Sitting of 7 May 1991

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

    School-Industry Compacts
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of school-industry compacts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): There are 51 compacts in operation in inner-city areas across the country and a further 10 compacts in development. The network of inner-city compacts is therefore almost complete. We have made tremendous progress in the three years since the initiative was launched. As I have seen for myself, those compacts are harnessing the enthusiasm and commitment of young people and employers to help ensure we have the qualified and flexible work force that we need for the 1990s.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome the undoubted success of the schools-industry compacts programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the links between industry and wider education are equally important? Does he welcome the news this morning that the Ford company's employee promotion programme has no fewer than 20,000—almost half its work force—signed up? Is that not evidence of the sort of improvements in industry and education that can result in a great increase in skills?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the links between education and business in the wider sense. That is one reason why we have put an additional £3·5 million into that initiative this year. My hon. Friend referred specifically to the case of Ford, and I have talked to that company about its scheme, which is impressive. Similar arrangements have been initiated in a number of different companies, which is most welcome. One of the most interesting features is that Ford undoubtedly underestimated the extent of the demand for that facility. That shows that there is a latent demand in the work force for education and training, and we hope to build on that.

    Catering Industry
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve training standards in the hotel and catering industry.
    Mr. Jackson: The employers in the hotel and catering industry are necessarily in the lead in ensuring that the industry's standards of training are adequate to meet their business needs. From February of this year, the industry has had an independent, employer-led industry training organisation—the Hotel and Catering Training Company. I am confident that the work of that body will raise the standards of training in the industry.
    Mr. French: Many hotels that purport to offer three, four or five-star service are failing to employ adequately trained staff to fulfil certain basic functions, such as porters to carry bags, waiters to carry food and banqueting staff with an understanding of banqueting. Will my hon. Friend ensure that national vocational qualifications in the United Kingdom produce staff of comparable or better quality than those being produced in the catering industries of Germany and France?
    Mr. Jackson: I hope that my hon. Friend has not had an unfortunate experience. It sounds as though there might be some personal background to his remarks. The Government's responsibility does not extend as far as my hon. Friend wants. We are responsible for the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which has developed a vocational standard called Caterbase. It is a good standard, which has been developed and widely taken up.
    May I make a practical suggestion? My hon. Friend is fortunate in having, as a member of his local Gloucestershire TEC, Mrs. Sam Elliott, who is the proprietor of the Grapevine hotel in Stow-on-the-Wold. She won a national training award last year and she is also a member of the national training task force. I suggest that my hon. Friend has a word with her.

    Tourism
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the National Trust to discuss tourism.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the newly appointed chairman of the National Trust to discuss tourism. He has, however, met the trust's director general in the context of the tourism and environment initiative mounted by my Department and the English tourist board.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that this year the National Trust, with its parks, gardens and houses, has given the tourist industry one of the biggest boosts that it has ever had? As the National Trust's conservation and maintenance costs have risen and its agricultural revenue and Government grant have fallen by £1 million, is there any help that the Government can give?
    Mr. Forth: I would join the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure would every hon. Member, in his admiration and praise for the work that the National Trust does, has done in the past and will continue to do. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment are funding the National Trust to the tune of some £800,000 in the current year. As with many other good causes, one could always make a case for more funding, but the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real point, which is that the National Trust is perhaps

    609
    uniquely placed to raise a lot of revenue from those who support it and its activities. That it is doing and will continue to do, and I believe that that is the direction for the future.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the National Trust on its important contribution to the recently published report on tourism and the environment? What steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that the many excellent recommendations in that report are put into practice in future?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, the National Trust played a key part in that exercise, of which my Department was rather proud, because we felt that we identified early on the creative tension which exists between environmental matters and the demands of tourism. In that report which was published on 1 May, we identified recommendations such as wider dissemination and application of visitor management techniques and a partnership approach well exemplifed by the role of the National Trust. As my hon. Friend would expect, we shall be carrying that forward in order to ensure that the jobs and benefits of tourism do not run counter to the requirements of the environment.
    Mr. Skinner: Have the 70 paintings and the 22 pieces of silver that finished up at No. 10 Downing street when the previous Prime Minister was in office, many of which were taken from National Trust homes, now been restored to their rightful places? If not, it is high time they were.
    Mr. Forth: For a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was harking back to the days of the Greater London council when he spoke about the missing silver, but in fact the hon. Gentleman was reminding the House of the respect and regard my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has for the national heritage and the fact that, as one would have expected, she was keen to ensure that our national heritage was well represented at No. 10 Downing street. Anyone who believed otherwise could only be in the same carping mode as I am afraid we find the hon. Gentleman.

    Picketing
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in the last 12 months on picketing.
    Mr. Forth: Some half a dozen such representations on picketing have been received. I believe that one reason why that number is so small is the success of our legislation in bringing to an end the violent and intimidatory picketing which disfigured industrial relations in the 1970s. None of the representations has sought the legalisation of secondary picketing.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: As my hon. Friend has had no representations about bringing back secondary picketing, one of the curses of the 1970s which ended in the winter of discontent, does he agree that it is appalling and horrifying that the Opposition want to re-legalise it?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point which I am sure the House and people beyond it will want to note, and that is that, given the staggering success of the industrial relations legislation that the Government have introduced in a careful and planned way, particularly the
    610
    elimination of the evils of secondary picketing and its violence, the mere suggestion that Opposition Members might want secondary picketing to be brought back is so outrageous that I am sure that the electorate will take due note of that at the appropriate time.

    Social Charter
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the social charter.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): The social charter signed by the 11 other member states was only declaratory and has no legal effect. The European Commission has to date published 21 legislative and other proposals under its social action programme. Of those, five have been agreed so far. The United Kingdom continues to play a full and active part in the discussions. For example, at yesterday's informal meeting of European Community Employment Ministers, I put forward a five-point initiative designed to increase effective employee involvement, including a European Community recommendation on best practice. There was useful discussion of that issue, and it was agreed that consideration of my proposal should continue in the months ahead.
    Mr. Banks: It is obvious that the Secretary of State is speaking and acting far more moderately, in this post-Finchley age, in respect of the social charter. Does he accept the importance of the social dimension as a factor in the Single European Act? Will he persuade the Council of Ministers and the Commission to become actively involved in renegotiating the Council of Europe's social charter, and the Commission to accede to the Council of Europe's charter—to which our country is a major signatory?
    Mr. Howard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to allay his anxieties. There has been no change whatsoever in the attitude adopted by the United Kingdom Government in the Social Affairs Council of Ministers during the whole of the period in which I have had the honour to represent this country at that Council. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of the social dimension of the Single European Act programme. Its most important aspect, bearing in mind the fact that 15·5 million people are without jobs in the Community, is the creation of employment. My main task at the Council of Ministers is to do all I can to ensure that the Community does nothing to place extra burdens on British employers, which would destroy jobs in this country and in other Community states.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be wary of any proposals from the Social Affairs Council of Ministers, which seems to be caught in a 1960s time warp in believing that its policies would help to create jobs, when the reverse is true—they would help to destroy them? Will my right hon. and learned Friend be particularly careful about any further bureaucractic proposals from the Commission affecting temporary or part-time workers? If they are tied up in more red tape, there will be fewer and fewer jobs for them.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the proposed directive relating to

    611
    part-time work was not even discussed at yesterday's informal meeting of the Council. I shall continue to keep uppermost in my representations to the Council the need to encourage and enhance employment, reduce regulation, and avoid damaging measures that would increase the number of unemployed in the Community.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that among the Government's reasons for opposing the social charter is that it would necessitate freedom of association—in other words, because people would be allowed to join the trade union of their choice? That would force the Government to reconsider their decision not only to destroy jobs at GCHQ but to undermine the civil liberties of those who worked there and who were sacked for the crime of joining a trade union. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further confirm that the Government have already acknowledged that right by international treaty, through their support of International Labour Organisation conventions and of the United Nations declaration on human rights? How does the Secretary of State intend to respond to the latest criticism made by ILO experts that Britain is again in the wrong in its attitude to the social charter? Will he now allow the people employed at GCHQ to become members of a free trade union?
    Mr. Howard: I am absolutely astonished that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party should have the gall to come to the House and talk about restrictions on people joining the trade unions of their choice. What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude, and that of the Labour party, to the Bridlington agreement? How dare the hon. Gentleman come to the House and pretend, with his party, to be the protector of people wishing to join the trade union of their choice?

    Older Workers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women in the labour force are aged 55 years and over.
    Mr. Jackson: It is estimated from the preliminary results of the 1990 labour force survey that, in the spring of that year, there were 2,168,000 men and 1,289,000 women in the labour force aged 55 and over.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that a considerable number of companies still practise age discrimination and consequently turn their backs on a not inconsiderable pool of talented labour who happen to be over 55 years of age? Does he also agree that employment should principally be on the basis of merit and nothing else? If so, what is he doing to encourage companies to change their minds and to clean up their employment practices?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Companies should eschew such unnecessary discrimination. The Government seize every opportunity to argue that, and I have made several speeches on the issue. My hon. Friend might have been thinking about a Bill that has been drafted which suggests that there should be legislation on the issue, but we do not believe that legislation would help, for the practical reason that there are circumstances—a limited number, admittedly—in which the age of a person may be relevant to the job. It
    612
    would be impossible to write all those exceptions into a statute, which is why we do not believe that legislation would be the right approach. Persuasion, not compulsion, is the right approach and we shall continue to do all that we can to persuade.
    Mr. Bermingham: But does the Minister agree that the period from 1980–91 has shown that, for people of 50 years of age and over who have been made redundant or otherwise put out of work, it is increasingly difficult to find re-employment? Does he also agree that that is a disgraceful waste of talent, experience and other knowledge? Will he take positive steps for once to stop the bleeding of and drain on our national resources caused by the under-employment of the over 50s?
    Mr. Jackson: I said that we agreed that there is a drain. The hon. Gentleman has to set the circumstances against the background: about 3 million more people are employed in Britain now than was the case a decade ago, but it is true that there has been a slight decline in the proportion of the labour force aged over 55. Whether the cause is as the hon. Gentleman said or whether it is because of the increased personal income and wealth which enables more people to retire earlier is a question to which we do not have the answer. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be concerned, but we can agree that there would be practical difficulties in the way of legislation.
    Mr. Rowe: Let me assure my hon. Friend that a substantial number of people aged 55 and over are finding it unreasonably difficult even to get an interview for a job. Given the manifest fact that many people in that age group have experience, loyalty and skills which are superior to those of much younger people, will he do his level best to ensure that he keeps those of his colleagues who are also in that age group in their jobs by making it clear to employers that they should take a favourable view of people of that age?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government employ many such people in the civil service, but we do not employ such practices. The issue must be dealt with in the relationship between the employer and the employee. The Government can urge, explain and argue, and can draw the attention of employers to the facts to which my hon. Friend refers, but it must be a matter between the employer and the employee. We do not believe that legislation would help.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware that a large proportion of men and women over 50 in the labour force are unemployed? Why then, last year, did about 500,000 people join the dole queue? Why has his Department administered the most savage cuts in training since the war? Why is he not now going to the Treasury to demand more money for the unemployed? Is it because the Government do not care about unemployment?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the level of unemployment is essentially decided as a consequence of the wage settlements reached in negotiations between employers and employees. The Government have repeatedly pointed out that the trend of wage settlements has been too high overall to be afforded in the light of the increase in productivity. It would be

    613
    useful if the hon. Gentleman were to join us in arguing that case rather than attempting to pin the blame where it cannot be pinned.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to improve manufacturing employment in the Bolton/Bury travel-towork area.
    Mr. Howard: The employment service and the Bolton and Bury training and enterprise council operate a wide range of services and programmes to help improve the employment prospects for unemployed people in the area. It is employers who create jobs, whether it is in the manufacturing sector or other sectors of the economy.
    Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State will not be surprised to know that I think that that was, as usual, a bogus answer. Does he not realise that since 1979, 1,000 manufacturing jobs a year have been lost in the Bolton-Bury travel-to-work area, which includes my constituency? Does he not realise that the jobs that have been created, which are part time and low paid, such as stacking shelves in supermarkets, are no way to treat the cradle of the industrial revolution?
    Mr. Howard: Why is the hon. Gentleman so determined to paint his area in the darkest possible light? Why does he not talk instead about the reduction in unemployment of 41 per cent. since July 1986? Why does he not talk about the almost 2,500 young people who are receiving training in the Bolton and Bury area, almost 80 per cent. of them qualifying or receiving further training after they have completed their youth training? Why does he not talk about the 500 people in his area who currently benefit from the enterprise allowance? Why does he not talk about the £4 million that is spent through the urban programme in his area, or about the £19 million that has been spent through regional selective assistance since 1979? Why does he not tell the world the good news about his area, instead of darkening its image in such a damaging way?

    Oil Well Fires
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice the Health and Safety Executive has given about fire-fighting training in relation to oil wells.
    Mr. Forth: Before 1 April 1991, the executive was responsible only for health and safety at onshore oil and gas drilling operations. Since that date, the executive has also taken on regulatory responsibility for health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.
    No specific advice regarding training for fighting oil well fires has been given. It is the responsibility of operators of oil and gas operations to ensure that the work force are given the appropriate level of training to enable them to use safely and effectively the fire-fighting equipment provided.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister undertake to write me a detailed letter about the advice that the Health and Safety Executive is giving to the British Army medical team working out of Ahmadi hospital in Kuwait and to the 700 Royal Engineers who are working in appalling
    614
    conditions of hydrogen sulphide and of photochemical smog where, without being alarmist, there is a real danger of carcinogenic results?
    Mr. Forth: I fully understand the nature of the hon. Gentleman's question. From the Dispatch Box, I should normally be only too delighted to undertake to write him the detailed letter than he invites. In this circumstance, I should, before I gave that undertaking, have to establish that it is for the Health and Safety Executive to be involved in the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I undertake to look at that most carefully and to establish whether it is the responsibility of the Executive and of my Department, or whether the responsibility that the hon. Gentleman has raised lies elsewhere, in which case I should advise him of that matter.
    Mr. Devlin: Why does the Health and Safety Executive have to advise oil platform operators of its intent to visit? Why should not it be allowed merely to conduct a random spot check, unannounced, as it would do on land? Surely that would be better for the offshore industry.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. This is a matter such as we shall examine when the Health and Safety Executive develops its new responsibilities for the offshore oil industry. I will take up the very point that my hon. Friend has made as we develop the new regulations and as we identify the best way in which we can guarante the same level of health and safety offshore as we have come to expect onshore.

    Manufacturing Industry (Redundancies)
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of redundancies in the last year were in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Howard: During the 12 months to January 1991, 65 per cent. of all confirmed redundancies were in manufacturing industries.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does not this signal a very dire state for the British economy and for the future of British industry? In the early 1980s, we were told that manufacturing industry was being sorted out so that it would be ready to compete with the rest of Europe. Now the Minister tells us of major cuts in employment. It is also true that there has been a £7 billion downturn in manufacturing output since last March. What are the Government going to do to support employment of the highest calibre in manufacturing industry and to give this country a chance?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady overlooks a significant difference. It is that while manufacturing employment fell during the lifetime of the Labour Government, as it has during the lifetime of the present Government, manufacturing output fell during the Labour Government while it has risen during this Government. That is the best possible tribute to the effectiveness of the Government's policies.
    Mr. McCrindle: In contrast to what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that during this recession, unlike previous periods of economic downturn, the proportion of redundancies in white-collar jobs has risen considerably? Has my right hon. and learned Friend

    615
    any thoughts on when he would expect an upturn in the service industries? What message would he wish me to give my constituents, who are suffering quite considerably?
    Mr. Howard: I refer my hon. Friend to the survey that has been published by the Institute of Directors. The results show a remarkable turnround in the confidence of its members and provides extremely encouraging evidence that the turnround will come soon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my view that the most damaging thing that could happen to employment prospects would be the imposition of a national minimum wage, which would destroy up to 2 million jobs. If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rises on this question, I hope that he will explain to the House how he would avoid the consequence that as the minimum wage is increased as a proportion of the average wage, the average wage in turn increases and we embark on a never-ending cycle of job destruction.
    Mr. Blair: With unemployment increasing faster than in any other country in the western world, and when the summer will inevitably see a further round of closures, cuts and redundancies, when will the Secretary of State fight for his Department's budget? The money that is spent on training the unemployed is, in real terms, half what was spent when unemployment was last at 2 million. Or is it simply the case that the unemployed have become the forgotten people of this Government?
    Mr. Howard: What a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to answer the question that I put to him. Perhaps he thought that it was a sort of warm-up question that he was not obliged to answer. The hon. Gentleman put a statistic in his question—he has used it repeatedly in recent days—on my Department's budget. It is entirely untrue and entirely unfounded. I challenge him to produce the figures on which the assertion is based. We are producing a range of measures to help the unemployed back into work which is wider than that which has ever existed.

    Tourism (Northumberland)
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the chairman of the Northumbria tourist board to discuss the further development of tourism in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: My noble Friend Viscount Ullswater, who has ministerial responsibility for tourism matters within my Department, will meet officers and members of the Northumbria tourist board on 14 May. I welcorne the board's new five-year strategy and the increased participation in its work by the private sector, which should assist the development of tourism in the region.
    Mr. Amos: I am pleased to hear about the meeting on 14 May. As Northumberland is the most beautiful of counties, can my hon. Friend give more details of the measures that he is taking to make the promotion of tourism in Northumberland more effective both within the United Kingdom and overseas?
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to praise the area which he represents. It is something that Conservative Members do
    616
    whenever the opportunity arises and which Opposition Members signally fail to do. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the many measures that are being taken, including the recent changes to the tourist board's constitution and the setting up of a commercial members group, both of which are positive and welcome steps. Many other measures are being taken. The key to them—this illustrates the forward-looking and positive nature of the board—is the way in which it is working with the English tourist board, with local commercial interests and with local authorities to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach in praising the very aspects of the region to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. That is the way forward. I wish that many other tourist boards would follow the example of the Northumbria tourist board.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept that tourism is important to the economy of rural Northumberland? Does he recognise that the removal of section 4 grants has weakened the ability of the industry to invest and that the 10·9 per cent. increase in the uniform business rate is hitting many small businesses in the tourist trade quite hard?
    Mr. Forth: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The opening of the £20 million Copthorne hotel and the £7 million Novotel in Newcastle in 1990—to take just two examples from the hon. Gentleman's region—illustrate the general point that the inducements that were available under section 4 were not necessary to allow investment to be sustained. It is possible and likely that up and down the country we shall see a continued level of investment without the inducements that section 4 offered.

    Special Needs Training
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on youth training for young people with special needs.
    Mr. Jackson: All young people under 18 who are not in full-time education or employment are guaranteed the offer of a suitable training place. This includes those who have special training needs. Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their plans how they intend to meet this guarantee. My Department monitors delivery of these plans and has produced guidance to help TECs with training for people with special needs.
    Mr. Smith: If that is the case, why are centres, schemes and places which provide such training being closed throughout Britain? Schemes being closed include the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders scheme which served my constituency and, indeed, the Minister's constituency. Is not it utterly repugnant that youngsters with special needs should pay the price of government cuts in training? Is not it time that the Minister not only mouthed the guarantee but acted on it so that all youngsters had real entitlement to quality training appropriate to their needs?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the network of providers with the position of individual people. The hon. Gentleman and his party are in no position to lecture us about training young people. When the Labour party was last in office, it provided a training

    617
    programme on which there were only 6,000 places. The Government now provide, through youth training, some 350,000 places for young people.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of the Elfrida Rathbone Society in dealing with special needs? Does he agree that, as at least some of the people involved are receiving training in life skills rather than training directed at the labour market, it would be more appropriate if such training were dealt with not by the Department of Employment but by the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security?
    Mr. Jackson: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Elfrida Rathbone Society. I know something of its excellent work. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the division of responsibility between the Departments. Clearly, there is a difficult interface between training for employment in the labour market and training which is intended to help people to continue their lives. My hon. Friend is right that we should keep the matter under review, but meanwhile we have a responsibility. Through our arrangements and our contracts with the training and enterprise councils, we are in a position to discharge that responsibility.
    Mr. Leighton: Is not it the case that young people with special needs in the London borough of Newham and Essex have few opportunities because, as the Newham Recorder has reported, the youth training guarantee is not being honoured and hundreds of young people are leaving school without a job or a YT place? What is the Minister's explanation for that disgraceful situation? What action will he take to rectify it?
    Mr. Jackson: Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Some concern was expressed about the ability of Essex training and enterprise council to fulfil the guarantee. We investigated the matter and took appropriate action. Among other things, the TECs are contracted to deliver the guarantee; they are funded accordingly and will deliver the guarantee.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) is widely shared? Such people may fall between two stools and benefit more socially than industrially. Is there any basis for recent press reports that the possibility of reviving the community programme is being studied?
    Mr. Jackson: I promise my hon. Friend that, according to the boundaries mentioned in an earlier question, we shall keep the position under review. The Government are always reviewing the options open to them in the labour market, but we have no plans to introduce a temporary work scheme [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to Employment questions.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Minister realise how complacent and out of touch his answers sound? Up and down the country, those who are involved in running training and enterprise councils and voluntary organisations say that because of the cuts in the Department's training budget more and more young people with special needs are experiencing difficulty in obtaining a place on a
    618
    training course. Is not it typical of the Government that they put at risk the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in our society?
    Mr. Jackson: This is another one of the Labour party's cuts. Expenditure on youth training has increased by £38 million this year.

    Trade Union Certification Officer
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of the trade union certification officer.
    Mr. Forth: The Certification Officer for Trade Unions and Employer Associations is an independent authority appointed under statute. He has a number of functions, which include ensuring that trade unions keep proper accounts, ensuring observance of the law on union mergers, reimbursing certain costs of unions' postal ballots and dealing with complaints about union executive elections and membership registers. Copies of the certification officer's annual report for 1990, which was published on 16 April, are available in the Library.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the certification officer's workload should be lightened by following the best practice in Europe, as advocated by the Labour party, and banning contributions from trade unions to political parties? Does he agree that the certification officer needs more staff to ensure that the fiasco that took place in the union that sponsors the Leader of the Opposition does not take place again?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, typically, shows a close interest in and care for the work of the certification officer and I am glad that he has brought it to the attention of the House. May I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the certification officer and to assure my hon. Friend that, as in many other matters of industrial relations legislation, we shall keep this under the closest possible review? When evidence shows the need for action, we shall not hesitate to take it.

    Women Part-time Employees
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the number of women in part-time employment; and what is the average level of wages.
    Mr. Jackson: There were 5,146,000 women in part-time employment in Great Britain in December 1990. The 1990 new earnings survey estimated that the average gross hourly part-time earnings of women were £3·95.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Under-Secretary will recall that answers given to the House on 15 March showed that almost 250,000 women in Scotland were in part-time employment, which meant that their earnings were under the European threshold of decency, and that almost 8,000 of them were earning less than £2 per hour. What steps will the Government take to ensure that companies are prosecuted if they are found to be illegally underpaying women in part-time employment? Only two companies have been prosecuted in the past decade.
    Mr. Jackson: If anyone is in breach of the law, he should be pursued and prosecuted. I shall happily look

    619
    into the point that the hon. Lady made. I do not know whether the Scottish National party supports a minimum wage, but she must understand that its consequences would be certainly to destroy jobs and to withdraw jobs that would otherwise be available to women.

    Training Credits
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the training credits pilots.
    Mr. Howard: All 11 pilot schemes for training credits commenced on time on 1 April. Young school leavers in pilot areas are now receiving training credits and starting to use them to obtain approved training of their choice.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that training credits are already popular with young people because they extend choice and opportunity in the type of training which young people undertake? Does he agree that training credits are a great deal more popular than the Labour party's out-of-date and outmoded policies which rely on compulsion for their implementation?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The right way forward is to put buying power directly into the hands of these young people. Our pilot schemes, all of which commenced on time, are proving the success of that approach.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after Questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. McAllion: In the past week we have heard some Scottish Tories describe Scottish devolution as an immovable force which their party ignores at its risk. Other Scottish Tories have described it as a fantasy and a dead duck and yet others have described it as a London-based plot hatched by the chairman of the Conservative party to win cheap votes in Scotland. With which of those views does the Prime Minister agree—or is this yet another important issue on which he does not know his own mind?
    The Prime Minister: Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain fully so.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 12 years this country has gained tremendous advantages through substantial reductions in income tax levels? Does he further agree that to increase income tax rates again, even for those on moderate levels of earnings, such as classroom teachers in London, would be a retrograde step and a major blow to the aspirations of millions of people and to economic output?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It applies also to national insurance contributions, because what matters is the net disposable income that people have left in their pockets to spend. People will have noticed the Opposition's plans in that regard.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity publicly to oppose a two-tier system in hospitals, such as Watford general hospital, where the patients of non budget-holding general practitioners must wait longer and take second place, regardless of their clinical need?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. There will be no reductions in existing operations in Watford. Instead, as a result of our reforms, some people will get operations faster than otherwise they would have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has just confirmed the existence of a two-tier service. Does he realise that a two-tier system such as he supports is, as the British Medical Association says, "unethical"? Does he recognise that even in its existence it is a violation of the basic principle of the national health service that treatment must be determined according to clinical need, not contracts or commercial decisions? Is not it obvious from what he says and allows that although we believe in a national health service on the basis of need, the Prime Minister believes in one according to deals?
    The Prime Minister: None of that remotely follows. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first answer. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time: operations are done on the basis of clinical need. What we are seeking and attaining are a more efficient system and more efficient use of the large resources in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman's plans would take money away from the NHS as a result of many of his spiteful proposals. He has made it clear that he will provide no extra funding. We need no lectures on health care from him.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister not only misrepresents me, he misrepresents what is going on—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister misrepresents what is going on now. Will he take this opportunity to say that there are no cases that he will allow in which the patients of non budget-holding GPs will be allowed to take second place to the patients of budget-holding GPs who have made contractual arrangements with hospitals to gain preference for their patients?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should read what I have said twice already: that operations are done on the basis of clinical need.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the laws on Sunday trading? In the light of recent events, does he agree that it might now be appropriate to bring our laws in England and Wales into line with those of Scotland, where

    621
    the commitment to the Sabbath and keeping Sunday special goes hand in hand with sensible Sunday trading laws?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, a number of cases are being considered by the courts. Some may go to appeal. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is consulting interested parties to see whether a consensus can be found on Sunday trading law that would be acceptable both to them and to the House, which has repeatedly expressed a view on the matter. I believe that that is the right way ahead on a matter of conscience such as this. Experience in Scotland suggests that a suitable consensus is possible. I hope that we can find one south of the border.
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Prime Minister know that last year in Lewisham there were only 320 employment training places when there were 10,000 unemployed people? Can he tell me, therefore, why today, when unemployment has increased by a third, to over 14,000, the number of employment training places is to be cut by a third? What faith does he expect the British people to put in his commitment to a fairer society?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady will know, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe to guarantee a training place to everyone under the age of 18 who is not already in full-time education or employment. Spending on training is £2·7 billion this year. That is two and a half times more than was spent by the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will fight for the interests of the small family farm in Britain at the common agricultural policy discussions that are to come and also by providing assistance for such items as expertise in marketing and help for farmers' incomes, which have fallen to an unacceptable level?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will defend the interests of all farmers, including small family farmers, in the forthcoming Community discussions. The House knows that, as currently framed, the Commission's plans for CAP reform would discriminate against United Kingdom farmers, largely because our average farm size is greater than that in other member states. We have given considerable help to small farmers recently, in particular by increasing milk quotas and by means of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We shall continue to help.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by-election who yesterday advocated the opting out of not just the Royal Gwent hospital but the Nevill Hall hospital as well?
    The Prime Minister: Opting out—that is to say, putting control in the hands of local people within the national health service—is the right way to produce better management and local choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not favour local choice, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in terms of education yesterday.
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilshire: Given the Government's desire to extend choice in education further, and given the public's desire to see the highest possible standards of education everywhere, will my right hon. Friend find time today to look for ways to extend further choice in education?
    The Prime Minister: We are very pleased to see extended choice in education. The new grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and open enrolment have provided considerable extra choice. I hope that parents will take advantage of it. It is clear that the Opposition do not like choice. Grant-maintained schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme, charitable status for private schools and the existing A-levels would all go and, with the Opposition's tax plans, most of the teachers would go as well.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Having clearly misled Parliament last week——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member misleads Parliament. The hon. Member knows that and he must rephrase his question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Having misrepresented to Parliament last week the attitude of the British Medical Association and Britain's doctors as to GP contracts, why did the Prime Minister seek to cover up his mistakes by doctoring Hansard? Is that not true and does not the Prime Minister owe someone an apology?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and Mr. Speaker will make a statement about that matter at 3.30 pm. In advance of that statement, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Like every hon. Member, he knows that it is normal practice, when a Minister uses a quote, for the precise words and their source to be provided by Hansard. In this case, the name of the correct source was put into the record, but I am entirely happy for the original words to be reinstated. The magazine from which I quoted was GP Magazine but similar sentiments to those that I quoted, endorsing the reforms, have been expressed in the British Medical Journal, published by the BMA—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I quote from a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal, which said:
    "The reforms may not address all the problems of the NHS, but they do improve our capacity to specify the quality of services and to price improvements."
    The point that I was making is entirely justified. If any apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity, over the weekend, to reflect on the damage that would be done to our representative democracy by a system of proportional representation? This system would deprive people of their solely responsible local representative to satisfy the Liberals, the statisticians and the pundits who enjoy smoke-filled rooms.
    The Prime Minister: I am not in favour of either smoke-filled rooms or proportional representation. I share my hon. Friend's view that it leaves minority parties determining Government policy and striking bargains for their support. That is not democracy, it is horse trading, and I will have no part in it.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the fact that we, by reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. from 83 per cent., have increased the proportion of total yield of income tax paid by the highest
    624
    10 per cent. of taxpayers from 20 to 30 per cent? Is not this because many of the most wealthy people are now staying in this country and bringing their money back, so that we get 40 per cent. of something, whereas the Opposition would get 59 per cent. of nothing?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The evidence as to the amount of tax collected with lower rates is clear for all to see. It is equally clear that, under the Labour party's proposals, 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not be better off, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said a year ago. The figure is now one in eight. When the shadow Chancellor gets at the figures they change daily, and when we have finished costing Labour's programme they will change again.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Prime Minister will be aware that, in relation to his policy on local government finance, only after huge public protest and widespread cuts in services did he decide that he had better review the policy inherited from his predecessor and then to ditch it. Does he agree that his policy on the opting out of hospitals was equally widely opposed and that it is now clear that it, too, will result in widespread cuts in services? For the sake of consistency of principle, will the Prime Minister carry out a wholesale review and then ditch the policy?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's views, and I do not believe that his analysis is remotely correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how it turns out. He will find that he is wrong. For many years we have had to ensure that the national health service uses its resources to the most efficient extent. At last the present Government have had the courage to introduce a system that will ensure that the money is used to best effect for patients. I believe that, for the national health service, that is the right way to proceed and the one which will produce the maximum amount of good patient care. That is what we propose to do.

Official Report
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have considered the complaint made on Friday last by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Official Report incorrectly reported part of an answer by the Prime Minister given by him on the previous day. The Prime Minister is reported, when referring to the British Medical Association, as having quoted from the GP Magazine. I have checked the transcript, which shows that what the Prime Minister said was:
"and, only last year, it opposed the GP contracts, yet, in its own magazine, it now says … "
It is the normal practice for a Minister's staff to check Hansard, and during this process a sub-editor was given by a member of the Prime Minister's staff the name of the magazine quoted by the Prime Minister. The sub-editor thought that this was the British Medical Association's own magazine and accepted the suggested change. By including the name of the magazine, however, the Official Report inadvertently changed the sense of the Prime Minister's reply. The Editor of Hansard has expressed to me his regret that this should have happened, and a correction will be printed in today's Official Report.
Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful for your statement, Mr. Speaker. Of course we accept in good faith the explanation given by the Editor of Hansard. I am quite sure that everybody is clear that no blame attaches to the Editor or his staff for what occurred. However, the fact remains that, although the Prime Minister's staff do not read the court circular, and apparently do not read the British Medical Journal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It is certainly not as cheap as fiddling the record in Hansard. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the whole House, in terms of lowering the temperature, if the hon. Gentleman were to rephrase his last comment.
Dr. Cunningham: What emerges from your inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is that a member of the Prime Minister's staff persuaded a Hansard sub-editor to change the record. [Interruption.] That is what happened. The sub-editor was persuaded to change the record in a way that was inaccurate in that it changed the sense of what the Prime Minister had said. Would it not have been better if a correction had been issued from No. 10 Downing street and apologies offered both to the House and to the British Medical Association?
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that anything further arises on that. [Interruption.] Order. I have made my statement and cannot say more than that.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member is always so supportive of the Chair, I will take a helpful comment from him.
Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing out that I am always helpful to the Chair. It is precisely in that vein that I want to put my point of order. We are not dealing here with a trivial matter, and the last
626
thing that I want to see is the Editor of Hansard, to whom no blame attaches, or even a member of the Prime Minister's staff, being incriminated. I want to know whether this was discussed with the Prime Minister and whether the change was made on his authority.

