,000 tonnes of grain had been offered into intervention. Provisional figures show exports of 4·2 million tonnes by mid-February. The net farm income for cereal farms in the United Kingdom is forcast to have risen in real terms over the last two years.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what the total tonnage and average price of imported grain from each country which exported grain to the United Kingdom was in 1990;

  (2) what the total tonnage and average price per tonne of all cereals imported into the United Kingdom was in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1989, the United Kingdom imported 5,102,000 tonnes of cereals valued at £361,486,000. Information for 1990 is shown in the table in total and by country. The list of individual countries is restricted to those for which the amount imported was in excess of 50,000 tonnes in 1990. Total value has been provided instead of price because of the difficulty of providing meaningful comparative figures for the latter.
  396
  Report column 133. The sums collected are expressed in budgetary ecus. It is not possible accurately to convert them into national currencies and sterling because no information is available on the timing of levy payments over the course of each year.

  Commission figures for annual cereals production in each member state where co-responsibility levy was collected are set out below, as is the levy collected divided by national production. It should be noted, however, that there is not an exact correspondence between the year in which grain is harvested and the following year's levy receipts. Nor is levy necessarily collected in the country of origin of the grain.

  United Kingdom imports of cereals1

  Country

  Tonnage (thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ thousands)

  EC countries of which:

  2,213

  314,645

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  79

  10,424

  Denmark

  76

  12,046

  Greece

  92

  14,278

  France

  1,530

  215,888

  Irish Republic

  255

  32,683

  Spain

  127

  20,686

  Non-EC countries of which:

  610

  60,297

  Argentina

  119

  9,553

  Canada

  320

  33,754

  South Africa

  101

  8,011

  Unites States of America

  66

  7,997

  Total

  2,823

  374,942

  1 Excluding rice.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of imports into the United Kingdom of(a) cereals and (b) cereal substitutes in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Volume of United Kingdom imports of cereals and cereal substitutes ('000 tonnes)

  Cereals1

  Cereal substitutes2

  1979

  6,187

  432

  1980

  5,339

  519

  1981

  4,191

  1,382

  1982

  3,747

  2,129

  1983

  3,245

  1,440

  1984

  2,769

  1,049

  1985

  3,308

  1,037

  1986

  3,517

  1,036

  397

  Cereals1

  Cereal substitutes2

  1987

  3,521

  1,091

  1988

  3,370

  1,144

  1989

  5,102

  833

  1990

  2,823

  1,235

  1 Excluding rice.

  2 As defined in Annex D of EC Regulation 2727/75.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports of damage to farm workers have been received as a result of handling or being exposed to organophosphorous sheep dip.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has received 55 reports of suspected adverse reactions affecting farmers and farm workers following exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips since 1985. Five of these concern a product withdrawn from the market in 1986.

  Somerset Moors
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions officials of his Department have had with the Somerset trust for nature conservation regarding water levels on the Somerset moors.

  Mr. Curry
  Our officials have received representations from the Somerset trust for nature conservation pressing for a higher water level regime on the Somerset moors. Its views will be fully taken into account in my current review of the ESA policy.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions are contained in Somerset levels ESA agreements on the maintenance of water levels to assist nature conservation.

  Mr. Curry
  The agreements require that, where rhyne water levels are within the farmers' control, suitable levels must be maintained for grazing livestock between 31 March and 1 November and that at no time are the ditches or rhynes allowed to dry out.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the proportion of the value of food which has gone to(a) the producer and (b) the processor, wholesaler and retailer in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no information to add to that given to my hon. Friend on 29 March 1990,Official Report, column 255.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.
  398
  Mr. Curry
  We have received a number of inquiries during the period. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received applications for approval for licensing irradiation plants in the United Kingdom; if he will list any plants which have received such approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received inquiries, but no formal application has yet been made.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the process for the approval of plants in the United Kingdom which will irradiate food; what is the name of the committee which will consider such approvals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Applications for licences will be considered by a committee of officials of the Argiculture and Health Departments of the countries concerned. The committee will include scientists and administrators with expertise in the fields of medicine, radiation science, toxicology, microbiology, nutrition, and food hygiene. The committee will seek such other advice as it considers necessary. The recommendations of the committee will be considered by the Agriculture and Health Ministers acting jointly.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answers to the hon. Member for South Shields of 20 December,Official Report, column 297, whether he has now (a) given approval to irradiation plants in non-EC countries or (b) given official authorisation to irradiation plants in EC countries to import irradiated foods into the United Kingdom; and if he will list all such plants.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have nothing to add to the answers given to the hon. Member on 20 December 1990, at column 297.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day, on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  All staff in my Department have been advised of No Smoking Day. We are soon to introduce a smoking policy with restrictions on areas where smoking is permitted. All staff will be told that welfare officers in the Department have been given training which will enable them to advise and give practical help to anyone who wishes to stop smoking.

  Butter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 26 February,Official Report, column 433, whether any butter from the United Kingdom has been or is due to be exported to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Gummer
  No butter was exported from the United Kingdom to the USSR in January, the latest month for which data are available. I am not aware of any future exports.

  Infant Formulae
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government propose to support European directive iii/3712/90/EN revision 3 on infant formulae and follow-up foods; and what are its implications for labelling of such foods.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have been pressing, and will continue to do so, for amendments to the text of the draft directive to align it more closely with the World Health Organisation international code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes. Nevertheless, mindful of the important compositional, nutritional, health and safety controls in the draft we do not rule out a United Kingdom vote in favour of the directive. If adopted, for the first time there will be specific labelling controls laid down in law for infant formulae and follow-on formulae.

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the implications of the Ministry of Agriculture's research at Torry for the planned implementation of the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on Tuesday 26 February to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

SCOTLAND

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences were issued for mink farms for each region in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Region or Islands area

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Central

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grampian

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Lothian

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Shetland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  Tayside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  TOTAL

  9

  8

  8

  6

  6

  Local Authorities Legislation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those Acts passed by Parliament since 1979 concerning(a) local government finance and (b) local authority duties, powers and responsibilities that relate to Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The following Acts passed since 1979 have contained provisions relating to local government finance in Scotland:

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 1981

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981

  Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982

  Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Act 1983

  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984

  Local Government Act 1986

  Local Government Finance Act 1987

  Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987

  Local Government Act 1988

  Local Government Finance Act 1988

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Act 1990

  The second part of the hon. Member's question could be answered only at disproportionate cost given the wide range of local authority activities affected by legislation since 1979.

  Parking
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regulations applying to the conditions relating to whether vehicles are allowed to park on a double yellow line.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Double yellow lines give effect to a traffic regulation order made under the provisions of sections 1, 2, 4, 9 or 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict the waiting of vehicles for at least eight hours during the period between 7 am and 7 pm on at least four days per week. The timing and direction of the prohibition or restrictions are displayed on plates placed at regular intervals along the length of the carriageway so restricted. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend to make orders prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles on trunk roads and of the local authorities for their roads. The terms of each order may vary according to the circumstances for which it is required.

  School Tests
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total annual cost of the national tests in primary schools, including all aspects of design, compilation, printing, marking, standardisation and collation of results.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 6 February 1991 at col.87.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the exact arrangments to be made for transferring primary seven test results to secondary schools; when and by whom a decision was made on this; and when the decision was communicated to the regional councils, COSLA and the unions.
  401
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Testing in Primary Schools (Scotland) Regulations 1990 require test results from 1992 onwards to be entered in the pupil's progress record. This document goes with a pupil throughout his or her school career. The intention to pass the P7 test results of pupils to secondary schools was made clear in the consultation document "Curriculum and Assessment: A Policy for the 90s" issued in November 1987.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he obtained from(a) the General Teaching Council, (b) the Scottish Examination Board and (c) the Scottish Council for Research in Education on national primary tests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The General Teaching Council and the Scottish Council for Research in Education responded to the consultation document "Curriculum and Assessment: A Policy for the 90s". Tests have been developed through the primary assessment unit of the Scottish Examination Board.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for the design of the national tests for primary school children; and what recommendations were made to him by Her Majesty's inspectorate about the tests, the subjects to be included and validation and standardisation of the tests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The preparation of test units, including their validation and standardisation, is the responsibility of the primary assessment unit of the Scottish Examination Board. Representatives of Her Majesty's inspectorate maintain close liaison with the unit. The intention to introduce tests in language and mathematics was announced in the consultation document, "Curriculum and Assessment: A Policy for the 90s" issued in November 1987.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what organisations or individuals have contacted him expressing(a) support and (b) opposition to national tests in primary schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 6 March 1991 at columns 281–82.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his office has considered the views of the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in response to the policy statement on rural housing published by Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The views of the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are in response to the Rural Strategy document issued by Scottish Homes.

  It is therefore for Scottish Homes to consider the views put forward by the convention and respond accordingly.

  Cold Weather
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information and statistics he has from health boards in Scotland relating to increases in cold-related diseases during periods of cold weather; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information and statistics on cold-related diseases during periods of cold weather are not held centrally.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received, since 4 January 1990, from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Lang
  One hundred and six. There are no plans to copy such items of correspondence to the hon. Members for the constituencies concerned.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to provide support to smokers seeking to give up smoking on No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Scotland the main responsibility for health education and the prevention of ill health lies at present with the Scottish Health Education Group. The group is supporting No Smoking Day through sponsorship of a free telephone helpline to provide support to smokers seeking to give up smoking. In addition the United Kingdom No Smoking Day Committee, on which the group is represented, has distributed supportive materials to over 1,000 organisations in Scotland, including health boards, local authorities, youth organisa-tions and large businesses.

  Child Care Law
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the recommendations of the committee set up to review child care law in Scotland and in particular to the recommendations relating to the issue of parental access to children in care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are considering the recommendations of the review, including those of parental access, in the light of the comments that we have received.

  Place of Safety Orders
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) in respect of place of safety orders executed in Scotland in 1990, what information he has on the number of occasions the relevant children's hearing considered the order on(a) the same day as execution, (b) the following day, (c) two days after execution, (d) three days after execution, (e) four days after execution, (f) five days after execution, (g) six days after execution and (h) seven days after execution;
  403
  (2) what information he has regarding the number of place of safety orders executed in Scotland in 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Latest available information is for the calender year 1989, when 1,329 place of safety authorisations were made. Of those 1,238 resulted in a hearing taking place. Figures showing the number of days a child was detained in a place of safety prior to a hearing are as follows:

  Number

  1 day1

  115

  2 days

  101

  3 days

  125

  4 days

  197

  5 days

  160

  6 days

  221

  7 days

  319

  1 Includes detentions which are shorter than 24 hours.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of intervention food stores by commodity, respectively, at the most recent date for which figures are available in public and private storage, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer Tuesday 5 March 1991]: Information on a United Kingdom basis is deposited regularly in the Library of the House. Information on stores located in Scotland as at 31 January 1991 is given in the table. Comparable United Kingdom figures are shown in brackets.

  Tonnage

  Food commodity

  Public storage

  Aided private storage

  Beef

  5,570

  (81,016)

  Nil

  (Nil)

  Butter

  Nil

  (22,474)

  Nil

  (974)

  Lamb

  Nil

  (Nil)

  Nil

  (598)

  Pigmeat

  Nil

  (Nil)

  Nil

  (137)

  Wheat

  Nil

  (35,011)

  Nil

  (Nil)

  Barley

  298,896

  (616,011)

  Nil

  (Nil)

  Rye

  Nil

  (203)

  Nil

  (Nil)

  Further inquiries about operational aspects of intervention should be addressed to the chief executive of the intervention board.

  Qualified nurses: by status, grade and health board: at 30 September 1990

  Number

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Management

  583

  96

  12

  9

  9

  15

  23

  30

  CANO1

  8

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Director of nursing1

  70

  12

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  6

  Senior nurse 1–6

  234

  7

  9

  1

  6

  6

  13

  19

  Senior nurse 7–8

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Scale I

  116

  51

  —

  2

  —

  4

  1

  —

  Scale H

  114

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Scale G

  31

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  4

  —

  Scale F

  5

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Teachers

  905

  53

  39

  13

  26

  45

  43

  94

  Grade 7

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 6

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  8

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Forestry Commission
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his plans for the sale of the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: 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 columns at 544–45.

  Kelvin Valley
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had on the proposed line of the M80 through the Kelvin valley; and how many of these representations(a) favoured and (b) opposed the Kelvin valley option.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: The route through the Kelvin valley is one of two routes assessed by the consulting engineers in the feasibility study submitted recently to the Scottish Office Environment Department. The respective merits of these are currently under consideration and only after a preferred route is identified will draft road orders be published. At that stage representations will be invited.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for the line of the M80 through the Kelvin valley.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: Discussions on the feasibility study received from the Scottish Office Environment Department's consulting engineers are still continuing. On completion of these formal presentations will be made to regional and district councils and other affected parties. Thereafter, a decision will be taken on the preferred route for the M80.

  Nurses
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses are employed by each of the health boards(a) at each grade and (b) in total.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 March 1991]: The latest available information held centrally for the number of nurses employed at 30 September 1990 by each of the health boards at each grade and in total is given in the tables.
  405

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Grade 4

  27

  4

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Grade 3

  103

  2

  3

  2

  5

  5

  4

  8

  Grade 2

  469

  27

  20

  7

  14

  21

  23

  45

  Grade 1

  286

  19

  13

  2

  4

  17

  13

  37

  Clinical grades

  40,905

  2,907

  2,343

  777

  1,275

  2,376

  2,228

  4,442

  Scale I

  445

  10

  30

  11

  23

  41

  33

  71

  Scale H

  1,014

  82

  44

  24

  36

  58

  46

  84

  Scale G

  8,135

  656

  481

  155

  233

  442

  454

  731

  Scale F

  3,516

  412

  318

  121

  129

  119

  104

  324

  Scale E

  137,400

  738

  750

  244

  436

  826

  850

  1,092

  Scale D

  10,298

  739

  506

  131

  336

  623

  557

  1,549

  Scale C

  3,757

  270

  214

  91

  82

  267

  184

  591

  Number

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Management

  111

  15

  108

  98

  1

  5

  49

  2

  CANO1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Director of nursing1

  14

  2

  5

  8

  —

  —

  9

  1

  Senior nurse 1–6

  63

  10

  25

  40

  1

  3

  31

  —

  Senior nurse 7–8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scale I

  5

  2

  11

  38

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Scale H

  15

  1

  58

  8

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Scale G

  10

  —

  8

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Scale F

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Teachers

  243

  31

  66

  165

  —

  1

  86

  —

  Grade 7

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 4

  7

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 3

  26

  11

  8

  20

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Grade 2

  135

  6

  42

  90

  —

  —

  39

  —

  Grade 1

  70

  12

  14

  49

  —

  1

  35

  —

  Clinical grades

  8,690

  1,763

  3,780

  5,716

  174

  169

  3,982

  283

  Scale I

  71

  40

  15

  67

  2

  —

  26

  5

  Scale H

  265

  52

  56

  128

  3

  7

  125

  4

  Scale G

  1,825

  367

  715

  1,230

  43

  44

  684

  75

  Scale F

  632

  212

  249

  514

  26

  17

  321

  18

  Scale E

  3,047

  728

  1,315

  2,179

  22

  28

  1,381

  104

  Scale D

  2,290

  309

  892

  1,309

  38

  20

  953

  46

  Scale C

  560

  55

  538

  289

  40

  53

  492

  31

  1 Chief area nursing officers and directors of nursing services may be classified either as nursing staff or administrative staff—those shown in this table are classifed as nursing staff.

  Qualified nurses: by status, grade and health board: at 30 September 1990

  Whole-time equivalent

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Management

  576·8

  96·0

  11·5

  7·7

  9·0

  15·0

  22·6

  30·0

  CANO1

  8·0

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  Director of nursing

  70·0

  12·0

  2·0

  2·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  6·0

  Senior nurse 1–6

  232·1

  7·0

  8·5

  0·5

  6·0

  6·0

  12·6

  19·0

  Senior nurse 7–8

  5·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  Scale I

  115·5

  51·5

  —

  2·0

  —

  4·0

  1·0

  —

  Scale H

  113·0

  23·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  2·0

  Scale G

  28·7

  1·0

  —

  1·2

  —

  1·0

  4·0

  —

  Scale F

  4·5

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Teachers

  886·0

  52·8

  37·0

  13·0

  25·5

  44·5

  42·9

  91·0

  Grade 7

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  Grade 6

  6·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  Grade 5

  8·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  —

  1·0

  Grade 4

  27·0

  4·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  Grade 3

  102·4

  2·0

  3·0

  2·0

  5·0

  5·0

  4·0

  8·0

  Grade 2

  462·0

  27·0

  19·0

  7·0

  14·0

  21·0

  22·9

  44·2

  Grade 1

  274·6

  18·8

  12·0

  2·0

  3·5

  16·5

  13·0

  34·8

  Clinical grades

  347,38·1

  2,426·6

  2,026·8

  660·6

  1,056·2

  2,055·1

  1,851·2

  3,453·8

  Scale I

  444·7

  10·0

  30·0

  11·0

  23·0

  41·0

  33·0

  71·0

  406

  407

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Scale H

  1,004·9

  79·8

  44·0

  24·0

  36·0

  57·9

  45·6

  83·1

  Scale G

  7,600·3

  605·7

  456·9

  146·6

  218·7

  421·4

  436·2

  682·6

  Scale F

  2,935·7

  323·7

  276·4

  93·9

  107·4

  96·5

  82·7

  244·2

  Scale E

  11,296·8

  592·4

  614·7

  200·0

  333·8

  683·8

  672·2

  882·8

  Scale D

  84,60·0

  583·4

  437·7

  112·7

  280·5

  530·6

  449·1

  1,083·9

  Scale C

  2,995·7

  231·6

  167·1

  72·4

  56·8

  223·9

  132·4

  406·2

  Whole time equivalent

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanark-shire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Management

  109·6

  15·0

  107·0

  97·5

  1·0

  5·0

  47·9

  2·0

  CANO1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Director of nursing1

  14·0

  2·0

  5·0

  8·0

  —

  —

  9·0

  1·0

  Senior nurse 1–6

  63·0

  10·0

  24·5

  40·0

  1·0

  3·0

  31·0

  —

  Senior nurse 7–8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scale I

  5·0

  2·0

  11·0

  37·5

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  Scale H

  15·0

  1·0

  57·5

  8·0

  —

  —

  5·5

  —

  Scale G

  9·1

  —

  8·0

  4·0

  —

  —

  0·4

  —

  Scale F

  2·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Teachers

  234·8

  30·5

  65·4

  162·9

  —

  1·0

  84·7

  —

  Grade 7

  2·0

  —

  1·0

  2·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  2·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  Grade 5

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  Grade 4

  7·0

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  Grade 3

  26·0

  11·0

  7·4

  20·0

  —

  —

  9·0

  —

  Grade 2

  130·8

  6·0

  42·0

  89·3

  —

  —

  38·8

  —

  Grade 1

  66·0

  11·5

  14·0

  47·6

  —

  1·0

  33·9

  —

  Clinical grades

  7,629·4

  1,474·1

  3,191·5

  4,987·5

  152·0

  148·9

  3,423·7

  200·7

  Scale I

  70·7

  40·0

  15·0

  67·0

  2·0

  —

  26·0

  5·0

  Scale H

  263·3

  49·3

  56·0

  127·1

  3·0

  7·0

  124·8

  4·0

  Scale G

  1,688·3

  326·3

  671·8

  1,135·8

  41·7

  42·4

  659·6

  66·3

  Scale F

  563·0

  179·9

  191·1

  440·0

  20·8

  14·1

  289·0

  13·0

  Scale E

  2,618·7

  578·8

  1,083·3

  1,831·2

  19·9

  23·1

  1,099·4

  62·7

  Scale D

  1,962·4

  258·8

  745·1

  1,129·6

  29·4

  17·1

  812·4

  27·3

  Scale C

  463·0

  41·0

  429·2

  256·8

  35·2

  45·2

  412·5

  22·4

  1 Chief area nursing officers and directors of nursing services may be classified either as nursing staff or administrative staff—those shown in this table are classified as nursing staff.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British fatalities were incurred in the conflict with Iraq; what were the circumstances in which each such death occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 8 March, at column 330.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the civil service contributions to the military effort in the Gulf.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to pay tribute to the very great efforts that have been and are still being made by the civil service in support of all operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent 1st Armoured Division has been dependent on assistance from non-United Kingdom helicopters during the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 1st Armoured Division operated as an integral part of the United States 7th Army Corps and, as such, British commanders were able to call 408
  on United States helicopter assistance. British Army and RAF helicopters undertook similar missions in support of United States ground forces.