Bangladesh (Cyclone Disaster)
3.37 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, "the Bangladesh cyclone disaster." [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very important that I hear this application.
Mr. Shore: The whole House was appalled by the news last week that 50,000 men, women and children had perished in the cyclone that swept over the coastal areas and the low-lying islands of the bay of Bengal. Alas, that early estimate of the dead has already been proved to be wrong. More than 125,000 casualties are now reported and there are serious estimates that the total could rise to over 200,000 before the count is over. But even that is not the end of it. Villages throughout the coastal areas are still cut off, most of them without food or drinking water, and the first reports of cholera are coming in—[Interruption.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not need a point of order. I am listening to the application that is being made to me.[Interruption.] Order. It is very unseemly to have these comments. I ask the House please to settle down and let me hear this application.
Mr. Shore: The first reports of cholera are now coming in, and a further still more awful disaster is in the making. Clearly this is a specific and important matter which needs the most urgent consideration. In the very short term there is a great need for food and medicines and, just as important, the means of delivering them. What appear to be most required are helicopters and inflatable power boats.
The Government could tell the House very little last Thursday. I do not blame them for that; telephone contact with Bangladesh is largely dependent upon satellite communications, and the principal facility in the Chittagong area was damaged by the cyclone and is still out of action. Nevertheless, we have a much clearer picture now than we had last Thursday and it should be possible, in a debate, for the Government to give an informed account of the actions they have taken so far, what is now in train, and what further assistance they propose to give.
This is also the time to consider what this country and other donors can do in the period ahead to assist the Government of Bangladesh to carry through an enhanced programme for building cyclone shelters and strengthening coastal defences against, certainly, future cyclone attacks.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. Apart from loss of human lives, present estimates of the cost of this disaster in terms of cattle, crops and infrastructure are well over $1,000 million. Bangladesh is

627
a member of the Commonwealth. Our ties with that country and its people over the past three decades have been strengthened by the substantial number of people of Bangladeshi origin who have settled here and are now among our fellow citizens.
These are strong reasons for an emergency debate, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant one.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, "the Bangladesh cyclone disaster."
As the House knows, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons. I listened with care and deep concern to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, I have to decide whether this application comes within the Standing Order, and, if so, whether a debate should be given priority over the business already set down for today or for tomorrow.
I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not in any way underestimate its importance, but I have to say that in this case the matter raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Sir Hugh Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer back to the statement that you made——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I very much regret that you were unable to accept the application of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I regret also the rowdy atmosphere in which initially the application had to be made.
The Prime Minister, the Minister for Overseas Development and the Chief Secretary to the Secretary were all present. We understand the plight of the people of Bangladesh which has touched the hearts and, I am glad to say, the hands of the British people who are giving generously and who are concerned at the fact that our Government are being seen as one of the meanest of the richest nations in the world.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations which I cannot answer. He is raising a point of order.
Mr. Madden: If the Minister for Overseas Development, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary were to intimate to you, Mr. Speaker, a wish to make a statement at 7 o'clock this evening, would you facilitate such a statement, bearing in mind the great concern of many Bangladeshis who are British citizens and who are worried about the fate of their relatives and friends?
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one thing at a time. I in no way underestimate the matter. Like the hon. Member, I also have constituents who have relatives in Bangladesh. We had a long run on it on a private notice question on Thursday. Every hon. Member who is present was called to put a question. I am sure that there will be other
628
opportunities. I have to take into account all kinds of other criteria in making my decision. The House knows that.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is here and is listening to the exchanges. I understand your reasons, Mr. Speaker, for not granting an emergency debate, regrettable though that decision is. Given the scale of the tragedy, surely we can prevail upon the Leader of the House to say that he will find an early opportunity for a debate, or discuss through the usual channels the rearrangement of business so that the House may have an opportunity to debate the tragedy and Britain's contribution towards reparation.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful to the House if I say that clearly we would wish to do that and to keep the House fully informed. Communication is obviously a problem in the area, but I can give the assurance that we wish to keep the House fully informed.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything further on that can be raised with me. The Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, has stated that he will bear the matter in mind. What point of order can arise for me out of that?

Points of Order
Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been briefing the press all morning about the fact that he intends to cap the expenditure of Lothian regional council, a step that may cost hundreds of jobs and will almost certainly put an end to the concessionary bus pass scheme enjoyed by pensioners.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, you have criticised Ministers who have chosen to make statements outside the House rather than to elected Members. Have you received a request for a statement to be made which at the very least would allow us to ask the Secretary of State why poll tax payers in Westminster get a blanket subsidy of £1,000 a head while in Lothian we get £453 a head? The whole thing seems to have the stench of electioneering. The purpose seems to be to save the skin of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would otherwise face a very unhappy party conference in Perth tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. I am sure that what has been said will have been heard.
Sir Hugh Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I should like to revert to the statement that you made earlier about Hansard. It was quite clear from your statement that the name of a book or a magazine was added to the Hansard report by a member of the Prime Minister's office, who had not referred to the Prime Minister and had assumed that that was the magazine to which the Prime Minister had referred. You also made it clear that the Editor of Hansard admitted that in making that alteration his staff had altered the sense of the answer —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not say that.
Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) accused the Prime Minister of fiddling the report——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that this is terribly helpful. I asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to withdraw his remark, and he did so.
Sir Hugh Rossi: The point is that the hon. Member for Copeland made that statement in the full hearing of the House, which asked him to withdraw. He steadfastly ignored that request. My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw, and will you invite him to do so?
Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Member for Copeland to rephrase his remark, and I thought that he had done so—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to accuse anyone, least of all the Prime Minister, of fiddling. If he would like to make that clear, we can get on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. I ask hon. Members to restrain themselves; this is very bad behaviour. I shall repeat what I have just said to the hon. Member for Copeland—[Interruption.] Order. In the exchanges, which were somewhat excited, and amid a great deal of noise, I asked the hon. Member for Copeland to withdraw the charge that the Prime Minister had fiddled Hansard. I thought that he had done so. So that it can be absolutely clear, I ask the hon. Gentleman to do so now.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not accuse the Prime Minister of fiddling Hansard—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] We must get this absolutely clear. I was making it clear that what had happened was that a member of the Prime Minister's No. 10 staff had secured a change in the record, which changed the sense. Conservative Members started to shout comments at me, including "Cheap", to which I replied, "Not half as cheap as fiddling the record." That is what I said, and I stand by that statement.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we had better leave the matter there.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this will be a helpful point of order. To avoid the problem occurring again, and as we already have an electronic Hansard—as it is called these days—should not a simple play-back facility be installed in the Hansard office? If a member of the Prime Minister's staff or anyone else then said to the Hansard staff, "We did not mean to say what we actually said"—the right hon. Gentleman is rapidly becoming the Dan Quayle of British politics—would not the simple answer be, as in the case of a disputed penalty, to have an action replay to decide who is right?
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Skinner: You need a linesman to help you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need that sort of help.
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I am perfectly able to deal with these matters.
It has been consistently ruled by my predecessors that tape recordings are not a check on the Official Report. The Official Report is a full report which,
"though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument."
Reference to that will be found in "Erskine May" on page 211.
The change made on Thursday does not fall within the category of acceptable correction. On the other hand, if Hansard was not able to correct our grammar and omit our verbal mistakes, it would, on many occasions, make pretty incomprehensible reading.
Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: Would you, Mr. Speaker, agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
Mr. Speaker: Not on a point of order that I have not heard.
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hansard has a difficult job. There cannot be an hon. Member in the House who has not had his or her speech tidied up because it was rather ambiguous. That is why we are all sent notes after our speeches and sometimes after our questions. In doing its work, Hansard often has to interpret ambiguous statements so as to make sensible reading for those who follow us. By all this stupidity this afternoon, are we not placing Hansard itself in a stupid position?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has stated in rather more detailed language the point that I was seeking to make.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your decision on the application made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for an emergency debate on the situation in Bangladesh, I realise that it is not acceptable to challenge the reasons behind your decision that the Finance Bill, today and tomorrow, must take precedence over such a debate, but may I say, in the presence of the Leader of the House, that, were reports in this morning's tabloid press to prove accurate and the Leader of the House does intend to announce the early rise of the House on 19 July, two weeks earlier than usual, many people would not understand how your office could be given the impression that Government business was of such urgency that that important debate could not be arranged?
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard that happy piece of news, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Leader of the House said about the matter.
Mr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from the Order Paper rather than from the Official Report. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you accept some responsibility for the Order Paper.
Question 260, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who clearly does not represent a Lothian constituency, facilitates an announcement by the Secretary of State which will amount to a savage attack on services provided by Lothian regional

631
council. May we be protected from such behaviour? Is not the Secretary of State prepared to come here and make a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for the Order Paper. I look carefully at questions, and provided that they are in order they can be tabled, and that question was perfectly in order.
Mr. Roger King: Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker, and the response of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it is clear that he used the word "fiddling" and, sitting where we were on the Conservative Benches, it was abundantly evident that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were pointed directly at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; there can be no doubt about that. Taken out of context and read simply in Hansard, his words can mean all kinds of things, but at the time they were directed directly at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman going to withdraw them?
Mr. Speaker: We have all heard what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) subsequently said. The point was drawn to my attention by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). I have dealt with that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although you have ruled on the application by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), as the Leader of the House is present in the Chamber, may I point out that, although we shall be considering the Finance Bill today and tomorrow, the Bill to be considered on Thursday is of lesser importance. I wonder whether the Leader of the House can find a way of facilitating a debate on Bangladesh on Thursday if an application for one, with the consent of all parties, is made to you tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Would that be in order, and would you accept such an application?
Mr. Speaker: The Opposition and the minority parties have their Opposition days, although there may not be one
632
immediately available for the hon. Member's party. Nevertheless, that question is clearly one for the usual channels to resolve, and right hon. and hon. Members heard what the Leader of the House had to say on that issue.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose ——
Mr. Speaker: I will take one final point of order, if it is on the same subject.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. I do not want to challenge your ruling on the application made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but I want to convey to Ministers—through you, Mr. Speaker—the sense of urgency that must be brought to bear on the situation in Bangladesh. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk. Many of them could be saved, and a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh could be prevented, if transport equipment, particularly military helicopters, were sent to the affected region from the base at Diego Garcia and from bases in the Gulf. Urgency is the key. If the Minister concerned could be persuaded to make a statement today, or, better still, if helicopters could get to the region quickly, many lives could be saved.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That the Proposal for a draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 published on 28th February 1991, being a Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Wood.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1104) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Sunday Trading (Video Shops) Bill
3.55 pm
Mr. John Marshall: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt video shops from the provisions of the Shops Act 1950.
Some months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described the Shops Act 1950 as bizarre. The ban on the sale or renting of videos is a particular example of that much more general complaint. The 1950 Act was passed in a quite different era. The 1940s were a time of rationing and not of plenty, and the Shops Act 1950 was passed at a time when cinemas did not open on Sunday, professional sport never took place on Sunday, and most people did not have television—and those who did had the choice of only one channel, which broadcast for only four and a half hours.
The 1950 Act was passed at a time when no one had heard of videos, garden centres, or do-it-yourself superstores. Today, the situation has changed. In 1972, the House passed the Sunday Theatre Bill and Sunday Cinema Bill. Today, cinemas and provincial theatres can, and do, open on Sunday—and only last Sunday the Haymarket theatre opened for a performance of "Talking Heads", which repeated an earlier performance and raised money for charity.
Videos are surely part of the same entertainment industry as the theatre and cinema. Whereas television used to be broadcast for only four and a half hours on Sunday, today one can view 20 hours of BBC1 or BBC2; 24 hours of ITV; or 20 hours of Channel 4. That represents 84 hours of viewing choice on Sunday, compared with four and a half hours in 1950. Furthermore, if one is a subscriber to Sky Television, one can watch 24 hours of movies on either of two of its film channels.
Current law says that it is perfectly moral to see a film at a cinema, but wrong to watch the same film on a video at home. The law says that it is right and moral to watch television all day, but wrong to hire a video to view after church.
A further anomaly is the changing attitude to sport. As I said, in 1950 there was no professional sport on Sunday, but today the most popular games of cricket are those played in the Sunday league. It is not unknown either for the British climate to cause the Wimbledon finals to be played on Sunday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Members of Parliament do not work on Sunday.
Mr. Marshall: Some of us work a seven-day week, even if that is not true of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The law says that it is perfectly all right to watch golf, cricket, football or tennis on Sunday, but wrong to view a sporting video. Apparently, it is perfectly moral to watch Arsenal playing at Highbury on Sunday, but wrong to watch a video of the 1966 World Cup final. What giants they were—Peters, Hurst, Charlton, Stiles and Banks—yet one cannot enjoy watching them on Sunday in one's own home. That is nonsense.
One of the ironies is that the video industry is more closely regulated than the cinema or the theatre. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 much stronger standards apply to the video industry than apply to the cinema to take account of the fact that videos are seen in the home,
634
not outside. Another irony is that video shops are owned by small shopkeepers who operate legally selling newspapers, so why should not they also be allowed to hire out a video? Why should not small shopkeepers be free to serve the needs of their customers? Why should not individuals in that branch of the entertainment industry be treated in the same way as the rest of the entertainment industry?
The importance of videos can be seen by the fact that more than 25,000 people are employed in the video software industry. It is the largest visual entertainment media employer, employing 50 per cent. more people than ITV and 25 times as many as British Sky Broadcasting. Sunday trade is especially important to the video industry because 28 per cent. of video rentals take place on a Sunday. If obstacles are placed in the way of this industry, the viability of some shops will be affected and some individuals will have to close shop.
There are currently 110 prosecutions pending against the video industry. In Newham, Hartlepool, Kingstonupon-Hull and Scunthorpe the social problems are so light that the local authorities are prosecuting the video industry for renting out videos. What blessed places they are that they have nothing better on which to concentrate local authority time.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the B and Q and Wickes cases has created uncertainty about the future of the Sunday trading law and its enforcement. It will now be more difficult to resort to injunctions to enforce the law, but it will be possible to prosecute and the maximum fine for a prosecution is £1,000. To a large firm, £1,000 is no deterrent, but to a small video shop which rents out a few videos it is an important penalty which acts as a real deterrent.
People, not legislation, make Sunday a special day. The church will not be graced by having conscripts in the pew and those churches which thrive do so because they offer a positive message. Would Charles Wesley have needed the protection of the Shops Act 1950 to get people to hear a good Wesleyan sermon? We all wish Archbishop Carey well in the future. This year we have seen a new Archbishop of Canterbury inducted and we shall shortly see a new Chief Rabbi. The new Chief Rabbi has a congregation that is not protected by trading laws, but it honours the Sabbath rather better than the followers of Archbishop Carey honour the Sabbath.
A church that relies on the protection of the law to encourage people to come to its services will do less well than the Jewish faith does, not by relying on the protection of the law but by having a positive message for those who come to shul.
A law that is frequently broken by the 60,000 shops that open every Sunday and by the 2 million people who work every Sunday, and a law that is enforced intermittently and is riddled with inconsistencies brings the rule of law into disrepute. I invite the House to face reality and to support the Bill. The need for the reform of Sunday trading is widely accepted by the Consumers Association, by the majority of retailers and by the majority of people in this country, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The nonsense has been confirmed by the recent Court of Appeal judgment.
One local authority has said that the law is now unenforceable. The Keep Sunday Special campaign has said that it believes in the need for compromise. The Bill offers a compromise. It deals with small traders and

635
suggests that video shops should be put on a par with the rest of the entertainment industry. I ask the House to allow the Bill to be introduced so that the House can demonstrate that it believes in the need for compromise.
4.4 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for all his good works. At the end of his speech, he said that we should face reality. I appeal to the House to face reality and to realise that it is nonsense for ourselves and for our democracy to try to pretend that we still have the power to do anything in the meantime about Sunday trading. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said that, because of the recent court judgment, there was some difficulty in moving an injunction. He should consult a lawyer because the lawyers in Southend will tell him that it is not only difficult, but impossible to move an injunction at present. The law has effectively been frozen because of the decision in the B and Q case which was based solely on a decision whether our Sunday trading laws were inconsistent with the treaty of Rome.
We know that a higher court will make its judgment next week. We know that the matter will then go to the European Court. Although we may pass laws on Sunday trading and on whether video shops, greengrocers' shops or any other shop should stay open or be closed on a Sunday, we shall be told what to do by the European Court in two years' time.
It may be nonsense to try to hold up the House in the good work that it wants to do, but I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and to the House generally to stop pretending that we still have power that we do not have. It does not make the slightest difference whether the Bill is passed or rejected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South kindly mentioned Southend. I drove round on Sunday and saw that, rightly or wrongly, all the video shops were open. The law is in a state of total confusion. It has been suspended because of an action that our laws are inconsistent with the treaty of Rome. I do not know whether our laws are inconsistent with the treaty. The people who will tell us are the judges in the European Court who are appointed to do so. Once they make the decision, whether we pass 1,000 laws on Sunday trading or whether the trading standards inspectors rush round, those inspectors will have no power.
I do not know what the court will do. My hon. Friend does not know what the court will do and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who follows these issues closely, does not know what the court will do. The plain fact is that, irrespective of what we decide today, we shall be told what to do in two years' time. Even if the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats decide differently, that is that.
In the House of Commons, we spend a great deal of time asking for inquiries into matters and asking the Government to give more priority to certain matters when the power has gone away. A point of order was raised today about a rumour that the House will rise two weeks early simply because we can no longer do the things that we used to do. The time has come for the House of Commons to face up to the threat to our democracy, to
636
consider the implications and to decide what we should do, instead of going on a wild goose chase and saying that we want to change a law that has been suspended because of an action relating to the European Court.
In no sense of hostility to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South—and he is one of the most conscientious, hard-working, sincere and undoubtedly good Members of the House—I must say that I hope that he will not be taken away from reality by what he says. The reality is that our law has been suspended. The reality is that, irrespective of the views of Parliament, we shall be told what to do in two years' time. To try to pretend that matters are different is to run away from reality and from our respect for democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Bill. If he does not, I hope that the House will reject it, not because we reject his ideas, but because we have to say, sadly, that his opinions are utterly irrelevant today. The European Court and not the democratic House of Commons will decide and will tell us what to do.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 71.

Division No. 135]

[4.08 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Arbuthnot, James

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Nelson, Anthony

Ashby, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Atkinson, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Buck, Sir Antony

Price, Sir David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Riddick, Graham

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Rost, Peter

Dover, Den

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Squire, Robin

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Thurnham, Peter

Hayes, Jerry

Walters, Sir Dennis

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Watts, John

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Wheeler, Sir John

Janman, Tim

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mr. Stephen Day.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Allen, Graham

Gordon, Mildred

Armstrong, Hilary

Gregory, Conal

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hardy, Peter

Beith, A. J.

Harris, David

Bellotti, David

Haynes, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Benton, Joseph

Home Robertson, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jessel, Toby

Cartwright, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cohen, Harry

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Corbyn, Jeremy

Knapman, Roger

Crowther, Stan

Latham, Michael

Cryer, Bob

Lewis, Terry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAvoy, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

McFall, John

Dixon, Don

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Malins, Humfrey

Faulds, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fearn, Ronald

Moate, Roger

Foster, Derek

Morgan, Rhodri

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

637

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Patchett, Terry

Stanbrook, Ivor

Pawsey, James

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Pendry, Tom

Strang, Gavin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Primarolo, Dawn

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wilson, Brian

Redmond, Martin

Sedgemore, Brian

Tellers for the Noes:

Sheerman, Barry

Mr. Teddy Taylor and Mr. Bowen Wells.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31 and 77 and Schedule 14)
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 22, Clause 77, Schedule 14, Clause 23, Clause 24, Clause 31, Clause 21 and Clause 14—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 22

      RATE OF CORPORATION TAX FOR 1990
      4.21 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 16, line 4, at end add—
      '(1A) Where a company whose activities consist

      (i) wholly or mainly in the manufacture of finished goods, partly finished goods or materials, and

      (ii) of activities falling within such classes, groups or descriptions set out in the Standard Industrial Classification issued by the Central Statistical Office as may be prescribed by way of regulations made under this subsection
      so elects in writing within two years of the end of an accounting period which includes the whole or any part of the financial year 1990, subsection (1) above and subsection (2) below of this section shall not apply to that company in relation to that accounting period; and where such an election is made, then, in relation to that company for that accounting period,

      (a) the rate at which corporation tax is charged for the financial year 1990 shall be 34·01 per cent. (and not 35 per cent. as provided by section 19 of the Finance Act 1990)

      (b) section 24(2)(a)(i) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 shall have effect as if the percentage specified therein were the aggregate of 25 per cent. multiplied by A and 40 per cent. multiplied by B, where B represents the fraction of the accounting period comprised within the financial year 1990 and A represents the fraction of the accounting period not so comprised (if any), and

      (c) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Taxes Act 1988 for the financial year 1990 shall be taken to be a fraction of which the numerator is one thousand eight hundred and two and the denominator is eighty thousand (and not one fortieth as provided by section 20 of the Finance Act 1990).'.

      639
      The amendment proposes to raise the assistance and support that should be given to British business, especially in the context of the proposals in the Finance Bill and of the general state of the economy.
      I remind the House of some of the economic indicators: 500,000 jobs have been lost in the past 12 months, and the losses are accelerating; almost 25,000 firms failed last year—an increase of almost 77 per cent.—and it is predicted that about a further 25 per cent. are likely to fail in the coming year; and since last spring, £2 billion has been slashed from investment and there has been a substantial cut—perhaps as high as £7 billion—in manufacturing output since last March.
      Against the background of those alarming results for our economy, we contend that the Government should be giving priority to manufacturing industry and manufacturing investment, primarily because the tradable sector is almost overwhelmingly the sector of the economy in which we earn our living in the world, as opposed to merely exchanging goods and services within our boundaries. There are some tradable services, but Britain's trade in manufactures is the essence of the way in which it earns its living.
      When the serious balance of payments deficit began to emerge, Conservative Members, especially the former Chancellor—I cannot remember how many Chancellors we have had since—the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), sought to suggest that the problems were of demand and of the way in which the economy was developing rather than structural problems because of our inadequacy in producing the manufactures that we wish to buy and consume.
      Although that explanation enjoyed brief popularity among Ministers, they now accept that we have structural problems and that our inability as an economy to produce all the goods we need is leading to our underlying difficulties. In that context, I want to draw attention to some figures which show the trends in our trade balance.
      First, there are the statistics for manufactured export volumes between 1979 and 1990 produced by the United Nations on a comparable basis across most of the developed world. I emphasise that these are results, rather than forecasts, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us how much he prefers results. The results show that, of 14 countries, the United Kingdom comes 13th for the percentage change in manufactured export volumes since 1979. That is a clear sign of how far we are falling behind so many of our competitors.
      It is evident from more recent figures for our manufactured trade that the value of our exports between 1979 and now, including the forecast figure for this year, has fallen by minus 8·7 per cent. Since 1979, the value of our trade has fallen by more than 2 per cent.—minus 2·4 per cent. precisely—as a percentage of our gross domestic product—a percentage of the wealth we earn.
      The same picture is evident for volumes. Although our exports have risen by 59 per cent. since 1979, our imports have risen almost twice as much—by 108 per cent. World manufactured exports have risen by 87 per cent. Again, that paints a rather alarming picture of how we are doing against the increase in world trade.
      Since 1979, our share of world manufactured exports has fallen by 15 per cent., if measured, as is most accurate, at constant prices. That is an alarming picture, which is confirmed by figures for the change in manufacturing trade balance since 1979, again as a percentage of our national
      640
      wealth, our GDP. Of the 22 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for which figures are available, the United Kingdom comes 21st.
      Mr. Tim Smith: If we put those figures into a longer historical context and look at our record since the second world war, would we not find that a 59 per cent. increase in export manufactures in the past 12 years was rather a good performance and that our percentage of world trade has stabilised during the past five or six years, which is a remarkable achievement compared with the continual decline of previous decades?
      Mrs. Beckett: That would be a remarkable achievement if it were so, but, unfortunately, it is not. I agree that there was a period when our share of world trade reached a plateau and we all began to hope that the position would improve, but that is no longer the case. The overall picture that is emerging is of continuing decline. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that that has happened not only under this Government, but it has continued to happen under this Government, who have continually told us that they have enjoyed a dramatic success such as was not enjoyed by previous Governments in previous decades. Yet, comparing our performance with that of our competitors, we have done poorly—although, as we must always remind the House, we had the enormous advantage of income from the North sea, which we could have used to invest and improve that very performance. That is the evidence from the trade balance of the difficulties that we are experiencing with our manufactured trade.
      I should like to produce more evidence as to the scale of the problems and why it is that the Opposition believe that manufacturing should be given so high a priority. If we look at the position of our EC competitors, there is no doubt that there has been what the Prime Minister likes to call a decline in manufacturing activity in other countries as well as here. Unfortunately, however, there is equally clear evidence to show that the decline that we are experiencing is much worse than that of our competitors.
      4.30 pm
      The Eurostat data on production expectations show clearly that the United Kingdom has the deepest recession. When it comes to stocks of finished products, the data show that we are more or less level pegging, in bottom position, with Spain and France. Overall, the figures show clearly that we are experiencing a more severe recession than anyone else.
      If we consider the OECD countries and whether there is evidence there of a more general decline, we see that there are countries where, just as in this country, output is likely to have been lower in 1990, and that it fell for much of 1990. In other countries, the picture is somewhat mixed. Output began to rise, and fell again. In terms of the severity of the recession, however, what comes through clearly is that only in Canada or Greece is there anything like the scale of recession that there is in the United Kingdom. Even there, the picture is not as gloomy as, unfortunately, it is in this country.
      From the rate of growth of manufacturing output in OECD countries between 1979 and 1990, it is clear that, in percentage terms, out of all the 16 OECD countries for which figures are available, the United Kingdom came 14th. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry drew the attention of the House to the most recent and alarming figures that we have produced

      641
      for average output. We have considered what is likely to happen, using the Government's own forecasts, during the coming year and have looked at what that means in terms of the change in output since 1979 when this Government came to power. On average, they show that output will have risen only by a mere 6 per cent. over that period of 11 years.
      If we look at the most recent figures that are available to me—those for February 1991—we see that the picture is even worse than the average figures that we quoted previously. If we take the period from May 1979 to February 1991, the total increase in manufacturing output in that period amounted to a mere 3·5 per cent. These are extremely worrying figures, at a time when we are approaching the single market in 1992. We shall face more severe challenges then than we have experienced for a substantial period.
      That is the information which has been made available to the House, and it shows the scale of the difficulties that we face. It brings me to the question of what we are doing about them and what action is being taken. If we look at the only measure that can possibly begin to remedy these problems—the trend of developments with regard to investment—again we see an extremely alarming picture. The figures for business investment and total investment—figures that the Government normally like to give—have taken a nose dive in the most recent months. They fell by a greater amount than we have seen since the great depression of the 1930s. If we compare the figures for the first half of 1990 to the first half of this year, we see that a decline in investment is predicted of perhaps as much as 12 per cent. Again there is no question but that that is very much the overall pattern.
      The figures for investment as a proportion of gross domestic product have fallen almost continuously. Perhaps there was a slight recovery towards the middle of the 1980s. However, they are substantially below the figures that this Government inherited in 1979, and they are very much below the pattern of what was spent on investment in this country in previous years under successive Governments.
      The figures for manufacturing fixed investment at constant 1985 prices show that investment is expected to come in at a lower level than that which the Government inherited in 1979. If the most recent forecasts from the Confederation of British Industry turn out be correct—we must all hope that they will not the figures for manufacturing fixed investment are likely to go back to the levels that we saw in the 1960s. That is no way to prepare ourselves for the challenges of the single market in 1992.
      If we look at what our competitors are doing in manufacturing fixed investments, on the figures per person employed in manufacturing among the OECD 15, we see, on the most recent figures that we have, the United Kingdom coming in 14th. As those were the figures for 1988, when, by the Government's standards, there was something of an investment boom, the position now may be even worse.
      Nor is that the case only for investment in manufacturing generally. Our competitors are increasing their investment in research and development, but if we look at the change in Government-funded civil research and development, we come 18th out of the OECD 19 for the period 1985–89, when, we are told, there was a boom in investment. If we look at the figures for Government-funded research and development as a percentage of gross
      642
      domestic product, we see that we are 12th out of the OECD 19 and, in terms of per head of population, we are 13th out of the OECD 19.
      In summary, manufacturing output is falling; manufacturing investment as a percentage of gross domestic product has fallen since 1979 by 12·7 per cent. at constant prices; manufacturing fixed investment, excluding leased assets by almost 15 per cent.; and that including leased assets by almost 14 per cent. That is an alarming picture when we consider the background to these figures and this summary.
      That brings me to the prospects for recovery. The Chancellor said the other day that recovery was around the corner, but I am not sure what corner that is. It must be one that is rather a long way away. According to the Government's figures in the Red Book, the recovery will be consumer-led rather than, as one would hope, investment-led and laying the foundations for a more prosperous economy.
      I am not sure how many hon. Members have seen the report in the Financial Times this morning of the most recent survey of expectations from academics, economists, study institutions and others. It shows increasing anxiety about the strength of the recovery, when it begins, and a suggestion that it might be fragile and weak at best. There are worries about the Government's reliance on growth in real incomes and consumer spending rather than in structural improvements to pull us out of recession and into recovery.
      Perhaps most interesting of all—given the Government's time scale, which seems to be focusing on the general election—the economists predict that, although there will be a recovery and inflation will begin to fall, by early 1992 inflation will have begun to climb again, interest rates will have stopped falling and the trade gap will have begun to widen. That is an alarming prospect for the country and a difficult one for the Government, who are clearly trying to time the election for that period after the recovery has occurred and before the deterioration that is so widely expected becomes evident.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): So the hon. Lady admits that there will be a recovery.
      Mrs. Beckett: We have never denied that there will be a recovery. I am astonished at the Chief Secretary, who is brighter than he is trying to pretend. Of course there will be a recovery. When the economy is absolutely flat on the floor, the situation would be desperate indeed if there were never to be a recovery. The question is when it will occur, to what extent, and—most important of all—whether it can be sustained. We have to ask ourselves whether this country is taking the necessary action to prepare itself for long-term prosperity rather than short-term recovery, which, it is predicted, will be—in the words of the Chancellor about the recession—possibly shallow and short-lived.
      I should like, in this context, to draw attention to these words of the president of the CBI:
      "Investment in training, innovation, research and development, as well as in fixed capital, adds to the nation's productive capacity, enhances its efficiency and speeds up its eventual economic recovery."
      The following words fit in very well with the observations of a variety of experts I have been quoting:
      "If we do not expand this capacity we will not be able to sustain renewed economic growth for very long. Once industry is back working near its full capacity, further

      643
      increases in spending could not be met with higher output but would simply result in those familiar problems of rising prices, surging imports and current account deficits, which we experienced in the late 1980s."
      Against that background, I am moving this amendment to enable us to raise the issue of investment allowances specifically targeted at manufacturing industry. This is in complete contrast to the underlying philosophy behind the changes that the Government are making through the Budget and the Finance Bill. The reduction in the rate of corporation tax will lead to reduced business costs across the board. No doubt that is welcome to businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, but the benefit is not targeted at any group of companies or any sector of the economy. The welcome, however, is tempered by realisation of the fact that the reduction in business costs is counterbalanced by increases in business costs, such as the one resulting from the change in national insurance contributions. Then there are those matters that are not covered by the Finance Bill, such as changes in the statutory sick pay scheme and the increase in the business rate, which have added substantially to business costs, and which everyone knows are matters of considerable concern to industry and commerce.
      Let me refer to what the Opposition see as the real significance of the Government's decision to concentrate on cuts in the rate of corporation tax, rather than to provide the investment allowances for which so much of industry was calling. I know that some groups, such as the Institute of Directors, are always pleading for cuts in tax rates, but the Government must be aware of the widespread view that investment allowances—particularly allowances targeted at manufacturing industry—would have been the right means of helping business. The Government must be aware of the views of the Engineering Employers' Federation, the CBI and the TUC. We all know, of course, that they ignore the TUC.
      The really revealing fact is that, even when industry itself asks the Government to do something that would not reduce business costs across the board but give priority to the encouragement of investment—directly in manufacturing, and indirectly in training—the Government are not prepared to agree. The resources available to the Government are bound to be limited. In response to the call for targeted help, particularly for those sectors of industry that are the agents of recovery, the agents of growth, surely the Government ought to take account of that fact, especially when we are in the depths of such a recession, and when we have such a record of difficulties.
      The decision not to reintroduce investment allowances, but instead to cut the rate of corporation tax, was not a practical one dictated by the recession, by a wish to promote investment more than anything else—in particular, to promote investment in manufacturing industry. It was an ideological decision—a decision that fits in with the overall attitude, which the Government have adopted for so many years, that, even when industry itself seeks targeted help of this kind, they should stand aloof and say that it has nothing to do with them. The Government's attitude is that they should make changes for the whole of industry, and leave the rest to individual firms. They do not care whether companies use assistance for the purpose of repairing their balance sheets, rather than for investment purposes.
      644
      4.45 pm
      That, too, is closely related to the speech that the Chancellor made last week—to the Adam Smith Institute, I think—in which he said that the Government intended to continue to pursue exactly the course that they have pursued for the past 11 or 12 years. They intend to stand aloof from industry and say, "Get on with it, and don't expect us to involve ourselves in any way. Don't expect us to make even the most indirect choices about the priorities that you should be pursuing." This is particularly interesting to me, because the decision to follow the path—advocated by the Institute of Directors—of reducing the rate of taxation and increasing taxes on expenditure ties in with the long-term approach that that institute is urging on the Government. It seeks the erosion, and, over five or 10 years, the ultimate abolition, of all taxes on companies, all taxes on capital and, indeed, all taxes on income.
      Perhaps some increases in taxes on expenditure are necessary, but what is sought, as a quid pro quo for those changes, is the disappearance of what is loosely described as the welfare state, which is taken for granted by so many people in this country. The Institute of Directors has the courage to do what the Government have never had the courage to do—explicitly to explain that, as a trade-off for cuts in tax rates, leading to substantial reductions in taxes, it would like to see the Government foster increased use of private retirement insurance, private education insurance, private unemployment insurance and private health insurance—with a scheme retained and supported by the state only for the destitute, for whom, clearly, the move towards private insurance schemes as a whole cannot be sustained.
      To me, it is very revealing, as well as very frightening, that the Government intend to continue along the ideological path on which they have embarked, which ties in so well with the action that is urged on them by groups such as the Institute of Directors and the No Turning Back group of Conservative Members of Parliament. This measure is a signal, like those provided by the Chancellor, that there is indeed no change in the Government's attitude to industry; no change in the role that they see for themselves; no recognition of the need for any kind of partnership with industry and commerce; no recognition—worse of all, in the face of the alarming figures indicating the real prospects for our economy—that they have a duty to plan, in the national interest, to sustain the long-term competitiveness of our economy. The Opposition have tabled this amendment because they see a very clear ideological and philosophical divide with the Government on the issue. Unfortunately, actions such as those which the Government have taken will not contribute to the long-term prosperity of the country.
      Mr. Mellor: Clause 22, to which this amendment relates, is straightforward. I say "straightforward" because the density, when one comes to Finance Bills from other legislation, takes some getting used to. On this occasion, I have the advantage of starting off with something that is reasonably straightforward. I do not need a long glossary to enable me to comprehend the basic language. The other clause that I shall be dealing with tonight, clause 23, has the advantage of being even more straightforward.
      It may be appropriate just to recall, before we plunge into the thicket of point and counterpoint, that subsection (1) of clause 22 reduces the corporation tax rate for the