  Radiation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for(a) Rosyth dockyard, (b) Devonport dockyard, (c) Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment and (d) Coulport RNAD of individual radiation dose exposures for workers in the bands (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 15, (iii) 15 to 20, (iv) 20 to 30, (v) 30 to 40 and (vi) greater than 40 mSv for the year 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The final radiation dose exposures for 1990 in respect of workers at these establishments are not yet available.

  War Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will explain the rules which govern the restoration of a widow's pension in circumstances where a woman has been widowed a first time and granted a Ministry of Defence pension, subsequently remarries, so losing her Ministry of Defence pension, and is then widowed a second time and seeks restoration of her Ministry of Defence pension.
  409
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Under the rules both of the armed forces pension scheme and of the principal civil service pension scheme, a widow loses her entitlement to a widow's pension on remarriage. Any subsequent resumption of payment is discretionary, but a pension may be restored to a widow on second widowhood if she is worse off after her second husband's death, without her former public service widow's pension, than she was on first widowhood with that pension.

  Discretion to restore the pension lies with the Ministry of Defence in respect of the armed forces pension scheme, and with Her Majesty's Treasury in respect of the principal civil service pension scheme. In both cases, account is taken of all the widow's financial circumstances, including any pension entitlement which may accrue to her from her second marriage.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice where the former are concerned to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received six letters from Members of the European Parliament about local or national matters since 4 January 1990. If there is no European Community content in the MEP's letter and a constituency interest predominates, the MEP would be advised to refer the case to the MP for the constituency concerned.

  Missiles
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the reasons for the delay so far in the issue of the invitation to tender—ITT—for ASRAAM—the advanced short-range air-to-air missile.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is taking longer than we hoped to finalise the terms of the ITT because of the complexities associated with this procurement.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent so far by his Department on the ASRAAM project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information is classified.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to preserve the family of weapons now covering the advanced short-range and medium-range air-to-air missiles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are currently discussing with the United States the status Of the family of weapons memorandum of understanding.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any missile other than BAe's ASRAAM proposal meets the specification of staff requirement (air) 1234.

  (2) whether the British Aerospace ASRAAM proposal meets the specification of staff requirement (air) 1234.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The evaluation of responses to the ITT will determine which proposals meet the specification of SR(A) 1234.
  410
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when an invitation to tender for ASRAAM will be released to industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The ITT will be issued as soon as possible.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends to proceed with a European solution to the ASRAAM requirement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We plan to seek competitive proposals for solutions to our advanced short-range missile requirements.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated benefit to the United Kingdom of the export potential of ASRAAM.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is too early to say.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department is publicising national No Smoking Day by the distribution of some 2,000 posters and by a message to all staff encouraging them to give up smoking. The Department's policy is to discourage smoking at the workplace. Counselling is available for those who wish to give up.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of personnel in the Territorial Army in 1979, 1985 and 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The strength of the Territorial Army, including the Home Service Force was, as at 31 January in each year, 59,103 in 1979, 73,462 in 1985 and 75,135 in 1991.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what pension or other payments will be made(a) to the relatives of British service men killed in the Gulf war, and (b) to service men disabled in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Pensions and other benefits are payable in respect of casualties of the Gulf conflict under the provisions of the armed forces pension scheme.

  In respect of personnel killed these take the form of lump sums and a pension to an eligible widow(er), with an additional pension in respect of each eligible child up to a maximum of four; where there is no eligible widow(er), benefits in respect of any eligibile children are increased. A lump sum is payable into the estate of a service man or service woman who leaves neither an eligible widow(er) nor an eligible child.

  Personnel invalided as the result of injury which is attributable to service receive a lump sum or sums and, where disability is assessed at 20 per cent. or more or qualifying service given is at least two years, a pension.

  The amounts payable are related to service rank held and also, in the case of personnel discharged as the result of injury, to the assessed degree of disability. In certain circumstances the length of service given is also relevant.
  411
  Benefits are also payable under the provisions of the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security.

  Main Battle Tank
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the awarding of the contract for main battle tanks for the British Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 8 March at columns 290–91.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, columns 58–59, on the real value of SERPS, if he will give the figures for the scheme as it was before the Social Security Act 1986 changes, but otherwise on the same basis.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table. It is important to note that calculations of this nature can provide only a hypothetical view of the distant future based, as they are, on unchanged assumptions about economic variables and policies.

  Amounts of additional pension at award in 1990 price terms pre 1986 act basis weekly amounts of additional pension payable on retirement on 6 April each year

  Year

  UEL1

  Average earnings

  Half average earnings

  1990

  48·65

  31·85

  12·70

  1991

  53·20

  34·95

  13·90

  1992

  57·55

  38·10

  15·15

  1993

  62·15

  41·50

  16·65

  1994

  66·70

  44·90

  18·00

  1995

  71·35

  48·40

  19·45

  1996

  76·25

  52·25

  21·15

  1997

  81·10

  56·00

  22·75

  1998

  86·00

  59·90

  24·45

  1999

  87·25

  60·85

  24·85

  2000

  88·75

  61·95

  25·45

  2001

  90·10

  62·95

  25·95

  2002

  91·55

  64·00

  26·45

  2003

  93·00

  65·05

  26·95

  2004

  94·50

  66·20

  27·55

  2005

  96·05

  67·35

  28·15

  2006

  97·55

  68·40

  28·65

  2007

  99·10

  69·55

  29·20

  2008

  100·65

  70·70

  29·80

  2009

  102·30

  71·90

  30·40

  2010

  103·90

  73·05

  30·95

  2011

  105·50

  74·25

  31·55

  2012

  107·20

  75·45

  32·20

  2013

  108·85

  76·65

  32·75

  2014

  110·55

  77·90

  33·35

  2015

  112·30

  79·20

  34·00

  2016

  114·10

  80·55

  34·70

  2017

  115·90

  81·85

  35·35

  2018

  117·65

  83·10

  36·00

  2019

  119·55

  84·50

  36·70

  2020

  121·35

  85·80

  37·35

  2021

  123·30

  87·25

  38·05

  2022

  125·20

  88·65

  38·75

  2023

  127·15

  90·05

  39·45

  2024

  129·15

  91·50

  40·20

  2025

  131·10

  92·95

  40·90

  2026

  133·15

  94·45

  41·65

  412

  Year

  UEL1

  Average earnings

  Half average earnings

  2027

  135·25

  95·95

  42·40

  2028

  135·50

  97·20

  43·05

  2029

  135·85

  98·30

  43·55

  From 1990 onwards 5 per cent. prices and 6·5 per cent. earnings assumed.

  1 UEL = Upper Earnings Limit.

  Unemployed Persons (Costs)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he makes of the average cost to the Treasury of each unemployed person in unemployment benefit and lost revenues from taxes and national insurance.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1990–91 the estimated average weekly cost of unemployment benefit per person was £40·35. Estimates of national insurance and tax revenue forgone are not available.

  War Widow's Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will explain the rules which govern the restoration of a widow's pension in circumstances where a woman has been widowed a first time and granted a war widow's pension, subsequently remarries and loses her war widow's pension, and is then widowed a second time and seeks restoration of her war widow's pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  War widow's pensions cease on remarriage. Widows of ranks other than officers receive a gratuity equal to one year's war widow's pension, but may not have their pension restored if widowed through non-service causes a second time. Officers' widows do not receive a gratuity, but if widowed a second time, may have their war widow's pension reinstated subject to need. In effect this means that any other income is topped up to the level of war widow's pensions. A joint working group set up in 1985 with the Council of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations agreed that there was a need for a change in these provisions. However, there was no consensus of opinion about what changes should be made to these very long-standing provisions; and it was decided to leave matters as they were.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice, where the former are concerned, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her correspondence.

  Mr. Jack
  Between 4 January 1990 and 6 March 1991 we received 26 such letters. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which concern exclusively local matters, our normal practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP refers the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has undertaken extensive publicity to make staff aware of no smoking day, including Health Education Authority posters on all notice boards, articles in house magazines, reminders in weekly circulars and competitions to encourage staff to give up smoking. In addition, under the Department's established policy on non-smoking, staff are allowed paid time off to attend recognised courses to help them stop smoking.

  Social Fund Loans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of income support claimants are now repaying social fund loans; and what is the total outstanding loan debt.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 January 1991, 10 per cent. of income support claimants were repaying social fund loans; the total debt outstanding was £135 million.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of repayment of social fund loans; and if he will remove the cash limit on local office loan budgets where repayment levels are high.

  Mr. Scott
  From April 1990 to the end of January, £105 million was recovered from loan expenditure. We have no plans to remove the limits on local office loan budgets, but additional budget allocations are made where appropriate.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 March to the hon. Member for Wakefield, whether, if a suitable person acting on behalf of the resident placed in a care home trust is a local authority social worker, the resident would be eligible for income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for income support is not affected by the person acting as appointee, but is based solely on the circumstances of the individual claimant.

  Delayed Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps have been taken by his Department to inform hon. Members of the Department's compensa-tion scheme for delayed payments;

  (2) what system exists for compensating those whose pension or benefit is paid more than a year late; and if he will publish the rules which govern such a system;

  (3) how many individuals received compensation payments for delayed payments for each of the years for which figures are available; and how many claims for such payments were unsuccessful.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Ex-gratia compensation may be paid when payment of benefit amounting to £50 or more has either been delayed for 12 months or longer, or interrupted for at least three months, because of clear and 414
  unambiguous official error. If claimants do not themselves raise the matter, the Department's local offices are required to identify cases eligible to be considered for such compensation. These arrangements are in accordance with the general principles concerning ex-gratia payments in "Government Accounting", the Treasury's guide to accounting and financial procedures in government. Each case is decided within those general principles, taking into account its particular facts and circumstances, which vary widely from case to case. The annual reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have drawn attention to the availability of compensation.

  Payments have been made as follows:

  Year

  Number of individual payments

  1989–90

  385

  1988–89

  529

  1987–88

  911

  1986–87

  654

  1985–86

  540

  1984–85

  171

  Information on the number of unsuccessful cases is not available.

  Child Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what period or periods he intends to prescribe as the maximum for reductions of benefit under clause 22 of the Child Support Bill; and whether adjudication officers and social security appeal tribunals will be given unfettered discretion to decide, within the prescribed maxima, the amount and duration of such reduction.

  Mr. Jack
  Every child has a right to care from his or her parents, and the payment of child maintenance is one crucial way in which parents fulfil their responsibilities towards their children. A caring parent who is in receipt of income support, family credit or any other prescribed benefit will be required to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in obtaining maintenance for his or her children from the absent parent, unless there is good cause not to do so. Where there is no good cause, and the caring parent fails to fulfil this requirement, his or her benefit will be reduced.

  The detailed operation of the arrangements for which clause 22 makes provision, and which will in due course be set out in regulations, is still under consideration.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on advertising family credit in each year since 1988–89; and what is the expected expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  3,061,000

  1989–90

  5,835,000

  1990–91

  13,894,000

  1991–92

  23,000,000

  1 This includes £1·5 million for the current TV advertising campaign drawing the attention of 6·8 million families to the

  415
  personalised message about family credit which now appears in child benefit order books. 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.

  2 Expected.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many family credit awards were current, and

  Number of family credit awards current at end of month1

  Caseload (including backdated awards) as at end of month

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Total

  April 1989

  251,897

  235,820

  43,160

  278,980

  May 1989

  235,751

  255,420

  44,620

  300,040

  June 1989

  263,480

  263,200

  45,520

  308,720

  July 1989

  275,414

  268,140

  45,080

  313,220

  August 1989

  281,734

  269,100

  44,440

  313,540

  September 1989

  288,631

  273,560

  44,700

  318,260

  October 1989

  278,122

  268,880

  43,660

  312,540

  November 1989

  274,194

  257,660

  43,080

  300,740

  December 1989

  263,135

  249,760

  41,340

  291,100

  January 1990

  265,548

  255,300

  44,100

  299,400

  February 1990

  278,392

  261,960

  44,860

  306,820

  March 1990

  281,559

  263,360

  45,920

  309,280

  April 1990

  280,898

  267,240

  46,760

  314,000

  May 1990

  268,933

  267,940

  47,260

  315,200

  June 1990

  275,250

  272,360

  47,480

  319,840

  July 1990

  279,856

  277,620

  48,200

  325,820

  August 1990

  281,414

  —

  —

  2324,000

  September 1990

  282,019

  —

  —

  2326,000

  October 1990

  280,744

  —

  —

  2326,000

  November 1990

  293,343

  —

  —

  2324,000

  December 1990

  284,429

  —

  —

  3

  January 1991

  281,250

  —

  —

  3

  February 1991

  288,924

  —

  —

  3

  1 A breakdown between employees and self-employed is not available.

  2 Provisional totals: no breakdown between employers and employed at this stage.

  3 Meaningful figures not yet available because of claims not yet decided.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest information he has as to the number of employees and self-employed people, respectively, who are eligible for family credit; and whether he will arrange a special examination of 1989 and 1990 family expenditure survey returns, similar to that carried out on the 1988 return.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest information about the number of families eligible for family credit is from the special examination of family expenditure survey returns for 1988. This showed that the total eligible population of employees at that time was about 500,000. Reliable estimates of the number of self-employed who are eligible are not possible from family expenditure survey data. It is clear from administrative information and other research that families are moving into and out of eligibility for family credit all the time, so that the composition of the eligible population is constantly changing.

  Claims registered

  Decisions made which resulted in an award of family credit

  Number

  Percentage of all decisions

  Date

  New

  Renewal

  Total

  New

  Renewal

  New

  Renewal

  May 1989

  94,900

  30,162

  125,062

  20,484

  18,703

  35·4

  86·7

  June 1989

  79,906

  35,340

  115,246

  39,721

  34,057

  40·0

  86·5

  July 1989

  41,671

  25,639

  66,948

  26,599

  23,405

  47·8

  86·5

  August 1989

  37,059

  25,639

  62,698

  23,675

  24,483

  51·4

  86·5

  September 1989

  47,534

  33,110

  80,644

  25,696

  28,802

  51·6

  86·7

  October 1989

  39,629

  40,729

  80,358

  21,693

  28,817

  53·0

  84·0

  November 1989

  45,523

  36,790

  82,313

  21,497

  33,580

  51·6

  82·2

  December 1989

  42,890

  28,054

  70,944

  18,687

  25,007

  47·2

  81·4

  January 1990

  43,471

  35,301

  78,772

  20,701

  29,524

  46·6

  82·4

  February 1990

  46,288

  29,824

  76,112

  23,680

  28,092

  50·9

  83·9

  416
  what was the caseload including backdated awards at the end of each month since April 1989, for employees and self-employed people, respectively.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is as follows:

  The special examination of the 1988 family expenditure survey returns, which cost over £10,000, was undertaken in early 1989 because we were considering a major advertising campaign. The actual size of the eligible population at any one time is therefore only one, albeit important, factor which needs to be considered. We have no plans to arrange a special examination of family expenditure survey returns for 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) new claims and (b) renewal claims for family credit were made in each month since April 1989; and how many and what percentage were successful, distinguishing, for both new and renewal claims, between those made by employees and those made by self-employed people.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is as follows:
  417

  Claims registered

  Decisions made which resulted in an award of family credit

  Number

  Percentage of all decisions

  Date

  New

  Renewal

  Total

  New

  Renewal

  New

  Renewal

  March 1990

  50,906

  39,025

  89,931

  26,273

  31,688

  50·5

  85·4

  April 1990

  41,118

  35,568

  76,686

  18,225

  24,569

  52·2

  88·3

  May 1990

  50,119

  43,033

  93,152

  24,279

  34,919

  55·0

  88·4

  June 1990

  43,528

  26,937

  70,465

  20,622

  26,199

  53·8

  87·7

  July 1990

  45,967

  29,357

  75,324

  24,536

  27,574

  53·0

  87·0

  August 1990

  53,147

  39,596

  92,531

  24,905

  29,122

  52·5

  86·0

  September 1990

  42,702

  34,328

  76,546

  20,362

  25,680

  50·5

  84·3

  October 1990

  41,590

  40,269

  81,625

  24,196

  33,652

  53·4

  83·8

  November 1990

  50,339

  47,119

  97,458

  31,208

  46,533

  54·9

  84·3

  December 1990

  21,479

  21,486

  42,965

  13,214

  19,702

  54·5

  85·0

  January 1991

  27,541

  41,158

  40,405

  17,442

  31,130

  50·6

  84·1

  February 1991

  47,350

  34,148

  81,498

  21,749

  31,972

  52·4

  85·0

  Note:

  1. The figures are for the four or five weeks ending on the last Friday of each month.

  2. Separate information for employees and self-employed people is only available at disproportionate cost either for claims or for decisions made.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the full detailed secondary analysis of the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the prevalence of disability which relate to the number of disabled people who need special diets and their eligibility or ineligibility for the new lower care component of disability laving allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  When devising the lower rate care component of the disability living allowance, we looked at the OPCS evidence about people who said that they had care needs in connection with bodily functions or key daily tasks, but who would not be eligible for either of the existing rates of attendance allowance. We then looked more closely at the circumstances of these people to see whether we had identified a sensible target group. In particular we looked at what other disabilities these people suffered from—including whether they needed a special diet. The evidence suggests that, as with the existing rates of benefit, the new lower rates are convenient means of identifying people with a whole range of disabilities.

TRANSPORT

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the arrangements for liaison between his Department and the Ministry of Defence in the Bristol channel area; and if he will make a statement on the work of Her Majesty's coastguard on Friday 22 February 1991 when shipping was advised to clear the area during a simulation exercise on the jettisoning of bombs by B52 bombers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Close liaison between my Department and the Ministry of Defence is maintained by the maritime rescue co-ordination centres of Her Majesty's coastguard at Falmouth and Swansea and the joint RAF-Royal Navy maritime HQ at Plymouth.

  Her Majesty's coastguard had neither knowledge of, nor involvement in, any exercises in the Bristol channel area on 22 February 1991.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about discussions with British Rail about a channel tunnel freight terminal in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Freeman
  The location of channel tunnel freight terminals is a commercial matter for British Rail. I understand that it expects to decide later this year between two possible sites to serve Greater Manchester for the start of tunnel operations.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the consultants W. S. Atkins on the evaluation of channel tunnel rail link options; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  W. S. Atkins published on 4 March its interim report to British Rail proposing the detailed methodology for British Rail's comparison of the options for the rail link. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive details of the British Rail proposals for the route of the high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  In April or May.

  Auxiliary Coastguard Service
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the review of the auxiliary coastguard service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As intended, the review has attracted numerous representations, mostly addressed to the coastguard regional controllers.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Network SouthEast's achievements against its performance objectives in this year.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are parts of NSE where quality of service is not yet up to the standard passengers have a right to expect, although there has been a general improvement
  419
  during 1990–91. As NSE's investment programme comes to fruition, quality of service on all routes should show further improvements.

  Traffic Speed, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated current speed of traffic in London; what are his future projections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Speeds vary between areas, from around 11 mph in central London—with little variation through the working day—to 17 mph and 20 mph in the peak and off-peak in outer London. These figures indicate that average speeds on London's major roads are about 16 mph in the peak periods and 19 mph during the rest of the day. We do not produce forecasts of overall traffic speeds.

  Rural Railways
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review rural railway investment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. It is for the British Railways Board to carry out any such review.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes are under construction in the current financial year.

  Mr. Chope
  In the current financial year 107 schemes have been or will be under construction. The total length is some 337 miles with a value of over £1·5 billion.

  Toll Roads
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards the inclusion of privately toll-funded stretches within the national roads programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are confident that the private sector has a worth while and increasing part to play in the provision of new roads infrastructure in the United Kingdom.

  British Rail Vehicles
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new vehicles British Rail currently has on order.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has on order 111 locomotives, 606 electric multiple units, 490 diesel multiple units, 70 coaches, 745 wagons, and 14 channel tunnel trains consisting of 252 coaches and 28 power cars.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of investment he expects to see in London Regional Transport during 1990–91; and what they were in 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment by London Transport in 1989–90 was £443 million. Investment this year is forecast to be £630 million—an increase, in cash terms, of over 40 per cent.

  London Underground
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss the operation of the London underground.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) earlier today.

  M4
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the date on which construction works for the widening of the M4 between the M25 and Swindon will start; and if he will make a statement on the progress of preliminary works.