      645
      financial year 1990 from 35 per cent. to 34 per cent. and, of course, it is linked to clauses 23 and 24. Clause 23 reduces the corporation tax rate to 33 per cent. for the year 1991 and clause 24 deals with changes to the small companies' rate. The other two subsections of clause 22 deal with the taper mechanism between the level at which the small companies' rate applies and the profit levels before one arrives at the full rate of 34 per cent. It makes certain adjustments to that so that there is no great cliff edge between the small companies' rate and the main rate.
      As this is one of the centrepieces of the Budget, it is appropriate that we should start with it today. A major reduction is being proposed, in this and related clauses, in the tax burden on industry. Although obviously it is the duty of Oppositions to carp and cavil—and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has carped and cavilled—this is a very significant step forward, because, as I shall later demonstrate, it once again gives us the keenest corporation tax rates of any of the world's major economies. That is something of which we can be proud.
      As for the lyrical picture that we were painted of what life was apparently like in the 1970s—although I am bound to say that I do not remember it that way and I wonder who, in truth, does—it is worth remembering that in 1979 the main rate of corporation tax was 52 per cent. We are debating a proposal to reduce it to 34 per cent. and we hope that in a subsequent debate the House will approve its reduction to 33 per cent. Back in those balmy days of 1978–79, Labour's last full financial year, the small companies' rate was 42 per cent. Today it is 25 per cent. In those days, 12 years ago, the small companies' rate——
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mellor: I will give way when I have finished giving the figures. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has some responsibility for these matters, so I will present him with the full picture and then happily give way.
      The small companies' rate was incurred on profits of £60,000. Our proposal is that in 1991 the small companies' rate shall not apply until profits of £250,000 are attained—over four times as much in cash terms, so a very substantial increase in real terms.
      The marginal relief threshold, the taper that applies up to the main level, means that we propose that this year a company shall become liable to pay the full rate of corporation tax only when its profits exceed £1·25 million. That contrasts with the threshold at which full corporation tax was paid under Labour of £100,000. It is an increase of over 1200 per cent. That is a sign of just how dramatic has been the reduction of the tax burden on industry and it is something that we should never forget.
      Mr. Sheldon: Is that a fair way to make that comparison? Surely the comparison should be made with the amount that industry paid out in corporation tax. There were allowances and reliefs of a number of kinds, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and industry asks only how much it will have to pay. It is not just these headline figures that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting out. On that basis, industry is doing very badly at the present time and more assistance needs to be given to it.
      Mr. Mellor: It is certainly true that part of the trade-off for the reduction in corporation tax was the removal of some elements of capital allowance, stock allowances and so on. I was proposing to come to that, since it is of the essence in the debate between us. But it is undoubtedly true that the burden of taxation on business has been lightened by the Government and it is the purpose of the Budget to burden industry even less. That is a principal theme of this Budget.
      It is worth referring to some international comparisons to make the point. They show that our main rate of corporation tax for 1991, at 33 per cent., compares with a rate of 50 per cent. in Germany—36 per cent. on distributed profits—and over 40 per cent. in a range of other EC countries.
      The comparison becomes even more interesting when one looks at the total tax burden on business as a percentage of total gross domestic product—that is, counting in taxes on corporate profits, employers' social security contributions and payroll taxes and then expressing it as a percentage of total GDP for the last year for which figures are available, which is 1988. That shows that in the United Kingdom corporate profits are 4 per cent. and total social security contributions 3·5 per cent., leading to a total burden of 7·5 per cent., expressed as a percentage of total GDP. That compares with 15 per cent. in France, 12·4 per cent. in Italy and over 9 per cent. in West Germany. So, compared to the EC average, at 7·5 per cent. we are markedly and handily below the EC average of 9·7 per cent. and below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 8·9 per cent.
      If one wants a reason why Britain, far from being the investment desert that the hon. Lady has described, has become the favoured place for inward investment in the European Community, there it is. I see that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is amused by this, so I will give him the opportunity later to intervene. If any of my figures are wrong, I hope that he will correct me and put me out of my misery.
      Thirty-nine per cent. of the inward investment in the European Community from outside the Community in the last year for which figures are available, 1989, came to Britain. France was next with just over 14 per cent. Of the inward investment available from the major non-EC manufacturing countries, no less than two thirds of United States' investment in the EC came to the United Kingdom, as did 40 per cent. of the Japanese. That is a vote of confidence in the United Kingdom and in the tax rates, and not just the tax rates on business but the tax rates on individuals, which are just as relevant.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. I was not in any sense scoffing at the idea or prospect of inward investment, which is very welcome and essential. I was scoffing at the Chief Secretary's denial of the fact that we have at the moment in this country an investment desert. That is precisely what we have. Investment in industry as a whole is forecast by the Government themselves to fall by 10 per cent. in the course of this year, and investment in manufacturing industry is forecast to fall by even more. Investment in manufacturing industry is now at a lower level than when the Government came into office 12 years ago. I call that an investment desert.
      Mr. Mellor: Most of the hon. Gentleman's comparisons are with the position at a historic high achieved under the very tax regime that the hon. Member for Derby, South spent most of her time attacking. The reduction in corporate taxation and the overall confidence in the United Kingdom engendered by a whole range of supply-side measures, particularly the breaking of the stranglehold of trade unions over so much of the economic activity in the country, led to a tremendous outburst of investment in this country. Between 1986 and 1989 alone investment increased by over 40 per cent. It is inevitable that there will be a falling-off from that peak, but the fact that it may fall by 10 per cent. does not seem to me to be any kind of indictment of the situation in which we find ourselves.
      Mr. Denzil Davies rose——
      Mr. Mellor: I will develop the argument, if I may, and then of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Davies rose——
      Mr. Mellor: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall give way to him when I have fully answered the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. That is the way that I have always dealt with matters in Committee and I hope that it finds favour with other hon. Members—[Interruption]apart from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who has a voice of dissent which should he registered.
      5 pm
      If we take investment in manufacturing at constant 1985 prices, in 1984, when the fundamental changes in the corporation tax regime were made, it was £8·9 billion. In 1989 it rose to £12·4 billion. It is true that in 1990 it fell back to £11·9 billion. That is a reflection of the dramatic increase in recent years. There is absolutely no reason to expect that investment will not go back once confidence is restored and activity begins to turn up, as the hon. Lady conceded that it will. We know that it will.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Having had a low rate of taxation in comparison with the Germans, and having had a massive investment boom over the past three or four years, why have we such a massive deficit on trade and manufacturing goods with those very EC countries that have a higher rate of corporation tax?
      Mr. Mellor: In fact, we have for the first time, in 1988 and 1989, seen an increase in Britain's share or world manufactured exports.
      Mr. Davies: Answer the question.
      Mr. Mellor: I am answering the question. The right hon. Gentleman does not do himself much service by barracking me from a sedentary position. I will give the explanation and, if he wants to intervene again, I will let him. He might listen to the answer because I hope that it will get near the point.
      The point is that for the first time, after years and years and years of decline, Britain's share of world manufacturing exports has started to rise—by a very small amount, it is true. The fact that our manufacturing trade balance is in deficit with a number of countries is a reflection of consumer choice and the tremendous increase in wealth.
      I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example. As a former Treasury Minister he will recall that the man on
      648
      average wages, with a non-working wife and two dependent children, was £1 a week better off in real terms at the end of Labour's period of office than at the beginning of it. Today that same family is £72 a week better off in real terms. Obviously a great deal of that spending power is expressed in purchasing imported goods. There is no doubt about it. Everyone associated with British manufacturing is only too well aware that, although British manufacturers have improved their performance in a range of areas, not least the car industry, which under the Government has been much more of a success story than it ever was under Labour——
      Mr. Denzil Davies rose——
      Mr. Mellor: I will finish the point and then I shall give way. There are still areas in which, when put to the choice in a free market—it is impossible within the European Community to think in other terms, notwithstanding Labour's nostalgia for import controls and such things—many British families prefer to buy overseas goods. That is their free choice.
      Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman made an admission. As I understand it, he is saying that one reason why we have a massive balance of payments deficit is that the Government have cut taxation and income taxation. Is that what he is saying?
      Mr. Mellor: That seems to be an argument by the right hon. Gentleman that he does not like people having more money in their pockets. That is a nonsensical position. We believe in spreading prosperity through society. Indeed, our record on that is far superior. When the right hon. Gentleman walks round his constituency and goes into people's kitchens, where he sees cookers, transistor radios and hi-fi systems, does he abuse the people for spending their money on imported goods, or does he resent the fact that today they have those goods when 12 years ago they did not? That is part and parcel of living in a society where the consumer, given resources, will make his or her choice, as is right.
      The Government decided in 1984 to move to sharp reductions in the direct taxation of companies. As to the consequences, I have already pointed to the tremendous increase in investment in business which was so apparent and which will happen again, and also to the tremendous growth in jobs. Over 3 million jobs have been created in our economy since 1983.
      Contrary to the industry-friendly gloss that the hon. Lady put on her proposal, what we see is really the second leg of Labour's twin attack on industry. The attack mounted today is an assault on the principle of letting industry choose what it wants to do with its own money. The idea is that a raft of incentives to invest, not yet disclosed but presumably not in things that industry would choose but in things that the Labour party would want to choose for industry, is to be preferred to allowing industry to have choice.
      All the evidence of the seven years since the dramatic switch was made is that not only has investment increased, but the quality of investment has increased. I do not want that to dominate the debate. There will be plenty of other opportunities for that. It will be a most interesting debate.
      On Sunday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) revealed the precise extent of Labour's attack on the very people who are running

      649
      business—the middle managers and top management on whom our success depends. Under Labour, they would find their rate of tax increased from 40 per cent. to 59 per cent. All that would happen then would be an increase in the brain drain. We thought that we had done away with the brain drain.
      The record shows that between 1975 and 1979 there was a net outflow of 68,000 professional and managerial people, whereas between 1983 and 1989 there was a net inflow of 30,000. That is part and parcel of creating a tax system which allows the decision-takers within industry, on whom a successful base depends, to keep a sensible proportion of their income. It is already being trailed in the newspapers that if people feel that they are returning to the tax rates that prevailed 10 years ago, they will again vote with their feet. Those are all reasons why the Labour party's proposals will come under increasing scruitiny.
      I was anxious to focus primarily on company taxation. Now I shall deal with the amendment, which is extremely vague. The hon. Lady did not give us a crucial fact among the welter of statistics: what would be the cost of the attempt to determine for industry its investment decisions? We have had difficulty with that because much of the amendment is extremely vague. It is a classic example of the Opposition trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they are trying to hold out to those interested in the outside world that they have a precise set of remedies which mean that they will do better than we are doing, while on the other they withhold key pieces of information which allow the full implications of what they are doing to sink in. They must not think that we are not alive to that fact.
      The amendment appears on one reading to be merely giving away a lot of money after deadweight investment. It appears to be willing ex post facto to subsidise certain investments that have already been made. I cannot see the point of that. Even if only new investment will be affected, even on a cautious estimate—for instance, costing the difference between the existing and the proposed reliefs for new investment only, assuming that investment continues at its present level, and not building in any increase that may take place within the period—in 1991–92 the likely enhanced cost would be about £200 million and in 1992–93 it would be a further £150 million.
      Of course, the hon. Lady has not told us where that fits in with Labour's spending priorities, and what would have to give. The amendment gives a hint—a little tease—of an increase in corporation tax, which would be used to pay for it. That shows what the hon. Lady correctly described as a philosophical divide between the two parties. The Government believe in leaving industry to make decisions, based on it maximising the amount of profit that it retains in its hands for its own uses. In the long term, that will create a much more dynamic economy. I would rather trust a business man to make the decisions than the men in Whitehall. Labour is hankering back to the dirigiste approach to economic management that failed when it was last in office, and that has now been shown comprehensively to fail in those eastern European countries where it was the prevailing orthodoxy.
      Mrs. Beckett: It is important to put on the record the fact that we have repeatedly said that we have no intention
      650
      of increasing the rate of corporation tax. The Chief Secretary should be aware of that, but if he is not I am happy to tell him.
      Mr. Mellor: What I do not understand—and perhaps the hon. Lady will explain it to me—is the meaning of the reference in the amendment to a rate of corporation tax of 34·01 per cent. That is the proposed increase in the rate of corporation tax——
      Mrs. Beckett: The Chief Secretary's civil servants could have explained that to him without any difficulty. It is purely a question of the technicalities of how to draft an amendment while being in order.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Lady does not understand her own amendment.
      Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that was an extraordinarily silly comment. Of course we understand our amendment. We had to draft the amendment in a certain way so that it would be in order for the tabling of amendments to the Finance Bill. There is no, and never has been any, suggestion of the Labour party increasing the rate of corporation tax.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her clarity. It appears that, although the amendment proposes an increase in corporation tax, under pressure the hon. Lady said that she did not really mean it and it was just an attempt to keep within order. If so, that raises the question of what will pay for the proposal. Does she agree that, even on the most cautious estimate, it will cost at least £200 million in the first year and £150 million in the second year? Has she costed the proposal?
      Mrs. Beckett: It is difficult to obtain accurate costings—a point that the Chief Secretary also made. We are offering our alternative to the Government's proposals and the Chief Secretary has identified the sums involved. If we targeted that sort of money on encouraging investment in manufacturing industry, rather than simply handing out money to industry, as the Government are doing in the Bill, there would be more value for our money.
      Mr. Mellor: This is just a taste of things to come. As we get closer to an election, suddenly the newspapers are interested not only in what the Government are doing, but in what the Labour party is doing. That was evident in this weekend's newspapers. We now have another classic example of the Labour party's gesture politics. It is making a gesture towards what it regards as a disaffected section of the business community—those who would hanker after the good old days of investment allowances. It is flinging a little something in their direction as a bit of a tease without being prepared to say what that amounts to.
      When put on the spot, the Labour party says that its proposal will not require an increase in corporation tax—it is to be a free lunch. It will be a further subsidy to business, and someone will have to pay for it. I thought that we now had a Labour party of fiscal rectitude, with everything that is spent having to be paid for. We have not been given the costings for this proposal. Instead, we are told that it is a virtue of a detailed amendment—not a Second Reading debate or an Opposition Supply day—running to more than 20 lines not to provide any costings. Our cautious costing of £200 million, which does not assume any subsidy of pre-existing investment, is simply to

      651
      be added to the dead weight of Labour's spending proposals—for which, sooner or later, people will have to pick up the tab.
      The Leader of the Opposition misunderstands the fundamental basis of VAT, and we have been told that VAT is sacrosanct. We have also been told that the top rate of income tax absolutely will not go above 50 per cent. We are now told that corporation tax will not be increased. The range of choices from which the additional resources could come is now rather limited. Indeed, there is only one source—and this will not surprise anyone who admired the career of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he was Chancellor—and that is income tax. The burden will fall on middle and lower-income, standard rate taxpayers. That is the uncomfortable truth that will become increasingly apparent.
      5.15 pm
      Labour Governments regularly start by soaking the rich. By the end of the time in office of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the rich had come to embrace even those poor souls who were hoping for an inflation increase in the income tax threshold to take them out of income tax, but the right hon. Gentleman was unable to afford that for large parts of his stewardship.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Can the Chief Secretary explain why in 1979 the share of gross domestic product taken in tax by the Exchequer was 34 per cent., but it is now 37·5 per cent.?
      Mr. Mellor: There has been a dramatic increase in a whole range of activities. Even with the urgent prioritisation that we have undertaken, there has been an increase in public expenditure. We fund our expenditure; we do not rely—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear this point because they do not like it. Under the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, in one year alone, at today's prices, the public sector borrowing requirement was £60 billion. I have already said, but it bears repeating, that the Labour party believes in the late President Hoover's proposition, "Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt." The Labour party would saddle future generations with costs that it is not prepared to fund properly.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury increasingly must focus on the fact that if that is what it takes for the Government to run honest public finances and the level of public expenditure that we are currently running, how on earth will the Labour party cope with the public expenditure that will be needed to fulfil its pledges? The Labour party apparently wishes to remain constant to the exchange rate mechanism, which will not allow it to run up a huge public sector borrowing requirement without threatening Britain's position within the system.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for acknowledging that the Government have increased the tax burden on the British people. Will he also confirm that, for a family on three quarters of the average wage, the tax burden has increased from 30·9 per cent. of income in 1978–79 to 33·6 per cent. in 1991–92?
      Mr. Mellor: That question does not deal with the points that will be of most relevance to such families: their income, the amount by which it has increased, and the real increase in their prosperity. I have already given the figures. The disposable income of all families, including those below the average wage, has increased sharply. If it
      652
      has been necessary for the Government to take certain measures to put public finances on a level that attracts international confidence, and so allows us to maintain our position within the ERM—to which the Labour party says it is as committed as the Government—and if it has been necessary to prioritise public expenditure and so increase expenditure on key public services, such as health, by up to 50 per cent. in real terms, what are the prospects for the Labour party, with its raft of additional spending commitments, yet without any proposals on how to fund them? It will not be able to run up the public sector borrowing requirement in the way that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East took for granted. That is something on which the Opposition will need to focus because we shall return to it in due course, although at a time that is almost certainly not now.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that precisely the same people would suffer under Labour as suffered last time, the school teachers and the nurses, who suffered from massively increased taxation and national insurance contributions and who, under the Opposition's categorisation, will be known as the rich? They certainly were not rich under Labour. They are a great deal better off now.
      Mr. Mellor: Indeed, and a number of such groups saw a fall in the real spending power of their incomes during that period.
      Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister think that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) knows that this Government put up the rate of national insurance contributions from 6 to 9 per cent.?
      Mr. Mellor: We are talking about people's disposable incomes. That is the key point. When we talk to our constituents on the doorstep, we discover that they are concerned about what they can buy this year compared with five or 10 years ago. On that test, this has been one of the most spectacularly successful decades ever in Britain. I suspect that, as the election approaches and the Labour party's expenditure proposals are scrutinised with the rigour that they will be, and their tax proposals similarly, people will begin to realise that these are boons which do not necessarily translate into a new Government, unless it happens to be a Conservative Government.
      The hon. Lady, as she was bound to do, has attempted to discredit the Government's record on the treatment of industry, but she knows only too well that whatever quibbles there may be from time to time in a relationship in which industry will always feel free to make its points, as we feel free to make ours, two things emerge from all that has been said by the CBI, the Institute of Directors and others. First, there is a recognition of the tremendous success of the 1980s and the fundamental and beneficial changes that were made to the United Kingdom economy then. Secondly, there is the welcome that they gave to the Budget. I have already quoted in these debates—I shall not weary the House further with them, although I could if pressed—the glowing welcome given to the Budget by every collective body representing industries, such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
      I shall just quote the president of the CBI, Sir Brian Corby, who said:

      653
      "This is almost precisely the Budget that the CBI recommended—a Budget for soundly based recovery, for saving and for investment. The prospect for further reductions in interest rates, the resumption of growth and low inflation are better tonight than they were this morning. The Chancellor has listened to those who create the nation's wealth."
      Obviously, in what is not a monochrome society, and I hope never will be, there will be some who will look back with nostalgia to the good old days of investment allowances and so on, but I do not think that there are all that many of those. Most people recognise that in the end a business that retains more of its profits will be better able to direct itself and to make its own decisions, which should not be distorted by Government.
      So much of the debate, which inevitably, Sir Paul, as the first debate on this year's Finance Bill, you have been kind enough to allow to go a little wider than the immediate matter under discussion,comes down to the recession and its ending. It is clear from all sides that, while undoubtedly this has been a sharp and difficult period through which companies have had to go and are still having to go, a growth of optimism is now becoming apparent. It was apparent last week in the CBI's latest analysis of opinion. It is even more apparent today with the publication of the Institute of Directors' bi-monthly survey which shows optimism about the economy recovering sharply at plus 33 per cent. from minus 64 per cent. in February, directors' confidence about prospects for their own companies up to plus 37 per cent. from minus 36 per cent. in February, and 35 per cent. of respondents expecting a positive net investment in the next six months.
      I appreciate that many companies still have a good way to go, but I believe that it is clear that confidence has returned and that what we are proposing in the Finance Bill will assist industry's cash flow, will assist in the building of that confidence and will assist in the measured and strong recovery of the British economy from the difficulties of the last several months. On that basis, I hope that in due course the House will not accept the Opposition's amendment but will endorse the principles of clause 22.
      Mr. Sheldon: The Chief Secretary quoted with approval those who had accepted many of the arguments of the Budget and who had welcomed it. I, like many others, have in my time made the fairly obvious comment that a Budget that is cheered when the Chancellor sits down is often disliked and disapproved of by the time we reach Third Reading. lain Macleod was one of those who made that comment.
      Another comment that lain Macleod made during the course of a Finance Bill debate was that one of the least useful arguments in discussing any amendment is to talk about its defective aspects and to pick holes in it. He pointed out frequently, and eventually silenced those who opposed the argument, of which I was not one, that it is the Government who have the resources to cost measures and to make the proper amendments if they feel convinced by the arguments. I recommend that course of action to the Chief Secretary and others on the Treasury Bench.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was right to table an amendment of this kind on one of the crucial issues of our time. It is of enormous importance that we realise the damage that has been done
      654
      to manufacturing industry and come to accept the need for changes in so many aspects of the way in which Governments deal with it. There was a time when the Government scorned manufacturing industry; it was just one of many, and it was the service industries that were the industries of the future. It was only as time went on that they began to realise—it has come rather late, and it has not come wholeheartedly even now in some quarters—that the importance of manufacturing industry is that it is the base of the economy from which so many things follow.
      The fact that there has been a loss of investment means that we shall find ourselves in great difficulties in getting our balance of trade right. The important thing about our balance of trade is that, if investment has been so good, why do we have a balance of trade deficit at present? Why is our balance of payments currently so weak? We are in the middle of a deep recession, and no one can underestimate its extent. Everything that is said about the future of the recession is only guess work; nobody knows. I, and I am sure many other hon. Members here, speak to a number of business men every week, and we know that there is no question but that they are suffering and that the problems are even more serious in manufacturing industry. It is right that we should press these matters upon the Government and inform them of what is really going on in the country at present.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why investment has not borne fruit in trade is that, in the main, it has been in non-tradable activities such as banking, finance, communication and property?. Investment in tradable activities—items that have been traded across the exchanges—has been very low.
      Mr. Sheldon: That is absolutely right. It is a point that I would certainly wish to make myself. My hon. Friend knows my addiction to investment in plant and machinery. It is that which is the fountainhead of exports of manufactured goods. I have always wanted to encourage such investment. Investment can be a carpet in an office, making a grand office which produces nothing but which creates an impression. Britain needs to increase its manufacturing exports, but given the increase in world trade, that is not enough; imports must be considered as well. The European Community, as well as the general agreement on tariffs and trade, has played a part in increasing world trade, which I wholeheartedly welcome. However, our exports need to rise with it, and Britain is rather weak in that respect.
      Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman was rightly enthusing about the European Community, but I cannot go along with his view concerning protectionism. The draft treaty articles prepared with a view to achieving political union have been resolutely kept away from the Library for some time. However, a copy has been deposited in the House, and is now available. It is known as a non-paper, but in the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, perhaps he would care to consider the implications of that draft treaty on a single currency and on other measures that some of us might regard as rather protectionist.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Sheldon: I have always been in favour of a Europe that is open and free, but I have discerned a number of restrictive aspects in the Community. I was merely referring to the increase in world trade and to Britain's need to export more manufactured goods to match it.
      Whenever one talks today to industrialists, or to the executives of any type of company, a large part of the conversation always concerns credit control. People are worried stiff about firms going under, others paying late, and still others turning into bad debts. I welcome the Budget's provisions for bad debt relief, but it is only giving back money that companies should never have risked in the first place had they known that a bad debt was likely to develop. It is a useful provision, but not a cause for much satisfaction.
      I know of some companies that are having to reprogramme their computers to allow not for 120 days credit—which is the normal period at the top of the range—but for 150, 180 or even 210 days, in calculating how they stand in relation to some of their slow payers. One used to pay value added tax in arrears, which produced a cash flow, but today VAT generates a negative cash flow, in most cases, if not all, which is a burden on industry that it did not used to bear to anything like the same extent.
      Companies are compelled to divert a substantial portion of their resources to credit control. One can tell from recruitment advertising that credit control managers—some of whom have almost reached the status of directors—are much more important than they used to be. Much of that is due to high interest rates and inflation.
      A country's balance of trade is a serious matter when it is in the middle of a recession. No one knows when. or if, recovery will come. It is all pure guesswork. President Hoover spoke about recovery being around the corner, and about "normalcy". He really believed that nonsense, but had no basis for doing so. The only basis for our faith in a recovery is our belief that the world is subject to a virtuous cycle of growth, interrupted by recession now and again. However, we cannot know when things will change, or if they will change. No one can predict whether an improvement will come in the summer, autumn or winter. Anyone who wants to try, by reading the entrails of a chicken, is welcome to do so—but all those people who speak of a recovery have no more insight than anyone else.
      We used to have stock relief when inflation increased, because companies were being charged corporation tax on notional profits. They were buying their stock at a higher value, and being charged higher corporation tax accordingly. The same is happening today. If inflation is running at 10 per cent., and one is paying corporation tax of 33, 34 or 35 per cent., one is being charged 3 per cent. extra because of one's stockholding. Worse still, the biggest stockholder is manufacturing industry, which not only has stock but work in progress.
      Mr. Tim Smith: My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Treasury Ministers who introduced stock relief in 1975 when inflation was running at 25 per cent. Company cash flow became so dire that there was no alternative, if widespread liquidations throughout industry were to be avoided. Surely getting down inflation should be the priority, because then we would not have to worry about whether or not to tax stock.
      Mr. Sheldon: I could not agree more, but one must remember that the inflation of 25·9 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred resulted from the boom in oil prices, which increased fivefold. In 1980, Britain had 21·9 per cent. inflation as a result of the Government's own stupid actions after they had been in office a year. That arose from the belief that VAT could be doubled but that prices would not be affected because the Government controlled the money supply. Rarely has such economic nonsense been spoken in the House than at that time, when the Government claimed that inflation at 21·9 per cent. could not happen because they would restrict pay levels by the monetary aggregate being held in check. I agree that the best thing is to reduce inflation—but where it exists, it must be dealt with and brought down in other ways.
      Recovery is supposed to come from consumer confidence. What is that meant to mean? Is it meant to mean spending our way out of a recession? Are we really looking for a consumer boom? Is that the proper way to achieve recovery? I have never heard such nonsense. It is ridiculous to engineer a boom for political reasons. Real recovery can come only through investment or exports. One way of achieving that is to increase investment so that British industry can both improve its exports and compete better with imports. One should never underestimate the importance of import competition. More firms have closed as a consequence of import competition ruining their industry, and because of their failure to act, than from their failure to achieve desirable export levels.
      The great economies became dominant through manufacturing industry—not through the provision of services or by devising clever ideas in the City. They are important, but they should translate industrial success into commercial success. That is their value.
      One thinks of the great British economy of the 19th century, of the United States towards the end of last century and up to the start of the second world war, and of today's great economies of Germany and Japan. They were all created through manufacturing industry. Those of us who wantonly ignore that truth are failing to learn one of the most important lessons of our time.
      When Britain faced great problems in the past, we tended to unite and to deal with those difficulties in a sensible way that satisfied the expectations of most people, if not all. We have failed utterly to do so on this occasion, which is what I find so bad.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary found it difficult to understand the Opposition's aim in tabling the amendment. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who spoke to it, failed spectacularly to explain what the amendment was about or what its practical consequences would be.
      The hon. Lady began by trying to paint as gloomy a picture as possible of the state of the economy and of the prospects for recovery, but the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and she will know that the predictions of recovery are based not on crystal ball gazing but on many well-established indicators with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar from his time at the Treasury. Those indicators are a substantial recovery in stock market prices, a considerable fall in interest rates and an improvement in confidence reported by industrial surveys. After a lapse of time, all those indicators have traditionally and invariably led to a recovery in the

      657
      underlying economy. My only suggestion to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury is that the Government might consider introducing another indicator—the urgency with which the Opposition are calling for an early election.
      The fact that the Opposition are now looking forward to a recovery—the hon. Lady admitted that—has sharpened the stridency of their calls for an early election before the recovery takes place and before the benefits of the policies which the Government have followed for the past two years are evident. Their calls for an election may be maintained for the time being, but as the year progresses, and as the evidence of the economic recovery develops—as it will—it will be seen that the Opposition hope to have an opportunity to test public opinion at a time when those benefits have not yet come through.
      I am baffled by the message which the amendment is meant to contain, because the amendment does not bear much relationship to the hon. Lady's speech. I was disappointed in what she said as I remember her days as an Education Minister when she used to do her homework and did not talk such nonsense. She said that the amendment, which would have a retrospective effect on capital allowances for manufacturing industry in previous financial years, was designed to promote investment in manufacturing industry. I ask her a simple question: is it the Opposition's policy to introduce a permanent extra incentive to capital investment by manufacturing industry, along the lines of that contained in subsection (2)(b) of the amendment? Is that the Labour party's intention?
      Mrs. Beckett: We have made it clear that the amendment is intended to raise the issue of investment allowances. We have also made it clear for some time that we think it is especially important to target the allowances on manufacturing in the context of a recession. The allowances would not necessarily be permanent. If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of that, he has not done his homework.
      Mr. Stewart: It is strange that the hon. Lady should raise the issue of investment allowances but have no idea about Labour's policy. It is typical of the way in which the Opposition Treasury spokesmen go about their business. They made a complete nonsense of the shadow Budget. They got their sums wrong and deceived the public and the House.
      Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Stewart: I shall give way in a moment, but I shall finish my point. The Opposition's calculations are a disgraceful deception.
      5.45 pm
      Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Member is untruthful as well as extremely unpleasant. He is also inaccurate. If he were to check the record, he would find that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor conceded that our calculations were correct. This is the third occasion during a brief speech in which—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary said that our figures for child benefit were correct if one did not feed the increase in child benefit into child support, which we did not intend to do. The Chief Secretary is again confirming that our figures were correct.
      658
      The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) has not been speaking for very long. He has been insulting and unpleasant on three occasions. I do not mind that—I expect it of him—but if he accuses me of inaccuracy, he should get his facts right.
      Mr. Stewart: I shall leave my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to deal with that, but the hon. Lady makes my point for me—I touched a raw nerve. She will have to do better. She said that she did not know whether it was Labour party policy to introduce extra subsidies for industrial investment. She wants to raise the issue but she has no policy. She said that Labour's policy was to promote industrial investment. How can a subsidy on investment that has already taken place be a policy to promote industrial investment? It is nonsense from start to finish. I am sorry to have to point that out in blunt terms, and the hon. Lady may think me discourteous, but if she tables nonsensical amendments she deserves to have them described as such.
      The hon. Lady also said that we need to discriminate in favour of manufacturing industry. I wonder whether the Labour party has forgotten all the lessons that it learned 20 years ago about selective employment tax. It tried to introduce a subsidy to manufacturing investment by constructing a system of favourable taxation to companies that are described in the amendment as being the manufacturers of goods, materials and so on. It was a catastrophic disaster. It was unworkable in practice and caused endless problems between subsidiaries and parent companies and between different companies within the same group. It proved totally unworkable. The hon. Lady represents a party which pretends to be ready for Government but which is ready to go back to remedies that failed catastrophically when they were last introduced. That was under a Labour Government—one hardly needs to ask.
      I readily concede that the hon. Lady was honest enough to say that there was a great difference between the approach taken by the Government and that of the Opposition to the taxation of business. She accepted that it was part of the Opposition's philosophy to subsidise what they regard as the virtuous part of the economy—those involved in manufacturing—rather than those involved in selling the manufactured goods. I have never understood how there could be a prosperous economy if we discriminated against those who ensured that products were sold but favoured those who produced the product that might or might not be saleable. It is economic nonsense, and it is sad as well as rather frustrating to learn that the Labour party is reviving an old notion which failed so comprehensively.
      If the Labour party eventually decided that it had a policy, and if that policy involved a 40 per cent., or substantially higher, investment allowance for manufacturing industry, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, it would mean a substantial loss of revenue which would have to be recovered elsewhere through a corporation tax system, heavier Government borrowing, or the imposition of another type of taxation—probably income tax on basic rate taxpayers.
      The purpose of the Government's reforms in the 1980s was to achieve lower rates of taxation with fewer allowances against them. Although at the time there was much apprehension about the effect on investment and on the profitability of companies, the reforms were followed