  Mr. Chope
  We have three separate scheme commissions looking at the options for widening the length of M4 betweeen the M25 and Swindon. All three are progressing satisfactorily and we aim to make announcements about preferred options before the end of the year. Because timing is heavily dependent on the type of works proposed the planned programme will be part of those announcements.

  Footpaths (Cycling)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the control of the use of footpaths by cyclists; how many injuries to pedestrians on footpaths caused by cycles there have been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is illegal to cycle on footpaths; the exclusive right of way is on foot. The responsibility for the control and use of footpaths rests with individual local authorities. The Department has published advice on aspects of shared use by pedestrians and cyclists in local transport note 2/86—HMSO—copies of which have been placed in the Library. Figures for injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians on footpaths are not collected centrally.

  Buttermere Valley (Parking)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will call in under reserve powers available to him the decision of Cumbria county council to restrict parking in the Buttermere valley.

  Mr. Chope
  No. This is essentially a local highways issue. The authority would be expected to comply with those sections of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and traffic signs manual covering environmentally sensitive areas.

  Pipelines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 309, what will be the capacity of the new pipeline from Goyt valley to Audenshaw; and what percentage of treatment capacity at Denton could be met by this supply at any given time.

  Mr. Chope
  The pipeline will be capable of transferring 44 megalitres of untreated water per day to the Audenshaw
  421
  reservoirs. This will enable North West Water to maintain the existing 28-day emergency supply. Treatment capacity should remain the same.

  North Devon fink Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many compensation claims have been submitted in respect of the North Devon link road steps 2(a) and 2(b); in which years they were submitted; how many are still outstanding; and, where a figure has been agreed, how long it takes for payment to be made.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 132 claims have been received: 58 date from 1986, 69 from 1987, 4 from 1988 and one from 1989; 118 are still outstanding, of which 22 are in the last stages of legal completion. Advance payments are available on request from the date entry is taken and 92 claimants have received at least one such payment. The figures exclude the 1 ft square plots at Great Western green where 129 claims out of 130 remain outstanding.

  Once compensation is agreed, it takes an average of six months to complete the legal processes and make the final payment, but this time can be affected by a number of factors outside the Department's control. Claims attract interest, at statutory rates, from the date of entry on to the land until payment is made.

  Public Transport Infrastructure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) how many applications for section 56 grants under the Transport Act 1968 his Department has received; and in how many of these cases grants have been provided;

  (2) if he will list those applications for section 56 grants under the Transport Act 1968 which have been successful indicating in each case the project concerned, the level of support provided and the date on which the grant application was approved.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1985, when such grants became available for large new public transport infrastructure projects, there have been 12 applications. Of these, three have been approved and a further four are under consideration. A number of promoters have been in contact with the Department about the possibility of grants for other projects, but have not made full applications. The successful applications are listed in the table.

  Project

  Date approved

  Grant £ million

  Merseyrail safety work

  March 1989

  0·3

  Manchester Metrolink

  October 1989

  153·0

  Sheffield Supertram

  December 1990

  2

  1 Approximate figure; grant is being paid towards 50 per cent, of eligible costs within a cash ceiling.

  2 Exact figure not yet determined.

  Bicycle Lights
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that all bicycles are sold with working front and rear lights.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 1 March, at column 625.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received since 4 January 1990 from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or national matters; and if he will make it his practice, where the former are concerned, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with copies of any such correspondence for his or her information.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Ministers at the Department of Transport have received 134 written communications from Members of the European Parliament since 4 January 1990 that concern local or national matters. If there is no Community content at all in the MEP's letter and a constituency interest predominates it is our general practice to suggest that the MEP should refer the case to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to MEPs' letters would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Posters advertising No Smoking Day and information leaflets will be displayed in all the Department's main offices throughout the country, and an article will be placed in the Department's in-house journal. Guidance has been given to all staff on damage to health caused by smoking. Welfare officers are on hand to give help and advice to staff who wish to give up smoking and on the availability of classes for this purpose. However, in the end it is a matter of individual choice.

  Heathrow-Glasgow Flights
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the appeal by British Midland Airways against unfair competition on the Heathrow to Glasgow air service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering British Midland Airways' appeal against the Civil Aviation Authority's decision in respect of services on the London Heathrow to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast routes. His decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Earphones
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study into the effects of wearing earphones connected to transistor radios or cassette players on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using public roads.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The highway code for young road users already contains advice about the potential danger of wearing personal stereos.

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement with regard to the proposed route of the M1-M62 link road in West Yorkshire.
  423
  Mr. Chope
  I hope that, following consultation on route options later this year, it will be possible to announce a preferred route in 1992.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Haslehurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce his plans for the deregulation of the London bus market.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today published the consultation paper "A Bus Strategy For London" which sets out our plans for the deregulation of the London bus market together with a range of proposals aimed at making bus services in London more attractive to passengers. The closing date for comments is 7 May.

  The Government are firmly committed to the future of bus services in London. Deregulation will bring more competition between more operators which will increase the choice and quality of services available to the passenger. However, deregulation will require primary legislation to safeguard the future of the concessionary fares scheme for London as a whole, and to alter London Transport's statutory duties to make them more compatible with a deregulated bus industry. Primary legislation must await a suitable opportunity, so I am unable yet to give any firm indication of timing.

THE ARTS

  Area Museum Councils
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to improve the relationship between the work of the Museum and Galleries Commission and the area museum councils.

  Mr. Renton
  The Museums and Galleries Commission enjoys a good working relationship with the area museum councils in the United Kingdom. From the grant-in-aid it is to receive from the Office of Arts and Libraries in 1991–92, the commission has allocated nearly £3·3 million to the area museum councils in England. This represents an overall increase of 15 per cent. on the allocations for 1990–91.

  Museums and Galleries (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to ensure that the necessary refurbishment of museums and galleries is being systematically and professionally undertaken.

  Mr. Renton
  I have commissioned Arup Research and Development to conduct a survey of the building renovation needs of the museums and galleries which I sponsor. I expect to receive its report in summer 1991.

  School Libraries
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to update the Office of Arts and Libraries' report entitled "School Libraries: The Foundations of the Curriculum".

  Mr. Renton
  This report was produced by the Library and Information Services Council for England. It has no plans to update it, but the council maintains a regular interest in school libraries and associated services.

  Greater London Arts
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the chair of the Arts Council to discuss the financial support for Greater London Arts.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet the chairman of the Arts Council regularly to discuss a wide range of matters affecting the performing arts. The funding of Greater London Arts is a matter for the Arts Council, and the chairman has kept me closely informed of developments.

  Tobacco Companies (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the current annual total of sponsorship of the arts by tobacco companies; if he will list these individually; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Business sponsorship of the arts in the United Kingdom now stands at over £35 million a year. The current annual total of sponsorship by tobacco companies is not known. Arts organisations take their own decisions in choosing what sponsorship to accept.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many meetings he, his predecessor or his Department's officials have had with representatives of the tobacco industry since 1 January 1989; and if he will list the dates, venues and purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Renton
  No meetings have taken place with representatives of the tobacco industry during the period in question.

  No Smoking Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to support smokers in his Department to give up smoking on the eighth No Smoking Day on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I welcome the proposed No Smoking Day. The Office of Arts and Libraries has permanent restrictions on smoking in the workplace. Counselling is always available, for smokers and for those who wish to give up the habit, through the departmental welfare officer.

  British Library
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he expects the British Library to be completed by the agreed date; and whether the works will be within budget.

  Mr. Renton
  Work on the new British Library building at St. Pancras is on schedule for the planned opening of the first phase in 1993 and for completion in 1996. The project is proceeding within budget. The Government are investing £450 million in the project which will bring together most of the Library's London-based stocks and reading rooms on a single site, and will provide vastly improved facilities and better conservation.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Mortgage Defaults: Repossessions
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper. The Question is to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to reduce the number of houses repossessed because of mortgage default, and what help they will give to families made homeless through repossession.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is lending institutions which decide the circumstances in which to possess properties in the event of mortgage default. Her Majesty's Government continue to discuss this with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. However, it is local housing authorities which have statutory responsibility for dealing with homeless persons and we are currently revising the code of guidance for them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me whether she expects any help from housing associations, which hope to build 20,000 additional dwellings this year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that question is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The Question on the Order Paper is to do with repossessions and what is being done about housing the homeless.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, I should have thought
2
—perhaps she will correct me if I am wrong —that housing associations were supposed to be helping the local authorities with the problems of homelessness. The local authorities cannot take on all the responsibility themselves. I thought that they worked in co-operation with one another.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right in the sense that there has to be co-ordination right across the statutory and voluntary sectors. The amount of money made available to the Housing Corporation, which is then made available to the housing associations, has been increased and will in any case continue to be increased for the next three years. The issue needs to be seen in context. Out of 9.4 million mortgages, only 0.47 per cent. of them are the subject of repossession. Only 9 per cent. of all homelessness occurs as a result of default in mortgage payments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would not the best way to assist people who are having their houses repossessed be to have an early and substantial reduction in the interest rate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's record on reducing interest rates is a good one: a I per cent. reduction in November, a 0.5 per cent. reduction at the beginning of February and a further 0.5 per cent. at the end of February. Inflation is coming down, with a promise of more reductions.
Lord Jay: My Lords, has the noble Baroness noticed that a growing number of council tenants who had absolute security as such and were then persuaded by government propaganda to buy their houses are now finding them repossessed and are facing eviction from what they thought were their family homes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, some of the 43,800 repossessed houses will undoubtedly be those of council house dwellers who bought their homes. But it has to be said that a large number of people who bought their council homes are not in difficulties and are enjoying the benefits of becoming home owners. Considerable help is available for people at the very

3
bottom of the income scale in that up to half the interest on their mortgage repayments can be met for 16 weeks and the full amount for as long as is necessary thereafter. Therefore, the real difficulties are for people who are above that level who will require help to bridge the difficult times before the advent of the easier times which we hope are to follow.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that some of the responsibility for these problems must lie with the lending agencies? The banks and the building societies have been cajoling and pestering these vulnerable and desperate people for years to borrow much more than they can afford. Most of us foresaw the difficulties that would occur. But these experts, despite the fact that they must have foreseen the same problem, carried on and forced people to borrow much more than they could afford to pay back. Is it not time to sit down with the lending agencies to discuss how they can now help those people to get out of the mess which the agencies themselves helped them to get into?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said when answering a Question only a week ago that the group of people who most overextended themselves when buying homes were accountants, who ought to have known better. The lending institutions have done a great deal. They have implored people who find themselves in difficulty to come forward at the earliest possible opportunity to receive advice and counselling. The lending institutions have produced a code of practice which goes a long way towards assisting people, if only those people make sure that they notify their difficulties early.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may return on one point. Will the noble Baroness accept the example of somebody who was cajoled into taking a 90 per cent. mortgage, having applied for a 100 per cent. mortgage? The building society may have said, "We can give you only 90 per cent., but if you take out an insurance policy with somebody like the Prudential it will cover the other 10 per cent.". If that person then gets into difficulties the house may be repossessed. Is the noble Baroness aware that in those circumstances the Prudential or the insurance company responsible may then ask for more money? People are not told that that could happen in the event of difficulties arising. There is a fault somewhere and I put it right at the feet of the lending agencies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there must be some individual responsibility when people take out a loan. However, it is not in the interests of any lending institution, particularly the building societies, to incorporate too high a risk in terms of the mortgage going by default. It is greatly in the interests of the lending authority to make sure that the loan is repaid.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that prevention is better than cure? What actions, if any, are the Government taking to curb the irresponsible advertising of so-called free credit? Will they explain to people who take out such credit the liabilities into which they are entering? I am sure the Minister is aware that it is probable that the
4
underlying cause of repossession more often than not is irresponsible borrowing of another kind, not the mortgage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find it easy to agree with that point. Very often the problem is the multiplicity of debts. The noble Lord asked what the Government are doing. We have increased the grant to citizens' advice bureaux by £11 million so that they can advise and counsel people against the situation highlighted by the noble Lord. However, he made an important point not so much about the advertising of free credit but about those rather more unscrupulous moneylenders who offer almost free money. That becomes an attractive proposition for somebody who has difficulties. I shall take that message back to my right honourable friend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a wise precaution for those who wish to take out a mortgage for the purpose of buying property to consult a solicitor as to their ability to repay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is certainly wise to take as much advice as possible when embarking upon a loan as extensive as that needed to buy a home.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the multiplicity of debts to which the noble Baroness referred, does she include the poll tax?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am talking about any debt.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the more the population gets into debt, the more the Government like it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with what the noble Lord has just said. It is extremely important to get the matter in perspective: 98.5 per cent. of people suffer no difficulty in paying for their mortgages and coping with the loan. We are talking about 0.47 per cent. being subject to repossession. However difficult that may be, it must be seen in perspective.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the 0.47 per cent. include the number of people who are from six months to one year in arrears? That is thought to total about 80,000 people who will soon have to be added to the figure of 40,000 that the noble Baroness gave to the House. Is she aware that the problem will not go away but will increase?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, the figure I mentioned includes them. The 1.5 per cent. includes all repossessions and those with difficulties over six months and 12 months. The 98.5 per cent. are people who are coping with their loans.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in her Answer to me last Monday the Minister said —and I checked this in Hansard —that between January and September last year nearly 10,000 families of the total who were dispossessed were accommodated by local authorities. I take it that that was in the present housing stock. There are now 1 million fewer council houses available for letting and the building programme for local authorities is almost non-existent. Is it not time, therefore, that the Government reviewed their policy

5
of local authorities being merely enablers? The Government should allow them increased access to their capital assets in order to build more low-cost houses for rent and to help the other people who will surely become homeless in the near future, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
Baroness Watch: My Lords, there is a fundamental policy and philosophical difference between the noble Lord and the Government on the issue. The Government do not believe that the local authorities should be primary providers of homes. That should be done by the housing corporations, through housing associations and much of the voluntary sector, in addition to the local authorities. Therefore, the figure one should consider is the total number of homes being made available to people on low incomes.

NHS In-patients: Waiting Lists
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the average in-patient waiting list for NHS treatment in England between March 1976 and March 1979; what was the average in-patient waiting list in England between March 1990 and September 1990; and what is the percentage increase in the average size of the waiting list between these two periods.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, between March 1976 and March 1979 the average number waiting for NHS in-patient treatment in England was 620,000. Figures for September 1990 are not yet available, but the number waiting, on a comparable basis, at March 1990 was 710,253. That is an increase of 14.6 per cent. on the earlier figure.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has given. Has he seen the figures that cover all the regions for both March and September 1990? They show an average figure of 955,601 for those two periods. That would mean an increase of about 53 per cent. Is it not strange that he should produce figures which are quite different from those already made public? If statistics can be used in this irresponsible way, does it not show the importance of the debate on statistics which is to be introduced on Wednesday by my noble friend Lord Donoughue?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, regarding statistics being used in an irresponsible way, it is a strange question which compares one three-year period with a later six-month period. I am not aware of the figures; but when comparing the average numbers waiting for in-patient treatment in the three-year period between March 1976 and March 1979 with the numbers waiting at a fixed point of time in 1990, I acknowledge that the size of the waiting list has increased. I do not know where the figure of 50 per cent. comes from. However, in the period covered by the Question, the number of in-patients treated has increased by 26 per cent.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend inform me whether hospital authorities are entitled to
6
contract-out any part of their waiting lists for some operations to the continent of Europe, particularly to northern France? If that is the case, on what scale is it being carried out?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was narrowly defined. I am afraid that I am not prepared to go wide of it today. However, I should be pleased to answer such a question on another occasion, if the noble Lord cares to table one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are in the curious situation where the Minister has produced figures from his department which are at variance with those produced by my noble friend Lord Ennals? However, the latter figures come from the same department. How can the two different sets of figures be reconciled?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are many figures going around. I can only guess at where the difference might lie. If the sources of the figures were identified more closely, no doubt it would all become clear.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my figures were not guesses. They came straight from the Minister's department. The situation is indeed peculiar.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my figures were not guesses either.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that we should be sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as he is clearly having great difficulty with elementary statistics? He surely ought to know that in statistical terms one cannot compare the mean of a three-year period 14 years ago with the mean of a six-month period now. That simply will not do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. To compare a three-year period with a six-month period more than a decade later offers few insights into the state of the National Health Service either then or now. As the service is being denigrated, I must say that I have never met a colleague who is not utterly committed to the future of the National Health Service. Since this Government came into office, resources in England for the NHS have increased by £17.2 billion. That is an increase of 44 per cent. in real terms.

Social Security: Reciprocal Agreements Overseas
2.52 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in negotiations with the Canadian Government concerning the signing of a full reciprocal social security agreement, including index-linking of pensions paid to British pensioners resident in Canada.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I regret no progress has been made in negotiating a reciprocal social security agreement with

7
Canada which would provide for British pensioners living there to receive index-linked pension increases. The cost of paying full United Kingdom rates of benefit in Canada would be about £104 million, while to do the same for all pensioners abroad would cost £337 million at April 1991 rates of benefit.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that truly unoriginal and totally unacceptable reply. Is he aware that the pensioners we are discussing served this country and paid into the National Insurance Fund not one whit less than the British pensioners who now receive index-linked pensions here and in 30 other countries where we have reciprocal agreements? Would it not be more constructive to apply the same principles to the pensioners referred to in my Question, and so end what is becoming totally unjustified discrimination? That position is even more unjust when the Conservative Party is at this moment spending vast sums of money on trying to canvass the votes of those pensioners for the forthcoming election.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that reciprocal arrangements exist with 31 countries to allow for pensions to be up-rated. However, that is not the case in a further 138 countries. As I have stated, it would cost a great deal to up-rate pensions in Canada and other parts of the world. It would cost £104 million to do so in Canada. The simple fact is that the pensioners who went to Canada knew the situation when they went there —they knew that their pensions would not be up-rated.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the situation in Canada also applies in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and in many other countries around the world? If people have paid for their pensions throughout their working lives, why should they not share the benefits on the same basis as every other pensioner? If it is a matter of the cost of doing so, could not the Government use some of the money that they are spending to bribe people to leave SERPS?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct as regards the situation in the four countries that he mentioned. In a total of another 134 countries pensions are not up-rated. As I have said, when those pensioners went abroad, they knew the situation. Probably the majority of those pensioners went abroad years before they became pensioners. They are probably also entitled to a partial Canadian pension. Therefore they are not entirely dependent on the partial UK pension that is not up-rated which they receive in Canada. We have no knowledge of cases of severe hardship.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who have negotiated reciprocal agreements in the past know well how difficult it is in a great many cases to reach a fair conclusion between the governments concerned? Is my noble friend further aware that up-rating pensions paid in an overseas country in accordance with changes in this country may be wholly irrelevant to the cost of living in the country concerned?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. Inflation will differ from one country to the next. My noble friend is also correct in saying that it takes a great many years to negotiate such pension agreements. I understand that it took some 10 years to conclude our recent agreement with Norway.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has still not satisfied many of us on the matter of why pensioners who have paid exactly the same amount of contributions as pensioners here should have a dynamised pension here but not have a dynamised pension if they move abroad, especially to Commonwealth countries? Why are Commonwealth countries treated worse than many other countries outside the Commonwealth?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are two points to stress here. As I have said, the pensioners we are discussing knew of the situation when they went abroad. They knew that their contributions would entitle them to a non-up-rated pension. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must look to his available resources and use them as effectively as he can.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister must realise that pensions represent an insurance contribution and an insurance policy. If a person took out an insurance policy with, for example, the Prudential, and the Prudential did not honour the terms of the policy because the person had moved abroad, the company would be had up for fraud.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord fails to understand how the national insurance scheme works in this country. It works on a pay-as-you-go basis. That means that this year's contributions go to this year's pensioners. My right honourable friend has to ensure that the resources are used as effectively as possible. The funds that an individual pensioner contributes are not earmarked for that individual pensioner.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in replying to one of his noble friends, the Minister said that it takes a long time to negotiate pension agreements. We have been trying to obtain an agreement with Canada since about 1972. We have been negotiating for almost 20 years now. The Canadians have offered to help to fund the initial processes of the reciprocal agreement. There is no objection to the agreement from the Canadian side. The objection comes from the British side. The Minister said that the pensioners we are discussing knew the situation before they went abroad. However, that applies to the pensioners in the 31 countries with which the Government have reached reciprocal agreements. Why will the Government not reach a reciprocal agreement with Canada?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, we started to negotiate with Canada some 18 or 19 years ago. The initial problems arose at the other end. I have been trying to stress that the problem is one of cost. The scheme would cost £104 million. What the Canadians have offered would by no means offset the cost to the National Insurance Fund in this country.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, will my noble friend give us an assurance that the Government are continuing negotiations with Canada, and are not treating the matter as a closed subject? The sum of £104 million is a lot of money for our country, but it is an even greater sum for the pensioners concerned. I get the impression that the Government are not making any further effort to try to reach a conclusion.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to negotiate, but I must stress that £104 million is a considerable sum of money as my noble friend has said.

Restrictive Trade Practices: Legislation
2.59 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to update the law on restrictive trade practices.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government have made clear in the White Paper Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices published in 1987, their intention to replace the present Restrictive Trade Practices Act by new legislation. A Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time will allow.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, I am somewhat disappointed. I have a White Paper dated July 1989 although I understood the noble Lord mentioned 1987. I believe that the White Paper was issued in 1989. Is the noble Lord aware that that White Paper was generally acceptable to this side of the House, and I think to the Benches on my right, and that we were looking forward to relatively uncontroversial legislation because the 1976 Act needs to be brought up to date as soon as possible? Can the noble Lord give us some assurance that that is a high priority with the Government? One of the objects of the White Paper Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices was to bring the United Kingdom law into line with Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome in time for the 1992 single European market?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we remain committed to a regime for restrictive agreements which mirrors closely the approach under Community law which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned. We are held back by the pressure of parliamentary business, but we remain vigorously committed to the introduction of new legislation.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister explain what he means by "pressure of parliamentary business" in view of the fact that we are to have two weeks' holiday at Easter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, restrictive trade practice is not a matter that I would want to pass on to the Whips' office.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
3.1 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Introduction of disability working allowance]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 45, leave out from ("disability") to end of line 46.
The noble Lord said: We now come to the second part of the Bill dealing with the disability working allowance. Mine is the first amendment on that part of the Bill but I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the Committee on the amendment.
At the outset I wish to reiterate what I said at Second Reading. I thoroughly approve of the imaginative concept of the disability working allowance. Consequently any amendment that I move will be either for the purposes of elucidation or to remove some of the many impediments to access to the disability working allowance with which the Bill is strewn. I move Amendment No. 55 in that spirit and in doing so I speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 71.
I do not understand the necessity for the additional test —the so-called disadvantage test. I have read the debates in another place and I am told that since those debates there has been considerable correspondence between Ministers and Members in another place, but I am still none the wiser.
There are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister today. First, what is the advantage of the disability disadvantage test? Secondly, what are the criteria to be applied in determining whether or not a person is at a disadvantage in getting a job?
A person has to show that,
"he has a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job".
When does he have to show that? Is it before he gets the job or after? What are the criteria?
I ask about the criteria specifically because all of the other tests are well defined. There are a number of tests which are precedent to access to disability working allowance. They are the essential passports and they are all well defined. A person applying for the disability working allowance knows exactly what to do. However, when it comes to this additional test he simply does not know when to go about it or how to prove that he is disadvantaged. That is both a waste of time, being unnecessary, and humiliating. He has to

11
prove a negative whereas there is concern that disabled people should do positive things rather than have to prove disadvantage.
Apart from all of the conditions precedent to providing him with a passport to the disability working allowance, the applicant also has to take a subsequent test. After six months he has to undergo a functional test of disability. I do not believe that any disabled person would object to a functional test but he does not want to have to say in what way he is at a disadvantage. In particular, he ought not to have to say, "I am at a disadvantage because I am doing the same job as somebody else but I am being paid 40 per cent. less in recognition of my disability". I hope that disabled people will not have to submit to that type of test in order to obtain the allowance. If that were the case the Government would be conniving at a discriminatory practice by employers; namely, the employer is getting the labour of a disabled person at a cut price. That cannot be right. I very much hope that that is not the reason why the Government saw fit to put that test into the Bill.
As I said, it is a negative test. It goes against what the Minister said at Second Reading. He said:
"I am sure everyone will share our belief that society should look increasingly at what people with disabilities can do, rather than at what they cannot do". —[Official Report, 26/2/91; col. 885.]
This is an essentially negative approach. It is for that reason, and to seek the information that I have requested under two heads, that I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in moving Amendment No. 55 and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 61 and 71. These are important amendments. In my view they are important for the successful implementation of DWA. All of us want disabled people to be able to participate as far as possible in a normal life, and that includes working. The intention of the DWA, with which we are in agreement, is that they should be provided with an incentive to do just that. That being the case, we regret very much that the provision of DWA appears to be hedged about with so many restrictions that only a minority of disabled people who would be capable of some work appear likely to benefit from it.
The amendment deals with the concept of disadvantage. A person successfully claiming the allowance has to show that he has a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job. The amendment seeks to remove that particular requirement. Amendment No. 61 is consequential upon that amendment and so to an extent is Amendment No. 71.
Why do we want to remove that wording from the Bill? It seems to us that a further test of disability is superfluous since people must already be entitled to one of the disability-related benefits in order to qualify for the allowance in the first place. The test itself is likely to be negative, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, and stigmatising, focusing on a
12
person's inability to obtain suitable employment rather than on positive aspects of employment seeking and retention. The concept of disadvantage in getting a job is an entirely new one within social security legislation and will add further complexities to what could in any event become a fairly complex matter.
What would be the criteria for establishing disadvantage? Sometimes the disadvantage lies not in the disabled person's functional ability, or otherwise, but in the perceptions of employers. The Spastics Society, when it undertook research into discrimination in two studies produced in 1986 and 1989, found that when comparing two job applications that were equal in every respect except that one applicant had a disability, employers were one-and-a-half times more likely to offer an interview to an abled-bodied person than to a disabled person.
One of the Spastics Society's respondents said: "I am very dispirited about employment. How long do you have to go on trying before you call it a day?" That is by no means an unusual experience for disabled people. Do the Government think that suffering from a disability may not itself necessarily put a person at a disadvantage when getting a job? That is the implication of this qualification. Just how is disadvantage to be assessed? How can it be proved? Someone in a wheelchair may be no a disadvantage at all when doing certain jobs, particularly in the white collar area.
One of the cleverest lawyers I have ever known was confined to a wheelchair and had been for many years. That in no way inhibited him from applying his first-class mind to a range of complicated pensions issues. He did complain about the lack of access in many buildings and the fact that there were no proper lifts, ramps or any other provision for disabled people. Is the lack of such a provision a disadvantage? There are many firms which would not employ a person in a wheelchair because their buildings lack suitable facilities.
I make these points because it seems to me very difficult to define precisely what "disadvantage" means in this context. Is the provision intended to get people off benefit and on to DWA and then, when they succeed in holding down a job at no matter what cost in terms of effort, to hold that they are no longer at a disadvantage because they have already had a job? Is it the intention that the system will gradually run down after it has been set up? I hope the Minister will assure me that that is not so. I need hardly say that all the organisations representing disabled people have been highly critical of this qualification. I await with interest the Minister's response.
Lord Henley: I welcome this opportunity to explain the reason why we adopted the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, object. In passing, perhaps I may say how pleased I am that the disability working allowance seems to have the general support of all parts of the Committee and in particular that of noble Lords who have spoken.

13
We might well have had a quieter life had we adopted the wording suggested by the noble Lords —in other words, had we left out those words. However, we decided not to do so because we believe that it is right that the Bill should indicate the objective of the disability test prescribed for the disability working allowance. The words which these amendments seek to remove are intended to indicate that the test is whether or not the claimant has a disability which reduces his capacity for work in some way. That is because DWA is a benefit for disabled people with partial capacity. I hope that the Committee would agree that if one is to give help to disabled people through the benefit system one has to devise a way of identifying the people who should receive it.
The expression in the Bill:
"a physical or mental disability which puts [the claimant] at a disadvantage in getting a job"
is intended to recognise that the reason why some disabled people need a partial capacity benefit is that their disability makes it difficult for them to compete in the labour market for better paid jobs. They are at a disadvantage. Their inability to get a better paid job might arise because they can only work part-time, because they are only capable of work which is poorly rewarded, because they are unable to convince an employer that they are capable of more or because they cannot travel to where there are better jobs available or for some other reason. The expression is also intended to bring within the benefit disabled people in work who are doing jobs for which they are fully, rather than partially, capable but who could compete only for a limited range of other jobs because of their disability —the blind telephonist is an obvious example; the lawyer in the wheelchair whom the noble Baroness mentioned is another.
This brings me on to what the adjudication officers themselves will have to do. I must stress that they themselves will not have to judge whether someone is at a disadvantage in getting a job. Objective criteria will be set out in regulations. If those are satisfied, the claimant will be deemed to have passed the test. It will certainly not be the test that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned; namely, that the claimant is being paid less. Adjudication officers will not have to decide whether the claimant is actually at a disadvantage in getting the job that he has, only whether the objective criteria in the regulations are satisfied.
I believe that there has been some misunderstanding of our intentions. The wording of the Bill does not imply that the Government consider disabled people to be inherently less employable than able-bodied people. I know that the Committee will accept that that is not the case. Nor is it our intention to humiliate disabled people. I hope that I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. I have no doubt that later in the Bill we shall have other opportunities to explain in more detail how the test will be administered and to reassure noble Lords that the test has been designed so as not to be an ordeal or an obstacle to the disabled people for whom the benefit is intended.
14
Having said that, we believe that the words:
"a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job",
convey the concept that the test should be one which looks at disabilities which affect the claimant's ability to compete with similar able-bodied people in obtaining work. However, if the committee feels that there is a better form of words, I shall be happy to discuss the matter and bring forward an amendment at Report stage. But I must stress that I should have to be satisfied that the wording of the Bill permitted my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a test which is appropriate for the disability working allowance.
With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If he cares to come forward with some other suggestions or if he would like to come to see me, my door will certainly be open, as I have said on earlier occasions.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that conciliatory reply. I very much hope that I and perhaps some of my friends will be able to avail ourselves of his very kind offer to go to see him. At this stage I thank him very much for giving the underlying reason for drafting the Bill as it stands. Would he possibly be able to let us have sight now of the objective criteria which will be laid by regulation so that we can look at them in time for the report stage? Clearly one does not expect to have them in exact form but it would be nice to know how the Government are thinking. If we have them in draft form, I believe that that will help us greatly.
Having said that, I intend to withdraw the amendment but only after making the observation that comparatively harmless conditions are sometimes humiliating to disabled people. For instance, there is the requirement to register as a disabled person before one can operate under the quota system for employment. A large number of disabled people for various reasons which I assure the Committee are valid, do not wish to register and therefore the quota system does not apply to them. It is a matter of human feeling, and they do not register. I should like the Minister kindly to examine this provision in the light of possible feelings of humiliation among disabled people which may arise from the Bill as now drafted.
Lord Henley: As I said, we certainly would not want to do anything that might imply some humiliation for disabled people. However, I should have to be satisfied that, whatever the wording, it permitted my right honourable friend to set out the test. That is the main point. But if our words are not the right ones we should certainly be prepared to discuss the matter.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: It was never my intention to suggest or imply that the Government intended in any way to humiliate disabled people. I ask them just to re-examine the wording in the light of possible feelings of humiliation.
Lord Shepherd: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked whether it was possible for him and his friends to see a rough draft of the regulations. I believe that it would be helpful if that could be made available in the Library. We recognise that it is only a rough draft but it would be an indication for all noble Lords if we have to look again at this matter on Report.
Lord Henley: I shall be prepared to consider that matter when the noble Lord comes to see me.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert:
("(e) for the purposes of this subsection "remunerative work" means work undertaken for 8 hours or more a week.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to specify in legislation precisely what is meant by "remunerative work". The notes on DWA issued by the DSS indicate that that will in practice be defined as 16 hours per week. However, that is not acceptable. Many disabled people can undertake some work but not necessarily 16 hours continuously per week. I have some examples of disabilities provided by RADAR. That organisation states:
"The first group are those who are unable to work 16 hours a week at any time and for whom this is a permanent situation. The fatigue and pain associated with multiple sclerosis or with arthritis frequently limits the number of hours people can work. For a number of months a person may well be able to work 16 hours or more a week. But then there may be a relapse where they can continue working but only for a reduced period. Ironically it was pressure from these groups which led to the campaign for a partial incapacity benefit. It is these groups which often have more erratic work patterns due to the fluctuating nature of their disabilities. The DWA will not offer an incentive to people with fluctuating disabilities who know before they start that the disabling effects of their condition are not being taken into account.
"The second group are those people who may eventually be able to return to work on a full time bask but are recovering from an illness or accident. For them the value of being able to return to work on a gradual basis starting with a few hours a week and building up hours with time should not be underestimated. Despite its stated aim in The Way Ahead that a disability employment credit would also provide short-term rehabilitation help for people in the transition from unemployment to full-time work, the Government has missed an opportunity to provide for people in this situation".
Furthermore, the 16-hour rule will, it seems to me, force disabled people into the lowest paid employment. The argument has been advanced by the Government that relating DWA to 16 hours a week brings such employees within the range of employment protection. But there is no reason why such protection should not be available to people working eight hours or less a week. Indeed, that is proposed in one of the draft directives debated recently in this Chamber when we discussed your Lordships' Select Committee report on part time workers. In the meantime, we believe that the DWA will benefit larger numbers of disabled only if the amendment that we have put down for debate is accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I support the amendment. Two main groups require the flexibility that the amendment allows but which the Bill as drafted does not. The first group is those people who are unable to work the full 16 hours at any time and for whom that is a permanent situation. There are disabled people who would very much like to work for 16 hours a week but who are unable to do so. Unless this amendment is agreed to, they would be permanently excluded from the benefits of this part of the Bill.
The second group are people who might be able eventually to return to work on a full time basis but in the meantime are recovering from an illness and would very much like to work their way into a full time job again. They can do so only by working perhaps five to six hours, then eight to nine hours, nine to ten hours and 15 to 16 hours a week.
Both groups will be disadvantaged by the Bill as drafted. I should like the noble Lord who speaks from the Government Front Bench to indicate that he can allow some flexibility to meet those two groups.
Baroness Seear: I too support the amendment. The point has been made by both speakers that it is of the greatest importance to encourage people with disabilities to work again. It should be made as easy as possible, with the maximum amount of incentive to make them feel that the effort is worthwhile. Once that has happened, they may well move on from eight hours to 16 hours, or even many more, a week. If they can do so, it is to the benefit not only of the disabled person but also the employer and indeed the economy. The economy benefits from their work since it will be saved from paying benefits which the Government would otherwise have to pay them.
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness said, this amendment will allow people to claim disability working allowance if they are working as little as eight hours a week or more.
I believe the arguments against it are convincing and therefore I cannot recommend that the Bill should be amended in the way suggested.
When we were developing our proposals for disability working allowance we received a number of comments on this aspect of the benefit. We were urged to consider letting people claim even though they were working for fewer hours than the present family credit minimum —that is, 24 hours a week.
The Disability Benefits Consortium said that we should allow people to claim if they were able to work two or three days a week. Others suggested that people should be able to claim if they were working 16 hours a week. Supporters of this option included the Work Rehabilitation Forum, a consortium which includes among its members MIND, MENCAP and a number of organisations involved in rehabilitation.
This seemed powerful evidence that we should consider setting the starting level somewhat below that for family credit, which is 24 hours a week. Sixteen hours seemed to us to be sensible for a number of reasons. If the number of hours that someone works

17
is sometimes fewer than 16 hours a week we shall take an average over five weeks —or some other period as necessary —to arrive at a more representative figure.
The noble Baroness was not attracted by the argument that we should follow employment protection legislation. She cited the EC draft directive which relates to employment protection for people working more than 12 hours. It is only a draft directive. It is at a very preliminary stage of investigation. There is no certainty that it will be passed. People who work for 16 hours a week for two years are entitled to the full advantages of employment protection legislation. People working fewer than 16 hours a week do not qualify until they have been employed continuously by the same employer for five years.
If we had decided to adopt the rule suggested by the noble Baroness, I suspect people might have said that we were pushing disabled people to take jobs which did not give them this protection after two years. In any case, we thought it right to restrict DWA to people working to the extent that they would acquire full employment protection within two years —that is also the duration of the new long linking period we are introducing for DWA recipients who decide to give up invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.
I think the more important point is that disability working allowance is designed to be a benefit for people in work. Sixteen hours represents about 40 per cent. of a week's work —two full days a week, as suggested by the Disability Benefits Consortium. I cannot imagine that many people who can work only eight hours a week —only one full day —are likely to give up the security of their incapacity benefit and take the inevitably risky decision to depend on their earnings for a significant proportion of their income.
Some cannot work for 16 hours, and the benefit system clearly should —and in fact does —recognise that fact. They must be allowed to do so. They will continue to need the full support of the benefit system. This support will continue to be provided.
Disabled people working for fewer than 16 hours per week will still be able to claim income support and will still receive the higher £15 per week disregard. I stress again that 16 hours is the figure for income support as it will be for DWA and for family credit after April. Some will be able to take advantage of the therapeutic earnings rule in invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance which allows disabled people to do some work (provided it is of a therapeutic nature) and earn up to £35 a week and still keep their full IVB or SDA. That will remain unchanged.
DWA adds to the range of options open to disabled people who want to do some work. Which of the options they choose will depend on them and their circumstances. For some, one of the options may become their means of support for a long period —perhaps all the time they are able to work. For others the different options will provide a way to move progressively into work. But, I repeat, DWA offers an
18
extra option designed specifically for people who are able to work to an extent which at least approaches half time.
The therapeutic earnings rule and income support will continue to provide the safety net which is needed by people who have only a very limited capacity for work. These include disabled people who want to keep in touch with the labour market or want to keep up their work skills and also people who are making their first steps towards employment and want to see if they can manage just a few hours a week.
I have listened to the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness for allowing people who work only eight hours a week to claim DWA. But I remain to be convinced. I hope that what I have said about the other safeguards will persuade the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation, particularly in regard to the other safety nets —income support and the therapeutic earnings allowance. I am not entirely convinced that my amendment is not reasonable because it seems to me —the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, emphasised this —that it is important to try to get people back into some work. As we have indicated this afternoon, many disabled people will not feel able to tackle 16 hours a week all at once.
As regards the employment protection considerations, while it is true that they would be outside those provisions —eight hours per week —and the disabled person would have to be working for five years in a particular employment before employment protection became available, nevertheless it is a rather sad fact of life that that would in any case apply to relatively few disabled people. Therefore, they would not be losing very much; though we do not believe that they should lose employment protection in any event.
However, in the circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord said in such detail —and I thank him for that explanation —to see whether we need to advance similar arguments on Report for a different qualifying period. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert:
("(6AA) A claim for the disability working allowance will be accepted from a person who expects to be engaged and normally engaged in remunerative work within four weeks of making that claim where he can show that he is likely to satisfy the criteria specified in (b) to (d) of subsection (6A) above upon his commencement of that work.
(6AB) Where an advance claim made under subsection (6AA) above is submitted the adjudication officer shall proceed to deal with all the questions arising so far as is practicable. However no payment of the disability working allowance shall be made before the week in which the claimant commences work.").
The noble Baroness said: The object of the amendment is to allow claimants to make a claim in advance so that they can be assured of receiving the DWA as quickly as possible.
The Government said that the purpose of the DWA is to provide an incentive for disabled people to take up remunerative work. As we said on the previous two amendments, that is an aim with which I am sure everybody in this Committee is in complete agreement. However, without the facility to make a claim in advance of seeking work, since the payment of itself involves the loss of other benefits, many disabled people may not want to take the risk. Half the prospective DWA claimants will be coming off invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance. It must be remembered that in the main we are talking about very poor people. They must wait for their first week's wages. To my knowledge no employer ever pays in advance.
I understand that it is the Government's intention that it will be possible and will be simple enough for the claimants to have everything sorted out by their first day or two at work. However, according to the Disability Alliance the claimants must stop their claims to IVB or SDA and, if relevant, must stop claims to income support. Housing benefit must be reclaimed and different sets of details provided. Community charge benefit must be reclaimed notifying changed circumstances. Claimants must obtain details from their employers to give to the DSS and claimants must physically go the DSS office on their first day of work to give proof of earnings and hours in order to show entitlement to DWA. It seems to me that that is rather a lot for a disabled person to cope with when remunerative employment has been obtained.
The Government have promised a fast track for DWA claimants. However, the organisations representing the disabled, to whom I am indebted for much of the briefing on this Bill, are not reassured. With those comments, I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps my noble friend will agree that while a claimant must go to the DSS once he obtains work, after about a month at work, because of changed circumstances, he may find that it is necessary to return to the DSS office. Therefore, he will not know what his income is from week to week. That may be because of his disablement or the need for more hospital treatment, and so on. Therefore, his income is constantly in a state of flux.
Baroness Phillips: We all know that disabled people must go through these procedures. One looks at this legislation and the mind boggles. Are these people legally trained? If one receives an allowance to which one is not entitled because of a misunderstanding as regards the form, one is made to feel that one has cheated the state. I can remember part-time workers who had received some money due to a genuine misunderstanding. I believe the princely sum of about £2 was involved. The money was taken from them in such a way that they felt totally humiliated; but it was merely a misunderstanding.
20
I have read and re-read these clauses. I find them extremely difficult to understand. One must know precisely what are all the benefits. They may apply also to other members of the family. It is very important that the forms should be simple, comprehensible and one should not have to wait before one commences work to be able to claim. We must appeal to the Government because this legislation is intended to make life better for the disabled. Therefore, it must be comprehensible and humane.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: We are speaking of very poor claimants who would find it very difficult to cope with a week's loss of money and the legal complications in order to ascertain that their claims are not against the law and that they will not lose out. Both of those are very important considerations.
However, all those matters are compounded when one is not merely very poor but also mentally handicapped. I do not know how a mentally handicapped person can possibly grasp the sort of technicalities which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, put before us. The mind boggles. This is an extraordinarily complicated Bill and everything should be made easier for poor and, indeed, mentally handicapped people. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, finds the Bill difficult to follow, how much more difficult it will be for these people at the bottom of the social heap.
I ask the noble Lord to ensure that guidance is made available not merely for the disabled and mentally handicapped people but also for their carers. Even those people working in citizens' advice bureaux need a guide to this tangled web of legislation. While I am about it, will the Minister tell us when this legislation is to be consolidated, because as drafted it is totally unintelligible except, I should imagine, to the draftsman.
Lord Henley: Obviously I would accept that any legislation on this subject is always complicated and difficult even for those of us trained in the law to understand. But I ought to stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that obviously we are not expecting any individual claimant to have to read the Act. We hope —and I think that this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was making —that the forms and procedures we produce will be kept as simple as possible so that they can be understood by as many people as possible or by their advisers.
I like to think that our record in the Department of Social Security has steadily improved over the years and that our forms have improved. I like to boast that we have on more than one occasion over the past 10 years managed to win awards from the Plain English Society for the standard of our leaflets. One hopes that, if the Plain English Society says that they are all right, then they probably are all right. If the noble Baroness would like to make any comments about any of our forms, or the forms that will be necessary for the disability working allowance when they come out, we will certainly take note of her comments and the comments of all those representing disabled people and disabled people themselves.