      659
      by a substantial increase in investment and in the profitability of companies. The Government's yield from corporation tax rose and the rates of corporation tax could be substantially reduced.
      Investment decisions came to be made on the grounds of profitability and of the likely success of the investment in commercial terms rather than on their use as a tax shelter for profits that the company had made and on which it did not want to pay tax. That is what happens if there is a higher rate of tax and many allowances. Yet the hon. Member for Derby, South suggests that we should go back to a system of higher allowances. It is inherent in that system that one would have to have higher rates of taxation. If those were not higher rates of corporation tax, they would be higher rates of taxation on something else. One would bring back a range of distortions in the economy which, thankfully, we have been able to get rid of over the past few years.
      On all the fundamental points, the amendment is highly unsatisfactory. It offers to produce a deadweight subsidy of investment that has taken place in the past without any incentive to investment in the future. It does so in a discriminating fashion by picking out arbitrarily certain types of company and favouring them. The Labour party says that it would not be at the expense of others. How can it not be at the expense of others? If one is favoured, someone else will have to pick up the bill. The amendment goes against a system which has been found to be satisfactory in the commercial and industrial worlds over the past few years of getting lower rates of taxation so that companies can take a sensible decision about how they use their cash flow. That is one reason why industry, after the reform of the 1980s, has invested so much more and has made better use of that investment. Investment itself has no merit unless it is properly used. We want to encourage not investment itself but the proper use of investment, which is more important. The Labour party has never been able to understand that.
      Industry now needs—and companies in north Hertfordshire tell me that they need this—low inflation, lower interest rates, a stable exchange rate and low taxation. We are already on the way to far lower inflation. There has already been a substantial fall and large falls are still to come throughout the year. Interest rates are already on the way down and have further to fall. The exchange rate mechanism has given a framework of stability in the exchange rate in trading with European partners. The low levels of corporate and personal taxation have increased incentives for efficiency and have given a far better prospect of recovery than we should have had under the old tax system after which the hon. Member for Derby, South and her colleagues hanker.
      I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment not only because of the dismal way in which it was moved but because of its major shortcomings of substance. It is rather disgraceful that the Labour party should table an amendment that is so unsatisfactory and so poorly explained.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury cannot draw a great deal of comfort, as he sought to do, from the various surveys that have appeared in recent weeks about business confidence and business prospects. He draws a different message from that drawn by some of the sponsoring bodies. The Confederation of British Industry argued not that its
      660
      survey fully supported the Chancellor's confidence, but that it was too soon to talk about an early recovery. The surveys show a low level of projected investment following a recent sharp fall in investment. That is a worrying problem. The question that we must address now is whether changes in the corporation tax system can materially affect it and bring about a great improvement. If so, we must ask what kind of change. There is no advantage in denying the scale of the problem or in being unduly optimistic about the speed and scale of the recovery which we all hope to see.
      Can changes in the corporation tax regime materially improve industrial investment and investment that will be useful rather than simply induced by tax changes? Clearly, the Government will want to argue that the corporation tax changes in the Budget will have precisely that effect. However, they cannot get away with saying that the changes represent a massive net reduction in the burden on business represented by taxation because they consistently ignore other factors, such as the massive increase in the uniform business rate. When added up, it is a far larger sum than that returned to business by the tax changes in the Budget. By opting to increase the uniform business rate by the largest legally permissible sum—10·9 per cent.—the Government not only put in a figure double their projected rate of inflation, but behaved in the manner for which they criticised local authorities—that is, putting the rates up by more than inflation. The Government have done that on such a scale that the increase greatly outweighs the tax changes.
      The increase tends to have an especially severe impact on small business. Some of the small business organisations have been quick to point out the damaging net effect on their financial position of the Budget proposals. The Forum of Private Business has been especially critical on that point, not only because of the uniform business rate, but because of other changes including the funding of sick pay and other liabilities that are landing on business.
      We are discussing three categories of change: the Government's proposals, Labour's proposals and our proposals. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she moved the amendment. At the end of her speech, I did not understand what Labour intended to do through the amendment. I was helped a little by the Chief Secretary's exposition and then by the hon. Lady's intervention about the technical reasons for the wording of the amendment. It was not clear from the amendment that the increases were included only for the amendment to be in order. Still less was it clear whether the reductions in corporation tax proposed by the Government would also be implemented by the Labour party. That is the crucial hole in the costings. Labour's alternative Budget included proposals for allowances instead of a reduction in the rate of corporation tax. That is part of the amendment. However, the amendment would allow both of those changes to proceed. That may also be for technical reasons. However, it did not become clear whether Labour proposed to retain the reduction in the level of corporation tax. If it does, there is another whole element of costing to find.
      Mrs. Beckett: I said clearly and explicitly that we propose to retain the reduction in corporation tax that the Government are instituting. We do not propose to increase it. I had no idea that hon. Members would be so interested

      661
      in the technical details of the amendment. If I had, I should certainly have explained it. We made it clear that the intention was to raise the issue of the choice that arises in the use of specific quantums of resources—between investment allowances and using such resources to cut the tax rate. I thought that I had made it plain. If I did not make it plain to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I am pleased that he has given me the opportunity to do so now.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady still has not made the matter plain. She first said that she intended to keep the reduction and then that we are talking about a given quantum of tax reduction which can be used either for a reduction or for allowances. If I may put the hon. Lady's case for her, it seems that the logic of Labour's position is that it would be better to use the money for allowances than for a reduction in the total rate. The hon. Lady was quite specific in saying that she did not propose to remove the reduction that the Government are introducing, yet she still wishes to argue for allowance changes.
      Mr. Mellor: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. Tabling a 20-line amendment is a pretty bizarre way in which to raise an issue. The issue could have been raised in a debate on the clause itself.
      Mr. Beith: I agree. I took the amendment to be a set of serious proposals because Labour is quite specific in other ways, with which I shall deal later. The Labour party is entitled to propose a wholly different strategy about corporation tax. However, it is still not entirely clear to me whether Labour wants both strategies at the same time, or just one. If it is both at the same time, a lot more money will need to be found from somewhere. It cannot be found through the means specified in Labour's alternative budget. From what the hon. Member for Derby, South said earlier, the figures were not accurate. Indeed, the alternative Budget assumed that £1 billion could be found from closing a loophole on overseas trusts. We estimated that about £500 million could be found from closing that loophole. The Government estimate, although admittedly on a slightly more limited change, a far lower figure, which we shall debate subsequently. The prospect of £1 billion being gained from that change has not materialised in any further discussions. The costings figures are, to put it mildly, in considerable doubt.
      6 pm
      I argue that there should be a different strategy that is directed towards the fundamental weakness of the corporation tax system—the way in which it is affected by inflation. The strategy should not be based on allowances that are directed towards manufacturing industry. In our alternative Budget we advance the argument that corporation tax allowances should be indexed. That would begin a reform of the corporation tax system. It should be remembered that the corporate tax burden increases as inflation increases. Our proposal would move the system towards neutrality with respect to inflation and provide some further assistance for investment. I submit that it would lead to a better use of resources. I should explain for the avoidance of doubt that I am talking about using the same resources and presenting the indexing of allowances
      662
      as an alternative to a straight cut in the level of corporation tax. In other words, there would be a different use of the same resources from that proposed by the Government.
      I do not believe that the Government's approach leads to resources being used in the most efficient way, either for the promotion of investment or the reform of the tax system. We are talking of the expenditure of £380 million in this tax year. That is a substantial sum which would go most of the way to paying for indexed allowances. The Labour party's alternative is to increase allowances in a way that might help to increase some manufacturing investment. At 40 per cent. the allowances would be so high that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that some unnecessary or misdirected investment would arise. I am still unconvinced that we can readily separate manufacturing from other valuable fors of industrial investment.
      Is it always better to build machines rather than to provide services? Is that always a better allocation of investment resources? I am not convinced that it is. Why should someone who proposes to make an investment in inland waterways to provide a better and more environmentally friendly form of transport have that investment regarded as less suitable to attract allowances than an investment in manufacturing output?
      Mr. John Battle: To take up the hon. Gentleman's example, it is not possible to clean out inland waterways in the absence of the appropriate machinery. The service sector often depends on the manufacturing sector.
      Mr. Beith: Both sectors are interdependent. If the system is neutral as between manufacturing and services, both areas can benefit from allowances at the same level. It seems a roundabout way of encouraging inland waterways to hope that a certain form of manufacturing will develop in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere and to tilt the allowances in that direction. Why should specialised maintenance be excluded from the benefit of investment allowances when it may be crucial to maintaining industrial competitiveness? It is said that there is a proper distinction, but that case has not been made out.
      Reforming the corporation tax system so that it is not affected by inflation by indexing depreciation allowances would give some incentive to increasing investment as a long-term principle. We would build into the tax system something that would last into the future and something that would be predictable in its impact. It would not produce a very short-term high level of investment. I do not imagine that the Labour party envisaged a 40 per cent. level of allowance lasting indefinitely—I assume that it sees it as a short-term boost to investment. Perhaps it would be a longer-term boost, but it would not survive all Governments into the future. A reform of the system that would be likely to last would be a continuing and predictable guide to investment decisions for the future and one that would lead to a more suitable use of resources.
      The way in which inflation affects the corporate tax system should be underlined. The tax base increases with inflation through stock depreciation. When the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) introduced the 1984 changes that got rid of stock relief, I think that he felt that he was in the process of driving inflation out of the system.

      663
      If he had been able to predict the rates of inflation that we have experienced since then, perhaps he would not have been so ready to get rid of stock relief at that time.
      The annual writing down allowances are based on historic cost rather than current cost. Thus inflation reduces the real value of the allowances and the tax base increases with inflation. A recent paper produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies was the result of an attempt to quantify the factors that I have outlined and others in the United Kingdom economy. It used a sample of 750 firms and estimated that if inflation remained constant at 10 per cent.—heaven forbid—from 1990 to 1993, corporate tax liabilities would be one third higher in 1993 than they would be if inflation was at zero. The effect of 10 per cent. inflation on the tax system would be to raise the cost of capital by 2 per cent. above its cost with zero inflation. The paper concludes that almost all the corporation tax bias against investment at current inflation rates results from the inflation non-neutralities in the present tax system. That is the use of horrible jargon, but there is a strong argument for getting rid of the effect of inflation on the corporation tax system.
      Firms are hit extremely hard during times of high inflation. Interest rates go high and the Government squeeze the economy. It seems the least appropriate time during which to increase the corporation tax burden.
      In that context, I raise another issue in the hope that the Government will give it further thought. I wonder why the Government still have not dealt with the problems of unrelieved advance corporation tax. It is still a fault in the tax system. Unrelieved advance corporation tax hits especially export-earning companies with a high proportion of overseas earnings that do not have mainstream corporation tax against which to set the advance corporation tax that they have already paid. That is another area of corporation tax reform on which the Government could engage.
      The extent to which corporation tax can induce the sort of investment that we want in industry can be exaggerated. The decisions that we take on this part of the Finance Bill will not achieve a great turnround in investment. The decisions that we take could distort the pattern of investment, especially if our approach were loaded too much in a particular direction. Perhaps the most useful service that we could perform would be to make the system more neutral in respect of inflation and to ensure that it provided a predictable basis on which companies could plan for the future. They could then make investment decisions without the fear that they are dependent on incentives that might quickly be withdrawn or that they will be undermined by a pattern of taxation that is distorted by inflation.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about unrelieved advance corporation tax. There is a problem, and it is one that we should address. Indeed, it is a major problem for many of Britain's most successful companies that have major overseas investments. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. As we are talking of a tax issue that has major economic implications—it is not an arcane point—it could well be taken up by the Committee at some stage. It is a complex but extremely important issue that bears serious consideration.
      664
      When I first read the amendment, I struggled to understand its implications. I thought that it might be the Labour party's contribution to tax simplification. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that the object of the exercise was merely to raise an issue. Surely she could have tabled an amendment that proposed that capital allowances should be increased from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. for one year. We would all have understood what she meant. As has already been said, the amendment is wholly retrospective. The financial year 1990 has finished, and there can be no question of encouraging new investment. The amendment would merely produce a windfall gain for companies that have already invested.
      Mrs. Beckett: This is becoming incredibly tedious. The amendment has to be retrospective for it to be in order. The clause refers only to the rate of corporation tax for the coming year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment was the simplest way that we could find of raising the issue. We wanted to ensure that it was not technically defective. If we had tabled a technically defective amendment, would Conservative Members have spent all their time saying that it was a shame that the Opposition were unable to produce anything but technically defective amendments?
      Mr. Smith: I am happy to deal with the merits of the amendment; I shall leave aside the technicalities. I shall merely say that it would have been better to seek to amend the following clause, which deals with next year's corporation tax rates.
      What is the most effective way of encouraging increased investment? Can we do it best by introducing increased capital allowances? I suggest that there has been some falling away from the record levels of investment that we saw in 1986, 1987 and 1988 because of a reduction in corporate profitability as a result of the recession.
      Much the most important source of investment funds in the United Kingdom is retained profit, not borrowings or new equity investment and certainly not extra tax reliefs. The great thing about the 1980s was the huge increase in profitability in British industry and the ability of industry not only to distribute more and pay more to the taxman but to retain more in the company and invest more. That has been the main source of increased investment in the past few years.
      The encouraging news is that it is forecast that next year and in 1993 we shall see a resurgence of profitability in British industry. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that we shall also see a resurgence of investment. Indeed, when one talks to people in business, they do not all say that they have cancelled their investment programme. They say that they have deferred their investment decisions as a result of the uncertainties brought about by the recession and the loss of business confidence.
      It is not possible to continue deferring investment decisions for ever. For example, if a company has a programme of replacing its vehicles, whether company cars or its commercial fleet, it cannot defer the decision to invest for ever. It becomes more expensive in terms of repairs and maintenance to do so. Eventually, the company must make a decision to invest. Many investment decisions have been deferred. Companies are

      665
      simply waiting for the restoration of confidence. When that happens, we shall undoubtedly see a resurgence of investment and profitability.
      Whether the tax system can encourage a resurgence of investment is a side show. We need to have a corporation tax profit which is as close as possible to the accounting profit. That is important because otherwise there are distortions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) referred to what happens when such distortions occur. I remember what happened because I had the misfortune to work in industry when we had a Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. At that time, people would work out the profit at the end of the year and calculate the tax of 52 per cent. Then they would say, "Hang on a second—if we make some more investment or bring forward some investment decisions, we can obtain 100 per cent. allowances." Decisions were not made on their merits or because it was a sensible commercial investment and the timing was right; they were made for tax reasons, and I cannot think of a worse reason for making an investment decision.
      There is a distinction to be made between the quantity of investment and the quality of investment. It is not sufficient simply to seek more investment. We have already heard about what happened in eastern Europe, where many countries had record levels of investment but appallingly bad productivity and output.
      It is important to have a tax system that does not encourage people to make decisions for the wrong reasons. I supported the changes made in the Budget of 1984. The Confederation of British Industry was not happy about those changes. It was a radical change from a 52 per cent. rate of corporation tax with high allowances and stock relief to a 35 per cent. rate of tax and lower allowances. The CBI was worried about what would happen. I remember the representations that were made to Back-Bench Members about those changes. However, the Treasury was right to make those changes. They were the right ones and we have seen a huge growth in investment, profitability and, until recently, the corporation tax take since the changes were made seven years ago.
      In both the corporation tax and personal tax systems, we should have—and we now have—as broad as possible a tax base and as few reliefs as possible. That is the most sensible way to proceed. As I said, it is also important that the corporation tax profit should be as near as possible to the accounting profit. I say that not merely because it is neat to do it that way, but because, in accountancy terms, the object of depreciation is to amortise the cost of an asset over its useful life. That is not easy. It involves subjectivity. There is room for differences of opinion about the rights and wrongs of it.
      It is not possible for the tax system to follow accounts exactly—we must have some form of arbitrary rule—but 25 per cent. on a written-down basis reflects the way in which assets are generally used. The only worry—I dare say that it is an important one—was raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is what happens when there is inflation. As soon as there is any inflation in the system, one has a problem. It then costs considerably more in money terms to replace assets than it did to acquire them in the first place.
      666
      It is better to focus on developing tax policies which bring inflation down rather than policies which accommodate and institutionalise inflation. I should be wary of doing that. Even though there are some distortions, it is probably better to stick with the historic cost accounting approach and attempt to bring inflation down. It would not be sensible to pursue the proposal in the amendment, apparently at a cost of £200 million to the Exchequer this year. The hon. Member for Derby, South has produced no evidence that the proposal would produce the investment that the country needs, so I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: We have had several nit-picking speeches from Conservative Members, from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury downwards—or upwards. I had hoped that we were seeing some change of attitude in the Tory party to manufacturing industry. However, that did not come out in any of the speeches that we heard tonight.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) had tabled an amendment to give a tax subsidy, as the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) called it, or tax allowance to banks, stockbrokers or property companies, to encourage the purchase of shares by individual persons, to encourage personal equity plans, business expansion schemes or, indeed, employee share ownership schemes or to further any of the other items of fiscal engineering that the Government have undertaken, we should have heard loud guffaws of approval from the Conservative Benches. But instead the amendment seeks to encourage manufacturing industry.
      The attitude of Conservative Members to the amendment confirms the deep-seated hostility to manufacturing industry in the Tory party, or at least the modern Tory party since 1974. I have observed that attitude carefully from the Opposition Benches and from the Government Benches for a long time. It came out again in the nit-picking speeches that we heard this afternoon. The hostility goes back 12 years. Some of us were on these Benches or the Benches opposite during the last 12 years and before.
      In 1977, 1978 and 1979, the Labour Government sought to introduce measures to improve our manufacturing industry. Those measures were not only opposed but treated with contempt and derision by the Tory Opposition Treasury team. Yet in 1979, we had a surplus in our trade in manufactured goods. The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North called the years of the Labour Government the years of failure. I suggest that they were the years of success. The balance of trade is the only indicator of success for the manufacturing sector. Manufactured goods are the only tradable commodity across the exchanges.
      We now have the years of failure. Last year, we had a £16 billion deficit in our manufacturing trade, despite our wonderful corporation tax system, which is supposed to be far better than that of Germany or France. Yet Germany and France managed to have a surplus in manufacturing trade, while we have managed only a deficit under the Tory Government.
      I remember that, in 1979, when Lord Joseph became Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, one of the first things he did was to take away investment grants, which helped small companies in the regions. Then he whittled

      667
      away at the selective employment regions, the development areas and all the assistance that has been given to the regions, mainly to manufacturing industry. Regional Britain was then, and to some extent still is, manufacturing Britain.
      Across the road at Great George street, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was doing his bit to destroy huge chunks of British manufacturing industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman increased VAT to 15 per cent. Some people forget that he also introduced a massive increase in the price of gas and electricity to British industry and removed what were in effect subsidies. The subsidies should have been removed eventually over a period, but it was done all in one year.
      I had a private electric arc furnace steel works in my constituency. The Tory Government of 1981 managed to wipe out most of Britain's private steel-making capacity, certainly in special steels, with 15 per cent. VAT. high interest rates, a high pound and a massive increase in the price of energy, especially gas and electricity, on which those industries were dependent. Altogether, 25 per cent. of our manufacturing base was wiped out between 1980 and 1982 by the policies of the Conservative Government, who had no interest in manufacturing industry.
      Why were the Government hostile to manfacturing industry? There were three reasons: first, because the strength of the trade union movement lay in manufacturing industry, so anything that weakened it was good and if it had to be weakened, so be it; secondly, they had contempt for regional assistance because the regions were the basis of manufacturing industry; thirdly, there was the influence of what is euphemistically described as the radical right—that collection of loonies, mad economists, mad theorists and third-rate financiers we see on television from time to time—who influenced policy so much in the past 12 years. They had no interest in manufacturing industry and no concern for the balance of payments. They believed in letting the market decide everything.
      The trouble is that the market in Britain will always gravitate to service industries. We are not against service industries, property development or commercial development, but because of our banking and financial system, the bias has always been to service industries. Some attempt must be made to redraw the balance to manufacturing industry.
      The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) believed in what is called fiscal neutrality—removing all allowances and a lower rate of tax. That increased benefits to service industries, which did not have to spend money on investment, but had a deleterious effect on our manufacturing industry.
      That is one reason for the decline in our balance of trade in the past four or five years, but the then Chancellor was not prepared to help manufacturing industry because it did not fit with the political aims of the Tory party. Manufacturing industry is now a small sector of our economy. The Tory hinterland—the south-east—is almost entirely dependent on "highly geared" service industries, which is a euphemism for them being up to their eyeballs in debt.
      The property-owning democracy is up to its eyeballs in debt. High interest rates are damaging the hinterland of the Tory party, but apparently they are the only way of reducing inflation. In the next few years, it will be
      668
      interesting to see whether the south takes the same attitude to inflation as it did in the past. It was easy to preach against inflation and to say that the only way of reducing it was a recession, which largely did not affect the south of England. I think that the Chief Secretary realises that things are changing: the recession is affecting the south of England, and the fight against inflation is creating unemployment there. I wonder whether we shall hear the same cries against inflation as we heard in the past.
      It was easy to talk about wanting to reduce inflation when the recession mainly affected the regions, but now the Government are extremely worried about rising unemployment in the south-east. That is why there will be electoral difficulties in the autumn, as there are now, and at the beginning of next year if the Prime Minister does not call an election until then.
      The Government have shown that they are not interested in manufacturing industry. They will find every reason not to help it, but Britain will survive only with a strong manufacturing sector. Jobs in banking and the property sector will not increase in the next five years. Where will all the good people of the south-east who have been laid off find work? They will not find it in banking, finance, retail distribution, pensions or insurance. The boom in the City in the past 10 years will not be repeated.
      The Government should change their attitudes, because the only way of reducing our balance of payments and the only way in which Britain can grow, live and pay its way again is through the manufacturing sector. Perhaps the Chief Secretary should rethink, and at least start tonight with the amendment.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I am sorry to have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), for whom I have enormous admiration and respect. I remember debating the Development Land Tax Bill in 1976 with him night after night. In those days, he could at least recognise a philosophical divide when he saw one. There has been no nit-picking by Conservative Members, but there is a division on what makes proper investment work.
      There is no question of Conservative Members disliking manufacturing industry. In the past 10 years, output in manufacturing industry has been rising and rising and recently reached a peak. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, because of the way in which we have geared incentives, manufacturing industry has been encouraged and Britain has been the recipient of vast foreign investment, notably in the automobile industry and other advanced industries. One need only drive up and down motorways to realise that manufacturing estates have been transformed in recent times.
      Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman said, if I heard him correctly, that manufacturing output has been rising and rising under the Government. I am sorry to have to tell him that it fell dramatically in 1980 and did not recover from the figure that was inherited in 1979 until 1988. It increased in 1988, 1989 and 1990 but is falling again. That is not the same as saying that there has been a dramatic increase in manufacturing investment throughout that period.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady will confirm that manufacturing output recently reached a peak. Of course there have been ups and downs and cycles, but under this Government it reached a peak. The issue is what makes

      669
      efficient investment that creates a return, which must relate to the marketplace and not to some policy on the tax system.
      The amendment is classic Labour party dogma and seems extremely muddled. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) tried to defend it and said that the fact that the amendment would increase corporation tax more than will the Bill is purely technical. We must accept that it is purely technical, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was justified in saying that the amendment might be a taste of things to come.
      6.30 pm
      My problem when listening to Labour spokesmen on economic matters is that I find that what they say is utterly incredible. I do not believe what they say. I am prepared to accept and understand that they have a dogmatic position which we can oppose and debate. My problem is in assessing whether there is any meaning in what they say. Over the past few years Labour spokesmen have been extremely bad at putting their case across. Their policies do not add up—not just in the mathematical sense, but because there is no logic behind them.
      There is an alternative way of looking at what the amendment would do. One can accept the point about the cost of capital and listen to what the Labour party says about it and about interest rates—nterest rates are a relevant alternative way of encouraging investment, which we all accept is needed—ut the Labour party's position on interest rates was originally determined in 1987–9. The Labour party talked about how the Government ran an overheated economy, yet when interest rates were low and when, in retrospect, there was a case for raising them and having a tighter monetary policy, the Labour party was pressing for lower interest rates. That must not be forgotten.
      More recently, some of us have believed for some time that interest rates should be lower. The Labour party, far from recognising the relationship between exchange rate policy and interest rates, was pressing for and goading us into entry into the European exchange rate mechanism, which has been perhaps the major constraint on interest rate policy. The same people who were pressing for lower interest rates pressed for entry into the ERM, which has been a major constraint on the cost of capital—ne might even argue that it has been the factor in continuing the high underlying costs of investment. Therefore, they are the least able now to argue for lower interest rates and lower costs of capital as alternatives.
      Anything that the Labour party says on macroeconomic policy is distinctly incredible and questionable. Nothing adds up, except when Labour Members come to the House on occasions such as this and propose the classic Labour dogmatic positions which, as my hon. Friends have said, have been debased and debunked for many years.
      If one considers trade policy and the effect on our balance of payments, and if one considers investment and all those matters with which both sides of the House are concerned, one cannot ignore the cost of capital or interest rates.
      What has struck me—was saying this even when I was a Minister last September—as been the Treasury's difficulty under all Governments for many years in
      670
      recognising the lags that exist. This involves not just the old analogy of the tanker taking a long time to change direction; it is much more complicated than that. The lags are complicated. It is not just a question of the lag between a change in interest rates and a change in confidence—I hope and pray that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary is correct that confidence is now returning; there is a lag between a major change in interest rates and confidence. There is also a lag between a change in confidence and actual investment, and one between actual investment and employment. Then there is the effect of a change in employment on politics and voting intentions, which we, as politicians, cannot discount. Different people calculate that those lags stretch for long periods ahead. It has been calculated that some lags stretch two or three years ahead.
      The amendment is nonsense. It is a typical Labour amendment, representative of the old-fashioned thinking in which Labour Members engage. It does not address the fundamental issue, which is the need both to reintroduce general incentives to investment and to lower the cost of capital which is vastly greater in this country than in Japan, West Germany or the United States. If we are anxious to be competitive, as we all are, my right hon. and learned Friend and his team are absolutely correct to head towards lower interest rates. I hope that the interest rate structure will be determined by the real interests of this economy and not by considerations which relate to the German economy, for example, to name but one.
      Mr. Battle: We are entitled to ask the Government why they are so resistant to proposals to support the manufacturing base of our economy. Behind the generalised comments on our amendments lies a deep hostility, in some cases, even to analysing the economy into the manufacturing and service sectors and to considering what is happening within those different sectors. One hon. Member refused to acknowledge that there were any differentials between the sectors of the economy. There is a case for tilting the structure of the Budget towards supporting manufacturing industry rather than allowing it to continue to decline.
      During the past 13 years the Government have practically consigned our manufacturing base to history. Not far from where I live a famous textile mill was refurbished and turned into the Armley Industrial museum. A working textile loom, industrial engineering and textile machinery can be seen there. The only experience of manufacturing that the children of the future will have will be in that industrial museum. My constituency was built on textiles, clothing and engineering, but employment in those industries and that economic base have been completely eroded.
      Since the early 1980s, 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. That is the erosion that I am talking about. We were told that it was a slimming down to make manufacturing leaner and fitter. We even had the celebrated remark of Lord Young that the manufacturing base did not matter and the economy would boom if only more people would eat out. We know that we cannot run an economy simply on the service sector and eating out.
      Even now manufacturing accounts for just over one fifth of total United Kingdom output. It is down from a third in the mid-1970s, yet the Confederation of British Industry now expects a further 300,000 jobs to be lost in

      671
      manufacturing by the end of 1992. Our balance of trade depends on manufacturing. Four fifths of United Kingdom exports are factory-made goods.
      There is a catch. Ian Thompson, the chief economist at the Engineering Employers Federation, claims that a large part of the increase in exports over the past few years is represented by the assembly or repackaging of imported manufactured goods, particularly in high value areas, such as advanced electronic equipment. He says:
      "My contention is that the United Kingdom manufacturing sector will not be big enough to support the kind of expanding economy that we need in the 1990s."
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: If the hon. Gentleman considers what people, particularly those at Bradford university and elsewhere, were saying 15 years ago about work practices, he will realise that they projected a shrinkage in manufacturing employment and an increase in service sector employment. That has come about. That prediction is taking place alongside the improvement in productivity. It was likely to take place, and it has nothing to do with Governments. It is related to automation and other such matters.
      Mr. Battle: We were also told that manufacturing job losses would be replaced by service sector jobs. However, we find that those replacement jobs are part time, temporary and even lower paid. The myth is still perpetuated, however, that low pay is the cause of unemployment in areas of highest unemployment. Each week I return from the Ho use to my constituency and hear announcements of hundreds of redundancies in manufacturing firms there—GKN Axles in Kirkstall, Doncaster Monkbridge Steel Stockholdings, Pennine Castings and, last week, Howson Algraphy which announced 340 redundancies. That is the scale of the erosion of the manufacturing base.
      People suggest that it is just the service sector in the south-east that has been affected. The fact is that the economy is being undermined everywhere, not just in the south-east. The Government's economic policies are making manufacturing in constituencies such as mine in the north practically anorexic. They are being starved to death. They are also being starved of investment by high interest rates. Furthermore, they are being starved of the training back-up that they need. Now they are being belted by the uniform business rate.
      The CBI forecasts that the projected fall in manufacturing investment this year will continue. It forecasts that it will fall by a further 17 per cent., after a 5 per cent. decline last year. In his Budget statement the Chancellor said that investment would fall by 10 per cent. in 1991. Manufacturing order books are lower than they have been for 40 years. In that context, the Government ought to take seriously the plea that the manufacturing base should be supported. It should not perpetuate the shibboleth and myth of the past—that the service sector will save our economy.
      Our amendment is a small measure that I hoped the Government would support. It would provide a lifeline to manufacturing industry. It would not damn it and consign it to history textbooks.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I find the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) far more revealing of her own state of mind and that of the modern Labour party than she perhaps can
      672
      have imagined when she tabled it. It enshrines, in a particularly striking and transparent way, two of the more antique economic illusions to be found in the modern world. I am aware that they were nurtured in the bosom of the British Labour party for generations after they had been abandoned elsewhere in the western world. However, I thought that in its new, reformed guise the British Labour party would have abandoned them.
      The first of those illusions is the belief that, somehow, manufacturing is more virtuous than any other form of economic activity. I seem to remember that there is a passage in Marshall's "Principles of Economics" about how pervasive but mistaken is the idea that, whereas the maker of furniture performs a socially useful function, the man who markets and distributes it does not. When that book was published in 1890 I imagine that many people were victims of that apparently seductive illusion, but that book which, as you know, Sir Paul, stands at the beginning of modern economic teaching, was published 101 years ago. Therefore, it is remarkable to find that members of the Opposition Front Bench in the House of Commons today are still perpetuating that illusion. I am sure that Marshall would have been extremely surprised had he ever reflected upon the fact that that might be the case.
      Some forms of economic activity are more useful than others and provide a better return on capital employed. Some may add more value. Others—at particular stages, at least—may show a greater rate of growth than others. There is no correlation between those criteria and manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has already referred to a number of service industries that have a very high added value attached to them and that have enjoyed much faster growth rates than many manufacturing sectors.
      It is completely wrong, for example, to suppose that software is an activity that is less inherently economically viable than the production of hardware. The two are closely related, but at various times it may be that the software produces far greater value for society. I hope, therefore, that we can lay that myth to rest for the rest of the debate on the clause and for the remainder of the Committee proceedings.
      The other illusion that, apparently, is still dear to the heart of the Labour party is that investment is an end in itself—that, somehow, it is an inherently virtuous activity that should be pursued simply for its own ends. Nothing could be more destructive or more damaging to good, sound economic policy than that illusion, attractive though I know it still is to many Labour Members.
      One of the most fundamental economic decisions that a society collectively takes, whether consciously or not, relates to what portion of its current output should be invested, what proportion of the harvest should be set aside as seed corn and what proportion of it should be consumed. There is no point, however, in forgoing present consumption unless the return from the investment will be worth more than the consumption that is currently forgone, otherwise the welfare of that society will not be enhanced; it will be diminished. Over time, that society will be poorer, not wealthier.
      If one wants to consider an example of how it is possible to impoverish a society by forced investment—by investment that yields a negative return, a return that is less than the value of the investment—one needs only to look at the examples in eastern Europe that have come to light so dramatically over the past year or two.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hind: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is important to balance a consumer purchasing something, which maximises the investment and creates wealth, against the idea that the investment itself will benefit society? The Opposition would increase the amount of taxation that is levied upon the better off. Their argument is that investment should be increased. However, they would take away the very means of increasing investment, whether it be through savings, insurance policies or bank savings. They believe that consumers would spend more, but consumers would not have more money to spend because they would be paying more tax into the state's coffers. Their economic argument does not seem to stand up in any circumstances.
      Mr. Davies: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I have at heart in my remarks—as I am sure do all hon. Members—the interests of society and the country as a whole. If a firm is induced by tax incentives to make an investment that does not, in real resource terms, yield a positive return, it may be compensated by the tax advantage that induced the firm to make the investment in the first place; but that compensation is at the expense of society as a whole. If one takes the aggregate of the resources available to society and looks at what is done with them, one finds that a proportion of them has been lost and thrown away. They have been put into what is called an investment, but the consequence of that investment is not the same resources being available for future consumption as would have been available if the investment had not taken place. They amount to less. That must be a madhouse.
      It may be that the Opposition have not thought this through thoroughly. If they adopted the policy of trying to push firms into making investments that on commercial criteria, against a neutral tax system, they would not have made, they would steadily reduce the marginal return on investment. Once the marginal return on investment became negative, which would eventually happen, society would be greatly impoverished. Therefore, I urge the Opposition to turn to any good textbook that has been written since Marshall so that the future deliberations of our Committee can be relieved of some of these antique illusions.
      Mr. Mellor: The attendance in the debate has been small but the speeches made in it have been of a high quality. We have had a number of frisky contributions. I shall restrict my speech because I sense an enthusiasm in the Committee to move on to other matters.
      To make up for an oversight last week, when I should have said what I say now, may I say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) here. He was an opponent of mine at two elections, and we had our disagreements. However, I wish him all good fortune and I hope that he will enjoy his time here. It says a lot for his diligence that he is sitting through debates on the Finance Bill. I am not sure whether one would recommend it as a good way to start.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: It is a reward.
      Mr. Mellor: I think that one would have demanded a recount if one had known that that was in store.
      I particularly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as well as those
      674
      from a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart). All referred to the threadbare nature of the amendment. It is clear that everyone agrees with clause 22, which reduces corporation tax. I am not sure how convincing anyone, apart from her most devoted supporters, found the attempt by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to add to the clause an ill-focused return to investment allowances. The proposal was put before us without any definition of what kind of investment the allowances would be given to, or of the period for which they would be given, or whether they would be retrospective, or how far in the future they would go.
      Given the sensitivity of costing and fiscal proof, it was astonishing that the hon. Lady was unable to offer—perhaps she will in winding up—any estimate of how much all this will cost. Our estimate is that it will be £200 million. Notwithstanding what the amendment says, it is apparently not her intention that this will be obtained from corporation tax. It is an interesting figure floating around. I return to the point that the number of sources for increased taxation that the Labour party is ruling out makes it likely that the poor old chap on the standard rate of income tax will have to bear the brunt of these changes. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that having taken the trouble to table a 20-line amendment, the Opposition cannot be more precise on these points. As attention increasingly focuses on what they propose to do rather than on what we have done and are proposing to do, I doubt whether the comparison will be to their advantage. We could not afford to make proposals anything like as threadbare as these.
      I also find misconceived the assumption that there is something especially good about investment in manufacturing that is not so good about investment in other commercial activities. Britain must have a strong manufacturing base and nothing that I say belittles that need. Apparent in a number of the speeches from the Opposition was a hankering to go back to the days of L. S. Lowry. The idea is that, now that Britain no longer has L. S. Lowry-type landscapes, we have lost something. I wonder whether that is the forward-looking policy that we should be hearing.
      I have said before, but it bears repeating, that, increasingly, as the Opposition shed some of the neo-Trotskyism of the early 1980s, we are left with sad, old glimpses of the policies of Callaghan and Wilson. There is not much evidence of the Opposition coming to terms with the modern British economy. That was particularly evident in the disparaging observations about banks made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
      What are we to say about the differentials between investments? I happen to have the figures for the size of the financial services sector. I recently had an engagement with part of that sector and it has stuck in my mind. The sector is responsible for 20 per cent. of our gross domestic product and 12 per cent. of employment. It is a buoyant sector in which employment has increased by 60 per cent. since 1980. It contributes £9 billion to our invisible earnings, but it is to be regarded as a kind of second-class activity, in comparison to manufacturing, which is to be the subject of tax breaks. These have been presented to the House in nothing more than an ill-focused attempt to curry favour with one or two sectors of industry that still look back to the old days of stock allowances and