21
Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as to when this legislation might be consolidated, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. I think it is a matter for other authorities.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, when she says, as did others, that it is essential that disabled people who claim DWA should get their benefit as quickly as possible after they start work, and that they must not be left to survive on their low earnings alone, particularly as they have taken the risk of giving up their invalidity benefit, or whatever. There are special reasons for aiming for high standards of speed and accuracy in the DWA. The most important of those special reasons is that DWA is specifically intended to encourage and help disabled people make the difficult transition from incapacity to employment when they are ready to do so.
Rather than take claims before a claimant starts work we have decided to design a system which ensures claims are dealt with very quickly and efficiently. In this way we will remove the need for yet more rules and procedures to deal with advance claims. We have taken care in devising the rules to keep them as simple and straightforward as is reasonably possible. For example, we will not require claimants to be examined by a doctor when they first claim —an almost revolutionary departure. This will cut out one important potential cause of significant delay in making payments.
The way in which claims will be dealt with by the DWA office in Preston is being looked at closely to make sure it is as streamlined as possible. All first claims from people just starting work will be given priority and dealt with on a special fast path. We aim to ensure that the great majority of these will be processed and a payment sent off (if the claimant is entitled to benefit) within five days of the claim form reaching the office. Family credit has a similar system for dealing with urgent claims from people who are starting work and over 80 per cent. of the urgent cases are dealt with within five working days. Our very clear intention is to match the achievement of the family credit fast path. I hope that the Committee will accept those assurances.
Paradoxically, the present amendment might have the opposite effect from that intended. It would add significantly to the complexity of the procedures required to administer the benefit. It would require double handling of claims and so would be liable to hold up claims rather than speed them on their way. The crucial point is that disability working allowance will be a benefit for people in work. As the amendment recognises, claimants will have to be in work before benefit can be paid.
We considered very carefully whether to accept claims in advance from people who had obtained work, supported by evidence from the prospective employer of expected earnings. However, we came to the conclusion that it would still be necessary for the adjudication officer to satisfy himself that the claimant had in fact started work before entitlement could be established and so nothing would be gained.
22
We have concentrated on ensuring that the operational procedures for DWA are such that if a claim is made as soon as possible after a person starts work and the necessary supporting evidence is provided then an award will be put into payment without delay. We are confident that we can achieve a turn-around time of less than a week for the majority of such first claims. Necessarily, it will often take a little longer to assess the earnings of self-employed people, but we are looking at the best way to do this. Publicity will be specially targeted and emphasis will be placed on the need to claim at the right time.
The rules we intend to adopt will provide for the acceptance of estimates of earnings from employers where a job has just begun. We will do all we can to ensure that employers provide the information which is required about earnings without delay. For example, when it is appropriate to do so staff will telephone employers to ask about wages rather than send a form and wait for it to be returned.
I also mentioned the fact that there might be some people who would be slightly worried about giving up a particular benefit —IVB, SDA, or whatever —without the assurance that they would get the new disability working allowance. We are at present testing a new free inquiry service for people who want to know about disability benefits. If that service proves to be a success as I very much hope it will —disabled people will be able to ring a free phone number and get information about benefits. If they are interested in DWA they will also be able to go through the claim form, give their details, and be told as clearly as possible to what they would be entitled. Obviously that will not be binding. It will depend on the evidence that they give and on the information in the possession of the officer at the other end. They would then be sent a letter confirming that advice, and also a part-completed claim form to fill in and to send off when they start work.
So long as we retain the principle that benefit decisions are made by independent adjudication officers and are based closely on the facts as they are at the date of claim, I do not think that it would be possible to do much better than that. I hope that the Committee will accept my assurances that we are determined to provide as speedy a service as possible, and that therefore the Committee will feel that the amendment is unnecessary and the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press it.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his, as usual, lucid explanation. There were one or two matters mentioned in his speech that were welcome, particularly the free inquiry service. I am glad that examination by a doctor will not be necessary as regards this new allowance, and also that the DWA office has instructions to deal quickly and efficiently with the claims. All that is very welcome. However, I am not entirely satisfied because the intention of my amendment, as I explained, was to ensure that the claimant would be able to collect the evidence before he starts work, and he can go along before he starts work to the DSS with supporting

23
evidence from an employer. The officer concerned can then go ahead with checking all that is necessary, and then in the week that the claimant begins work the DWA can begin. Even with all the safeguards to which the Minister has referred, the individual concerned, even on the very fast track outlined by the Minister, will still experience a five day delay. In other words there will be a week before a very poor person can get the allowance.
It seems to me a relatively simple matter to accept the amendment that I have proposed. If the Committee decides that it likes the intention of the amendment, or agrees with the intention of the amendment, I hope it will vote for it. Then if the wording is not entirely satisfactory something else can be done on Report. The principle involved here seems simple to me. The claimant can collect the evidence before starting work, and he can go along with evidence from a supportive employer. All the work can be done on checking before the claimant begins work, and then the DWA can begin in the week that the allowance is due. Because unfortunately I do not feel able to accept the Minister's rejection of that particular argument, I have no alternative but to test the feeling of the Committee on this issue.
3.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 57) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ennals, L.

Milverton, L.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Palmer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grimond, L.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Richardson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

24

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Underhill, L.

3.57 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 58 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 59.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("at least one of the eight weeks") and insert ("one or more of the 56 days").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 72. All three are drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 58 ensures that people will be able to make claims for disability working allowance if they have received one of the qualifying incapacity

25
benefits for any period during the eight weeks before they claim DWA. Amendment No. 63 clarifies the drafting by referring to the actual start of DLA rather than to the "commencement" of the provision. Amendment No. 72 makes clear that the reference is to any benefit mentioned in subsection (6B). I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is a small concession. It does not in any way address the main problem we intended to deal with in Amendment No. 59. The amendment will succeed only in confusing claimants more; they will be left attempting to understand the subtle difference between "eight weeks" and "56 days". There is little point in opposing the amendment, but that means that I shall not be able to move Amendment No. 59. However, it is a small concession. The Government could perhaps have gone a little further.
Lord Henley: To place it on record, perhaps I may explain the difference between "eight weeks" and "56 days". If the position had been left at eight weeks, as drafted, the qualifying period would have had to be for a full week; fifty-six days —seven times eight —means that it can be a part of one week. That is the difference. It is more than a small concession, as was implied by the noble Baroness.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 46, at end insert:
("or
(d) when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has a physical or mental disability.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving to Amendment No. 60 I speak also to Amendment No. 62 which I understand has been grouped with it.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide an alternative way of qualifying for DWA on the ground of disability alone rather than through entitlement to a disability benefit. When people claim DWA for the first time they will have to show, among other things, that they are disabled and provide proof of qualifying benefits. They must also, as we have already discussed, show that they are at a disadvantage in securing work.
Given those rules it is hardly surprising that the DSS expects only about 50,000 people to qualify. This is at variance with other estimates by organisations representing disabled people that there are at least 285,000 disabled people wanting work —over five times the number the DSS itself considers are likely to benefit from the new DWA.
The Spastics Society has provided me with examples of people who ought to benefit but who will not because of the requirements laid down in the legislation. First, there are people on unemployment benefit, or other benefits, which are not listed in the Bill as qualifying benefits. For example, disabled persons may have been getting income support and/or unemployment benefit even though their disabilities
26
were severe enough to qualify for an incapacity benefit. They may have preferred not to define themselves as incapable of work, or have thought that it might put them at a disadvantage in getting a job.
Secondly, there are people who have received incorrect advice —this does happen —and who therefore are not receiving disability benefits even though they are entitled to them. Thirdly, there are people who have never been able to claim benefits under their own right. This could include 16 and 17 year-olds who, under certain limited circumstances, can claim benefits. Fourthly, there are people who initially failed to qualify for DWA on income grounds but for a number of reasons their earnings have dropped. For instance, a person with a fluctuating disability may need to lower the hours worked, and hence earnings would drop. However, if that person received qualifying benefits for longer than eight weeks, he still could not claim DWA.
Fifthly, there are people who are in the process of claiming a qualifying benefit but who have not received proof of entitlement. This includes blind people who are waiting for their registration certificate to come through. Sixthly, there are people who simply did not qualify for the qualifying disability benefit; not because they are not disabled but because the rules for those benefits are narrowly defined. For example, DLA does not provide for people with severe disabilities who have communication problems. In particular that would include deaf people or those with cerebral palsy. That is quite a list of people who, on present rules, are unlikely to qualify for the new DWA.
We commend the idea of self-assessment, but the Government themselves proposed a six-monthly functional test for some people claiming DWA to establish that they are still disabled, and for a few initial claimants. Surely this could also be used for an initial claim in the case of people who do not have the right qualifying benefits. As things stand, it is illogical that one group of disabled people will be able to receive the DWA because they have qualifying benefits while another group which is equally disabled will not qualify. The amendment seeks to put that right, and I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): I add my warm but brief support to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who has argued so clearly and compellingly for these amendments which would enable disabled people who do not have the right passporting benefits to qualify for DWA through the functional test.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave a long list of people who will not be eligible for DWA unless these amendments are passed. At the other end of the scale the amendment is also important for those disabled people who are in work and who are becoming disabled, or whose disability is increasing. They may be struggling to stay in full-time work which may be detrimental to their condition. I am thinking of somebody with multiple sclerosis who is insufficiently disabled to qualify for the attendance or mobility components of DLA. They should not have

27
to leave work for 28 weeks to qualify for an incapacity benefit before trying to return to work with the help of the DWA.
The Disablement Income Group has always been particularly keen to see the introduction of a partial pension for a partial incapacity to work. The DIC puts the case so much more eloquently than I. It said:
"It should provide for all significantly disabled people seamless progression from full-time work into full retirement on health grounds and for others the reverse, a return to full-time work from invalidity benefit through therapeutic earnings".
This two-way seamless travel is important. It should work both backwards and forwards. Under the disability working allowance, as the Bill stands, some cannot travel forwards because they have no passporting benefits —the noble .Baroness has enumerated them —but many cannot travel smoothly backwards without getting shunted into a siding for 28 weeks. Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 would make that seamless travel possible, and would work both ways. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about how important he feels it is that the DWA should work both ways.
Lord Henley: It has been said by a number of noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, and I think by myself, that the disability working allowance is a very important step forward. We believe it is a revolutionary step and that it would be of great benefit to disabled people. When criticising the benefit for what it will not do it is important to keep in mind the positive contribution the DWA will make.
As Amendment No. 60 suggests, DWA could be extended to very many more people. However, it could only be extended in the way suggested by Amendment No. 60 at very considerable cost. We estimate that the cost of such an extension would be about £200 million; that is, £200 million net of savings elsewhere in the benefit system, which is what the noble Baroness asked me. That is a very significant sum of money. The net value of all the changes announced in The Way Ahead will come to some £300 million by 1993/94. That is on top of our record over the past 10 years of doubling, in real terms, benefit expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled.
There is a further, positive, side. We said that the disability working allowance is intended to provide support for people making the difficult transition from incapacity to work. The requirement which Amendment No. 60 would have undermined —which I have referred to as the qualifying benefit test —ensures that the benefit can be designed specifically to meet the needs of this group. In particular, we have designed the benefit so that the process of claiming it is not an ordeal and so that decisions can be made very quickly provided claimants supply the information requested on the claim form.
One of the problems we had to solve was that of how to devise a disability test which could be applied very quickly and which would not put off disabled people from claiming. Some test is required because this is a benefit for disabled people and therefore some
28
means is necessary to identify people with disabilities. Traditionally, this has been done by arranging for a doctor's opinion to be obtained, usually after a medical examination.
We feared that a traditional disability test based on fresh medical evidence would delay claims beyond what is acceptable. We were also concerned that claimants could not predict the outcome of such a test and so could not be sure whether they would be entitled to DWA. If they could not be sure of being entitled they could not take DWA into account when making the crucial decision to start looking for a job.
However we set the definition of disabled people for this benefit, some people obviously will fall out of the definition. The noble Baroness should tell us how she would distinguish disabled persons who are claiming income support, and who are unemployed, from the rest of the unemployed population. Does she envisage a new medical test? The noble Baroness is merely asking us to invent a wholly different benefit.
However, since the qualifying benefit test requires that all claimants should be getting either disability living allowance or an incapacity benefit shortly before first claiming DWA, we have been able to do away with the traditional requirement for medical evidence.
As regards first claims, we believe that it will be sufficient to ask the claimants for a simple declaration that they have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. The claim form will explain what that means. We are prepared to have discussions on whether a better form of wording is required. The qualifying benefit test will not provide proof. However, we believe that it will be sufficient confirmation so that only in very exceptional cases will we expect the adjudication officer to seek further evidence.
The evidence which is available from the qualifying benefit test relates to a prolonged period of illness or disability. If we did not have that evidence from the qualifying benefit test we should have to devise an alternative test which provided strong evidence that the claimant was disabled.
I cannot accept the amendment because of its very considerable cost. It would undermine the quick and effective method that we have devised for ensuring that DWA goes to the people for whom it is intended. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem in relation to people who are still working; that is, those who have not left work and who qualify for a disability allowance? The Bill fails to sort out the problem for people who have a partial incapacity.
Lord Henley: We have always accepted that the provisions do not cover people already working. On grounds of simplicity and cost we had to decide exactly how far we could go. For simplicity's sake the provisions cover those entering the labour market. It

29
is to those people that we should be looking and therefore the provisions will not affect someone already in employment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Minister's response is a little disappointing. It is clear that people who are disabled but can still work and who can benefit from DWA will not be entitled to claim because they have not been receiving the passporting benefits. He challenged me to say what we should do about people in such a situation. In moving the amendment I pointed out that the Government have proposed a six-monthly functional test for some people claiming DWA in order to establish that they are still disabled.
We suggest that the test might be used for initial claims in respect of people who do not have the correct passporting benefits. The point has not yet been dealt with, although we accept the argument that people who have the passporting benefits should have to do no more than comply with the self-assessment rules. I am not at all happy about the situation. It appears that many people who ought to benefit from the new allowance will be unable to do so. Some disabled people will benefit and others will not, even though the disablement is precisely the same or perhaps worse.
The Minister says that the DWA is a revolutionary step. Members on this side of the Committee have said from the beginning that we are in agreement with the DWA and should like the scheme to encourage as many people as possible to return to the labour market. The Minister says that if our amendment is accepted considerable cost will be involved. He quoted a figure of £200 million net of savings. I believe that if a benefit encouraged more people into the labour market and therefore off benefit there should ultimately be savings which would more than compensate for the amount expended on DWA. After all, the allowance is intended as an incentive for them to return to the labour market.
I am most unhappy with the Minister's response. I dislike a situation in which people who ought to be able to benefit will not do so. On that issue alone I am inclined to test the feeling of the Committee. If the Committee agrees with my views on the central issue and the amendment is accepted, the exact wording can be agreed on Report.
Lord Henley: I wish to correct a comment that I made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), because it is relevant to the issue. People who are working and who are receiving any rate of DLA will be entitled to receive DWA. I omitted to make that point in my response and may have misled the noble Baroness.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I had in mind someone who is suffering from multiple sclerosis, not yet sufficiently disabled to qualify for either component of DLA but who is struggling with a full-time job to the detriment of his or her health.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I feel strongly about the exclusion of people who do not have passporting benefits. As it is early in the afternoon I shall test the feeling of the Committee.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ennals, L.

Milverton, L.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Palmer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grimond, L.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Richardson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

24

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ampthill, L

Macleod of Borve, B.

Astor, V.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Manton, L.

Bauer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mountevans, L.

Blatch, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Blyth, L.

Munster, E.

Boardman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Nelson, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Norfolk, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Orkney, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Butterworth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Caithness, E.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Quinton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shannon, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Sharples, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Slim, V.

Flather, B.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathspey, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Joseph, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wise, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milverton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mishcon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Palmer, L.

Falkender, B.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller]

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hayter, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stallard, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Bauer, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Flather, B.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Boardman, L.

Gridley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L. Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Holderness, L.

Carnock, L.

Hood, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hooper, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howe, E.

Cockfield, L.

Inchcape, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Joseph, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Kimball, L.

Denham, L.

Knollys, V.

31

Layton, L.

Richardson, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shannon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Sharpies, B.

Manton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Slim, V.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Munster, E.

Swansea, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Nelson, E.

Terrington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Teviot, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Plumb, L.

Westbury, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Quinton, L.