      675
      investment allowances. However, most of industry, certainly as represented by its associations, has moved away from this and now recognises that, in the end, we want a competitive economy with low direct taxation rates, which leaves those who run industry free to make their decisions rather than having those decisions made for them, or distorted, by Whitehall. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment and, when it comes to it, endorse clause 22.
      Mrs. Beckett: I can honestly say that this has been one of the most peculiar debates that it has ever been my privilege to attend. It is peculiar partly because of the extraordinary nit-picking way—my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was right—in which the Government have approached the wording of this modest amendment. It is designed to raise the issue of the choice, which would be open to any Government, between giving help and support to industry through cuts in the rate of tax or through something like investment allowances. I made it plain from the outset that this was the purpose of the amendment, and it is extraordinary that there should be so much concern about the wording of the amendment. I have not had the privilege of serving on a Committee with the Chief Secretary, but on the Committees on which I had the privilege of serving I found that the Government, on dozens of occasions, got the drafting of the Bill wrong. Despite the criticism, the Government do not seem to be able to find any defects in the wording of the amendment, which is odd.
      As for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I am not surprised that the Minister enjoyed his speech, but I shall scrutinise his amendments with the care that he devoted to scrutinising ours. As his amendments are nearly always defective or out of order, it was foolish of him to stray into this territory.
      Mr. Mellor: I assure the hon. Lady, because I am only too well aware of the technical defects of drafting—I dare say that I shall have to confess to a few upstairs—that that was not my point. My point, and that of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was that I could not understand why the amendment applied only to manufacturing and not to other forms of investment and that I wanted to know who it covered and how much it would cost. These are points of substance, not technical points.
      Mrs. Beckett: I am about to address these points. I was dealing first with the technical points made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, among others. These are cash flow measures, not net changes from the point of view of spending over a period of years.
      The Chief Secretary put his finger on the most important issue that has been raised—whether or not greater priority should be given to investment in the manufacturing sector. The Chief Secretary chided the Opposition and asked why we considered the manufacturing sector to be so important, and why we did not encourage all kinds of investment, no matter in what sector it is made. I am prepared to admit that there is more worth in investment in manufacturing industry, making goods that we can sell elsewhere to earn our living, than in a few more car parks and casinos. If the Government do not think that such investment is preferable—judging from what they have said, they plainly do not—I am delighted to get that on the record.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not have time.
      In his opening speech, the Chief Secretary talked about how wonderful it was that corporation tax was lower in this country than in Germany, France or Italy and that the tax burden on companies was lower here than in Germany, France, Italy and other countries.
      The total tax burden on companies here is lower than that in France, lower than that in Germany and lower than that in Italy. Anyone listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have thought that we had a more successful record than Germany, France and Italy. Anyone would have thought that, given this wonderful incentive, companies here had invested more and that, in some way, this refuted the appalling and frightening statistics showing our decline in manufacturing output, the decline in our share of manufacturing trade and the other very considerable difficulties that we face.
      7 pm
      In his response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the Chief Secretary talked about investment having fallen off from a historic high. For a moment I thought that he, like my hon. Friend and, indeed, myself, was referring to the levels that had been inherited from a Labour Government in 1979. If he was, clearly he realised his mistake, as he hastily began to talk, instead, about the peak of investment in 1988–89. There is no doubt that, by 1988–89, investment had returned to the levels of 1979, just as, unfortunately, investment is now going back to the levels of the 1960s. The Chief Secretary referred to an investment level of about £11 billion—I think that the reference was to last year—but he will know that the same statistics show that the level is expected to fall this year. The figure may go below £9 billion; it will certainly go below £10 billion. That is the situation with which we are seeking to cope and our amendments are intended, in a minor way, to rectify it.
      From the rate of corporation tax, the Chief Secretary turned to other rates of taxation and to proposals that the shadow Chancellor discussed this weekend. I assume that his reference to a tax level of 59p in the pound related to our proposal for the very top slice of income—not the level at which the current 40p rate applies. He mentioned our proposal to lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions. This would bring our tax level, first of all, back to the level of income tax alone two to three years ago, which is very similar to that being charged in competitor countries. Despite that fact, the Chief Secretary suggested that what we propose might lead to a brain drain. He does not seem to be aware of the fact that we have a brain drain already. We are losing some of the most intelligent and well-educated people—the people whose inventions and discoveries form the basis of so much manufacturing prosperity. Thanks to cuts in the Government's support for research and development, and to their overall attitude to investment, those people are simply unable to work here. Often with the utmost reluctance, they take their brains and their ideas—together with the prosperity that can result from their patents and inventions—to competitor countries.
      The Chief Secretary, once challenged, was gracious enough to acknowledge that, under the present Government, the tax burden on the average family has

      677
      risen. It would have been only fair to point out that, for families on average or below-average earnings, the benefits derived from the income tax cuts have been almost exactly offset by increases in national insurance contributions. Indeed, they have been extinguished by value added tax increases—even those before the most recent one—and by the poll tax, for which the Government refuse to give us a breakdown in terms of its impact on the incomes of people on average or below-average earnings.
      The Chief Secretary's remarks on those points were most interesting. He seemed to imply some deception on our part, but we have made our taxation proposals very plain, which is more than can be said for the Government. The Prime Minister—then Chancellor of the Exchequer—spoke last year to the Welsh Tories at their party conference. No doubt it was a small gathering. In that speech he attacked some of Labour's taxation proposals. For example, he said:
      "They intend to meddle with mortgage interest relief"
      —in other words, not to allow mortgage interest relief at the top rate of tax. As long ago as July, the Prime Minister was very upset about that. Although we had clearly told the country what we proposed, the Government attacked us. Then, of course, they put it in their own Budget. On the same occasion, the right hon. Gentleman attacked the Labour party for its intention to freeze the married couple's allowance. That, too, is in this Budget—again without notice from the Conservative party. If the Chief Secretary wants to use this occasion to give us a categorical undertaking that at no point will the Government follow through the logic of their decision to charge employers' national insurance contributions on the full range of earnings, and that they will never lift the ceiling on earnings on which employees pay national insurance contributions, I shall be happy to give way. If he is not prepared to do so, we must all recognise the likelihood that the Government will follow through the logic of their decision. Just as with the married couple's allowance, and with mortgage interest relief at 40p in the pound, they do not propose to tell the electorate in advance of their decisions. Yet they complain about our proposals.
      As was identified by the Chief Secretary in his closing remarks, the main point is whether and how we should give support to industry. Should assistance be given to all by way of cuts in the rate of corporation tax, or should there be a specifically targeted incentive for manufacturing? We certainly prefer the latter. The Chief Secretary drew attention to some costings that he suggested might be possible in respect of the proposal for investment allowances. I am happy to repeat something that I made quite plain in my opening remarks. The Government were prepared to forgo quantifiable amounts of revenue by allowing cuts in tax rates. We would have used that revenue to help manufacturing industry through investment allowances. Let me quote what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said about that choice:
      "The current tax system acts as a disincentive to investment."
      The CBI said that members still believe that investment in allowances for depreciation of plant and machinery is the most important priority. This is precisely the proposal that is contained in our amendment.
      That brings me to what, apart from what one could almost describe as the Government's attacks on manufacturing industry, is the most extraordinary feature
      678
      of the debate. The Chief Secretary rose maginificently above one of the points that I made in my earlier remarks—that this was the proposal of the CBI and others. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) said that this was an incredible proposal which showed the Labour party's old-fashioned thinking. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred to it as an antique illusion. The Chief Secretary said that such a proposal was clung to by the members of a disaffected section of the business community, of whom there were not all that many. Those were fascinating remarks from Conservative Members. I propose to send copies of them to the Engineering Employers Federation, the CBI and many other representatives of manufacturing industry, all of whom, as Conservative Members know are calling for precisely those steps.
      There could be no better example of the arrogance of the Government than the way in which, yet again, they claim to know what industry wants better than does industry itself. They do not listen to anyone but themselves, and they have made it plain that they never will. That is one of the reasons why they are on their way out, and in the next Budget we shall be able to introduce measures of this kind.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 264.

      Division No. 136]

      [7.9 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Doran, Frank

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Allen, Graham

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Eadie, Alexander

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Battle, John

      Fisher, Mark

      Beckett, Margaret

      Flannery, Martin

      Bell, Stuart

      Flynn, Paul

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Foster, Derek

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

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fraser, John

      Blair, Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blunkett, David

      Galloway, George

      Boyes, Roland

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Gould, Bryan

      Buckley, George J.

      Graham, Thomas

      Caborn, Richard

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clelland, David

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Crowther, Stan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Adam

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Dewar, Donald

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dixon, Don

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Dobson, Frank

      Leighton, Ron

      679

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Robertson, George

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCartney, Ian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Salmond, Alex

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McKelvey, William

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McLeish, Henry

      Short, Clare

      McMaster, Gordon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Snape, Peter

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Maxton, John

      Stott, Roger

      Meacher, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Straw, Jack

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mullin, Chris

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Hara, Edward

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, Brian

      Parry, Robert

      Winnick, David

      Patchett, Terry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Worthington, Tony

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Prescott, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Radice, Giles

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Randall, Stuart

      Redmond, Martin

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butler, Chris

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Allason, Rupert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amess, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Amos, Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cash, William

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ashby, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkins, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Atkinson, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Beith, A. J.

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bellotti, David

      Couchman, James

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cran, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Critchley, Julian

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Boswell, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Devlin, Tim

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

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)

      Dicks, Terry

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bright, Graham

      Dover, Den

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

      Dunn, Bob

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Burns, Simon

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      680

      Evennett, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Madel, David

      Favell, Tony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mans, Keith

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maples, John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Marland, Paul

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Forman, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Franks, Cecil

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Freeman, Roger

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      French, Douglas

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Gale, Roger

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mills, Iain

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gill, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Moate, Roger

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mudd, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Grylls, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Hague, William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

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

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Price, Sir David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Raffan, Keith

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Irvine, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Janman, Tim

      Riddick, Graham

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rost, Peter

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shelton, Sir William

      Knapman, Roger

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Latham, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Speed, Keith

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Squire, Robin

      Lightbown, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lord, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Stevens, Lewis

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      681

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wells, Bowen

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wilshire, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Viggers, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Walden, George

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Waller, Gary

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

      Watts, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 77

      NON-RESIDENT SETTLEMENTS WHERE SETTLOR HAS AN INTEREST
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): Clause 77 is one of several clauses which give effect to the Chancellor's statement in the Budget that we would take steps on the tax treatment of non-resident trusts, a matter which has caused some concern. The clause sets out one of the three main components of the proposals—the requirement that the settlor of a trust caught by the provisions of the Finance Bill will be required to pay capital gains tax on the gains released by the non-resident trust as they accrue.
      The other components of the proposals are in other clauses which are complementary. It is a packet, each part of which complements the others. The second element is that, in future, there will be what has been described as an exit charge on a resident trust. A trust at present resident will suffer capital gains tax on capital gains which have accrued up to the time of the trust moving offshore.
      The third element is that for those trusts which are not otherwise caught and on which gains are not payable at the time that they accrue capital gains tax will be payable when the capital is remitted to this country. In those cases there will be a supplementary charge, effectively an interest charge, to reflect the deferment of capital gains tax from the time when the capital gains accrued in the non-resident trust. When the capital is remitted to the beneficiary here, there will be a charge which reflects the deferment of the tax.
      It is a sensible, fair package of proposals to remedy a possibility of tax avoidance. I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his introduction to clause 77 and to the matters that relate to it, which we will explore in more detail in Committee.
      The clause and those related to it represent the fruits of the labours of the Government's working group on tax avoidance which was set up in 1988 to deal with a problem that the Government created in 1981. Last year, the Labour party drew attention to the widespread use of offshore trusts as a tax avoidance device. We put forward
      682
      proposals to curtail the use of those devices, but our suggestions were rejected by the Treasury team during the passage of the Finance Bill 1990.
      In Committee last year, I said:
      "Other major vehicles of tax avoidance remain. Offshore trusts are still an abused vehicle for imaginative tax planning."
      The then Economic Secretary, now, I guess, promoted, the right hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), replied:
      "The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East identified a problem about loopholes. They have not been used and the Inland Revenue does not know of any avoidance to date."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 June 1990; c. 183 and 184.]
      That is what he was required to say when representing the Government's view last year.
      The position has changed substantially. Obviously it has not changed at any prompting of mine. I can only assume that it has changed at the prompting of The Sunday Times, probably a more authoritative voice with the Conservative party than mine in spite of all my efforts to the contrary. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) shakes his head. I take that as a tremendous compliment; I am sure that it was intended as such.
      Last year, on 21 October, The Sunday Times drew attention to the same issue on its front page under the headline
      "Super rich in massive tax dodge".
      We can see that the newspaper is owned by the same people as those who own The Sun. The Sunday Times Insight team gave specific examples, one of which I should like to summarise as an illustration of the problem.
      When Mr. Richard Branson, head of the Virgin airline and entertainment empire, sold 25 per cent. of his record company, the Virgin music group, to a Japanese group, Fujisankei Communications, in 1989, more than 75 per cent. of the ultimate number of the shares had previously been transferred by Branson into five Channel islands trusts.
      In spite of him being the settlor and the discretionary beneficiary of all five offshore trusts, he was able to avoid a potential tax bill of £18·4 million, 40 per cent. of the capital gain of £46 million. The money was then reinvested in Virgin companies overseas. Branson's lawyers argued that since all five trusts were controlled by Morgan Grenfell in Guernsey and Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte in the Channel islands, the capital gains had been avoided because none of the profits were Branson's, he having distanced himself sufficiently from the assets so as to avoid taxation.
      Hopefully such arrangements will no longer work as tax avoidance devices when clause 77 and its allied clauses and schedules are law. It is not our intention to impede the progress of these parts of the Finance Bill, which are designed as anti-avoidance measures. However, we shall want to examine the detail in Standing Committee.
      7.30 pm
      I want to give some examples of the sort of scam that we want to be caught by the new legislation. At present it is possible for those with a business to sell to transfer that business into an offshore trust and, under section 126 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979, the trustees could sell the business without any charge to United Kingdom tax. The trustees could then reinvest the money in the original owner's business, perhaps remitting the money back to the United Kingdom in the form of a loan. That sort of tax avoidance is legal, although hard to justify morally.

      683
      Indeed, the very existence of this Bill, from the post-Thatcherite Conservative Government, suggests that the Government have given up trying morally to justify it.
      The example that I have just cited parallels the Richard Branson case that was quoted in The Sunday Times. A variation on that theme would be to transfer the asset for sale into a United Kingdom trust prior to disposing of it and then to move the trust offshore. The trustees could then proceed to sell it without any charge to tax. It is clear that the real relationship rather than the contrived relationship between the trustees and the settlor is of crucial importance.
      It is useful to note just who the trustees are in the Branson example. Gone are the Rossminster days, when the Keith No. 1 trust, of which Mr. Keith Tucker was the trustee, played its part in the tax avoidance schemes of his brother, Mr. Roy Tucker. Today, the trustees are such firms as Morgan Grenfell and Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—both of which Mr. Branson trusted with his wealth in the Channel islands. According to The Sunday Times, Touche Ross promotes a complete offshore trust package for £2,000, plus an annual fee of £3,000. Offshore trusts are now part and parcel of the mainstream tax planners' armoury.
      Of course, there are reasons other than that of tax avoidance for setting up an offshore trust, such as the need to preserve commercial confidentiality. However, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of such arrangements have been entered into solely for the purpose of tax avoidance. A further 3,000 such trusts were notified to the Inland Revenue last year, but that probably represents only a small percentage of the number that have been established.
      The arrangements work well enough to avoid capital gains tax bills, as they work well enough to avoid inheritance tax. Trusts cannot die. Offshore trusts can also have income tax advantages, provided that the senior and his spouse are not possible beneficiaries. An example would be a trust for children and grandchildren. In case anyone doubts that that works, I can tell him that, as far back as 1979, the House of Lords gave a ruling in a famous case involving the Vestey family. That case aroused a great deal of indignation.
      Mr. Tim Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one reason why trusts became more attractive after 1988 was that the rate of capital gains tax was increased from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. That automatically made them more effective because more tax could be avoided. It is the Government's policy to link the top rate of income tax with the capital gains tax rate. Does the Labour party propose to raise capital gains tax to 50 per cent.?
      Mr. Brown: We have no plans to increase capital gains tax. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to make that quite clear. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not do it, but I hope that he will encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends not to misrepresent the Labour party's position. I repeat that we have no plans to increase capital gains tax.
      Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does that mean that the Labour party will break the link between capital gains tax and income tax?
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. David Knox): Order. That is rather wide of the clause under discussion.
      Mr. Brown: I accept that, Mr. Knox, but I do not want to deny the hon. Gentleman an answer. I think that the implications of what I have said are clear. The hon. Gentleman has correctly followed the point to its logical conclusion.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Answer the question.
      Mr. Brown: I have just done so.
      Clause 77 introduces the rule that, for certain categories of offshore trusts, capital gains realised by the trustees are to be treated as realised by the person who created the trust or by its beneficiaries, provided that the settlor, his spouse or any of their children or any company in any way associated with them can in any way, at any time benefit from the capital or the income of the trust. That is comprehensive. The Government have met the first of the points that we put to them in our debates last year and the year before.
      I hope that in fairness, Mr. Knox, you will allow me in passing to refer, as did the Financial Secretary, to the fact that clause 71 introduces an exit charge if an existing United Kingdom trust becomes non-resident. We specifically called for that during our debates on the Finance Bill last year. The Government's adoption of our request is most welcome. I note that the Financial Secretary is gracefully accepting my thanks; roll on the Standing Committee stage, with all its long nights. Clause 71 is to be welcomed.
      The second aspect of clause 77 is that it stops a settlor hiding behind an existing offshore trust by putting new assets into it that can share the favourable capital gains tax treatment that the trust already enjoys. Such a prohibition is necessary, and I am pleased that the Government have done that. However, the Government have not drawn the clause more widely to encompass offshore trusts where the beneficiaries do not include the settlor, his spouse, any of their children, or any company associated with them. I am not sure why the Government have adopted that approach, but it is something that we can explore in Standing Committee. The Financial Secretary may say that there are not many such trusts in existence. If he does, the suspicions that we have harboured about tax avoidance will be shown to have been well founded. If there is another explanation, I look forward to hearing it.
      That brings me to the mystery of what we shall probably end up calling, "The Mystery of the Missing Decimal Point". The Sunday Times article referred to billions of pounds, or at least to £1 billion—[Interruption.] The Sunday Times referred to £1 billion; others have referred to substantially higher figures.
      Mr. Maude: Only the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Brown: The Financial Secretary is being mischievous. It is not only me.
      Mr. Maude: We are puzzled about the figure of £1 billion that has found its way into the Labour party canon as one of those pots of gold that are just lying around waiting to be raided to pay for its spending. The Sunday Times referred to a sum of up to £1 billion. I am not aware of any other estimates that show anything like that amount. The actual amount is a yield in a full year of £10 million, and also preventing indirectly a revenue loss of £100 million. Those figures are very much more modest

      685
      than those suggested by the Labour party, although the proposals in the Bill are considerably more draconian than anything that the Labour party suggested last year.
      Mr. Brown: The point has found its way into the Labour party canon because it is such a good shot. I am not sure how the Financial Secretary arrives at his figures for the amount that has been avoided through offshore trusts over the past decade. I should welcome a year-by-year breakdown of the estimated sums that have been forgone. The Sunday Times suggested £1 billion. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech, referring to this year alone:
      "I therefore propose to introduce measures to counter this tax avoidance"—
      he was referring to offshore trusts—
      "and to prevent a revenue loss of up to £100 million in a full year."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 134.]
      Assuming that the
      "up to £100 million in a full year"
      is par for the course, the Chancellor clearly thinks that the figure is closer to £1 billion than to £10 million—this is where the missing decimal point comes in—that is shown in the Red Book.
      I must thank the Financial Secretary for writing to me about the matter, attempting to explain the difference between the £100 million to which the Chancellor dramatically referred in his Budget speech and the rather more modest £10 million that the Government's Treasury team are hoping to rake in as a result of the change. His answer is not convincing, but I understand the semantic exercise in which he is trying to indulge in justifying it. The truth of the matter is that a substantial sum of money that should have accrued to the Exchequer has been forgone with the result that the tax burden on the rest of us has been increased accordingly.
      The Government need to take two further actions to convince us that they are serious about tackling unfair avoidance by the wealthy. The first is adequately to resource the Inland Revenue, particularly its specialist officers, so that more attention can be focused on these issues. When we say that, the Conservative party accuses us of planning more public expenditure on tax inspectors, as if that were a damning thing. But it is our belief—and the evidence is there to sustain it in the work of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee as well as in answers to parliamentary questions tabled by the Opposition—that a little extra investment may reap substantial rewards. Certainly we think that it would be more fruitful to explore that area than to spend the money hounding poor people on social security.
      Secondly, we believe that we need to co-operate with our first world trading partners. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) will have heard me say that before. I know that the point is controversial on the Government Benches, but we believe that we need to co-operate in a positive way with our first world trading partners steadily and collectively to block these tax avoidance devices so that at least one nation state collects tax when it would otherwise be due. It will be a long slow business, but I would rather see the British Government moving it along than kicking and screaming all the way.
      Finally, I want to ask a question and then answer it. Why are we in this position in the first place? Why is clause 77 necessary? The answer goes back to the deeds of the
      686
      Conservative Government—I suppose that it is still legitimate to refer to it as this Conservative Government—in 1981 when they introduced section 80 of the Finance Act. That device was the work of the noble Lord Rees who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a notable expert on tax law. Before becoming a Minister he advised on tax avoidance schemes, in the notorious Rossminster affair among others. In short, he knew what he was doing. The Opposition and the national press have repeatedly drawn the Government's attention to the loophole, but it has taken 10 years and a change of leader for the Conservative party to respond. Last year, the Economic Secretary was not even allowed to acknowledge that there was a problem.
      Mr. Maude: Apart from last year when there was a fleeting reference of about half a sentence in a debate on the Finance Bill, when else in the past 10 years have the Opposition drawn attention to the problem?
      Mr. Brown: I have made a number of speeches on the subject of tax avoidance since I was appointed to the Opposition Treasury team in 1987 and I have specifically referred to the issue of offshore trusts. But to give credit where it is due, the issue attracted our attention when we all obtained copies of Mr. Nigel Tutt's book entitled "The History of Tax Avoidance" which has provided us with an interesting guide through the byways of some of these issues and from which we have obtained part of our agenda. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield keenly follows these matters and I see him nodding and smiling. He will recall that last year I presented the Economic Secretary with a courtesy copy of the book in order to help him in his own consideration of these matters. Instead, all he got was promotion. I do not know whether reading the book helped him or not, but I hope it did.
      7.45 pm
      The Opposition's bone of contention with the Government is not that they are doing what they are now—that is acceptable to us; we have been calling for it. It is that it has taken the Government 10 years to get around to doing it and in that time £1 billion—I will not quarrel with the Financial Secretary over billion or billions—£1 billion worth of revenue has been lost to the Exchequer. It logically follows that that increases the burden placed on the shoulders of our fellow citizens.
      In debates such as this it is important to remember that some of our fellow citizens are poorly remunerated. The other side of the coin is that 3,700,000 of our fellow citizens earn less than £5,500 per year. There are no offshore trusts to help them; no chance for them to avoid their share of the tax burden, most of which is given not through direct taxation but through indirect taxation. The unfairness of their position when compared with the position of wealthy people, such as Mr. Richard Branson and Lady Porter, rightly arouses indignation among Opposition Members, and I think that the Government will find that it arouses indignation among the public as well.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I welcome clause 77 as long as we have the capital gains tax regime that we have. It is clearly unfair that rich people should be able to take advantage of what has been a major loophole in the law so to arrange their affairs that they can avoid altogether paying capital gains tax. It clearly has not been an option open to people with moderate amounts of capital, since the hon. Member

      687
      for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has just said that it cost £2,000 to set up one of these schemes and £3,000 a year to keep it going. That would obviously preclude it from being economically viable for people with moderate amounts of capital. Clearly the schemes were designed for rich people, and if we are to have a captial gains tax system everybody should pay that tax and not take advantage of a loophole.
      However, on the question of the likely yield, the Committee needs to recognise that a change of this kind will fundamentally change people's behaviour. That is why I object to capital gains tax as a whole. We were talking previously about the way in which people's economic behaviour is influenced by whether or not a particular activity is taxed. There should be no doubt in the minds of hon. Members about what happens with capital gains tax. It is impossible to avoid paying tax on purchases—virtually impossible to avoid paying VAT or excise duty—and it is pretty difficult to avoid paying income tax on income, because it is paid as it arises, but when it comes to capital gains tax, one can work very hard to avoid paying it by simply avoiding making the gain and not realising an asset.
      That is what happens. Whether the figure for the cumulative lost revenue is £100 million or £1,000 million, the idea that the yield to the Exchequer will be anywhere near that is ridiculous. People who were realising their assets will think two, three or four times before they do it, so the actual yield will be much lower than any so-called loss of revenue to the Exchequer. There is no doubt about that.
      That is the unfortunate aspect of all this. Capital gains tax above all taxes—one of my hon. Friends made a powerful speech on that on Second Reading—distorts economic behaviour. It is self-evident that, the higher the rate, the more likely it is that the behaviour will be distorted. With the benefit of hindsight, I think that change was regrettable. I understand why it was made. The Treasury took the view that it was sensible to operate capital gains tax at the same rate as the top rate of income tax, which is now 40 per cent.
      I was encouraged by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, about Labour's proposals. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) that Labour does not feel that it is absolutely necessary to operate the same rate. It is reassuring to know -that Labour does not intend to increase capital gains tax. Have I got that right?
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: To avoid any doubt, I may say that we will have to live with what we believe to be a minor anomaly.
      Mr. Smith: That makes the Opposition's policy clear beyond any doubt. I welcome that assurance, because any rate above 40 per cent. would be punitive, and would introduce distortion in a big way. That has already happened. There ought to be a much lower rate, or we ought to do away with capital gains tax altogether. It was introduced only as a short-term measure in 1961, and the Royal Commission that investigated its possibilities in the 1950s came out against it, for various good reasons.
      Even with the change made by clause 77, the incidence of capital gains tax will still be fairly arbitrary and unfair. I will not detain the Committee with the details, because that would be to go beyond clause 77. However, although
      688
      the proposed change is very welcome, we must acknowledge that the yield is likely to be very low, and that the background against which that change is being made is anyway not very satisfactory.
      Mr. Beith: There seems to be general agreement among all parties that clause 77 should be included in the Bill, and I certainly welcome it. It is designed to close a loophole that has existed for a decade which has been dramatically highlighted. That loophole has been known to tax advisers and experts for a long time, and it has taken a long time for the Government to get around to doing anything about it.
      It is somewhat intriguing, given the timing of this debate, that Labour previously insisted that its incentives for investment could be met from the yield induced by closing the capital gains tax loophole. We included in our alternative Budget a proposition based on the assumption that closing the loophole would yield £500 million. Labour's alternative Budget is very specific:
      "The investment expansion scheme costs would be more than covered by the revenues from closing the tax loopholes for offshore trusts, which currently cost the Government £1000 million."
      The Government produced a figure of £100 million, and, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out, the Red Book gives a figure of only £10 million for revenue resulting directly from closing the loophole in question. There is a necessary difference between the two figures, because presumably there would be a flow of investment into instruments that do bear taxation, which would show up in public revenue. I take that to be the major factor accounting for the difference in the two estimates.
      When we produced our figures, and when Labour produced theirs, neither of us had the benefit of the Government's estimate of potential yield, because they were not canvassing any intention of acting against the loophole, and so had not produced a costing. However, the yield will obviously be a lot less than £1 billion. In view of the amount of money that is believed to have been involved, I hope that the Revenue gets back more than the £100 million that the Government estimated. I shall shortly propose amendments to tighten up the measure, to help achieve that objective.
      There is general acceptance that it cannot be right, even at higher rates of capital gains tax, for methods of avoidance to be available that allow people with very large resources to spend significant sums on buying their way into overseas arrangements that entirely relieve them of their liability to capital gains tax.
      Mr. Maude: This has been a delightfully ecumenical debate, with everyone agreeing that clause 77 is a splendid measure to introduce into the Bill. It is slightly remarkable that the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) claim to have known about the abuse for some time, and have been clamouring to legislate against it year after year. They give the impression that, when the 1981 change was made, the loophole was transparently clear, and that it should have been closed then. History shows otherwise.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I do not claim that the loophole was transparently obvious in 1981—at least, not to me. I became aware of it after reading Mr. Tutt's book in 1987—just at the time that I joined the shadow Treasury team. I may add that it is not I but the Government who are

      689
      professionally advised, and who have available to them, year after year, the opinions of the Inland Revenue. When did the Revenue first draw the abuse to the attention of Ministers? I bet that it was in 1981.
      Mr. Maude: The reality is that no new clause or amendment to deal with the loophole was introduced until 1990. In that year, a new clause, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, referred, was tabled but not selected. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend who is now the Patronage Secretary did not refer specifically to the loophole, because the burden of his plaint in that debate concerned dual resident companies, not nonresident trusts. He referred to it only obliquely and in passing, which did not become a serious problem until recently. However, it is now being dealt with expeditiously and thoroughly, as has been acknowledged.
      I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who made it clear that the higher the rate of tax, the more attempts there will be made to avoid it—and the more strenuous the tax authorities will need to be in preventing avoidance. That analysis is exactly correct. Members of the Oppostion Front Bench are nodding wisely and sagely, and appear to be agreeing with all that I say—but the points that I reiterate have not made much impact on the Labour party before now.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I always smile, in my genial, good-natured way. That is not something that has been brought on by the present Financial Secretary, because I exhibited the same behaviour to the last three Financial Secretaries that it has been my pleasure to know. I will accept entirely the Financial Secretary's assurance that the Government acted as expeditiously as possible, but only if he will reveal when the risk that the 1981 change would be used for tax avoidance was first brought to the attention of the Government by their professional advisers—specifically, the Inland Revenue.
      Mr. Maude: I do not intend to tell the hon. Gentleman what advice I or my predecessors were given by our official advisers—any more than the hon. Gentleman or any of his predecessors who were Ministers in previous Labour Governments would do. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but, on mature reflection, I am sure that he will understand.
      Mr. Brazier: He will get over it.
      Mr. Maude: As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, will master his disappointment.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the mystery of the decimal point. Labour's standard approach is to multiply by 10 the estimated yield from a tax change, but to divide by 10 the cost of a public expenditure commitment. In reality, the measure—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had it right—will prevent a tax loss to the Revenue of about £100 million. It is not possible to be precise, but it will produce a yield this financial year of about £10 million, and in a full year of £15 million. There is no great pot of gold that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East can use to finance Labour's spendthrift policies.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fact that the measure will stop a loophole, it will change people's behaviour and that there is no predicting the amount of revenue that can be produced? In a sense, it is a misnomer to talk about the revenue that might come from it.
      Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. All one can do in such circumstances is to estimate to the best of one's ability on the basis of accumulated experience and the Inland Revenue what the yield might be from these changes. Behaviour will change as a result of the proposals, but the best estimate is that there will be a modest yield from transactions that will take place.
      8 pm
      This is one part of a three-part approach which is a considerably tougher and more extensive approach to the problem than that recommended by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. It will be effective. The hon. Gentleman asked why we should not spread the effect on beneficiaries more widely so that more settlements would be caught. That is the subject of a subsequent debate on amendments to be tabled by the Liberal Democrats. We can explore it then, and I shall explain on that occasion the reason for the approach that we have adopted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 14

    SETTLEMENTS: SETTLORS
    Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 129, line 26, leave out 'child' and insert 'descendant'.
    The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 129, line 27, leave out 'child' and insert 'descendant'.
    No. 6, in page 129, line 36, leave out 'child' and insert `descendant'.
    No. 5, in page 129, line 36, leave out 'stepchild' and insert 'step-descendant'.
    No. 10, in page 133, line 10, leave out 'child' and insert "descendant'.
    No. 11, in page 133, line 11, leave out 'child' and insert 'descendant'.
    No. 12, in page 133, line 20, leave out 'child' and insert `descendant'.
    No. 13, in page 133, line 20, leave out 'stepchild' and insert 'step-descendant'.
    Mr. Beith: The effect of this group of amendments would be to make the settlor potentially liable to tax if any descendant—not just the child—was a beneficiary. There is no obvious reason why the settlors should not be liable to tax on settlements made for the benefit of their grandchildren. The Minister referred to the possibility that a much wider limitation could be placed on overseas trusts affecting other potential beneficiaries. Perhaps he will be able to adduce particular reasons why that should not be so because of the other purpose for which trusts have traditionally been used. I do not see why a trust from which benefits for children are not tax-exempt should provide such an exemption in respect of grandchildren.
    Mr. Maude: That is the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown).