Wise, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Reay, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("commencement of section 1 above") and insert ("first day in respect of which disability living allowance is payable").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 11, line 48, after ("percentage") insert ("which shall not exceed 40 per cent.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that once a disabled person starts earning over a certain amount a poverty trap is not created because of large corresponding deductions in his DWA. The DSS is proposing that if a disabled person who is single earns more than £34.60 a week then the excess is to be reduced from the DWA by 70p in the pound. Lone parents and couples will be subject to the same rules on an income of more than £57.60 a week. It is believed that this 70 per cent. taper will produce a formidable poverty trap for DWA claimants and will prove to be a huge disincentive for disabled persons considering accepting low-paid work with a benefit top-up.
The low threshold and benefit levels combined with this steep taper mean that the claimants will have to consider very carefully which is the better option. All things considered, they might be better off to stay on social security benefits and not seek work at all. That can hardly have been the object of this exercise, the exercise designed to produce the DWA.
During Committee proceedings in another place the Government refused to accept proposed amendments substantially reducing the taper. The 40 per cent. in this amendment represents a compromise on
32
what was then suggested. I understand that this could create its own poverty trap but at a higher level. We do not believe it to be over generous, particularly as there will also be reductions in housing benefit and community charge benefit. The Government have asserted that a reduction in the taper to 40 per cent. will cost around £30 million. But in the long term the Government will gain as people come off long-term incapacity benefits. The financial implications of the DWA at present are said to be neutral. However. according to the financial memorandum which accompanies the Bill, there will be savings of £10 million on a tax basis. I do not believe it is right to make savings; rather we should be prepared to invest in disabled people's ability to contribute to general welfare through the workforce.
If a 40 per cent. taper were introduced the maximum net earnings for a single person claiming DWA would have to be less than £127.60 a week, or £187.97 for a couple. That is not over generous. We have repeatedly said from this side of the Chamber, and will say so again in the course of the Committee proceedings, that it costs much more to be disabled. The nearer the earnings are to these ceilings, the less DWA will be awarded. According to the White Paper on which the Bill is based, it is necessary to plug the gap so that disabled people have an incentive to rejoin or join the workforce at a level of work which they are capable of doing. The Bill, if unamended, will do little to plug this gap. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the sense of what I am saying and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to support the amendment. The noble Baroness has said very nearly everything that has to be said. I hope that the Committee will agree that wherever a poverty trap is found —so often it is inadvertent, but there clearly is a poverty trap here —it should be eliminated or if not eliminated then mitigated. This amendment is a mitigating amendment. As the noble Baroness has said, it will still be a poverty trap but it will be a poverty trap at a higher level. To that extent, it is less objectionable than the provisions in the Bill.
The other point which I commend to the Committee is the contention of the noble Baroness that ultimately this will not cost the Government any money. If the Government look to the long term they will find that there may be an expected saving —in fact they have said so —from DWA as people come off long-term incapacity benefits. If those two points on what the Government are going to make out of DWA are taken together, they should surely look with a kindly eye on an amendment which is designed to mitigate a poverty trap. With those few words, I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness has mentioned most of what we wished to say, so I shall not repeat it. However, I ask the Government what they are trying to achieve with this allowance. Are they merely trying to make life a little less unpleasant for the disabled and to give them a chance to work and get out of the house? Or do they believe that there is a big potential for getting disabled people who have lost heart and

33
think that they cannot cope in an ordinary working environment to realise that they can? Surely, that should be the priority.
We all know that when people are away from work for a long time they begin to believe that they can do nothing, they are finished and will never be able to do anything. However, a great many can. If that is what we wish to encourage then surely there should not be a poverty trap and a cut off —every encouragement should be given. As my noble friend Lord Russell frequently says, we should try to "float off" people who have been on support but who do not need it when they discover what they can do. If that is the priority —which it should be —then the Government must surely accept the 40 per cent.
Baroness Phillips: To follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, whatever the way in which we try to make these arrangements work, they create what we can only describe as a poverty trap. I have worked for a long time with women of all ages and I remember how harsh it was that where there was an earnings rule on widows' pensions, women would not accept work which they needed because the earnings were taken off their pension. In the end, they tried to struggle on with something they could not manage. The position was the same with pensioners.
Happily, both those problems have been removed; but it is fatal to create yet another one. If the Government wish to save money —because we will be told that this will cost much more —why under this Bill do they have to have an advisory board? That will cost money. Surely it would be more sensible to give the money to the disabled rather than to install people who, so far as I can see, are not even ombudsmen. They are simply there to administer the Act. What is wrong with the department doing so?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I understand the anxiety about the combined effect of the rate at which income is taken into account in calculating the disability working allowance, the taper, and the housing benefit and community charge benefit tapers.
One or two preliminary points. Before the reforms in 1988 it was possible for someone to be made worse off if they increased their earnings. However, by basing benefit assessments on income after deductions for tax and national insurance, we removed this poverty trap. So before 1988 people could be worse off if they increased their earnings. This is now all but impossible. There is no poverty trap, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Phillips, have implied. Since the 1988 reforms, we have moved on. It is also important to remember that awards for the disability working allowance will be made for 26 weeks and not changed during this period. That means that however much the claimant's income rises, the disability working allowance award will not be reduced.
We have said that we intend to set the taper at 70 per cent. Opting for a figure below 70 per cent. increases the cost of the benefit. So, for example, setting the taper at 40 per cent., as this amendment
34
suggests, would increase the cost of the disability working allowance by about £30 million after allowing for offsetting savings elsewhere. That £30 million takes account of savings on housing benefit and community charge benefit and of the incentive effect of attracting people to the disability working allowance.
I am not attracted by the suggestion that we would save money in the long term. I hear again and again, particularly from the Benches on which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, sits, that if we do this or that, it costs more money but somehow we will end up saving money. I tend to be rather cynical about those arguments. The cost of this, taking into account other savings, will be £30 million. That is a considerable sum.
We decided that the benefit should be designed to give as much help as possible to people with the lowest earnings so as to ensure that they were not made worse off by deciding to take a job. However, reducing the taper would give little or nothing to those with the lowest earnings. A shallow taper would give most to people who are already better off but would make little or no difference to those claimants with earnings at or a little above the applicable amount. I am sure we all agree that the latter are in the greatest need of help within what can be afforded. As noble Lords may have worked out, reducing the taper to 40 per cent. still leaves marginal withdrawal rates at a much higher level if one combines the effects of the DWA, housing benefit and community charge benefit tapers, where all these apply.
High combined deduction rates are an unavoidable consequence of introducing comparatively generous income related benefits which, although they are withdrawn by the tapers, provide a significant boost to the incomes of those eligible to receive them —the least well off in society. We intend to set the figure of the taper by regulation later in the year and at that time noble Lords will have a further opportunity to debate this. For all these reasons, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not entirely surprised at the noble Lord's response. Again, we have heard the argument advanced by him that to accept our amendment would cost up to £30 million. As he rightly says, that is a substantial sum. He has discounted the arguments advanced from this side of the Chamber that getting people back into employment is worth while and should be regarded as an investment rather than as expenditure. Just as we regard training as investment rather than expenditure, so getting back into employment people who have hitherto not been able to be employed or who have felt that they were not employable is a positive and progressive action.
I do not intend to press the amendment now. I wish to examine carefully what the Minister has said; particularly his argument that with the 40 per cent. many of the lowest paid would be worse off. That is not in accordance with the briefing that I have received.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Baroness give way? I suggested that the 40 per cent. would not particularly benefit the worse off, it would benefit the slightly better off.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I understand what the Minister is arguing. Very well, I shall examine the matter between now and Report stage. If it seems practicable and possible, at Report stage I shall make another attempt at covering the problem of the taper, perhaps with a different figure. We shall consider tomorrow what the Minister said. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 11, line 49, at end insert:
("( ) Where a person is entitled to the disability working allowance by virtue of section 20(6A) (c) (i) or (ii) above the amount shall include an amount in respect of his mortgage interest payments or other housing costs as are prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: The intention of this amendment is to try to ensure that mortgage interest and other housing cost provisions which are allowed for in the calculation of income support are also allowed for in the calculation of DWA. The director of Shelter has written to me, as I understand she has to the Minister. It has been pointed out to me by Shelter and by many other organisations that if these housing costs are not taken into account, many people with disabilities will end up worse off if they decide to claim the new allowance. This would result in another poverty trap and benefit inconsistency between people in similar circumstances.
Many people who may wish to move away from long-term incapacity benefits into work will not be able to do so because they may be worse off. Examples have been given to me by the Spastics Society in confirmation of this. It quotes the case of a disabled couple earning £39.60 a week receiving the maximum DWA. The society contends that the couple will be worse off by £6.35 a week, with only a modest mortgage and with loan interest repayments of £18 per week.
It is imperative that disabled people should be able to afford to live independently in their own homes. Unless mortgage interest is taken into account, the objective of DWA will be seriously undermined. One disabled person with cerebral palsy quoted by the Spastics Society said: "I worry about my mortgage. Why shouldn't disabled people have a mortgage like everyone else? It is part of living normally". The Government say that no one is obliged to take up DWA. Apparently disabled people are supposed to consider their circumstances and make a judgment as to whether or not DWA suits them. However, that is hardly an incentive to join the workforce and start living as normal a life as possible. I therefore hope that the Government will feel inclined to look favourably upon the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As ever there is a balance to be struck between the conflicting needs of disabled people who will claim disability working allowance. On the one
36
hand, some —probably only a small number —will be better off on income support because no allowance is made in DWA for mortgage interest. On the other hand, all claimants need a system which is as simple as possible so that they can understand it and which can be administered quickly and efficiently.
There are immense problems estimating how many people with mortgages might claim DWA. Our best estimate —I stress this is an estimate —is that probably 10,000 will claim and will be better off working and claiming DWA than they would be on income support. A much smaller number with larger mortgages and low earnings will not be better off on DWA; but, of course, if they really want to work they will be better off with DWA than they would be if the benefit were not introduced.
The majority of people who will be considering claiming disability working allowance will not be receiving any benefit which includes an allowance for mortgage interest or other housing costs. Invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance do not include any allowance for mortgage interest for example. At the start we expect that perhaps 15,000 people —that is, 30 per cent. of the caseload we are expecting to reach —will already be in work. Those with mortgages will be getting no help with the interest other than tax relief, and DWA will provide a bonus for them.
Given the design we have chosen for the structure of disability working allowance, it will be possible for people with quite reasonable wages to be getting some benefit. For example, using the illustrative rates we have given in the note on disability working allowance, a couple with two children between 11 and 15 could still be getting DWA if they were earning £170 a week. On top of that they would have child benefit and some would have disability living allowance. If an allowance was added for mortgage interest, we would be paying an income related benefit to people whose income was around the national average. I do not think most people would think that right.
Disability working allowance is necessarily a broad brush scheme and makes no provision at all for specific outgoings. It would change the fundamental nature of the scheme to allow for mortgage interest and other housing costs. It would alter the scope and targeting and bring in people with large mortgages who were in fact quite high earners. The major source of Government help for owner occupiers in work is through mortgage interest tax relief. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have again listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Again it seems to me that DWA is likely to benefit relatively few people, and that may well have been the Government's intention. The object of our amendments so far this afternoon has been to extend entitlement to DWA to people who have disabilities and who are capable of working, and may wish to work, but who may otherwise have no incentive to do so. That includes people who have mortgages and

37
receive some allowance for mortgage interest. However, they would not receive such an allowance if they were to transfer to DWA. I am not very happy with the Minister's response but I recognise that this is one of a number of attempts we are making to broaden entitlement. We shall have to consider the Minister's comments in the light of what has been said on other amendments before deciding how we shall pursue the matter further on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 49, at end insert:
("(3C) Where a person is entitled to a disability working allowance and —

(i) lives in a residential care home or nursing home; or

(ii) if the claimant is a member of a family, he and the members of the family live in such a home,

the amount shall he the difference between his income from his employment and the applicable amount.
(3D) in section 21(3C) above —
"the applicable amount" shall be the aggregate of:

(a) the amount of income support to which the claimant could be entitled were the claimant not in employment and not in receipt of the income from his employment and

(b) a sum to be disregarded from his earnings, equal to the sum which would be disregarded from his earning, were he entitled to income support.").

The noble Baroness said: The object of this amendment is to try to ensure that people living in residential care are not made financially worse off by taking employment. Residential accommodation nowadays is a much wider category than institutions for the elderly and severely disabled and includes a variety of community based facilities. Many people in residential care are willing and able to take employment. If they can, they should be encouraged to do so. However, because of the special rules for income support for this kind of accommodation, they may end up losing money by taking work. Indeed the loss may be so great that they could not stay in the accommodation if they got a job.
People in residential accommodation receive high levels of income support to help meet the fees. Typically this is around £190 a week. If they take employment for over 24 hours a week, they lose all entitlement to income support and to "passported" benefits such as free prescriptions and spectacles. This effectively disqualifies them from employment, as it is extremely unlikely that they will find a job paying enough to meet the fees for their accommodation. The amendment would help by ensuring that DWA is enough to enable the person to take employment without being worse off.
I shall refer to an example that has been mentioned to me. Alan is mentally handicapped and lives in supported accommodation that is registered with the local authority. He receives £189.40 per week in income support and severe disablement allowance of which £180 pays for his accommodation. He is offered
38
a job in a cafe paying £90 a week. However, he has to turn the job down because he would lose his income support and SDA and would be unable to pay for his accommodation.
Under the amendment, Alan would receive £90 in pay and £114.40 in disability working allowance. That is equivalent to the shortfall in income support together with the therapeutic earnings disregard of £15 per week.
The Government would save £75 a week —this is another instance of the Government being able to save money by supporting one of our amendments —while Alan would benefit from being at work. He would also be £15 per week better off. He would be back in the workforce and would be able to participate much more successfully in normal life.
If the Government do not like the amendment, they could achieve the same objective by amending the income support regulations so that people do not have to choose between keeping their accommodation and obtaining employment. I hope that the Minister will think our comments are sensible and will respond accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I acknowledge that there are probably very few people in residential care and nursing homes who might claim DWA if this amendment were accepted. It is impossible to estimate with any hope of accuracy, but I would guess that less than 500 people would fall into this group. But I must stress that they will not be made any worse off by the introduction of disability working allowance. At the moment, some of this group can claim income support under a special rule which allows people whose earning capacity is reduced by 25 per cent. or more as a result of mental or physical disablement to claim even if they are working 24 hours a week or more. This rule will remain.
Similarly, those who are getting invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance and who can do some work of a therapeutic nature will still be able to earn up to £39 a week without any reduction in these benefits. This therapeutic earnings rule will continue unchanged. That was mentioned in connection with a previous amendment.
We all know that there are changes on the horizon which will affect the way in which we support people in residential care and nursing homes. These changes are part of the major improvements we are making in the field of community care. However, there is much yet to be worked out. But we will be changing the way in which income support is calculated for people going into homes after April 1993. This change will occur very soon after DWA is introduced. In those circumstances we decided that it would not be sensible to try to devise a special rate of benefit for so small a group.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I am certainly prepared to consider the case to which the noble Baroness referred, to see whether the provisions I have mentioned apply in that case. I hope that in the meantime the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his very sympathetic response to the amendment. As he rightly said, we are talking about only a small group of people. I shall be happy to supply him with the information that he requested about the case to which I referred.
I am very glad that it may not be necessary to do what we propose here because of changes contemplated in relation to income support, and that those changes may come about at the same time as DWA gets off the ground. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. I am very grateful for the way in which the Minister received what I had to say on behalf of this small group of people, whom we would all like to see back in work that they are able to do if that can be achieved. I hope that it can be achieved in the manner that we indicated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton moved manuscript Amendment No. 67A:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of that section —
"(6G) The Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under the relevant enactments, shall exempt a claimant in receipt of the disability working allowance from prescription charges, dental charges, optical charges and the claimant shall be eligible for reimbursement of fares to hospitals." ").
The noble Lord said: In this Committee stage I seem fated to move manuscript amendments and I apologise sincerely to the Committee. In this case Amendment No. 67A is exactly the same as Amendment No. 67 on the Marshalled List except that the words:
"the claimant shall be eligible for"
have been added at the end of the fourth line of the original amendment. It is intended that the claimant shall be eligible for reimbursement of fares to hospital. As the amendment appeared on the Marshalled List the effect was precisely the opposite of our intention. I apologise to the Committee and hope that I shall be forgiven for circulating the manuscript amendment in order to put the matter right.
The amendment is designed to ensure that health charges do not result in a DWA claimant being worse off than if he or she had remained on income support. Unless the amendment or something very like it, though I cannot see any scope for variation, is accepted there is a real danger that the charges will act as a serious disincentive to disabled people to take up the benefit.
The citizens advice bureaux are in a very good position to give examples of hardship which result when poor people have to pay National Health Service charges. For example, the charge for a single prescription is £3.05. Disabled people often need a large number of items. They may need four or five items and so some £15 has gone immediately as a result of one visit to the doctor. There are other hardships which I do not need to list. However, the
40
Government have introduced a very imaginative scheme involving season tickets, which cost £15.80 three times a year or £43.40 for a year. That may not seem a great deal to Members of this Committee, but it is a great deal to someone at the level of income support. Disabled people may need 14 or 15 prescriptions a year.
Let us not forget that disabled people, like the rest of us, have to go to the dentist. That costs £3.45 each time. One may incur a considerable amount of expenditure on treatment which could cost £100 or £200. Expenditure is also incurred in travelling to the dentist or to the optician. One also has to pay charges for treatment by the optician. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that people on income support and family credit and also those on DWA will all suffer hardship.
Those receiving income support and family credit are exempted from those charges. Why therefore is one not exempt when one receives DWA? These people are scraping an existence at the bottom of our social pyramid. Those claiming DWA are in much the same position as those receiving income support and family credit and they deserve to be treated similarly. Otherwise there is a danger that they will fall into another poverty trap. I propose that DWA should be a passport to exemption from National Health Service charges.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee about the form which people will have to fill in in order to claim exemption if they are not able to claim exemption as a result of the amendment. Earlier in the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Henley, boasted about the Plain English award with which his department had been graced. I was extremely glad to hear about that, and I congratulate the department on the award. However, there is a form called the AG1 which is of enormous complexity. It covers 19 pages which have to be completed just to gain exemption from National Health Service charges.
The citizens advice bureaux say that the form has to be completed every six months. Even a trained CAB adviser finds that it takes half an hour to complete. How much longer will it take a disabled person to complete the form without assistance? The mind boggles. It passes comprehension that they will be able to do so. They will all have to queue up at the CAB twice a year in order to be able to complete that extraordinary form. Therefore I ask the Minister to look at the 19-page form to see whether it is necessary to complete it twice a year, and whether it can be simplified.
That is by the way because I am seeking the elimination of the need to complete the form for those who are in receipt of DWA. That is the burden of the amendment. It should be a passport to exemption from National Health Service charges. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has indicated, the object is to ensure that a DWA claimant will not be worse off than if he or she had remained on income support. Unless DWA

41
claimants are exempted from health service charges, there is a real danger that those charges will act as a serious disincentive to taking up the DWA benefit.
Our evidence indicates that many people on low incomes experience considerable hardship in paying health charges. As has been indicated, those are not negligible. Prescriptions can cost over £3 per item, and sometimes more than one item is prescribed at a time. A dental check costs up to £3.45, and the cost of dental treatment can be substantial. Then there are the costs associated with optical treatment; fares to hospital; NHS wigs; supports; and so on.
The organisation MIND says that those disabled with mental health problems may have continuing costs associated with their condition. Many have very high prescription costs. They say that it is not uncommon for a person to take four or five drugs a day and that they may be prescribed on a weekly basis to reduce the risk of overdose. The costs of prescriptions can be as much as £12 a week. MIND has found that users receiving income support find prescription charges acting as a financial barrier to coming off benefit to take up work. That would surely apply to those considering part-time work with a DWA.
If DWA is not included as a passport benefit to exemption from health charges, the only help available would be the low income scheme. As has been indicated, that provides help towards the costs of some health charges depending on the claimant's level of income. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, indicated, the CABs report that many people fail to make successful claims because of the sheer complexity of the claiming process. There is a I9-page claim form —the AG1 —which has to be completed and, as he said, that form can take a CAB official —an individual who knows his or her way round such forms —as long as half an hour to complete. Imagine such a form having to be dealt with by somebody who is mentally or physically disabled.
It is to be hoped that the Government will look with sympathy on our amendment. Without it DWA is likely to attract even fewer claimants than the 50,000 estimated by the DSS. I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with regard to the 19 page long AG1 form. Although that matter does not specifically arise from this Bill, I hope that the Minister will have a look at it because the form seems impossibly complex to handle for someone who is disabled either physically or mentally. With those few words, I support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to say briefly how strongly I support this amendment. It seems odd that if one receives family credit one is exempt, yet the DWA was modelled on family credit. It seems to me only logical and right that it should be brought into line with family credit.
My noble friend Lord Henderson and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke about the difficulties of the low income scheme and the horrors of the dreaded AG1 . Another major inadequacy of the AG1 is that,
42
although it provides help toward the cost of some health charges, in fact it provides no help with prescription charges, which I should have thought would form the major part of DWA claimants' health care costs anyway. I fully support this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because I was not in my seat when he started to move this amendment. I have some sympathy with the amendment but I also have some doubts about it. As I understand it, it will help those disabled people whose disabilities allow them to work and increase their income by working. What about the disabled person who is so disabled that he is unable to work and increase his income in that way? I think that he will be left out.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, stressed, this is his second manuscript amendment at Committee stage, and I accept his apology. But I trust that Members from all parts of the Chamber will bear that in mind if I have to come forward with any amendments at some later stage in the Bill.
Something has been said about the form AG1. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned the fact that I boasted earlier that the department which I represent, the Department of Social Security, had won the Plain English award on a number of occasions . At this Dispatch Box I speak for the entire Government but on this occasion I can tell the Committee that the Department of Health, not my department, is responsible for the AG1 and its complexity, though perhaps that may be rather unfair on the Department of Health.
We have recently considered this form. The scheme parallels the income support assessment process, which also takes into account housing costs, and it is necessarily very complex. The form is designed to take the claimant through step by step and very few will need to complete the whole document. Nevertheless, as I said, we have recently examined the form and I understand that my colleagues in the Department of Health will have another look at it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend leaves that point, perhaps he can enlighten the Committee and, no matter which department of state is responsible for that form, say whether it has or has not won an award for plain English.
Lord Henley: I cannot help my noble friend. It is not my understanding that it has won such an award but I shall certainly make inquiries. If he would like to put it forward for the Plain English award, I am sure that the organisers of that competition will be more than pleased.
Since 1952 all governments have believed it right that those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their medication and their dental and optical treatment should do so. Although the revenue raised in charges possibly makes only a small contribution, that contribution is a little over £600 million toward the cost of the national health services. It is a valuable addition to the resources available within the health service.