    691
    From the temperate way in which the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved the amendment, I deduce that he accepts that it is no great point of principle. I concede that, if this were the only part of the proposal—if clause 77 stood on its own without the exit charge and without the supplementary charge on settlements that are not caught by these proposals--there would be a case for extending the net a bit wider.
    However, one must recognise that settlements are made in non-resident trusts for perfectly legitimate reasons which have nothing to do with tax avoidance. The burden of the amendment is to prevent tax avoidance and to bring transactions within the charge of tax where they should properly be subject to tax. Our judgment was that it was legitimate to restrict the ambit of this charge—the charge to the settler—to settlements of which the beneficiaries were the settlor's immediate family, drawn not all that closely, and extending, of course, to companies that the settlor's immediate family controls and to the immediate family itself.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is considerably wider than the corresponding definition for resident trusts, but we believe that it is necessary that it should be wider if an effective charge is to be imposed on those who settle assets abroad from which they or their family can derive benefit. The balance that we have struck is about right. It is a matter not of principle but of judgment as to where one strikes the balance. The gains of non-resident trusts where only grandchildren or remoter issue have an interest will continue to be within the existing provisions, which tax beneficiaries who receive capital payments from the trustees. They will be subject to the supplementary charge which, as I have said, is another important element in the new package and which will apply where appropriate.
    In addition, we are strengthening the existing provisions to ensure that capital payments are chargeable when they are received by United Kingdom beneficiaries. We shall keep these measures under review, and we shall not hesitate to take further measures if they are thought appropriate. In the current circumstances, we have struck the correct balance.
    Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister will keep the amendments under review because it seems that he has not convinced even himself that the boundary line has been drawn in the right place. Grandchildren are among the most likely beneficiaries of someone who has made a great deal of money in his lifetime and who is looking for tax avoidance routes to keep it within the family and not pay tax in the process. It is a normal transfer from grandparent to grandchild. I shall not press the matter tonight, but I hope the Minister will keep it under review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 132, line 28, leave out 'four' and insert 'five'.
    The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 132, line 28, leave out '(6)' and insert '(6A)'.
    No. 7, in page 133, line 7, at end insert—
    '(6A) The fifth condition is that a person falling within sub-paragraph (7)(a) or (b) below is a person who will or might benefit from the settlement.'.
    Mr. Beith: I shall describe the effect of the amendment in detail. Under the Bill as drafted, settlors of pre-Budget
    692
    settlements are in general caught only if the settlement is subsequently added to, varied or transferred out of the United Kingdom. If the settlors themselves are beneficiaries, there is a strong case for saying that they should be taxed on trusts that already exist in so far as those trusts give rise to income from now on.
    The issue was raised as a result of a great deal of publicity given to some large trusts to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred. The public desire to see something done about it, and they will not be satisfied if those large trusts escape the ambit of the clause.
    One must draw a careful line on retrospection. I have argued on many Finance Bills against the use of retrospection to create tax liability where one did not exist at the time. My argument now is not based on the creation of a new tax liability for income derived before the Budget. The purpose of the amendments is to deal with tax liability which will arise from now on, and of course, because of the nature of what we are discussing, they will effectively change the timing of tax payments. There are a number of precedents for going about it in this way, including the Inheritance Act 1974, which meant that discretionary trusts set up before 1974 became liable for subsequent inheritance tax.
    One must ask whether people should have a permanent tax holiday merely because they were able to exploit a loophole before it was cleared up. Investors in overseas trusts would have been advised that the loophole was likely to be closed in the future. Those people often received advice from fairly sophisticated tax advisers.
    There is a similar element of retrospection in schedule 15, which proposes a charge of 10 per cent. a year on the tax liability of pre-Budget settlements. The Government also accept that it might be a legitimate device to use to ensure that the income from now on of some of the settlements made before the Budget was made liable to tax.
    Mr. Maude: I am keen to understand what the hon. Gentleman proposes. He talks about income from the trusts, which is a little puzzling. I can see that it would not be retrospection to say that income from a certain date should become liable for tax, and if one announced that from a date that was to be the case that could happen. A capital gain is a different matter. If a capital gain was realised today, for example, there might be a capital gain over a period right back to the rebasing in 1982.
    I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman proposes that the whole of that capital gain, going back beyond Budget day and the announcement of the proposals, should be subject to tax, or whether he proposes that it should be simply the part of the capital gain which has accrued since Budget day. If he proposes the former, that seems clearly——
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is a very long intervention.
    Mr. Maude: Perhaps I may draw to my peroration, Mr. Knox, and finish the point, which was meant to be short, although now I am afraid that I am in danger of having forgotten what it is.
    Either the proposal would be retrospective if it were to bring into charge for tax all the capital gain from whenever it began to accrue, or it would simply apply to the part of

    693
    the capital gain which accrued since Budget day, in which case it would impose an impossible task of valuation of all assets in all non-resident trusts on Budget day.
    Mr. Beith: I sought to advance the principle—which was rightly picked up by the Minister in his pertinent if lengthy intervention—that we should not give nonresident trusts a permanent tax holiday, but that we should avoid if we can introducing further dangerous precedents of retrospection to add to those in which the Government have engaged in previous Bills and elsewhere in the Bill. The clause about building societies is an example. I am trying to draw a line at the point of the Budget itself, and to move on from there. The Minister has made the perfectly legitimate objection that valuation problems are associated with that, and he may want to deal with that later.
    I hope that the Minister will address himself to the central issue, which is that my concern was based on the large sums that have already been put into non-resident trusts. Those trusts will enjoy a permanent tax holiday if the Bill is not amended along the lines that I have proposed. There is a case for an amendment which does not create a retrospective tax liability going back before the Budget but which taxes such trusts in the future, leaving those who would otherwise benefit from them the opportunity of either paying the tax or transferring the assets to some other instrument.
    Mr. Maude: I will endeavour to keep my speech shorter than my intervention. I appreciate that the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is serious. His concern is that there should not be a permanent tax holiday for existing trusts. I must make two points. First, a non-resident trust already set up under previous arrangements will have to remain untouched—no further beneficiaries added to it and no further funds added to it—for it to remain not subject to the charge introduced by clause 77. If no such changes are made, such trusts do not enjoy a permanent tax holiday if at any time the capital is repatriated to the United Kingdom. At the point at which the capital is delivered to a United Kingdom resident beneficiary, it will be subject not only to ordinary capital gains tax, but to the supplementary charge that we are also introducing which is specifically defined to reflect the lost value to the Exchequer of the deferment of that capital gains tax.
    It is not possible to bring existing unchanged non-resident trusts within the new charge on the settlor without either being retrospective by imposing tax on gains that may have begun to accrue some time before Budget day or imposing on the Inland Revenue a gargantuan task of valuation which I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accepts would be hugely difficult. It would require a valuation on 19 March, or whatever the date of the Budget, of all the assets in all resident trusts so that one knew the base from which the capital gain was being calculated. That is not a terribly practical proposition.
    694
    8.15 pm
    I do not believe that we are perpetuating a tax holiday. At the point when capital is repatriated, the gains will be subject not only to ordinary capital gains tax, but to the supplementary charge which is designed specifically for that purpose.
    Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for considering the proposal. I will reflect on his point about valuation. I am touched that the Government are now worried about gargantuan valuation commitments placed on the Inland Revenue, especially when I consider the council tax, which will have precisely that effect. I will reflect on what the Minister has said and see whether either in this context or in the context of the charge at the stage of repatriation to which the Minister referred the point could be pursued later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Country Landowners Association, whose taxation sub-committee I have the pleasure to serve, has raised some points with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I hesitate to raise them in detail at this stage, but I would like to run quickly through them in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will write to me about them afterwards. I do not ask my hon. Friend for a detailed reply at this stage.
    The points raised by the Country Landowners Association mainly concern the question of what happens to a settlement that was made before 19 March 1991 which becomes subject to the regime set out in clause 77. The conditions on which a pre-19 March settlement becomes a qualifying settlement are quite complicated. They are set out in paragraph 11.
    The first condition in paragraph 11(3) is:
    "on or after 19th March 1991 property … is provided directly or indirectly for the purposes of the settlement—

    (a) otherwise than by way of a bargain made at arm's length".

    Certain minor activities could make the entire settlement a qualifying settlement. In certain circumstances, if one simply added a first-class postage stamp to the settlement, one could make the entire settlement a qualifying one. There is an argument to suggest that only the new property which is added to a settlement after 19 March should be treated as a qualifying settlement rather than property that existed in the settlement beforehand.
    The second condition that would mean that a pre-19 March 1991 settlement became a qualifying settlement is that the trustees of the settlement become non-resident after 19 March 1991. That could cause some difficulties unless the settlor himself has power to appoint or to reappoint the trustees. If he has no such power and if he has no say over who the trustees are, yet nevertheless becomes liable for capital gains tax on the settlement, that could cause some unfairness in some cases. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that point and will come back to me on it.
    The third condition is that a pre-19 March 1991 settlement can become a qualified settlement if there is a variation of the settlement after 19 March 1991. There are circumstances in which settlements might be varied—for example, a foreign court might vary a settlement. Those are circumstances over which the settlor would have no control and which could result in unfairness.

    695
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to write at some stage about these matters. I did not give him any warning that I would raise them this evening.
    The idea is that a settlor should pay the capital gains tax in a qualifying settlement subject to his right to reimbursement from the trust. If a pre-19 March 1991 settlement becomes a qualifying settlement and therefore gives rise to a liability, would it be possible to have a revaluation of the assets at market value at the time when the settlement enters the regime of schedule 14? That would relieve the settlor of any gains or losses on any non-qualifying period.
    I apologise for boring the Committee with these detailed and technical matters. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to write at some stage, and hope that he will do so in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Maude: The Committee will be disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) has given me a let-out by inviting me to write to him rather than entertain the Committee by responding to the important matters that he has brought to our attention which I shall consider carefully.
    We have carefully framed the proposals by which the new charge will apply to existing trusts in particular circumstances to avoid any element of retrospection. If I am right, it is broadly the possible, potential retrospection, if such a concept exists, which is troubling my hon. Friend. That is that an element of retrospection could be triggered other than by the deliberate and conscious act of the settlor or the trustees.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It is partly that and partly that some settlors will have been locked into certain arrangements from which they are unable to withdraw. It is because they are locked into certain arrangements that they find themselves liable to an entirely unexpected tax liability.
    Mr. Maude: I understand what my hon. Friend says. Broadly, the settlor should, I would guess, always have the power not to add funds to the trust and hence not to trigger the pre-existing trust into becoming a qualifying one. If there are circumstances that could trigger the pre-existing trust other than that, we shall need to examine them carefully.
    My hon. Friend said that there could be circumstances in which the settlor might have no power over the appointment of trustees, where a non-resident trustee might be appointed and thus trigger the settlement into becoming qualifying. It would be an odd appointment. It would be an odd decision for whoever had the power to make the appointment to act in that way in the knowledge that it would bring such a trust within the new regime, if it were possible in the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlined to avoid making such an appointment.
    My hon. Friend talked of the power of a foreign court to amend the terms of a trust. I cannot comment on that now. It is a matter to which I shall give careful attention.
    My note of my hon. Friend's following point came to an end after I had written "valuation". I cannot remember in more detail what it was, but I shall be glad to deal with it when I have had the benefit of refreshing my memory by reading Hansard.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule 14 agreed to.

  Clause 23

    CHARGE AND RATE OF CORPORATION TAX FOR 1991
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The clause sets the rate of corporation tax prospectively for the financial year 1991–92. Our debate on clause 22 of an hour or so ago related to the rate of corporation tax which was being set retrospectively for 1990–91. We are glad that the Government are reverting in clause 23 to the principle of avoiding retrospection in setting the rate of corporation tax. It may be conceded that there is merit in retrospection in exceptional circumstances in terms of clause 22, but as a general principle it must be right that the rate of corporation tax should be set prospectively rather than retrospectively. It was one of the relatively few wise changes to the taxation system that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Many of our arguments about clause 23 are precisely the same as those that we advanced a short while ago when considering clause 22. We welcome the relief that is given to many businesses by the reduction in the rate of corporation tax to 33 per cent. We must recognise, however, that the benefit is not felt substantially by smaller companies. We shall come on shortly to talk about the measures that the Government are proposing for small businesses. There will be no benefit whatsoever for companies which have profits of less than £200,000, so we are talking of a limited but welcome measure.
    It must be recognised that the benefit that is brought by the clause is substantially outweighed in the relief that it gives by other measures contained in the Budget and the Bill. We must understand the impact on business of the rise in value added tax to 17·5 per cent. Many business commentators have noted perceptively that, while the rate of corporation tax gives businesses something, the rise in VAT takes something away from them. In current circumstances it is difficult for many manufacturers to increase the prices of their goods fully to reflect the additional 2·5 per cent.
    I notice in passing that the Liberal Democrats have, perhaps temporarily, absented themselves from our company during these proceedings in Committee. I am surprised at that, given the importance of the clause that we are discussing.
    The impact of the VAT change and its outweighing of the corporation tax measures has been commented upon in some surprising quarters. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., while giving a general welcome to the Budget, had one or two rather perceptive comments to make. The regional liaison officer for Yorkshire said:
    "The really small guy is not selling at the moment and the VAT increase will push his prices up even more."
    The regional chairman for East Anglia said about the Budget:
    "It's like the curate's egg, good in parts. The Chancellor has juggled with figures and not helped the cash flow problems of small businesses."
    It was precisely the changes to corporation tax in clauses 22 and 23 which were supposed to help with the cash flow problems of business. But clearly many business men and business women do not believe that that has happened.
    Another commentator on the Bill, Coopers and Lybrand, said immediately after the Budget:

    697
    "Most entrepreneurs are not going to believe current competition will allow them to increase prices immediately to this extent … they may well consider most of these measures"—
    that is most of the measures on corporation tax—
    "are marginal to their cash flow problems in the face of the 2.5 per cent. increase in VAT and its consequences".
    At about the same time Phillips and Drew said:
    "Although the reliefs on business taxation were welcome, they amount to no more than a teaspoon with which to hold back the recessionary tide."
    8.30 pm
    It is clear from the comments of many observers on the Bill and the measures which were supposed to help business that, while the Government's measures are welcome to a certain extent, they will not do much to help business in a real way. The verdict of Phillips and Drew that the measures will do little to stem the tide of recession will form much of the focus of our analysis of the Bill in Committee.
    On clause 22 we said that the Government would have done much better to have targeted the help that they decided to give to business in order to boost investment in manufacturing industry. Precisely the same analysis applies to clause 23. In clause 22, the Government decided to allocate £380 million worth of Exchequer moneys to the relief that they provided in last year's corporation tax rate. In clause 23 they have decided to give extra relief amounting to £830 million in a full year.
    Earlier the Government asked us what the Labour party's proposals would cost. Our answer is simple. The Government are spending a substantial amount in this clause on supposed support for business in the current financial year. We would have made different choices about how to spend that money. We believe that it could have been better targeted, produced better results and assisted more with the recovery that our economy needs.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Given the choice, would the Labour party reverse this decision? Given the choice, would it take us back to the 52 per cent. rate of corporation tax which applied when the Labour party was last in power?
    Mr. Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present during our earlier debate. If he had been, he would have known precisely the answer to those questions. The answer to both questions is no. If the hon. Gentleman went on to ask how the Labour party would finance its proposals on capital allowances if we kept the rate of corporation tax envisaged in the clause, I would make one simple point to him. It is a point which Ministers and Back-Bench Conservative Members have failed to recognise about our proposals on capital allowances. We are talking about bringing forward capital allowance moneys for companies. It is money which the Exchequer would have forgone anyway in due course. We are talking about bringing the money forward into an earlier stage of the investment cycle to provide an incentive for the investment. It is not money that is forgone in the long term by the Exchequer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that extremely important point.
    The Opposition have recognised the absolute need to ensure that industry is encouraged to invest. At present our investment performance is sadly lacking. We have identified that as one of the cardinal problems afflicting the
    698
    British economy and we believe that, welcome though the Government's measures may be to some companies, they are not enough to stimulate the investment that our country needs.
    The firm of Rathbones prepared an extremely good analysis of many of the proposals in the Budget. It could hardly be said to be in the pocket of the Labour party. It made some interesting comments on the role of business taxation and the measures in the Budget, especially those which deal with corporation tax. It noted that there was a danger that small companies would face a disincentive to invest because of the way in which the thresholds and ceilings were set. On page 11 of its Budget briefing it says:
    "In addition, the Chancellor has yet again ignored the calls to give specific reliefs for manufacturing industry. Presumably he feels that we are now a nation of service companies if not shopkeepers rather than manufacturers."
    That was not the Labour party speaking. It was a firm commenting independently on the stance that the Government have taken in the Budget and the Finance Bill. It is not a stance that the Labour party shares. We believe that the cardinal need at present is to improve our investment performance in the manufacturing sector. Of course, we welcome the reduction in corporation tax this year to 33 per cent. But we cannot possibly agree with the Government's refusal to understand that allowances to boost investment are what our economy needs and what the Government should have considered more carefully.
    Mr. Mellor: Having spent—perhaps one should say misspent—many years hacking around this place through great long Bills, many full of impenetrable verbiage, it is rather a treat to discuss a clause that states with great simplicity:
    "Corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1991 at the rate of 33 per cent."
    While others may spring to instantaneous understanding of even the densest clauses of Bills, I usually have to look to my crib. But on this occasion the imposing piece of paper headed "Board of Inland Revenue", which is usually my guide, simply says:
    "This clause sets the rate of corporation tax for the financial year 1991 at 33 per cent."
    Whatever other reservations may have been expressed about the Bill and, referring to an earlier debate, whatever problems of draftsmanship we may find when we go through the Bill in Committee—it is always a brave man who claims that any Bill that he has introduced is devoid of mistakes—clause 23 should at least win the prize for crispness and clarity. It makes clear what we are talking about, which is a start, even if we do not draw the same conclusions from it. Tempting though it is, I shall not repeat to the vast assemblage gathered for this purpose the comments that I made earlier. I should not wish to divert my constituent, Mr. Knox, whose rise to power is much appreciated by his Member of Parliament. I shall require him to read my earlier comments in Hansard.
    Plainly, there is a philosophical difference between the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I. I do not necessarily think that it is the end of the world if other people do not agree—it is a perfectly reasonable thing for people to fall out about—but we believe that companies, possessed of the liquidity, can better decide what to do with the money. I gave the figures for the tremendous upsurge in investment in the 1980s, and the upsurge between 1986 and 1989 had much to do with the changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for

    699
    Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made in his 1984 Budget. The move to 33 per cent. gives us, once again, the keenest corporation tax rate in the European Community and, indeed, among the G7 countries. In 1984, a sharp reduction was made and others followed suit; we have taken the lead again.
    It is the role of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to pick holes in the argument, even though the Labour party does not criticise us for reducing corporation tax. The hon. Gentleman peddled the argument about capital allowances. I know that several substantial organisations share his view, but the arrangements already in place provide quite a substantial incentive for machinery and plant. Capital allowances for machinery and plant are 25 per cent. on a declining balance basis, which means that for tax purposes most of the cost of an asset can be written off over seven or eight years. If the average life of machinery and plant is about 17 years, as some have estimated, the ability to write it off over seven or eight years, given the current rate of corporation tax, is an attractive basis for companies to invest. I understand that others in industry who consider themselves hard pressed may be looking for another view, but I do not agree with that other view, although we listen to it with care.
    The problem is that the Labour party is seeking to ride both horses at once; it wants the benefit of being able to say "Me too." We are asked to believe that a Labour Chancellor would reduce corporation tax—a pledge was given today not to increase it—and make capital allowances. That is all very well as a debating point, but it is not a substantial or convincing basis on which to look forward, as Labour alleges it is, to a period in Government. Governments must make choices; there is no such thing as a free lunch. We are all indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby for making that one of the great cliches of our time. Capital allowances will cost a few hundred million pounds, but that must be paid for.
    I am grateful for the clear way in which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury put his argument; the trouble with clarity is that it reveals problems that a more fudged presentation does riot. The hon. Gentleman, as always, was admirably clear. We do not agree on some of the conclusions that can be drawn, but we agree that this masterly, laconic drafting makes clear what we are trying to do—reduce the rate of corporation tax for the next year to 33 per cent. I hope that the Committee will endorse the clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 24

    SMALL COMPANIES
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    8.45 pm
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Clause 24 extends the benefit of small companies' relief from the corporation tax scheme by setting new limits that are substantially increased for the third year running. This year, the lower limit is increased from
    700
    £200,000 to £250,000, and the higher limit from £1 million to £1·25 million, which represents a 150 per cent. increase in the past three years.
    We have done much to help small companies by reducing tax rates. Since 1979, the small companies' tax rate has been reduced from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent., which is the same as the basic rate of income tax. Small companies have benefited from that major achievement. As a result of this year's increase, 3,000 more companies will benefit from the small companies' rate, at which the vast majority of tax-paying companies pay tax. More companies will benefit from the marginal relief, and about 30,000 companies will pay less tax as a result of the increase this year.
    Mr. Chris Smith: As the Economic Secretary said, clause 24 sets the level and the parameters of the small business rates of corporation tax for 1991. It possesses less of the laconic quality of clause 23, but none the less it sets out its intentions reasonably clearly.
    Clause 24 consists of three parts—it sets the rate at 25 per cent., as it has been for the past year; it sets the profits limit for the small companies rate up to £250,000; and it sets the limit for marginal relief up to £1·25 million. The latter two changes are welcome to small businesses.
    We must recognise, however, that those measures provide no help to businesses below the £200,000 1990 threshold. They will be marginally helped by the carry-back provisions, which we shall discuss in Standing Committee, but the clause offers them no additional help.
    The clause will bring welcome but limited help. It must be considered, however, against the background of the wider economic recession. For small businesses, that recession has been caused by two factors—the level of interest rates and the introduction of the uniform business rate. In the debate on clause 19 of last year's Finance Bill, we drew attention to the impact of high interest rates on the small business sector.
    The Government took many months before listening to us. They have now reduced interest rates to a certain extent, but to far too limited an extent. It is worth remembering that, under this Government, interest rates have been above 12 per cent. since August 1988—for a longer period than the total time of all the previous Governments since the second world war put together. That is the extent of the squeeze which the Government have placed on small businesses through high interest rates.
    Only the other week, I visited several small firms in Woolwich. Business man after business man in small businesses spoke to me, not about corporation tax or the thresholds and ceilings at which the small companies rate bites, but about the level of interest rates, even after the recent snail-like reductions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been introducing. Interest rates have been their primary concern.
    The other aspect that has been affecting small businesses is the introduction of the uniform business rate. It has had a differential impact in different parts on different industrial sectors and on different sizes of properties. Last year, 250,000 firms in Britain faced 100 per cent. increases in their rates bills as a direct result of the introduction of the uniform business rate.
    Recently I visited some small businesses in York, especially in the retailing sector in the inner-city area. They found that the uniform business rate, together with overall

    701
    interest rates, was the principal cause of the difficulties that their firms were encountering. To tinker with the level and thresholds of the small companies rate of corporation tax may help the prospects of small businesses marginally, but it will not help much. For small businesses facing a recession, clause 24 does not provide much relief. The total value of the change which the Government are introducing in clause 24 is £20 million, yet the recession is causing enormous difficulty and pain throughout the country.
    It is perhaps worth looking briefly at the figures which the Building Employers Confederation issued this morning. The press release which accompanies the spring "State of Trade Enquiry" contains several interesting comments. It is worth setting this beside some of the economic hype that we have heard from the Government during the past few days. They have tried to claim that the recession has turned the corner, that the economy is about to recover, and that economic optimism is on the increase. Indeed, earlier this afternoon the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about economic optimism surging forward. Clearly, he had not seen the BEC figures. It is worth remembering that its members account for more than three quarters of total construction industry output.
    The press release states that the BEC
    "has charted a further sharp fall in output in the first quarter of 1991 compared with the fourth quarter of last year."
    The main findings of its survey include:
    "The steep downward trend in output continuing;
    A further rise in spare capacity in the industry; …
    A sharp fall in confidence about future workload; …
    Further job losses anticipated."
    The press release continues:
    "The repair and maintenance sectors appear to have been particularly hard hit by declining demand."
    It is precisely the repair and maintenance sectors of the construction industry that contain the most small businesses, as the detailed figures make clear.
    Clearly, the recession has hit first companies with small numbers of employees. The percentage of firms reporting less work by size shows that, in the fourth quarter of last year, the very small firms—those with fewer than 114 employees—were suffering particularly from the recession. On average, 60 per cent. were experiencing less work than they had in the previous quarter.
    Throughout this extremely interesting report from the BEC, the clear message is that business confidence is still falling, that output is still falling, that the recession is still intensifying and that it is hitting especially hard at the small companies end of that industrial sector. When the Chief Secretary tries to tell us that industry is about to flourish once again without any help from the Government, we are entitled to disbelieve him.
    702
    Earlier, I noted that the Chief Secretary claimed that the CBI survey, which came out last week, showed optimism on the increase. In his absence, I must tell him that it showed nothing of the sort. It showed optimism still on a downward trend and that fewer businesses were optimistic than were three months previously. Yes, the rate of decline in optimism may have slackened slightly, but declining it still is. It is important that the Government recognise that. It would be useful if from time to time they would acknowledge that rather than claim that a downturn in optimism is an upturn, because it is not.
    The Government could have introduced a package of real measures to improve the prospects for industry, especially small companies. They could have accepted our proposals for investment allowances and introduced measures to implement a programme of training which is especially important for the small business sector. They could have removed the uniform business rate and returned to a locally determined form of business property taxation. They could have given a special boost to research and development. They could have transformed the business expansion scheme into something that benefited manufacturing industry instead of providing a tax haven for property speculators. They could have provided additional interest rate relief.
    The Government did none of those things, which would have been a substantial package of measures for small businesses. What the clause contains may be worthy, but it is far too little, given the scale of the problems and the difficulties that afflict small businesses throughout the country. The Government have yet to recognise that truth.
    Mr. Maples: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) accuses this modest little part of the Finance Bill of not doing all sorts of things that it was never intended to do. It is part of a long-term programme of getting down the rates of corporation tax. While the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it will not cure the problems of the uniform business rate, or the recession, or sort out the construction industry, I think that on the whole companies would prefer to pay corporation tax at 25 per cent. rather than the 42 per cent. that they had to pay when his party was in power.
    It is a measure that, to companies earning £250,000 a year, is worth £20,000. That is £20,000 more to invest in their business, either in working capital, or in plant and equipment. I should have thought that that would be welcome to them. We believe that on the whole it is better that people should pay lower rates of tax, and this is a move in that direction.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
    Committee to report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Loads]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Loads]
  Clause 2

    ORDERS FOR PERIODICAL PAYMENT IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS: MEANS OF PAYMENT
    9 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten):I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 1, leave out `subsection (1)(a) above' and insert 'this section'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 2.
    Mr. Patten: This is a minor consequential amendment to clause 2. It is required because clause 59(7A), introduced as an amendment to the Bill this evening, contains a reference to a qualifying maintenance order. Because that phrase is used in clause 59(7A), it follows that the definition of that phrase which is given in clause 59(2) needs to be applied to the whole clause, not just to clause 59(1)(a).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 2, in page 5, line 16, at end insert—

    '(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on magistrates' courts, in addition to their powers under paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3) above, the power (the "additional power") to order that payments under a qualifying maintenance order be made by the debtor to the creditor or the clerk of a magistrates' court (as the regulations may provide) by such method of payment as may be specified in the regulations.

    (7B) Any reference in any enactment to paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3) above (but not a reference to any specific paragraph of that subsection) shall be taken to include a
    704
    reference to the additional power, and the reference in subsection (7C) below to the additional power shall be construed accordingly.

    (7C) Regulations under subsection (7A) above may make provision for any enactment concerning, or connected with, payments under maintenance orders to apply, with or without modifications, in relation to the additional power.

    (7D) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (7A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    9.1 pm
    Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    This Bill has had all-party support and deserves the support of the whole House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Order on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    CIVIL SERVICE
    That the draft European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.
    DATA PROTECTION
    That the draft Data Protection Registration Fee Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Nine o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what was the total cost of running the Government quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in the two most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Renton
  Details of total expenditure by non-departmental public bodies can be found in "Public Bodies 1990", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy Programmes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list his Department's current and planned renewable energy programmes in Scotland by type, cost, site location and capacity.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A total of 38 renewable energy projects currently being carried out under my Department's research, development and demonstration programme have a contractor or site located in Scotland. They comprise:

  Technology

  Projects

  Contract Value

  £ million

  Wind

  14

  15·5

  Biomass

  13

  2·8

  Solar

  6

  0·8

  Geothermal

  1

  0·6

  Wave/Hydro

  4

  0·3

  Wind

  3MW Aerogenerator at Burgar Hill

  60 WTG performance monitoring phase 4

  Additional monitoring of Shetland HWP 750

  Wind turbine control systems modelling and design

  The influence of noise on wind turbine design

  Yaw system loads of HAWTS

  Evaluation of the concept of a stall limited rotor

  Fast acting control of wind turbines

  Wind energy resource in Caithness and Sutherland

  MS-3 for NEL test site

  Feasibility of testing WT incorp advanced tip cont rotor

  Aerodynamic braking and control devices HAWTS

  Development of MW-rated WTS using WEG LS-1 orkney

  Design/test controller for variable speed turbine

  Biomass

  Elucidation of interspecies interactions

  Peat as fuel

  RDF combustion

  Straw ash chemistry study

  Straw combustion—Fluid bed boiler

  Harvesting processing and storing trials

  Support services in forestry for energy

  Development of fuelwood harvesting systems

  Forest residue communition and screening

  374

  Single stem trees as energy crops

  Large scale trials of short rotation coppice

  Trials of single stem energy plantations

  Trials of short rotation coppice phase 2 and 3

  Solar

  Development bredem for passive solar application

  Consultancy for the CEC Passys test cell project

  Internal convective heat transfer coefficients

  Continued participation with CEC Passys project

  ESP support and enhancement

  Operation of an extended pilot DAS

  Geothermal

  Seismic monitoring in South West England

  Wave/Hydro

  Telemetry demonstration

  Small scale low cost wave power device phase 2

  Transfer of PDP2 tapes

  Consultancy on review of NEL—OWC

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much has been allocated in research and development moneys by his Department to cover(a) nuclear power and (b) renewable energy in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The figures are given in the table:

  Nuclear energy

  Renewables

  £ million

  £ million

  1979–80

  145·5

  8·2

  1980–81

  188·0

  11·3

  1981–82

  203·2

  15·3

  1982–83

  212·4

  12·7

  1983–84

  203·8

  11·9

  1984–85

  196·2

  14·9

  1985–86

  189·6

  13·6

  1986–87

  159·7

  12·5

  1987–88

  141·0

  16·1

  1988–89

  159·3

  16·3

  1989–90

  135·9

  17·9

  1990–91

  133·5

  20·3

  11991–92

  93·4

  24·5

  1 Estimate.

  Nuclear Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what research is under way to establish the cost and feasibility of full decommissioning of nuclear reactors;

  (2) how many nuclear reactors are fully decommissioned; and at what cost;

  (3) what information he has as to whether Nuclear Electricity has a fully costed strategy for decommissioning its remaining Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No commercial reactors in the United Kingdom have yet been fully decommissioned. Nuclear Electric and AEA Technology have programmes of research relating to the decommissioning of nuclear reactors which have the objectives to ensure the continued safety of the public, work force and the environment; to minimise environmental impact; to release land for other use as appropriate; and, consistent with the foregoing, to minimise expenditure.

  AEA Technology is proceeding with a programme to fully decommission the prototype advanced gas-cooled reactor at Windscale by 1998 to demonstrate both decommissioning capabilities and costs involved.

  Nuclear Electric's current strategy for decommissioning its nuclear power stations is set out in its report and

  375
  accounts for 1989–90, which also identified the accounting provisions made for future decommissioning costs, which were based upon Nuclear Electric's estimates of those costs.

  Windfarm Developments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to introduce revised procedures and modify the requirements for detailed site-specific information for windfarm developments of less than 5 MW.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The procedures to select projects to be contracted in fulfilment of a non-fossil fuel obligation are a matter for the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd.—NFPA—as the agent of the regional electricity companies on which the obligation is placed. The procedures adopted by the NFPA take into account the statutory requirement to make arrangements which "will secure" the specified amounts of non-fossil generating capacity and the need for advice from the Office of Electricity Regulation on whether the draft contracts available to the NFPA would be likely to meet this requirement.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give details of the cost incurred in debt write-off prior to the privatisation of the electricity generation and distribution companies in England; and what percentage of the total debt this is;

  (2) if he will give details of the cost incurred in debt write-off for the electricity generating and distribution companies prior to privatisation; and what percentage of the total debt this is.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No debt write-off occurred in connection with the privatisation of the electricity industry in England and Wales. On flotation, moreover, the companies bore new debt to Government totalling £3·583 billion overall, which will accrue to the taxpayer in addition to the proceeds from the sales.

  Initial Nuclear Feasibility Study
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions since February 1989 officials from his Department have met representatives from British Nuclear Fuels to discuss the initial nuclear feasibility study; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of these discussions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The study is still at an early stage. My officials have been kept informed of its progress in the course of their regular meetings with British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  National Grid Company
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Grid Company concerning the environmental health implications of electro-magnetic radiation from overhead supergrid lines on nearby residential properties.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department's engineering inspectorate is in regular contact with the National Grid Company in respect of electromagnetic fields and keeps me fully informed on the matter.

  Power Failures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of power failures that have occurred in the Doncaster area during the past 12 months giving(a) location, (b) reason for breakdown and (c) the duration of the breakdown until supply was resumed; and what were the figures 12 months ago.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Only supply interruptions of a major nature are required to be reported to the Secretary of State under regulation 35 of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988. Essentially these interruptions involve 20 MW or more, or 5 MW for one hour or longer or more than 5,000 consumers for one hour or longer. During the past two years no such interruptions involving the Doncaster area have been reported by Yorkshire Electricity other than the blizzard of 8 and 9 December 1990 which affected major parts of Doncaster.

  Oil Fires (Kuwait)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his talks in Kuwait in relation to British, American and Saudi action to extinguish oil fires.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his visit to Kuwait, including his meeting with the Kuwaiti Prime Minister on 27 April; and what discussions were held regarding putting out the fires in oil wells caused by the Iraqi armed forces prior to the liberation of Kuwait.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I visited Kuwait on 26 to 28 April with a team of British business men. This visit was part of our response to the request made by the crown prince to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that Britain should play a substantial part in the reconstruction of Kuwait. My meetings with the crown prince and with Kuwaiti Ministers were very positive and encouraging and I believe that United Kingdom industry will he able to make a significant contribution both to solving the urgent problem of extinguishing the fires and capping the wells and to the reconstruction of Kuwait's oil industry. The most immediate effect of my visit is the Kuwait Oil Company's intention to commission the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, a joint venture of AMEC, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey, to undertake a damage assessment survey of a number of wells in northern Kuwait. If the Kuwaiti authorities are satisfied with the findings of this survey the fire group is likely to be appointed to put out the fires and cap the wells in that part of Kuwait.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he made of the ferocity and consequences of oil fires in Kuwait in(a) October 1990, (b) November 1990, (c) December 1990, (d) January 1991, (e) February 1991(f) March 1991 and (g) April 1991, (i) pre and (ii) following his official visit to Kuwait to assess the extent of the conflagration.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government's latest view of the consequences of the oil fires in Kuwait remains as stated in the assessment by the Departments concerned, entitled "The Potential Impact of the Burning Oil Wells in Kuwait on the Environment and Human Health" a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 15 April 1991.
  377
  The main purpose of my visit to Kuwait was part of the follow-up to the request made to the Prime Minister by the crown prince on 6 March that Britain should play a substantial part in the reconstruction. I led a team of business men, most of whom had specialist expertise in the oil and gas industries, to investigate opportunities for British industry, as a result of which I have every reason to believe that a group of United Kingdom companies will be awarded a contract to carry out a damage assessment of one of the oilfields.

  This is expected to lead to major opportunities for British industry to work on extinguishing and capping burning wells and restoring oil production.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of United Kingdom use of rail for freight relative to other members of the European Community.

  Mr. Freeman
  The UIC's "International Railway Statistics 1989" gives the following figures for freight carried by rail.

  Rail traffic lifted Tonnes

  Rail traffic moved Tonnes kms

  (millions)

  (millions)

  Belgium

  81·1

  9,400

  Denmark

  7·9

  1,700

  France

  153·8

  54,600

  Germany

  621·5

  121,500

  Great Britain

  143·1

  16,700

  Greece

  n/a

  n/a

  Holland

  21·5

  3,300

  Italy

  66·7

  21,300

  Luxembourg

  17·8

  700

  Portugal

  7·3

  1,800

  Republic of Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  Spain

  38·3

  14,400

  Train Accidents
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many people are recorded as having fallen from British Rail trains in each year from 1981 to 1991;

  (2) how many people have died as a result of falling from British Rail trains, in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows. The figures for 1990 are provisional. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Number of persons fallen from British Rail trains

  Year

  Total

  Killed

  Major injury

  Minor injury

  1981

  60

  16

  11

  33

  1982

  55

  11

  7

  37

  1983

  75

  13

  6

  56

  1984

  82

  14

  11

  57

  1985

  66

  16

  8

  42

  1986

  61

  12

  15

  34

  1987

  70

  26

  16

  28

  1988

  64

  19

  13

  32

  1989

  47

  19

  16

  12

  1990

  31

  19

  4

  18

  1 Provisional.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  CSCE
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what part the United Kingdom Parliament played in the conference of parliamentary representatives from the member states of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe held on 1 to 3 April.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Spanish Parliament, Senor Felix Pons, wrote to Mr. Speaker inviting six members of the United Kingdom Parliament to attend this conference. Following discussion through the usual channels, a delegation led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) attended the conference. The other members of the delegation were:

  Mr. Frank Cook

  Mr. Patrick Duffy

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

  Sir Michael Marshall

  Lord Montgomery of Alamein

  Delegations from all 34 CSCE participating states attended the conference and agreed to establish a CSCE parliamentary assembly in which the United Kingdom Parliament will have 13 seats. I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the final resolution agreed by the delegates.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vagrants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 29 January,Official Report, column 455, when the branding of vagrants was abolished from the Justices of the Peace Act 1361; what sections of this Act are still in force; and if he has any plans to bring in new legislation within this Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  On the first part of the question, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 29 January at column 455. As to the remainder, the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 is not organised into sections. The extant power from the 1361 Act is for magistrates to make binding-over orders. We have no present plans for legislation in this area.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review committee exploring the wider use of police criminal records to report; whether the committee explored the practice of employers and local authorities forcing data subjects, prior to employment, to exercise their right of subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act with respect to personal data held by the police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report of the efficiency scrutiny into criminal records was received on 24 April. It deals with various aspects of the question of disclosure from the criminal records, including the issue of enforced subject access for the purpose of job applications. The report is being considered in accordance with the interdepartmentally agreed arrangements for the conduct of efficiency scrutinies.

  Prisons (Heating)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those of Her Majesty's prisons that have coal-fired boiler heating.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The list of prisons which have heating supplied via coal-fired boiler houses is as follows:

  Ashwell, Nottingham

  Deerbolt, Norwich

  Feltham, Onley

  Full Sutton, Rudgate

  Gartree, Risley

  Garth, Stoke Heath

  Highpoint, Standford Hill (Part)

  Hindley, Stocken

  Long Lartin, Thorn Cross

  Littlehey, Thorpe Arch

  Lowdham Grange, Wayland

  The Mount, Wymott

  Police Cells
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by police stations in South Yorkshire how many(a) males and (b) females were held in police cells for the latest date he has available; and if he will show in his answer for each police station the longest length of stay a prisoner in each category has been held;

  (2) what is the longest period (a) a male and (b) a female has been held in a police cell in South Yorkshire due to shortage of prison space following the Strangeways prison riot.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  On Thursday 2 May a total of 24 prisoners were held in police cells in the South Yorkshire police area. All were male and all were held at Doncaster police station. No female prisoners have been held in South Yorkshire police cells as a consequence of the prison disturbances in April 1990. Information about the length of time which individual prisoners have spent in police cells is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Firearms Offences
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is collected by(a) the Home Department and (b) police forces on the number of persons convicted of firearms offences who were in possession of a firearms certificate at the time when their offence was committed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Police forces would incur disproportionate cost in collating this information. It is, therefore, not available centrally.

  Pucklechurch Remand Centre
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Pucklechurch remand centre to be brought back into use.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am considering a range of prison estate planning issues, including the future of Pucklechurch remand centre. I hope to be in a position to reach a decision in the near future.

  Prisons (Baby Food)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he will take steps to ensure that women in mother and baby units in prisons are allowed to prepare fresh foods for their babies.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by women prison establishment those that(a) do and (b) do not allow mothers who are in prison with their babies to prepare fresh food for their babies other than manufactured baby food.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The provision of food in the three mother and baby units varies with the nature of the accommodation and the age of the children.

  At HM prison Askham Grange, where mothers may keep their babies with them to the age of 18 months, fresh food is prepared for all the babies by one of the mothers.

  At HM prison Styal, where babies may stay until nine months old, a range of both proprietary baby food and fresh food is available and mothers may choose in consultation with the nursing sister how to feed their babies. The food is prepared by the cook on the unit.

  At HM prison Holloway, where the age limit is also nine months, mothers are provided with a range of propriety brands of food for their babies, supplemented by fruit juice and milk. Consideration is being given to extending the range of food available. Mothers may also purchase fresh fruit for their babies from the prison canteen.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of strip searches carried out on females sentenced category A and remand prisoners being held in Her Majesty's prisons Durham and Brixton since November 1989; if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Between 1 November 1989 and 30 April 1991, category A women prisoners held in Durham and Brixton prisons were strip-searched on a total of 244 occasions. No unauthorised article was found. On no occasion did the prisoners refuse to be strip-searched. Strip searching is a routine security measure to which all prisoners—male and female—are subject, both for its deterrent effect and as a means of discovering unauthorised articles.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I understand that the Office of the Data Protection Registrar does not have a press and public relations office. The registrar is advised by a public relations agency on public relations matters generally.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each of the past five years for offences committed by motorists in yellow box junctions; and what evaluation his Department has made of their effectiveness.

  Mr. John Patten
  Separate figures for offences committed in yellow box junctions are not available centrally. The Home Office has not carried out any evaluation of yellow box junctions recently.

  Squatters
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 143, what conclusions he has reached on plans to revise the law relating to squatters and second homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We expect to announce the outcome of our review as soon as possible.

  Thamesmead Estate
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on the policing of the Thamesmead estate, with particular reference to the police response to allegations of racial harassment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The Metropolitan police continue to give a priority response to racial incidents, as the 1991 strategy statement makes clear.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will obtain for his Department's Library a recording of the LWT "London Programme" broadcast on Friday 26 April, about law and order in Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office monitors recordings or transcripts of all television programmes dealing with substantive law and order issues. The specific policing matters raised in the LWT "London Programme" broadcast on 26 April are for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Forensic Science Services
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes on average for forensic science laboratories to analyse blood samples from the date of arrival at the laboratories concerned.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by police authority in England and Wales, the average time in 1990–91 for forensic science laboratories to analyse blood samples from the date of arrival at the laboratories concerned.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Drug Trafficking
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report from the working group set up to review the provisions on the confiscation of drug traffickers' assets.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am pleased to announce that the working group has now completed its consideration of the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Its report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, was published today. It contains a number of important proposals designed to make it easier for the courts to apply the confiscation provisions and to enforce confiscation orders once they are made. In view of the innovatory nature of some of these proposals, it is important that we should give the public and key interest groups an opportunity to comment on what has been proposed. We shall therefore welcome comments on any of the issues raised. In the light of responses to the document, which we are seeking by 12 June, we shall consider what legislative measures need to be taken to strengthen the existing procedures.

  The working group is now examining the parallel confiscation provisions contained in part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield for capital gains tax for the years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what is the anticipated yield for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  The following table shows the receipts of capital gains tax and the estimated total liability to capital gains tax arising on gains realised in each of the years since 1987–88. Capital gains tax receipts in any year reflect liabilities for the previous and earlier years.

  Capital gains tax receipts in the year

  Estimated capital gains tax liabilities on gains realised in the year

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,379

  2,500

  1988–89

  2,323

  1,900

  1989–90

  1,854

  12,100

  1990–91

  21,855

  11,200

  1991–92

  11,400

  11,500

  1 1991–92 Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast.

  2 Provisional.

  These figures exclude capital gains of companies taxed within corporation tax.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of capital gains tax paid was paid at 40 per cent. in(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  Capital gains tax receipts in 1988–89 correspond to gains realised in 1987–88 and earlier years which were taxed at a flat rate of 30 per cent.: no capital gains tax was paid at 40 per cent. in 1988–89.

  It is estimated that the proportion of capital gains tax receipts attributable to liabilities charged at the higher rate

  383
  of 40 per cent. was about a half in 1989–90 and three quarters in 1990–91. The increase in the proportion mainly reflects the reduction between 1989–90 and 1990–91 in receipts attributable to gains realised in 1987–88 and earlier which were taxed at 30 per cent.

  These figures exclude gains realised by companies which are chargeable to corporation tax.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of staff employed by the Inland Revenue in regard to capital gains tax; and what was their cost for the latest year available.

  Mr. Maude
  The estimated staff usage on capital gains tax work in 1989–90 was 1,261 man years, with a direct cost of some £27.5 million.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue cost for the latest year available of the loss allowance provisions within the capital gains tax system.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that appropriate information is not available centrally on which to base a reliable estimate.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the breakdown for capital gains tax receipts as between equities, property, Iand and other capital gains for 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  The provisional estimate of receipts from capital gains tax in 1990–91 is £1,855 million. It is estimated that about two thirds of these receipts arose from gains on shares and other financial assets with the remainder attributable to gains on land, property and other tangible assets. For a more detailed breakdown by asset type of net chargeable gains arising from disposals made in 1987–88, I refer my hon. Friend to table 11.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1990". The figures exclude gains realised by companies which are chargeable to corporation tax.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current capital gains tax percentage change on equity gains in (i) the United States of America, (ii) Germany, (iii) Japan and (iv) France; and what information he has as to whether there is a time limit to the application of any equity change on gains in these countries.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest available information is given in the table, which is supplemented by notes.

  The general rule in these countries is that if gains are taxed at all they are added to income and taxed at the ordinary income or corporation tax rate as appropriate, but various reliefs and exemptions may apply.

  None of these countries has the equivalent to indexation which substantially reduces the effective rate of tax in the United Kingdom. Apart from Japan, none of the countries has an equivalent of the United Kingdom annual exemption.

  Nominal rates of tax on equity gains of

  Country

  Individuals Per cent.

  Companies Per cent.

  USA1

  15 or 28 plus state tax

  15–34 plus state tax

  Germany2

  19–53

  50

  10–50 plus local

  37·5 plus local taxes

  Japan3

  taxes 5–15

  17–20

  France4

  16 or 5–56·8

  34

  384
  Notes:

  USA Most states impose a state tax on both individuals and companies. In California, the most populous state, the top rate of 9·3 per cent. produces effective maximum rates of approximately 34 per cent. for individuals and 40 per cent. for companies. The tax rates are the same for long-term gains (i.e. on assets held for more than one year) and short-term gains (on assets held for less than one year).

  Germany Private gains for individuals are not subject to income tax unless they arise from sale of equities within 6 months of date of acquisition or from disposal of more than 1 per cent. of shares in a corporation in which the individual owned a substantial interest (more than 25 per cent. of share capital). Companies' gains are taxable however long an asset has been held.

  Japan The first 500,000 yen (£1,527 at latest available purchasing power parities rate) of gains of individuals in a year are exempt. Only one half of long-term gains (on assets held more than 5 years) is taxable. Individuals may elect to be taxed on equity gains at 20 per cent. (plus local taxes), in which case the special deduction does not apply and the whole gain is taxable. Companies' gains are taxable however long an asset has been held.

  France Special 16 per cent. rate applies where individual has long-term gain (on assets held for at least 2 years) or gain on sale of shares which constitute part of a substantial interest in a company. Long-term gains of companies are taxed at 19 or 25 per cent. depending on the type of security held.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Department for National Savings.

  Mr. Maples
  The full complement of staff including vacant posts employed in the press office of the Department for National Savings on 1 April each year 1979–91 was as listed in the table. There is no record of how many posts were vacant at these dates.

  Numbers

  1 April 1979

  6

  1 April 1980

  6

  1 April 1981

  5

  1 April 1982

  5

  1 April 1983

  4

  1 April 1984

  4

  1 April 1985

  4

  1 April 1986

  4

  1 April 1987

  4

  1 April 1988

  4

  1 April 1989

  4

  1 April 1990

  4

  1 April 1991

  3½

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Complement

  Staff in post

  1981

  6

  6

  1982

  6

  6

  1983

  6

  6

  1984

  6

  6

  385

  Manyears

  1985

  14

  1986

  16

  1987

  18

  1988

  21

  1989

  22

  1990

  22

  1991

  21

  No figures are available for the years prior to 1 April 1981. The figures shown for the years 1981 to 1984 relate only to the Inland Revenue press office. Since 1984 both press and external public relations activitities have been part of the wider duties undertaken by the Department's communications group. There are thus no complements for these later years, and the figures are estimates of the manyears employed on the functions in question. The increase in numbers from 1985 onwards is due to an increase in activity on public information services, including local radio phone-ins, a mobile inquiry centre and the schools education service.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Maples
  HMSO has had no press and public relations office from 1979 to the present date. Press and public relations reponsibilities have formed a small part of the duties of one nominated officer.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of HM Customs and Excise.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of staff in the press and information office of HM Customs and Excise is as follows:

  Complement

  Staff actually employed

  1979–80

  8

  4

  1980–81

  7

  6

  1981–82

  7

  6

  1982–83

  7

  6

  1983–84

  7

  6

  1984–85

  7

  5

  1985–86

  7

  6

  1986–87

  8

  7

  1987–88

  8

  5

  1988–89

  9

  7

  1989–90

  9

  5

  1990–91

  11

  9

  1991–92

  11

  9

  Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review the indexation of public sector pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have no plans to do so.

  European Coal and Steel Community
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) grants, (b) loans and (c) at what rates of interest for loans, have been made by the European Coal and Steel Community to retail organisations in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and what is his estimate of the effect on the competitiveness of the receiving companies and/or bodies as compared to their rivals in the market place for their goods and/or services.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply. There have been no such grants, but one "conversion" loan in 1990 and one in 1991. There may have been sub-loans made under global loans through financial intermediaries but information about these is not available.

  The purpose of ECSC conversion loans is to assist with the creation of employment for people made redundant from the coal and steel industries. The loans are available in designated areas throughout the European Community. The criteria applied are set by the Commission. I cannot estimate the effect on the competitiveness of the recipients.

  The rates of interest attached to any individual line are a matter of commercial confidentiality between the borrower and the Commission.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received on the new controls relating to sheep scab; and how many of these representations are critical of the self-regulatory nature of the controls.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has received a number of representations about the self-certification arrangements which applied during last autumn's compulsory national dip for sheep scab and all contained some criticisms of the move to owner declarations by farmers.

  We have completed our assessment of the 1990 national dip and the success of the self-certification arrangements and it is clear that large numbers of owner declarations were not returned to local authorities at the end of the dipping period, as required by the legislation. All comments from interested organisations on the national dip have been carefully considered and, as a result, we have decided to streamline the arrangements to apply during this year's compulsory national dip for sheep scab which will take place during the period Sunday 22 September to Saturday 2 November.

  The requirement in the Sheep Scab (National Dip) Order 1990 for undipped sheep moved during the dipping period to be accompanied by an owner declaration will be dropped. This will reduce the number of forms that farmers are required to complete and will scale down the involvement of market authorities in countersigning forms at markets.

  I hope that the Government's positive response to suggestions from those involved in the national dip on how to improve the arrangements will result in greater commitment from the industry on sheep scab control measures. Last year's response was disappointing and we shall be looking for a much better response from farmers this year on the completion of owner declarations.

  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cats have been diagnosed as suffering from feline spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Spongiform encephalopathy has been confirmed in 15 cats in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland.

  Brown Hare Syndrome
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has any evidence linking European brown hare syndrome with oilseed rape;

  (2) what is his estimate of the mortality levels caused by European brown hare syndrome.

  Mr. Maclean
  Although the grazing of "double low" varieties of oilseed rape was initially suspected as one of the possible causes of European brown hare syndrome, there is no evidence linking oilseed rape with the disease. A virus is now considered to be the likely cause. Mortality may be high in any one incident, but the proportion of diseased animals is unknown and it is not yet possible to assess the wider impact on the hare population.

  Rhizomania
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of rhizomania have been reported in the United Kingdom in the last three years; and what action he has taken to combat the disease.

  Mr. Curry
  Two cases of rhizomania were found in 1989 and three cases, on adjoining farms, in 1990. These cases, which were all in Norfolk, were identified in the extensive survey for rhizomania which we carry out annually. The only previous identification of the disease in this country was at a farm in Suffolk in 1987.

  We operate a range of controls, including import controls, to combat this disease. Where it is found, we require strict hygiene measures to prevent spread of the disease by movements off the farm and restrictions are placed on cropping on the farm. These normally involve grassing down infected fields, some limitations on root crops on other parts of the farm and a ban on growing sugar beet or planting material. The exact nature of these restrictions will depend on the circumstances of the case.

  Wool
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning his assessment of the prospects of British wool producers in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  Returns from wool production form, on average, 5 to 10 per cent. of individual producers' total returns from sheep farming. Prospects for wool producers thus depend on a range of factors, including market prices and input costs. Prices for finished lambs in 1991 so far have been following the usual seasonal trends and prices for British wool, although weak, have shown some improvement in recent sales. In addition, United Kingdom sheep farmers enjoy significant financial support through the EC sheep regime and hill livestock compensatory allowances. This support, which takes account of both market prices and income levels, is likely to total some £394 million in 1990.

  EC Surplus Food
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how subsidised foodstuffs from EC surplus stocks are now distributed round the United Kingdom; what are the criteria used; how frequently such distributions are made; and what are his plans for the future of these distributions.

  Mr. Curry
  The distribution of surplus butter and beef relies on the voluntary participation of charitable and other non-profit-making organisations. The method and timing of distributions are matters for these organisations themselves to decide according to local needs and their own resources. In order to meet the requirements of European legislation, only the homeless and destitute, people in receipt of income support or family credit and people living in welfare hostels are eligible to receive produce under the United Kingdom scheme.

  We will shortly announce the future arrangements for distribution.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prohibit breeding from the offspring of BSE-affected cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has received from local authorities regarding the case for national policy guidance in respect of the need for, and situation of, additional incinerator capacity for bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected carcases.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of representations from local authorities which are considering planning applications for incineration plants seeking advice on the disposal of suspect bovine spongiform encephalopathy carcases. The State Veterinary Service will provide advice and information to any local authority which seeks it.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the effects of disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected carcases by means of incineration.

  Mr. Maclean
  Incineration is a safe, effective means of disposal, leaving only sterile ash.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the transport and processing of carcases affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the recommended means of disposal;

  (2) if he will make a statement of his Department's policy relating to the scale and distribution of additional incinerator capacity for the disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected carcases in the south-west peninsula;

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the number of bovine spongi form encephalopathy-infected carcases that will require disposal by incinerator annually in the south-west peninsula over the next (a) five years and (b) 10 years.
  389
  Mr. Maclean
  The carcases of suspect bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases are disposed of by burial or incineration. Although both are safe, well-established methods, incineration in plants which comply with strict conditions laid down by the Ministry for storage and incineration is preferable. Carcases are moved under licence to these incineration plants, and the vehicles used must comply with the licence conditions.

  Within the south-west region there are two incineration plants in which suspect bovine spongiform encephalopathy carcases are incinerated. However the disposal of carcases is handled on a national basis and is not restricted by regional or other boundaries. Carcases that originate in the south-west are not necessarily incinerated there.

  At the moment over 90 per cent. of carcases are incinerated. Our aim is to deal with all carcases in this way and we hope shortly to have sufficient capacity to do so. Nevertheless, we would consider contracting with any incineration plant which can meet our standards and has obtained the necessary local authority planning consents and approvals.

  Baby Food
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward proposals to require manufacturers of baby food to declare the meat content of the products, just as manufacturers of ordinary meat products do.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission has issued a draft directive that lays down compositional and labelling requirements for cereal-based and other processed foods for infants and young children. The proposals contain minimum content levels for meat and certain other characterising ingredients. Negotiations in Brussels are scheduled to commence early in June. The Commission also intends to introduce proposals on quantitative ingredients declaration of foodstuffs shortly.

  Irrigation
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the leaflet "Good Irrigation Practice, Make Every Drop Count" is made available to every holder of a spray irrigation licence in England and Wales.

  Mr. Curry
  The leaflet, which concentrates on an early warning system for farmers of impending restrictions by the National Rivers Authority, was intended to go to every licence holder in England and Wales. In the event, the

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  Food Safety

  409

  1,263

  1,104

  2,700

  Environment

  7

  94

  139

  310

  Imports (Control of Imported Animal and Plant Disease)

  232

  213

  282

  325

  Animal Welfare

  27

  50

  82

  150

  Grant Aid Schemes

  194

  90

  70

  87

  Research and Development

  0

  4

  54

  74

  Miscellaneous Campaigns

  135

  659

  648

  500

  (e.g. MAFF Touring Exhibition)

  1 Forecast.

  Publicity material produced by this department, other than modest amounts of press advertising, consists of
  390
  authority was unable to introduce the warning system outside its Anglian region this season, and leaflets have therefore gone to licence holders in that region only.

  Aluminium
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of research on bioavailability of aluminium from food and water at the trace metabolism unit at Southampton.

  Mr. Maclean
  The work being carried out at Southampton university, which is being funded by the Ministry, is an initial pilot study to investigate the feasibility of measuring differences in aluminium absorption from different foods and beverages. Results are expected later this year and will be assessed to see whether further work should be commissioned.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure the safe disposal of alphachloralose and other pesticides which are held by individuals but which no longer have approved use under the pesticide regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Advice on disposal of unwanted pesticides is given in a code of practice for the safe use of pesticides by this Department and the Health and Safety Commission, which was issued last year. Detailed consideration is now being given to a scheme to offer the collection and disposal of unwanted pesticides held on farms, which would be run by trade associations. This will complement the long-term campaign, launched in March, to persuade those who abuse pesticides such as alphachloralose to kill wildlife that this practice is wrong and unnecessary.

  Advertising
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 25 April,Official Report, column 556, if he will give a further breakdown of his Ministry's expenditure on other publicity materials for each year between 1984–85 and 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: The information available is as follows:

  publications, exhibitions and audio visual/video, as well as associated market research and distribution. Individual

  391
  projects employ a mixture of these media as appropriate. Figures provided for the period 1988–89 to 1991–92 are available following a change in the way expenditure is recorded. Comparable figures for 1984–85 to 1987–88 could only be made available at disproportionate cost.

  Official Meetings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the number of occasions during the last 12 months on which he has held official meetings with (i) the National Farmers Union, (ii) the Food and Drink Federation, (iii) the Retail Consortium, (iv) the Consumers Association and (v) the National Consumer Council.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have held six official meetings with the National Farmers Union on bovine spongiform encepathology and allied subjects, at which the main issue was the responsibility of the farming community to the consumer. I have had four meetings with the National Farmers Union to discuss the technicalities of the price fixing and other EC issues of direct concern to farmers. In addition, I have held the three formal consultation meetings involving the National Farmers Union on the wool guarantee, the autumn hill review and the price fixing, and three on specific subjects (the milk marketing boards, salmonella compensation and landlord/tenant law). I addressed the National Farmers Union annual general meeting on 12 February and will send a copy of my speech to the hon. Gentleman. I also had a courtesy visit from the new National Farmers Union president after his election.

  The Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council both nominate members to the Ministry's consumers' panel and their senior officers attend the regular meetings held with leaders of consumer organisations. These bodies have met on seven occasions either under my chairmanship or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), the Parliamentary Secretary.

  I have met the Food and Drink Federation on two occasions and the Retail Consortium on one occasion.

PRIME MINISTER

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

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall be having further meetings later today.

  World Bank (Forest Policy)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has responsibility for instructing the United Kingdom's World Bank executive director regarding World Bank forest policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Overseas Development Administration.

  Oil Fires (Kuwait)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 1991,Official Report, column 1208, if he will make a further statement on United Kingdom action in relation to oil fires in Kuwait.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave today to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham).

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Data Protection Registrar
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the Data Protection Registrar as to the number of boards of governors and head teachers that are not registered under the terms of the Data Protection Act; and whether he will make a statement concerning the outcome of those discussions.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information is not available on registration under the Data Protection Act by boards of governors and headteachers. Officials of the Department are in discussion with the office of the Data Protection Registrar on the scope of registration by schools and guidance will be issued in the summer.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made any estimate of the cost of registration of each school under the Data Protection Act should boards of governors, head teachers and each local education authority need to register under the Act; and whether he plans to increase grants in order to cover these costs.

  Mr. Fallon
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 19 February 1991, at column 76.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the general items of personal information that are held in relation to individuals in list 99; if he will indicate the number of entries in list 99; whether the individual has the right to challenge the accuracy of the information held against him on list 99; whether he has had discussions with the Data Protection Registrar concerning list 99; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  List 99 contains the names, dates of birth, and departmental reference numbers of 1,540 persons who are currently wholly or partially excluded from teaching or work with children or young persons on grounds of misconduct. Before directing that any person shall be excluded, my right hon. and learned Friend offers him or her the opportunity of making representations. List 99 is outside the scope of the Data Protection Act and has not therefore been the subject of any discussion with the Data Protection Registrar.

  Schools (Debt Charges)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department keeps any record of the debt charge of schools leaving local authority control.
  393
  Mr. Eggar
  As the liability of an authority in respect of the principal of, or any interest on, any loan held by the authority for the purposes of a school which becomes grant maintained is not transferred to the governing body of a grant-maintained school, the Department has no need to keep a record of such debts.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice his Department gives local authorities in respect of debt charge incurred from capital investment in schools which subsequent to the investment leave local authority control; and what account is taken of any such debt charge when assessing the Department's revenue support for the local authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The statutory provisions on debt charges relating to schools which become grant maintained are set out in section 74 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Those debt charges are treated in the same way as other local authority debt charges for the purpose of calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for financing the debt charge paid by local authorities in respect of schools which adopt grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Authorities receive an appropriate allowance for the financing of their capital debt liabilities, including relevant liabilities relating to schools in their area that are grant maintained, within their standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the debt charge to local authorities in regard to capital spend on schools which have subsequently opted out of local authority control; and if he will list the debt charge by local authority, indicating in each case the number of schools which have taken grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the responsibility and the financing for any debt charge attributable to a grant-maintained school

  Name of Body

  Next appointment due, and length of appointment

  Salary

  Business and Technician Education Council

  Chairman and all 12 members in 1992

  Chairman part-time £7,500

  Three-year appointments

  Members unpaid

  Centre for information on Language Teaching and Research

  Three members in 1991 Four members in 1992 Appointed for up to three years

  Unpaid

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  Six members in 1991 Four-year appointments

  Unpaid

  Education Assets Board

  Chairman and all six members in 1992 Two-year appointments

  Chairman part-time £20,310 Members unpaid

  National Council for Educational Technology

  New Chairman appointed on 1 April 1991 Nine members in 1991 Three1year appointments

  Chairman part-time £6,030 Members unpaid

  Council for National Academic Awards

  25 members in 1991 New Chairman appointed in April 1991

  Members unpaid Chairman part-time salary still under negotiation

  394
  remains with the former maintaining authority, the Department has no need to keep a record of the debt charges. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department takes account of the debt charge on a local authority in regard to a school which adopts grant-maintained status when determining the allocation of revenue funding between the school and the local authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The responsibility for meeting debt charges that relate to the period before a school is incorporated as grant-maintained remains with the school's former local authority. Authorities receive an allowance for capital financing within their standard spending assessments. A grant-maintained school's annual maintenance grant, which is recouped from its former maintaining authority, does not include provision to meet such charges.

  Educational Psychological Service
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities that do not provide an educational psychological service from their retained percentage of the budget.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 30 April 1991, at columns 141–42.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows:
  395

  Name of Body

  Next appointment due, and length of appointment

  Salary

  Further Education Unit Board of Management

  All 11 members in 1991

  Unpaid

  Normally three-year appointments

  Advisory Board for the Research Councils

  Two members in 1991 Two members in 1992

  Members £4,000 honorarium

  Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

  Eight members in 1991 10 members in 1992

  Unpaid

  Up to two-year appointments

  Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils

  Chairman and all 10 members in 1991

  Chairman £4,000 honorarium

  Chairman four-year appointment

  Members part-time daily fee £65

  Members three-year appointments

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  Chairman and Chief Executive in 1991

  Chairman part-time £14,000

  13 members in 1992

  Members £2,100 honorarium

  Three-year appointments

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  Four members in 1991

  Unpaid

  Two2 members in 1992

  One, two, and three-year appointments

  Sports Council

  Chairman and 35 members in 1991

  Chairman part-time £17,362

  31 members in 1992

  Members unpaid

  Three-year appointments

  United States/United Kingdom Educational Commission (Fulbright Commission)

  One member in 1992 Two members in 1992

  Unpaid

  Four-year appointments

  Universities Funding Council

  Chairman and one member in 1991 New Chief Executive appointed from 1 July 1991

  Chairman £14,000 Members £2,120 honorarium

  Nine members in 1992

  Appointed for two or three years

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Five members in 1991

  £4,000 honorarium

  Three members in 1992

  Three-year appointments

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Four members in 1991 Chairman and five members in 1992

  Members £4,000 honorarium Chairman £53,420

  Three-year appointments although charter provides for four years

  Medical Research Council

  Six members in 1991

  £4,000 honorarium

  Four members in 1992

  Four-year appointments

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Five members in 1991

  £4,000 honorarium

  Four members in 1992

  Three-year appointments

  National Curriculum Council

  Seven members in 1991

  Unpaid

  Four members in 1992

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Four members in 1992

  £4,000 honorarium

  Four-year appointments

  1 Eight new members appointed on 1 April 1991.

  2 One new member appointed on 1 April 1991.

  3 One new member appointed on 1 April 1991.

  396

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what super-computing facilities are available to the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Centre supercomputers available to the Natural Environment Research Council include the joint research councils' Cray XM P-48 at the Science and Engineering Research Council's Rutherford Appleton laboratory, the Cray XMP-28 at the university of London computer center and the VP1200 at the Manchester computer centre. Time on other supercomputers in the USA and at the Meteorological Office has been obtained on an ad hoc basis for collaborative research projects.

  Global Climate Model
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority he attaches to a global climate model.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Natural Environment Research Council has given high priority to the development of global and regional models of the oceans and atmosphere. The science budget also supports a wide range of related research aimed at improving understanding of climate change processes and impacts.

  Ocean Studies
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a supercomputer for Natural Environment Research Council work for ocean forecasting.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Decisions on the provision of supercomputing facilities are based upon the advice which my right hon. and learned Friend receives from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. No advice on this matter has yet been received.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what facilities he provides for world ocean calibration development.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Natural Environment Research Council James Rennell centre at the university of Southampton is actively involved with the British National Space Centre and the European Space Agency in observations designed to calibrate instruments on the European remote sensing satellite—ERS-1—which is used
  to study temperatures, currents and winds at the ocean surface.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to finance the work on plants in the ocean at the James Rennell centre of the Natural Environment Research Council marine atmospheric sciences unit.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Natural Environment Research Council is already supporting research at the James Rennell centre for ocean circulation at the university of Southampton, in collaboration with Princeton university in the USA and the United Kingdom climate prediction centre—the Hadley centre—in the development of mathematical models of the seasonal 398
  variation in the production of microscopic planktonic plants in the oceans, with special reference to their role in the absorption of carbon dioxide.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requests he has received from the National Rivers Authority for more information facilities in the Western ocean.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such request.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to improve relationships with the Japanese in relation to(a) deep ocean technology, (b) the study of the micro-structure of the ocean and (c) global climate weather forecasting.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Working relationships are generally established at a personal level in the course of an individual scientist's work. Scientists supported by the Natural Environment Research Council maintain good relations with the Japanese in relation to both deep-ocean technology and the study of the micro-structure of the ocean. The links between the United Kingdom and Japan relating to global climate weather forecasting are primarily made through the Meteorological Office. Recently visits have been made to Japan to discuss operational meteorological and oceanographic forecasting.

  In 1989, a round table meeting of senior Government scientists from Japan and the United Kingdom was held in London. Marine technology was one of the many items discussed. A further meeting will be held in Tokyo later this year.

  East Birmingham Task Force
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has met or visited the East Birmingham task force.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I visited the task force area on 21 December 1989, 23 April 1990, 3 September 1990, 30 January 1991 and 1 May 1991. I held meetings with the task force leader on 20 March 1990 and 18 March 1991 to discuss the annual action plan.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he has any plans to review the indexation of teachers' pensions and what action has been taken in the last six months in regard to indexation of teachers' pensions;

  (2) what plans his Department has for determining future increases in teachers' pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  In common with other public service pensions, teachers' pensions are increased at the same time and by the same percentage as the earnings-related element of the state retirement pension. The amount of the annual uprating each April reflects the movement in the retail prices index during the 12-month period ending the previous September. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  The Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1991 announced that public service pensions would be increased from 8

  399
  April 1991. For pensions which began before 24 April 1990 the increase is 10.9 per cent. For pensions which began on or after 24 April 1990 a proportion of the full increase is paid.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Supply Failure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of times there was a failure of water supplies in the Doncaster area during the last 12 months by(a) location, (b) reason for breakdown, and (c) the duration of the breakdown until supply was resumed; and what were the figures for the previous year.

  Mr. Baldry
  Monitoring the level of service by water companies to customers is the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services.

  Phosphate Waste
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names and locations of companies that are known to discharge phosphate waste into coastal and river waters in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  The control of discharges of phosphate waste into coastal and river waters in the United Kingdom is a matter for the National Rivers Authority. The Department does not keep lists of names and locations of companies making such discharges.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current position on the project for cleaning the stonework of the Palace of Westminster; and if he will take action to speed up the project.

  Mr. Yeo
  The contract for the current stage of the programme to repair and restore the stonework, which covers the south elevation and the Victoria Tower is scheduled for completion in 1994. Before the stage is completed, plans will be drawn up and agreed with the Houses so that the next phase of the work, covering the internal courtyards, can continue without a break.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list in rank order the water companies with the highest level of purity and lowest level of contamination of the drinking water they supply.

  Mr. Baldry
  Because of the number and diversity of the parameters used in regulating the quality of drinking water, and also because some companies supply water from a number of different sources, it would not be possible to rank companies in the way suggested.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's current policy on showing the location of public rights of way on Forestery Commission land on its Landranger and Pathfinder maps.
  400
  Mr. Baldry
  Ordnance Survey policy has not changed. All rights of way which appear on local authority definitive maps are shown on the Landranger and Pathfinder series of maps.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council employed two people in its press and public relations office from 1979–80 to 1989–90. This was increased to three in 1990–91. The Nature Conservancy Council for England employs two people on this work.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Staff Complement

  Staff in Post on 1 April

  1979

  7

  7

  1980

  7

  7

  1981

  7

  7

  1982

  8

  8

  1983

  6

  6

  1984

  7

  6

  1985

  6

  6

  1986

  6

  6

  1987

  6

  6

  1988

  6

  6

  1989

  6

  6

  1990

  6

  6

  1991

  6

  7

  Over the same period, the total number of staff employed by Ordnance Survey reduced from 3,587 to 2,482.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table gives the available information. No figures are available prior to 1 April 1982.

  Press and PR Staff1

  1982–83

  3

  1983–84

  3

  1984–85

  3

  1985–86

  3

  1986–87

  3

  1987–88

  3

  1988–89

  3

  1989–90

  5

  1990–91

  5

  1991–92

  5

  1 Staff figures are at 1 April, and staff in post equals the staff complement.

  Golf Courses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for golf courses have been made to local planning authorities in each of the last five years; how many have been granted; how many have been refused; how many included a hotel; how many went to appeal; and, of these, how many were granted.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information about planning applications is not collected in a form which enables those for golf courses to be identified separately. The position on appeals involving golf courses is as follows:

  Year

  Appeals received (number including hotels)

  Appeals decided

  Appeals granted

  1986–87

  21(2)

  14

  2

  1987–88

  12(2)

  17

  6

  1988–89

  27(5)

  10

  2

  1989–90

  50(3)

  37

  9

  11990–91

  95(11)

  51

  17

  1 provisional

  Construction Products Directive
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the regulations appertaining to the construction products directive due to be implemented on 27 June are to be published.

  Mr. Yeo
  The drafting of construction products regulations to implement the EC construction products directive is nearing completion. It is hoped to lay the regulations on or about 27 June.

  Development Corporation Officers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to extend to cover the officers of development corporations the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 which restrict involvement in party political affairs for those local government officers earning above a particular level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have no plans to do so.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much in real terms, and taking account of any changes in responsibilities, the total income of local authorities increased in the first year of operation of the community charge as against the last year of the rating system; and what steps he is taking to ensure that there is no similar increase in the first year of operation of the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  Total demands and precepts in 1990–91, after capping, showed an increase of 15·1 per cent. in cash terms over adjusted net revenue income in 1989–90, a real terms increase of 6·7 per cent. The Government have said that they will ensure, through capping, that the substantial increase in spending which accompanied the transition to the community charge is not repeated.
  402
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that calculation of the central provision of support for local authority expenditure should, from 1992, include economic and employment factors to reflect the particular needs of localities facing above average need.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend will make known his proposals for the distribution of revenue support grant for 1992–93 in the autumn. The consultation paper about the new council tax, issued on 23 April, made it clear that the Government are not proposing any major changes to the present standard spending assessments which are based on extensive research.

  Public Sector Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce further measures to encourage the bringing into use of vacant public sector land in the light of responses to his Department's consultation paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  There was widespread agreement with our proposal to give statutory backing for public sector owners' registers of their unused and underused land. Pending any longer-term decision to introduce new primary legislation to this effect, we propose now to require local authorities under section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972 to supply the Department with aggregate information about their registers. Compliance with this aspect of the 1989 code of practice has been particularly disappointing. We propose also to give local authorities clear notice that, if the provisions of the code on making such registers available to the public are not properly met this year, we intend to make regulations under section 3 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to make these provisions to a binding requirement for 1992. My officials are writing to the local authority associations today on these points. They are also writing to other bodies about compliance with the code.

  We have decided not to proceed with the other main proposals in the consultation paper for directing disposals to named persons and for experimental local franchises of packages of sites. Strong objections were raised against these possibilities during consultation.

  There was general recognition of the desirability of further action to bring vacant public sector land into use. Existing measures include derelict land grant, follow-up of the Audit Commission's report on local authorities' property management and directions to dispose of land entered on my right hon. Friend's register. For their part, Government Departments and other bodies face pressure to dispose of vacant land in their possession through the annual public expenditure survey and related discussions. My right hon. Friend is considering what further measures might be appropriate and our conclusions will be announced in due course.

  Aggregates
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the long-term forecast of demand for aggregates.

  Mr. Yeo
  New forecasts of the demand for aggregates for the next 20 years have been prepared by independent consultants. These have been published today. They are not Government plans or targets to be met.
  403
  The forecasts are based on the longer-term prospects for construction investment and indicate a rising trend in demand for betweeen 421 million tonnes per annum and 490 million tonnes per annum by 2001—about 4 per cent. a year.

  The Government are publishing the forecasts now so that the environmental implications of the rising demand for aggregates can be fully considered. These are a matter for serious concern. The forecasts do not mean that the demand must be met from new sources of land-won aggregates. Nor do they mean that targets are set for production by the minerals industry.

  Aggregates are needed to meet the demand for improvements to transport infrastructure, house building, improvements in water quality and hospitals. The Government are currently revising the present guidelines for aggregates provision in England and Wales which were published in mineral planning guidance note No. 6—MPG6—in March 1989.

  The Government recognise that the mining of aggregates is a matter of considerable public concern and that there is a widespread view that the industry's operations lack sufficient regard for the environment. Before new guidelines are published the Government will wish to hear from the industry what practical steps they intend to take to improve their environmental performance and their standing with the public.

  The Government will expect the industry to make greater use of alternative sources of supply. These include the potential from marine dredged sand and gravel; the greater use of materials such as china clay, sand and colliery minestone; and the increased exploitation of waste and recycled materials including power station ash, blast furnace slag and crushed concrete. We shall also consider the contributions that can be made from coastal super quarries. The Government have research in hand to examine all these options.

  The publication of the forecasts will enable the Government to consider the view of local authorities, the industry and the general public about the future demand for aggregates, before publishing draft guidelines for public consultation.

  The Government will consider whether the present policy of ensuring a steady supply for the construction industry remains appropriate and whether it encourages efficiency in aggregates use. The regional aggregates working parties have been asked to consider the medium and long-term implications of the forecasts on their regions.

  While the forecasts provide general background information about trends in demand, their use in relation to the consideration of a particular application on development plan is necessarily limited until the revised guidelines are published. MPG6 remains the Government's policy for aggregates provision until it is revised. Mineral planning authorities should have regard to the statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) in July 1989 which made it clear that MPG6 should be implemented as a matter of priority.

  Interest Rate Swaps
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement in the light of the House of Lords' judgment on local authority interest rate swaps.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [pursuant to his answer, 24 January 1991, columns 275–76]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have given careful consideration to the implications of this judgment. The Government have received a number of representations favouring a variety of different schemes of legislation to enable local authorities to make payments under past arrangements which have been found to be unlawful. The Government have concluded, however, that it is best not to seek to alter the existing legal obligations of the parties to these arrangements.

  As the Government have already made clear, there is specific legislation enabling local authorities to borrow money and protecting those who lend to local authorities. This legislation was not in issue in the recent litigation on interest rate swaps.

  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to Merseyside;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside concerning extra funding for Liverpool city council.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: I met the honourable Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on 17 April to discuss additional financial assistance for Liverpool city council. I reminded them of a range of Government programmes which are benefiting Liverpool, such as the urban programme, estate action, the city action team, the Merseyside development corporation and the Granby/ Toxteth task force. I explained that we were not prepared to help the council resolve problems arising from its spending programmes of the mid-80s which were in opposition to Government policies. We are however keen to encourage the council to participate fully in our initiatives for inner-city regeneration and to benefit from the additional resources that come with them.

  I took the opportunity to emphasise these points when I visited Liverpool on 26 April and had discussions with the city council. I impressed on the council the need for a constructive approach to working in partnership with the Government, the private sector and other agencies. I also visited Cable Communications Ltd. in Brunswick business park, where I saw the company's operations to deliver cable television to the region.

  London Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people from the unemployment registers in the London boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham have secured employment in new businesses in the London Docklands UDA.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.
  405
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom have referred this question for reply.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Food Aid (Africa)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much food aid has been contributed by Her Majesty's Government to meet the food aid needs in Africa; and what have been the bilateral donations from EC member states, the United States and other bilateral donors.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since September 1990 Britain has committed 158,000 tonnes of food aid to Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique, Angola and Malawi. The United States of America and European Community, the largest donors, have so far pledged 815,000 tonnes and 685,000 tonnes respectively to these same countries. On 2 May the European Community agreed to provide a further 400,000 tonnes for Africa as a whole. Full details of individual contributions made by other donors are not yet available on the same basis.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give his assessment of food aid needs to meet the current famines in Africa; and what are the comparable figures produced by the European Commission and the World Food Programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Commission's most recent assessment suggests a total emergency food aid requirement of some 4·5 million tonnes for the whole of 1991 based on an estimated 31 million people affected in 12 countries in Africa. According to the Commission this estimate has been checked with the FAO, the World Food Programme, Canada and the United States of America. We agree broadly with it.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the availability of Harir airport for use to transport supplies to the Kurdish refugees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Although we understand that Har:Lr may be serviceable, I am not aware of any plans to use it at present.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The number of press and public relations posts in the Overseas Development Administration has been 12 from 1979–80 to the present. All posts were occupied on 1 April each year, except in 1983 when there was one vacancy.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the capacity of the joint relief partnership to meet the needs of the people of Wollo and Gonder for emergency assistance; and whether the British Government will provide financial help to the Ethiopian relief organisation to implement its programme of internal purchase to allow Ethiopians in these areas to feed themselves.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The joint relief partnership, using the southern line, should be able to meet substantially the emergency needs of the people of Wollo and Gondar. This will depend however on continued supplies of food arriving at Assab and on securing conditions allowing the southern line to be kept open. We are providing assistance through the southern line. We have no plans at present to finance internal purchase arrangements.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of aid for the Wollo and Gondar regions of Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The emergency needs of the people of Wollo and Gondar should be able to be met substantially through the operations of the joint relief partnership, using the southern line. This will depend however on continued supplies of food arriving at Assab and on security conditions allowing the southern line to be kept open. We are providing assistance through the southern line.

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to give Vietnam financial assistance to help pay arrears owed to the IMF.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom strongly supports the internationally agreed strategy for assisting developing countries with their arrears to the IMF and World bank, demonstrated by our active role in clearing Guyana's and Zambia's arrears. We have no direct bilateral aid programme with Vietnam and hence at present are not in a position to offer a financial contribution in the context of the settlement of Vietnam's arrears. We are keeping the position under review.

  African Countries
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what quantity of seeds the ODA has supplied or has plans to supply to(a) Sudan, (b) Ethiopia and (c) other African countries facing famine; when the seeds are expected to arrive; and when they will be distributed to farmers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In response to the famine in Africa the ODA has funded supplies of seeds, at a total cost of over £2·505 million, as follows:

  (a) Sudan

  630 tonnes millet through SCF for May 1991 planting (£490,000.)

  £510,000 through CARE towards cost of mixed grains for May 1991 planting.

  407

  £125,000 through ACORD towards cost of mixed grains for May 1991 planting.

  (b) Ethiopia

  No seed supplied recently, but we are willing to look sympathetically at requests as a famine relief measure.

  (c) Other African countries affected by famine:

  Angola

  13 tonnes white maize sent through CAFOD to arrive September 1990—£13,700.

  300 tonnes millet and sorghum sent through Christian Aid to arrive September 1990—£177,700.

  £17,000 through CAFOD towards cost of 4 tonnes vegetable seeds sent to arrive October-November 1990.

  £25,000 through OXFAM towards cost of 100 tonnes sorghum to arrive March-April 1991.

  Visits by CAFOD and Christian Aid are now in progress to report on distribution and use of seed.

  Liberia

  US$50,000 through UNDRO for vegetable and rice seeds for mid-1991 planting.

  Malawi

  £45,950 through World Vision towards cost of vegetable/ grain seeds for mid-1991 planting.

  20Mozambique

  £439,000 through NGOs towards costs of seeds for planting April 1991.

  £634,000 through NGOs towards costs of 2,447 tonnes vegetable/grain seeds for planting October 1991.

  Brazil
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase the provision of aid to the indigenous peoples of Brazil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are already financing a health project for the Yanomami Indians through Oxfam. We are currently discussing with the Brazilian authorities the possibility of providing further help for indigenous people and I will be very happy to do so from within our bilateral programme for Brazil if suitable activities can be identified. Support has also been made available under the joint funding scheme to British non-governmental organisations undertaking development projects in Brazil and, subject to the availability of resources, new proposals from non-governmental organisations will be considered.

  Glendon Hospital, Montserrat
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when it is expected that the roofless part of Glendon hospital in Montserrat, which was damaged by Hurricane Hugo in 1989, will be repaired; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Glendon hospital is functioning normally albeit with less space available because the roofless part is not currently in use. Work on rehabilitation and redevelopment, including construction of a new roof, will go ahead as soon as the accommodation required to house the hospital temporarily is ready to be occupied.

  Iraqi Refugees
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements his Department will make to send out to the Iraqi refugees relief goods donated by the public.
  408
  Mrs. Chalker
  We have already helped voluntary bodies, including British Aid for the Kurds, with the costs of transport of relief supplies generously donated by the public. We have now reached an agreement with CARE Britain under which they are responding to requests for assistance from voluntary bodies by screening and collecting priority relief items. The ODA will then take responsibility for their onward transport. Voluntary bodies interested in this arrangement should contact the ODA's disaster unit first.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Political Union
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is in possession of the draft treaty on European political union; and when he expects that copies will be available for hon. Members.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Yes. I understand the Library is taking steps to obtain a copy.

  This text does not have any formal standing. As a negotiating document, it may quickly become out of date. I do not intend to make it formally available to the House. There will, however, be ample opportunity for hon. Members to debate the issues with which it deals, for example during the regular EC debate in the run-up to the next European Council in June.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the draft treaty on political union submitted by the Luxembourg presidency on 15 April.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The document is in the public domain. I understand that the Library is taking steps to obtain a copy.

  Khmer Rouge
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received from(a) the Khmer Rouge and (b) Pol Pot, by year for the last four years to date; and if he will make a statement on their contents and his replies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 26 July 1990, at column 475. Apart from these, no other letters from the Khmer Rouge, or Pol Pot, have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Iran
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has had about the number of executions which have taken place in Iran in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to receive reports from various sources of large numbers of executions in Iran. We have on many occasions expressed our concern about allegations of human rights abuses there, in particular the large numbers of executions.

  East Germany
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foriegn and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost of bringing the agriculture of the former East Germany into the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The European Commission has estimated the additional cost to the Community agriculture budget in a full year resulting from German unification at 1,414 mecu or £985 million. A total of 1,315 mecu—£916 million—has been provided in the 1991 Community budget for this purpose, which represents slightly less than a full year's cost.

  British Consulate, Patras
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foriegn and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in Athens about the public speech by the Greek Minister of Public Order on 27 April regarding an alleged Palestinian terrorist threat to the British consulate in Patras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was informed of the Greek Minister of Public Affairs' speech on the day it was made. Her Majesty's embassy in Athens is in close touch with the Greek authorities. Her Majesty's representatives in Greece take any terrorist threat to British interests very seriously. They have taken suitable security measures, including the temporary closure of all British consulates and vice-consulates in Greece outside Athens.

  United Nations Children's Rights Convention
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence),Official Report, 26 April 1991, column 598, when he expects to conclude his consultation with the United Nations islands and dependent territories on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are continuing our consultations with the dependent territories and the United Kingdom islands. We shall ratify the convention on the rights of the child as soon as possible.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foriegn and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to the Government of Turkey concerning their refusal to grant refugee status to Iraqi Kurds.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Turkish authorities have allowed Iraqi displaced persons to come down from the mountains to more accessible areas inside Turkey where immediate relief aid can be provided. The Turkish Governmen1 share the longer-term objective of the relief effort to ensure that they can eventually return to their own homes in Iraq in peace and security.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Turkish Government concerning 410
  the placement of Kurdish refugee camps in Turkey under United Nations supervision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No representations have been made to the Turkish Government regarding the supervision of camps in Turkey for Iraqi displaced persons: these camps are at present under the control of the Turkish authorities. They are not administered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on violations of article 1 of the Geneva convention 1951 and the 1967 protocol on refugees by the Turkish Government in their dealings with refugees from Iraqi Kurdistan.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have received no reports of any violations of article 1 of the 1951 Geneva convention or the 1967 protocol on refugees by the Turkish Government.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  South Africa (Sanctions)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the economic sanctions against South Africa, including the withdrawal of export credit and trade promotion facilities which would otherwise be available, still being enforced by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) other Governments of the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The economic sanctions applied by Her Majesty's Government are included in the list of sanctions set out in annex C of appendix 2 to volume II of the Foreign Affairs Committee report, "UK Policy towards South Africa and other States of the Region", 14 February 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Since that report was submitted, EC Foreign Ministers have agreed in principle to lift the measures imposed in September 1986. The Government have also notified the Commonwealth of their intention to lift the ban on Government funding of trade missions to, and participation in trade fairs and exhibitions in, South Africa.

  Other EC countries are known to apply additional economic sanctions against South Africa at national level, but details are not available.

  Chancery Group
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) who is responsible for making an announcement, and at what time he expects it to be made, concerning the safety and security of money placed by investors with the Chancery Group;

  (2) what information he has on the current position of the Chancery Group, and the safety of investors' money.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the administrator, Price Waterhouse should be able to help the hon. Member on these points.

  Bankruptcy Protection
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward proposals to establish a system of bankruptcy protection similar to chapter 11 used by firms in the United States of America to reorganise their finances without liquidation.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Receives (Charges)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward proposals to require receivers put in by banks to provide the firms they are put into with a breakdown and explanation of their charges.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Bankruptcy Court
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward proposals to establish a bankruptcy court on the lines suggested by Sir Kenneth Cork.

  Imports of waste paper (SITC 251.1) from Germany

  Year

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Month

  Tonnes

  Value pound

  Tonnes

  Value pound

  Tonnes

  Value pound

  Tonnes

  Value pound

  January

  312

  36,034

  263

  31,402

  51

  14,638

  184

  42,476

  February

  539

  75,467

  152

  18,489

  234

  38,476

  67

  8,910

  March

  454

  45,837

  161

  20,305

  251

  42,013

  —

  —

  April

  317

  37,834

  67

  8,549

  138

  19,033

  —

  —

  May

  1,610

  128,857

  283

  32,253

  1,256

  83,393

  —

  —

  June

  1,326

  99,246

  1,175

  90,489

  119

  18,371

  —

  —

  July

  1,218

  89,843

  144

  23,759

  1,429

  76,094

  —

  —

  August

  1,227

  132,311

  1,215

  104,930

  184

  28,197

  September

  158

  21,421

  2,047

  162,178

  1,035

  57,620

  —

  —

  October

  2,266

  225,905

  1,096

  109,706

  1,050

  65,416

  —

  —

  November

  927

  76,985

  156

  33,232

  585

  93,686

  —

  —

  December

  133

  16,791

  1,004

  94,088

  97

  12,532

  —

  —

  Source: British Paper and Board Industry Federation. (based on Customs and Excise figures).

  Notes:

  1. From January 1991 the figures are for United Germany. Earlier figures are for the Federal Republic of Germany.

  2. Imports are on a country of consignment basis. The country from which the goods arc consigned is not necessarily the country of shipment, origin or manufacture.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant post in the press and public relations office of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is available only for the years 1984 to 1991 inclusive, and is as follows:

  ECGD—Press and Public Relations Branch

  Full complement including vacant posts

  Staff employment

  1 April 1984

  6

  6

  1 April 1985

  6

  6

  1 April 1986

  6

  6

  1 April 1987

  6

  5

  1 April 1988

  7

  7

  1 April 1989

  7

  6

  412
  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to him about the case for reform of insolvency procedures.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I have received various approaches about aspects of insolvency policy. The working of the Insolvency Act 1986 is kept under review by the insolvency service executive agency.

  Waste Paper Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the monthly value and quantity of imports of waste paper from Germany for 1988 to the latest available month.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is as follows:

  Full complement including vacant posts

  Staff employment

  1 April 1990

  7

  7

  1 April 1991

  7

  7

  Business Statistics
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses(a) began trading and (b) went into receivership in each of the last 10 years in (i) Suffolk and Norfolk, (ii) England and (iii) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. The following table gives estimates of the number of companies whose registered offices are in the areas shown:
  413

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  England and Wales

  Great Britain

  Companies incorporated in financial year 1990–91

  1,200

  108,700

  113,700

  Active companies on register at 31 March 1991

  16,900

  978,300

  1,030,200

  Of which: In receivership

  168

  8,430

  9,120

  England and Wales

  Great Britain

  Year

  Incorporations

  Receiverships

  Incorporations

  Receiverships

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  1981

  68·9

  1·3

  72·4

  1·7

  1982

  83·0

  2·7

  87·2

  2·9

  1983

  91·5

  2·8

  96·2

  3·1

  1984

  92·9

  2·2

  97·9

  2·3

  1985

  99·2

  1·9

  104·6

  2·1

  1986

  111·3

  1·9

  117·3

  2·1

  1987

  122·1

  1·3

  128·0

  1·5

  1988

  122·1

  1·1

  128·9

  1·2

  1989

  123·5

  1·7

  130·3

  1·8

  1990

  113·9

  4·3

  120·9

  4·4

  Insurance Services Group

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his written answer of 1 May, if all of the bidders have tabled an offer to pay for the acquisition of Export Credits Guarantee Department's Insurance Services Group in Cardiff.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Both NCM and Assicurazioni Generali have tabled an offer to pay for the acquisition of the short-term business of ECGD, subject to contract. Trade Indemnity has submitted an alternative proposal. Each response is now being evaluated by the Government and their advisers.

  EC Regional Funds
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give figures for the total amount of assistance received from EC regional funds to each standard planning region of the United Kingdom since the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community.

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

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of bankruptcies and liquidations categorised by size in each month of 1989, 1990 and 1991 to date; and in how many cases banks put in receivers.

  Mr. Redwood
  Statistics on the number of bankruptcies and company insolvencies are maintained quarterly and are not categorised by size. Administrative receivers are appointed under powers given in debentures by debenture holders, the vast majority of whom are banks. Statistics are maintained on a quarterly basis showing the number of receivers appointed by debenture holders, but are not held of the proportion of such appointments made by banks.

  Quarterly figures for the period requested are as follows:
  414
  It should be noted that the location of companies in receivership may depend on the location of the offices which carry out receivership duties and that companies can be in receivership for a number of years.

  The number of companies which were incorporated and which went into receivership during the last 10 years is as follows (data for Norfolk and Suffolk are not available):

  Year

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Total

  Bankruptcies

  1989

  1,972

  2,103

  1,837

  2,226

  8,138

  1990

  2,514

  2,804

  3,018

  3,722

  12,058

  1991

  14,835

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Company insolvencies:

  Compulsory liquidations

  1989

  854

  1,103

  548

  1,515

  4,020

  1990

  1,267

  1,286

  985

  2,439

  5,977

  1991

  12,076

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Creditors voluntary liquidations

  1989

  1,712

  1,711

  1,479

  1,533

  6,435

  1990

  2,060

  2,070

  2,316

  2,628

  9,074

  1991

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Receiverships

  1989

  358

  477

  324

  547

  1,706

  1990

  918

  925

  1,045

  1,430

  4,318

  1991

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional.

  2 Not yet available.

  COCOM Talks
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the COCOM talks on exports to eastern Europe.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: Subject to the satisfactory resolution of some outstanding issues on telecommunications and computers during the next two weeks, discussions on a major revision of COCOM's industrial list, which commenced in autumn 1990, are scheduled to be concluded at a COCOM high-level meeting on 23 and 24 May 1991. The current industrial list, comprising 80 separate items, will then be reduced to a core list of 10 categories covering only the most strategic and sensitive goods and technologies.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the total amounts paid by central Government as rates rebates, community charge rebates
  415
  and transitional relief for every year since 1975, including an estimate for 1990–91 and 1991–92, in cash and real terms and as a proportion of total local government spending.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Figures for transitional relief, community charge reduction and total local government spending since 1 April 1989 are provided in the table. Rates rebates and community charge rebates are a matter for the Department of Social Security.

  Local government spending1

  Cash

  Real Terms (1991–92 prices)

  £ million

  £ million

  1989–90

  4,728

  5,451

  1990–91

  5,179

  5,541

  1991–92

  5,666

  5,666

  1 Figures are of total current expenditure financed by grants, community charge, non-domestic rate income and balances. The 1989–90 figure is the final outturn. The 1990–91 figure is the provisional outturn. The 1991–92 figure is the budget estimate.

  Transitional relief/community charge reduction1

  Cash

  Real Terms (1991–92 prices)

  Percentage of Local government spending

  £ million

  £ million

  1989–90

  7·9

  9·1

  0·2

  1990–91

  63·0

  63·0

  1·2

  1991–92

  43·0

  43·0

  0·7

  1 In Scotland the transitional relief scheme has been replaced, with backdated effect to 1 April 1990, by the personal community charge reduction scheme. The 1989–90 figure shows payments to date and may be subject to variation. The 1990–91 figure is an estimate of expenditure on the reduction scheme and updates expenditure already made on transitional relief. The 1991–92 figure is an estimate which takes account of the £140 general reduction in charges.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in the light of local authorities' budgets for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Rate fund services: Revenue income1

  Domestic rates2 3

  Non-domeslic rates2 3

  Government grants

  Rents, local charges and other income4

  Total income

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1974–75

  11

  14

  60

  15

  100

  1975–76

  14

  19

  62

  5

  100

  1976–77

  12

  18

  64

  6

  100

  1977–78

  13

  19

  62

  7

  100

  1978–79

  10

  21

  61

  8

  100

  1979–80

  10

  21

  60

  8

  100

  1980–81

  11

  23

  59

  7

  100

  1981–82

  12

  26

  55

  7

  100

  1982–83

  13

  27

  53

  7

  100

  1984–84

  11

  26

  56

  8

  100

  1984–85

  11

  26

  55

  8

  100

  1985–86

  12

  27

  53

  8

  100

  1986–87

  12

  28

  51

  8

  100

  1987–88

  13

  29

  51

  7

  100

  1988–89

  14

  27

  51

  8

  100

  1 Totals may not be exactly equal to the sum of their constituent parts due to rounding.

  2 Excluding rate rebates and domestic element of rate support grant. Includes net cost of collection of rates.

  3 The breakdown of rate income into domestic and non-domestic rate income is estimated pro-rata to rateable values.

  4 Includes rents, sales, fees and charges.

  Source: Scottish Local Government Financial Statistics (various years).
  416
  Mr. Lang
  Local authorities in Scotland have budgeted to increase their expenditure this year by £420 million or 9·4 per cent. over the provisional outturn figures for last year. Overall authorities plan to spend £119 million or 2·5 per cent. in excess of the 1991–92 grant-aided expenditure—GAE—figures.

  While