43
As the Committee will be aware, many patients are automatically exempt from charges —men over 65 and women over 60, children under 16 and students under 19 in full-time education, and those receiving income support or family credit and their dependants. In addition, exemption certificates can be obtained by expectant and nursing mothers, people suffering from certain specified medical conditions, and war pensioners in relation to their accepted disability.
There is also the NHS low income scheme, which is designed to protect those with limited resources who are not otherwise exempt from National Health Service charges. The threshold for exemption is set at about the same level as that used in assessing entitlement to income support, although the NHS scheme also allows for net housing costs to be taken into account. We believe that that is fair and sensible.
Many people who do not qualify for full help under the NHS low income scheme but who have limited resources can get partial help with all charges except prescription charges. Help with the cost of prescriptions is already available to anyone through the season ticket scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned.
It is important to remember that because of the extensive exemption arrangements and the season ticket scheme, charges are paid on less than 20 per cent. of all items dispensed in the National Health Service. In 1988 –89 more than 13 million dental treatments were exempt from charges, which is more that 40 per cent. of all treatments.
One must also remember that virtually all DWA recipients will be better off than they would be on an incapacity benefit. Only a minority of them will have been entitled to exemption from charges before they started work and claimed DWA. We estimate that probably less than one-fifth of claimants will have been receiving income support before they claimed DWA. It therefore seems odd to give all those claimants exemption if they are already better off on DWA and most were not exempt from charges before they claimed DWA.
Against that background I can see little justification for extending the range of exemptions. To exempt recipients of DWA from health charges would cost some £3.3 million a year in loss of income from prescription charges, dental charges and provision of sight tests and optical vouchers. Those benefits would go not to those in greatest need —who will be eligible for help under the NHS low income scheme —but to those above the threshold for that scheme. Moreover such an exemption would create an anomalous situation where some of those who gain automatic exemption will have higher incomes than some who fail to qualify for help under the low income scheme.
Recipients of DWA will remain eligible to apply for help under the NHS low income scheme. This will provide partial help with all NHS charges except prescription charges. For prescription charges, as I said, help is already available in the form of season tickets. As well as the annual season ticket, there is
44
also a four-monthly season ticket specifically to help anyone who might not find it easy to buy an annual certificate.
I remain unconvinced of the arguments that have been put forward. I accept that there might be a handful of people whose income, including their DWA, is slightly above income support level who will be made slightly worse off because they will lose exemption from prescription charges and will have to pay a contribution towards other NHS charges. However, wherever the line is drawn there will always be people who are made worse off by being a little on the wrong side of that line.
With the assurances that I have given and with the remarks that I have made about most people not being worse off, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps the Minister can explain a mystery about a form relating to disability that came through my door, and not only mine —I believe that everyone in the borough received one. That was only six pages. However, it seemed to contain many totally irrelevant questions not directly connected with disability. Consequently, I unfortunately threw it away.
How many forms will be issued? If the form to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred is 19 pages long, I feel jealous. The one I received had only six. On a serious note, will the form be so complicated that in the end people will not make application? Is that the idea behind it?
Lord Henley: I cannot comment. I do not know what form the noble Baroness received or whether she received it from her borough. I do not know who it came from.
Baroness Phillips: I assumed that it came from the borough. It was addressed to "the occupier".
Lord Henley: I do not know which borough. I cannot comment. The form about which I speak is the form for claiming exemption from NHS charges on the ground of low income. Necessarily, it has to be detailed because one has to go into the income of the person claiming the exemption.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: We have at least been entertained by the Minister's gallant defence of another Ministry, the Department of Health. It was gallant but not convincing. This dreadful form of 19 pages should be redesigned, simplified, shortened and submitted for a Plain English award.
Lord Henley: I said that we would have another look at it. If the noble Lord wishes to make any specific comment, I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Health will be prepared to listen to it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pursues the matter, perhaps he will agree that it is not the length of the form that is pertinent: it is the way in which the questions are phrased and framed, and how easy they are to answer which will or

45
will not qualify the form for a Plain English award. More importantly, will it put off the people for whom exemption is both right and desirable?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am not an expert on forms. However, one of the first lessons of oratory is to respect one's audience. The first lesson in writing a form is to respect the reader of the form. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. If the form were redesigned, simplified and shortened that would help the recipient. It would help the CAB expert who now takes half an hour to complete the form. That cannot be right. I much look forward to a plain English award being given after such efforts by the Department of Health.
However, that is not the main point of the amendment. It is to relieve the recipient of the disabled working allowance from all National Health Service charges. The nub of the debate was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). She stated that DWA was modelled on family credit, and that if family credit is a passport to freedom from national health charges, DWA should be as well.
I was not impressed by the Minister's reply, however ingenious. He said that it is only a matter of £3.3 million. That is rather straining at a gnat. I ask the Committee to remember the great lines that,
"High Heaven rejects the lore
Of nicely-calculated less or more",
and come into the Division Lobby with me. I commend the amendment.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.67A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller].

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hooson, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis. L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.[Teller].

Kinloss, Ly.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Listowel, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Falkender, B.

Lockwood, B.

Gallacher, L.

Longford, E.

Galpern, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McNair, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Grey, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Hampton, L.

Milverton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Mishcon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Mulley, L.

Hayter, L.

46

Nicol, B.

Stedman, B.

Palmer, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Underhill, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Shepherd, L

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bauer, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Blyth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boardman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Borthwick, L.

Munster, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newall, L.

Butterworth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Coleraine, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Quinton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Denham, L.

Romney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Sharples, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elles, B.

Strange, B.

Elton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Inchcape, E.

Windlesham, L.

Ironside, L.

Wise, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.22 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation) —
"(5A) Subsection (5) above shall not apply where a person is claiming the disability working allowance." ").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend, Lady Hollis of Heigham, I move Amendment No. 68. As I understand it, under the present drafting of the Bill if one member of a couple

47
claims disability working allowance, the partner's income would be taken into account both for the purposes of assessing entitlement and in calculating the amount of benefit payable.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only the individual's income is taken into account. The combined effect of the steep means test for the disability working allowance and the inclusion in the calculation of a partner's income will be to deny the majority of disabled people who would like to work, but whose partners are already working, the right to work without the risk of forfeiting their continued entitlement to incapacity benefits or it may force one or other member of a couple to forgo the opportunity to continue in or take up an offer of paid employment.
The Government have repeatedly asserted that this benefit has been introduced in order to enable more people with disabilities to attain financial independence through work. In the Government's own words, this is a benefit aimed at helping people who are at a disadvantage in obtaining a job. We spoke about this earlier this afternoon. Therefore, it is inconsistent to treat a benefit whose primary purpose is to help individuals with a disability in the same way as other benefits aimed at families or households. I understand that that is what the Government are attempting to do here.
We believe very strongly that unless there is an amendment to individualise the benefit, a number of people who might otherwise benefit —in particular married women —would be at a disadvantage in claiming DWA. We believe that that would be a pity because disabled people, on an individual basis, should be given an encouragement to look for suitable work and to take it if it is offered.
This is a very simple amendment and the argument is also very simple. I shall not take up more time of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: This amendment would be a very significant step away from the principle which applies and has always applied in income related benefits that the income and other resources of partners are taken into account in calculating the benefit paid for the family. For this reason, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee.
Like income support, family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, DWA is a benefit for the claimant and his immediate family. It is not a personal benefit. The amount of benefit due for the whole family will be calculated and the whole family's resources (with certain specific exceptions) will be aggregated and taken into account. In effect, the rules governing income-related benefits merely reflect the pooling of resources that takes place in the majority of families. The 1988 reforms simplified benefits by aligning the rules for income-related benefits and introducing common rules for all benefits as far as possible. Aligning disability working allowance rules with those for other benefits where appropriate will make it easier for people to understand and ensures that there is a smooth progression from one benefit to
48
another. So people moving from income support to DWA will find that similar rules apply. Those who are claiming housing benefit will also find that similar rules apply to that benefit.
The principal argument advanced in support of the amendment is that disregarding a partner's income and capital might well give the claimant more of an incentive to go to work.
Clearly, the question of incentives was one we considered very carefully when designing DWA. I believe we have ensured that the two most important incentives are there; namely, that the great majority of potential claimants will be better off in work than they would be on an incapacity benefit; and, as their earnings go up their net income will also increase so that they are at least a little better off. Beyond that there will always be debate about whether there is enough of a financial incentive. But I think we must have two things in mind. First, the crucial decision for the potential claimant must be whether he is ready to work. If he is ready, DWA will be there as a support if he needs it.
Secondly, I think we should have in mind the effect that the discussion of incentives has on people who are not able to work. None of us would want to give the impression that we think less of them or consider them less deserving of adequate support from social security because they have not managed to work. We believe that the resources which are available should be shared between those who can work and those who cannot.
The objective of disability working allowance is to give an opportunity where the claimant would not otherwise have a chance to try to work without risk of falling below income support level. If a claimant would not be entitled to DWA because his partner has income or capital which would take him above benefit level then he cannot be said to need DWA to avoid the risk of falling below income support level. Disregarding the partner's income and capital would increase the cost of DWA and I do not believe it would be a good use of public money. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is not my intention to press this amendment. However, the Government are not consistent in their arguments. When the new allowance was discussed in the other place in November of last year, it was described as an important initiative to promote the independence of people with disabilities, giving sizeable numbers a new option of working without the risk of a drop in their income. As we have indicated on this side of the Committee, if one takes into account a partner's income, that affects a person's independence and he is no longer given an independent incentive.
Moreover, it is the view of the organisations representing the disabled that if this provision remains in the Bill, significant numbers will be excluded altogether from the benefit. They say that 70 per cent. of the partners of a person with a disability earn £100 a week or over, and 52 per cent. earn 150 a week or more. According to the illustrative benefit rates

49
provided by the DSS in its note on disability working allowance the maximum amounts that can be earned in order to still qualify for the minimum level of DWA are £130.81 for a couple without children and £154.39 for a couple with two children under 11 years.
Thus they believe that approximately half of disabled people living as a couple would fail to qualify for even the minimum level of DWA on the grounds that their partners earned income exceeding the threshold level. I do not regard that as satisfactory. Nor do I think that it supports the contention that the DWA will provide an incentive for people to become more independent and to attempt to get work which they have not had hitherto. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division this afternoon. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord has said to see whether or not this is one of the issues that we shall be pursuing at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation) —
"(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, if the person is claiming a disability working allowance, the prescribed amount shall not be less than £16,000." ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 69 and I am happy to say that on this occasion I do not need to move a manuscript amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to raise the present capital limit from £8,000 to £16,000 for DWA claims. An amendment was moved in the House of Commons to get rid of the capital limit altogether, and Ann Widdecombe, the Under-Secretary of State answering, said:
"We are trying to bring people's resources up to a given level, not benefit the better off."
She went on to say:
"We have shown in the past that we are prepared to raise the capital limits and we shall continue to ensure that the limit is pitched at the right level. At the moment we believe that £8,000 is the correct level for receiving disability working allowance, so keeping it in line with family credit and income support."
I fully appreciate that it is always good to keep limits in some kind of relationship with other benefits, and in this case I accept that £8,000 is in line with family credit and income support, but how does the Minister in another place reach "the right level"? I am glad that she has been so considerate as to say that the department will review this from time to time so that the right level is kept in place, but I do not understand how you arrive at the right level. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would perhaps let us into the secret of how to arrive at the right level for capital limits.
I would say that disabled people —and we have one here in the Committee who can testify to this and a noble Lord on the Government Front Bench who looks after disabled people and who has a great deal
50
of experience as to their costs —have a much greater need of capital than able-bodied people. Surely everybody knows that. I should like to perhaps leave it to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness to give some indication to the Committee of how much capital a disabled person needs. Frankly, I think it is mean to say that if you have more than £8,000 capital then you are not going to get the DWA. It is shoddy and mean. The very least that the Government should do is to increase the limit to £16,000.
I know, and have been told of, a number of people who spend a lot of capital on their disability in order to enable them to get out to work. Some of that expenditure may be described as a luxury, but I regard it as usually necessary. Certainly there are people who spend £70,000 on equipment in order to be able to get about and to rejig their homes so that they can live on their own or with minimum help. To deny people DWA because they have £8,000 in capital is really mean and curmudgeonly, scrooge-like, and anything else nasty I can think of.
The Government may say that £8,000 is the correct level because it is in line with family credit and income support, but —and I am not repeating the House of Commons amendment, which I would like to do and which would get rid of the limit altogether —we are proposing a limit of £16,000. This conforms with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation —the Government's expert advisers —and £16,000 happens to be the limit for housing benefit and community charge.
To put it in line with housing benefit and community charge is far more valid than putting it in line with family credit and income support. There is clearly more than one view as to the right level, but I must say that this Committee ought to urge the Government to be more generous than they are in the Bill, and for that reason I commend my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support Amendment No. 69 coupled with Amendment No. 70 which is grouped with it. As has been said, the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from claiming DWA simply because their savings are too high. The intention, as I understand it, is that the capital rules for family credit will apply to DWA. There are, I understand, two basic rules. First, people who have capital are not entitled to any benefit if their capital exceeds £8,000 and, secondly, those who have capital of between £3,000 and £8,000 are subject to reductions to their benefits of £1 a week for every £250 over the £3,000 baseline.
Many disabled people have savings up to those amounts. Sometimes they may have come about as a result of compensation cases that have been won because the injuries producing the disability have occurred through the negligence of some other person; sometimes an employer. They are intended to provide compensation for the injury and to ensure that, so far as possible, that person can lead a reasonable life. But that costs money, particularly for people who have a permanent injury.

51
House adaptations are notoriously expensive. Electric wheelchairs can cost as much as £4,000. It also costs more to be disabled in general living terms. Do it yourself at home is out of the question for many disabled people. Others have to be paid to do work that people without disabilities can do for themselves as a matter of course.
We are not suggesting that there should be no limits, though I believe a powerful case was made in Committee in another place for having absolutely no capital rules. However, that is not what we say in these amendments. In current circumstances we believe that the limits in the Bill are far too low. This is particularly the case since, as I understand it, the capital of partners is to be taken into account. This could rule out many married women, as we discussed on the previous amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Government will heed our arguments and will meet the case that we have made.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I briefly support these two amendments, particularly Amendment No. 69. There can be no doubt after Thursday's debate on the components about the extra day-to-day costs of living. As my noble friend Lord Henderson and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, there are big expenditures too on such improvements as adaptations. My noble friend has already mentioned the Social Security Advisory Committee, which recommended that the capital limit be increased to £16,000. I quote from page 3 of its January 1991 report. It says,
"disabled people have needs which differ from the able-bodied population. Capital is a cushion against increasing dependence on others; special equipment not available free of charge may be required in the future to retain independence as disability increased with age".
I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am somewhat worried. I should like to see higher capital savings permitted and to that extent I support the principle of the amendment. I have not been able to assess whether the figure quoted is correct because not enough has been said. Presumably the figure of savings is free capital as opposed to one's home or other assets to which one is entitled. That point has not been brought out.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, felt obliged to use all kinds of emotive words such as "miserly" and "curmudgeonly", and so on. I felt that that tended to fudge the issue. I should like to see that people with disabilities had sufficient savings in order to feel that they had a fallback position. One likes to feel that one is not totally dependent on outside factors. We must bear in mind also that some people who are a little unscrupulous or dishonest do not declare what they possess — they believe it might place them just above the required limit— and therefore those who are honest in stating what they have lose out to those persons who are less scrupulous.
I do not agree with the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in regard to people who have claims. One reason there are now such high payments of compensation is due to the recognition of the
52
amount of care required even over a lifetime. At the moment, we see enormously high figures calculated to take into account the special care that people may need. However, I should like the Government to say that they will consider raising the amount of permitted capital. It is not adequate at the present time.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: One matter that we seem to have forgotten is that everyone, whether disabled, aged or able to walk around and earn money, must pay a tax which, although under review, I shall mention anyway. I refer to the community charge. The disabled person must pay 20 per cent. of the new charge. If one is to have something equivalent to a head charge, which has been mentioned, it must be remembered that a disabled person who may be married and have children, must also pay that rate.
It fascinates me to think that we in this Chamber are allowed to claim around £24 a day to eat and drink each time we attend. The figure of £8,000 was mentioned earlier. When one considers £24 just for all the days of the year, £8,000 would cover that. Bearing in mind that we have not allowed certain exemptions because of the votes taken on Division, I suggest it would be worthwhile to consider the figure of £16,000.
Lord Swinfen: I approve of the amendment in principle. I do not know whether the figures are right. I hope that the Government will consider the matter and perhaps table their own amendment at a later stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: Most Members of the Committee have been speaking to Amendment No. 69. My understanding is that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. They concern different and separate points which need separate decisions. A decision on the first amendment, raising the upper limit from £8,000 to £16,000, should not necessarily bind. the Committee on a decision on the second amendment, which raises the lower limit from £3,000 to £8,000.
Disability working allowance is an income-related benefit in line with income support and family credit. Those income-related benefits are the nearest equivalent and are rather different to community charge and housing benefit. That is why we chose the figure of £3,000 for the lower limit and £8,000 for the upper capital limit.
It is difficult to achieve the right level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must weigh-up the priorities when deciding where to use the available resources. However, I make a brief point in regard to capital. It was a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. She asked what would be taken into account in assessing the value of the claimant's capital. It is easier to look at what will not be taken into account.
The surrender value of a life assurance policy, an annuity or an occupational pension will not be taken into account. Compensation for personal injury held in trust— a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner— will be disregarded, as will the value of the claimant's home and their personal possessions. I understand that that will cover a wide area, even to the

53
Rembrandt on the claimant's wall. If it were not an investment, my understanding is that it would not be taken into account. If it had been bought as an investment, its value would be taken into account.
Arrears of income-related benefit are ignored if received within the previous 12 months. Business assets where the claimant is a self-employed earner are not taken into account. Capital held by a dependent child or young person under 19 will not be taken into account, unless he or she has more than £3,000, in which case no child credit would be payable for the child. That is true for all income-related benefits.
In passing, I should perhaps make one other point about the level of capital; it was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It concerns what would happen if a disabled person who had capital in excess of £8,000 spent that excess on items related to his disability, such as adaptations to his home or pieces of equipment, and ended up with less than £8,000. Obviously he would be entitled to benefit. I have taken advice on the matter. It would have to be within reason; if he had bought himself a special yacht designed for the disabled that might be seen as a misuse of his capital and a means of getting round the capital limits.
The Government believe that it is right to target the limited resources— I stress that they are limited— available to those who are relatively less well-off. The proposed rule reflects that aim by giving most help to those people with the lowest capital resources and tapering it off by means of £ 1 in every £250 above £3,000 as the capital rises to the appropriate limit, at which point no benefit is payable. People are not barred from receiving benefit for all time and may qualify if their capital is reduced.
It was argued that DWA recipients, being disabled, have particular need of a higher capital limit. I accept that the disabled possibly incur higher costs. However, I explained that if a disabled person spent some of that capital and thus reduced it to £8,000, providing it was spent on items relating to their disability, they would still be entitled to benefit.
One should remember also that those arguments become less convincing when one remembers some of the forms of capital which I stressed were wholly disregarded. For example, compensation for personal injury held in trust will be entirely disregarded, as will the claimant's home, their personal possessions and the surrender value of a life assurance policy, an annuity and an occupational pension. The proposed capital rules for DWA strike the right balance between encouraging people to save and ensuring the proper use of public money.
We have shown in the past that we are prepared to raise the capital limits and will continue to ensure that the limit is pitched at the right level. At the moment we believe that we have found the correct level for receiving disability working allowance. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not feel compelled to press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Can the Minister say whether the capital limits are automatically indexed?
Lord Henley: No, they are not. The Secretary of State must consider them every year in the usual up-rating process and he will raise them as and when he feels it is necessary or possible so to do.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. One question I asked was how one could calculate what was right.
Is whatever the Secretary of State decides right?
Lord Henley: I think I made it quite clear. There is no way in which we can calculate which is exactly the right figure. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to make certain very difficult decisions about the correct use of public money and the correct level. He has decided on balance that £8,000 is about the right level. It is the same level as in income support and family credit. Of the five income-related benefits those are the two with which we feel disability working allowance fits in best.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I find that to be an unsatisfactory reply, first because the Minister has now confirmed what we all darkly suspected, that what is right is whatever the Secretary of State decides is right. There is no yardstick at all by which he judges such things. He just consults himself and says, "This is right". I do not regard that as being satisfactory.
Secondly, even more unsatisfactory is the fact that he has heard two pleas from his own Benches, from Lady Gardner of Parkes and from the far corner behind him, to say that there is some merit in this amendment and to ask him to take it away and think about it between now and the next stage. He has given no reply. This is very unusual. I wonder whether, even at this late stage, he could say that he will reconsider the £8,000 in the light of the discussion we have had this afternoon and of the requests of his two noble friends.
Lord Henley: Putting it very simply, I should certainly be prepared to take away the first of the amendments and look through it. On the second one, raising £3,000 capital disregard to a figure that does not exist anywhere else in the income related benefits is not something on which I could move. I could not offer any real hope to the noble Lord or to the supporters of that amendment that I might be prepared to move.
Lady Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord decides what he will do with his amendment, it seems to me that he has been a little unfair in the way that he has attacked my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend explained very clearly that the problem was the total sum that could be made available for this particular assistance to disabled people. We know that the whole Bill is making quite a lot of extra money available. It is quite clear to all of us that £8,000 of capital in any respect nowadays is a very small sum indeed. Sixteen thousand pounds is not very much. We also know that we should like people to save more, and that there is a disincentive to saving here. All those things are true, and I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that in the long run this is something which needs to be looked at in a national context. It is related to the community charge, and we

55
have all looked at how different families were affected by the capital limit. Sixteen thousand pounds is still low because of what has happened to the value of money and because of what people need by way of savings, whether they are disabled or not. That is not the point at present.
The noble Lord is asking for a great deal more money— we do not know how much— to be put into this particular part of the Bill, this particular assistance to disabled people. It would be very much better if he just got up and said, "I don't think there's nearly enough and I want more spent". He did not need to go into all the devious arguments telling the Government that they are mean. Quite honestly, that makes me a little fed up. It undermines the noble Lord's mission, which is a very laudable one, to try to do everything he can to get more resources of the country moved from other areas into helping disabled people. That is his aim, and I do not feel he should have talked as he did.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Does the noble Lady realise that her speech is an interruption in my winding-up speech? It would have been much better if she had said this in the proper place. To carry on like this making a speech of several minutes as an interruption to my winding-up speech is quite wrong. It is a misuse of the procedures of this Chamber, and she should recognise that and not seek to rise to her feet again. If I may say so, it would have saved a great deal of time because what I was about to do could have been done in five or 10 seconds, instead of our having another five or six minutes added to the length of the debate. This does not accord with the usual procedures in the Committee.
Lady Carnegy of Lour: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but he had not said the things which riled me until he was making his winding-up speech. He was making these somewhat derogatory remarks and I got a little fed up. That was all. I am sorry, but this is the Committee stage.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am sorry that we should all have to put up with the noble Lady being fed up. It is very unattractive. The fact is that I said far nastier things in my opening speech than in my winding-up speech. Perhaps the noble Lady was not here. But I think that has dealt with her reasonably well, as they say. It is always a mistake to come in at the end of a debate not having heard the earlier part.
I can now say very briefly what I was going to say half an hour ago but for the noble Lady's interruption — that is, that the noble Lord has been very gracious indeed in having given way in answer to my query as to whether he would look at this again. He said very graciously, as I was going to say even before the noble Lady's intemperate interruption, that he has acceded to the request of his two noble friends in regard to the limit of £16,000. I am extremely grateful to him for that. I do not expect him to respond to the other amendment, which, incidentally, I failed to couple with my amendment, but in regard to the amendment which I am moving I am grateful to him. Naturally, in
56
the light of what he has said, despite what the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 70:
Page 12, line 4, insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, if the person is claiming a disability working allowance, the prescribed lower amount shall not be less than 5,000."").
The noble Baroness said: These two amendments were grouped but the Minister said he thought the Committee should have the opportunity of considering them separately. I do not want to say very much because in view of what has just taken place I do not think there would be much virtue in my pressing the amendment. But I should like to take issue with the noble Lord over the £3,000 baseline because, as I understand it, the £3,000 baseline for other benefits has not changed since 1984.
Using the Treasury figures, the £5,000 which is proposed in this amendment is merely an up-rating, taking account of inflation since 1984. Furthermore, as I understand it, the figure conforms with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendations, and is also aligned with rules for capital in regard to calculations of housing benefit. In other words, it is not only addressing the Government's concern that present benefits must be aligned in some way but it is also consistent with the Government's own advisers' recommendations.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say a few words about the references of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, to amounts of compensation in injury cases. It is quite true that there have been some very large awards, but in my experience these have been in exceptional cases. The general level of awards is not very high, and the exceptional cases have usually been in instances where people have been almost totally paralysed as a result of their injuries. I know of one case of that kind which happened in my own union and in which the amount of money awarded was very large indeed, but the poor individual concerned was totally paralysed from the chin downwards and needed an enormous amount of support services. So, where those very large amounts of money are awarded, the disability is usually so grievous as to prevent the person concerned ever envisaging going on to DWA or doing any sort of work. The general level of compensation payments is very much lower.
Having said that, I do not intend to move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Disability working allowance— supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("one of those sub-paragraphs") and insert ("that paragraph").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) If a repeat claim is made during a period in which the claimant—

(a) is in receipt of statutory sick pay,

(b) would be entitled to statutory sick pay but for the fact that his earnings were below the lower earnings limit,

(c) is on maternity leave, or

(d) is on unpaid leave,

for the purposes of section 20(6A) ((a)) above he shall be deemed to be engaged or normally engaged in remunerative work.").
The noble Baroness said: The object of the amendment is to correct a somewhat anomalous situation. If a claimant is absent from work because he or she is sick, on unpaid holiday or on maternity leave at the time that his or her award of DWA falls due for renewal, he or she will be unable to make a renewal claim until back at work. That will mean a gap in benefit payments during which the person will have only a low wage on which to keep him or herself. However, if such events fall within the claimed period, benefit will continue to be paid; in other words, the DWA will not be interrupted.
I understand that the conditions are modelled on those relating to family credit. In that case the claimant must be engaged on remunerative work (defined as not less than 24 hours per week) and is so only if he or she is engaged on such work in either the week during which the claim is made or in one of the two weeks before the claim provided he or she is still employed when the claim is made. If the claimant does not undertake at least 24 hours of work in any of those three weeks the claim will be disallowed. That is the case even if the reason is that he or she has not worked the necessary hours because of sickness, maternity leave, suspension, short time, lay-off, and so forth.
The CAB has provided me with instances of the way in which that operates to the disadvantage of claimants in relation to family credit. It is difficult to believe that it is the intention of the Government that a person cannot make a claim for DWA until he or she is back at work. Yet the benefit is designed to help disabled people to obtain a job and keep it. The provision acts as a disincentive to working and is in addition to the anomaly whereby two claimants of DWA can be absent from work but because one is off work when renewal is due his or her benefit stops while the benefit of the other claimant continues.
This is a simple amendment. I hope that the Government will accept that its provisions are reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment. I understand that its purpose is to protect the position of those disabled people whose condition fluctuates. I am sympathetic to their problems. We have striven to formulate the rules for the disability working
58
allowance in such a way that it will cater for their needs as well as for those who are able to work regularly.
When assessing entitlement to DWA the adjudicating officer will be able to take account of a person's earnings over whatever past period it seems to him will best represent that person's normal weekly earnings at the time he or she makes the claim. Where a person's earning capacity falls into a regular pattern the average over a fairly long past period might best represent the norm. Where a person has recently had to reduce his hours, or perhaps take lighter work paying a lower hourly rate, the period immediately before the claim will be more representative.
A person who has given up IVB or SDA to take a job and come on to DWA during a period when he was well, but whose condition deteriorates towards the end of the 26 week award period, will, it is true, not be able to make a renewal claim while he is absent from work. That is because he will not be able to satisfy the 16 hour remunerative work test. But we have allowed a fair amount of latitude so that people will have a choice about when to make their repeat claims. This should mean that most people who have a short period of sickness are protected.
Six weeks before the end of an award we will send every claimant a renewal claim form. If he is off work sick, or is on holiday, he will be able to keep the form and choose when to send it back. If it is returned no more than two weeks after the old award expires the new award will be backdated so that there is no gap in his entitlement.
If he still has not recovered he will have a further six weeks during which, if his original qualifying benefit was IVB or SDA, he can make a claim. Of course, people who qualify for any rate of disability living allowance will be able to claim at any time.
The amendment would go far beyond helping people who happen to experience a period of short-term sickness at the time their DWA award runs out. It would enable people to go on receiving DWA for indefinite periods of leave from work and it would allow any number of repeat claims without the claimant having to satisfy the remunerative work test at any stage.
I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment. DWA is, after all, a benefit for people in work. For the sake of proper accountability of public funds we believe it not unreasonable to be able to confirm that a claimant is in work when we make an award which will last for 26 weeks.
We have made such provision as we can to help those whose health is uncertain; to protect everyone would not be possible without seriously complicating the rules of what must be a simple benefit to administer and to understand. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for setting out clearly the way in which the benefit is intended to work. Furthermore, I thank him for his sympathy for the

59
problems of the people whom the amendment was intended to help. I am grateful for his assurance that the adjudicating officer will be expected to be fairly flexible and that there will be a fair amount of latitude. In the circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment. I shall read in Hansard what has been said. In the circumstances it was extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Disability working allowance: amendments. Part 1— Amendments of 1986 Act. Part II— Amendments of other Acts.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 30, line 39, leave out ("and (3), 100C(6), 104A(1) (c) and (2)") and insert (", (3), (4) and (11), 100C(2) to (5), 100D(4) to (6), 104A(1) (c) and (d), (2) and (5)").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 77, 78 and 79. They are minor and technical amendments which clarify how elements of the adjudication arrangements for attendance allowance and disability living allowance set out in Schedule I will apply to disability working allowance. I beg to move.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 30, line 40, leave out ("(3) and").
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 31, line 3, after ("if") insert:
("(a) in subsection (3A), "(3)" were substituted for "(2)"; and
(b)")
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79:
Page 31, line 4, after ("omitted.";") insert:
("(cc) the following subsection were substituted for section 115C(3)—
"(3) An adjudication officer may refer for advice any case relating to attendance allowance or disability living allowance to a medical practitioner who is an officer of the Secretary of State.";").
Page 31, line 11, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
Page 31, line 12, after ("100A") insert ("(1) and").
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Entitlement to other benefits after termination of entitlement to disability working allowance]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 13, line 31, at end insert:
("(5AA) In the case of a person suffering from an episodic illness, the period of two years specified in subsection (5A) (d) above may be extended by the Secretary of State by order.").
The noble Baroness said: On Second Reading I raised the problem of a person with an episodic illness. I have in mind someone with multiple sclerosis whose
60
illness goes through periods of remission. The Bill does not make clear whether the period of two years will run from the original date of receiving invalidity benefit or whether it will become a rolling two years to enable the person to work as and when possible. The disability working allowance is designed to enable and encourage people to work whenever possible. It is more fulfilling for people to feel that they are doing a useful job.
The Minister kindly wrote to me. He appeared to say that the period ran for the correct time and at each stage it related back. However, I did not completely understand his letter and therefore move the amendment in order to have his explanation placed on record. I hope that the Minister will describe how the two-year period is measured. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendment. It is very similar in intention to my Amendment No. 81. If Amendment No. 79A commended itself to the Committee there would be no need for me to proceed with Amendment No. 81. That too is concerned with people who stop working, come off DWA, again become incapable of work and then reclaim their incapacity benefit within two years of last receiving it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue. I may not move Amendment No. 81 if there is a satisfactory reply to the arguments advanced by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may comment on one of the major differences between Amendments Nos. 79A and 81, as I have not spoken to Amendment No. 81. Amendment No. 79A leaves a great discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is not as detailed as Amendment No. 81 and for that reason is not as difficult for the Government to consider.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for moving this amendment. I sympathise very much with what she said at Second Reading. I should have felt deprived had we not as a Committee had the benefit of the Minister's reply and had the noble Baroness received it by way of correspondence. I think she has performed a great service. Amendment No. 81 involves slightly separate issues. I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to move it, but I congratulate her on raising it at this stage.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to tell the Committee that the trigger for this provision is the last day of work and not the last day that invalidity allowance was payable. If it was the last day at work it would seem that two years is a reasonable period. If, however, it is the last day for which invalidity benefit— referred to in the Bill as a pension— is payable, then that can be worked through very quickly and would not help the people whom my noble friend and other Members of the Committee want to help; namely, those with episodic illnesses like, for example, AIDS— or a certain stage of AIDS— and, of course, muscular dystrophy.
Lord Henley: I apologise for not copying the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, into my correspondence with my noble friend Lady Gardner. I did not in fact copy anyone into it. Perhaps it might have been useful if I had. My noble friend said that she would like an explanation on the record. I shall do my best.
I shall deal first with my noble friend's amendment and then turn to Amendment No. 81. At Second Reading my noble friend mentioned her concern about episodic illnesses. She asked how the new two-year linking rule which we are introducing for disability working allowance recipients will work in such cases. If someone gives up invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance and claims DWA within eight weeks he will have an extended period in which he is able to go back to his incapacity benefit. Provided he remains entitled to DWA for the whole intervening period, if his attempt at work fails within two years and he is incapable of work he will be able to go back to his old benefit.
The noble Baroness asked when the two years will run from. I can reassure the Committee that, however many times the claimant has claimed DWA in the past, the two years will always run from the date he last claimed DWA following a period on invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.
In effect, the link will be a rolling two-year link. If someone who was getting DWA has a relapse within two years and has to give up work he will be able to return to IVB using the long linking rule. If he recovers, starts work and reclaims DWA, he will have a new two-year linking period running from the start of the new DWA award.
I hope my reply reassures my noble friend and that she will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
The effect of Amendment No. 81 would be to give a perpetual linking rule for anyone receiving IVB or SDA in the eight weeks before he claimed DWA. We have given very detailed and very careful thought to this difficult but important aspect of the DWA scheme. I believe that in giving the long two-year linking rule we have gone a very long way towards dealing with the disincentive effect of the present rule. The new, more generous, two-year linking rule will provide protection for those people who need the reassurance that they can try working without becoming worse off either temporarily or in the longer term.
It is accepted that the present eight-week linking rule for invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance can act as a disincentive for some people on long term incapacity benefits. Therefore, the extension of the normal eight-week linking rule to two years is an important feature of disability working allowance. A person who was receiving IVB or SDA before starting work and coming onto DWA will be able to go back onto his previous long-term benefit rather than making a new claim to sickness benefit if he becomes incapable of work and has to give up his job within two years.
This new linking rule will remove a considerable anxiety for disabled people who would like to work but are uncertain about their ability to do so. People
62
will no longer need to worry that an unsuccessful experiment with work could make them temporarily worse off. I believe that it is a generous provision which will remove many of the fears expressed by the lobby groups on behalf of disabled people with intermittently disabling conditions.
An open-ended linking rule, as proposed by this amendment, would be extremely difficult to administer. For one thing, the department would have to retain the records of IVB/SDA claims for all DWA claimants indefinitely. I doubt whether a great many DWA recipients would need a linking rule of more than two years and I think that the broad brush approach must be used: there comes a point at which the administrative cost and difficulties begin to outweigh the value of further extending the linking rule.
We must recognise that social security is constantly changing and over long periods even the aspects of policy which seem most stable can change. It is conceivable that there may be changes to invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance in the longer term. Therefore, the longer the interval before reclaiming IVB the more difficult it could become to determine the correct amount payable. I believe that is an important consideration.
There is also the question of principle. At some stage people who take DWA and work for a good length of time must be regarded as permanent members of the work force. Once a person has made the transition into employment and sustained his work for a number of years it becomes increasingly unreasonable for him to expect to maintain a link with long-term incapacity benefits.
Full employment protection rights are acquired by employees once they have worked for an employer for two years. It seems to me entirely reasonable to use the same period to break the link with long-term incapacity benefits. For all these reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment No. 81. I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend on her Amendment No. 79A.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his comments. Am I to take it that he thinks that my amendment is unnecessary as the Secretary of State has all the powers he needs to extend it? I take it from what he said that the two years is a rolling two years. That is splendid. However, I seek his confirmation that at the other end of the arrangement the 28 day qualifying period is not necessary either and that someone with an episodic illness can go from one support system to another.
Lord Henley: I think my noble friend meant 28 weeks and not 28 days. That is the point of the rolling. The protection that claimants are given is that they can go straight back onto the long-term benefits rather than having to rely on statutory sick pay— if I dare mention those words in this Chamber— for the first 28 weeks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I meant 28 weeks and not 28 days. My noble friend has explained it very well. I am also impressed by the fact that once someone has worked for two years he has full industrial rights. That applies if he has worked for the same person for the two years. If he has worked for different firms, as would be more likely with the episodic illness, then this rolling provision will help him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 14, line 39, at end insert:
("(3A) In Schedule 20 to the 1975 Act, at the end of the definition of "week" there shall be added the words "and except in relation to disability working allowance".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment clarifies our intention that the two-year linking rule with IVB and SDA shall apply for the whole of the period of entitlement to DWA. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may make a brief comment about Clause 9. Not only is it exceedingly long, but parts overlap and there is repetition to a great extent. It is entirely a matter of drafting and structure, but my noble friend would do well to get his advisers to examine it again. In contrast, I admire the effort made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Amendment No. 81 which covers most of the scope of Clause 9 in a manner which is succinct and to the point. It would be a great service to the administrators of the Act if the drafting of Clause 9 were improved and made more succinct.
Lord Henley: I note my noble friend's anxiety. I have the greatest respect for his expertise; but it would be wrong for me to comment at this stage on his
64
remarks or on the drafting of the clause. I shall take the remarks on board and examine the drafting of Amendment No. 81 with the help of those advising me. As my noble friend knows, parliamentary drafting is highly skilled. I have taken on board what my noble friend said.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 33, line 42, at end insert:

("1988 c.7. Social Security Act 1988.

In section 1(2), in paragraph (a), the words from "by" to "that Act", in paragraph (b), the words "by the Board or by such a delegate", in paragraph (c), the words from "by the Board" to "1975" and the word "and", and paragraph (d).").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 16, line 34, leave out ("5, 11.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment makes a minor change to the commencement provisions. Instead of coming into effect on Royal Assent, the powers in Clauses 5 and 11 (to make transitional and consequential regulations) will be brought in by commencement order. I beg to move.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past six o'clock.

  ETHIOPIA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  ETHIOPIA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  SOUTH AFRICAN ARMS AND AMMUNITION: IMPORT BAN
  SOUTH AFRICAN ARMS AND AMMUNITION: IMPORT BAN
  SOUTH AFRICA: POLITICAL PROGRESS
  SOUTH AFRICA: POLITICAL PROGRESS
  IRAQI NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS: ALLIED ATTACKS
  IRAQI NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS: ALLIED ATTACKS
  TOBACCO INDUSTRIES IN THE EC
  TOBACCO INDUSTRIES IN THE EC
  HEALTH VISITORS: HEALTH PROMOTION ROLE
  HEALTH VISITORS: HEALTH PROMOTION ROLE
  NURSES' PAY INCREASE: IMPLEMENTATION
  NURSES' PAY INCREASE: IMPLEMENTATION
  CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER
  CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER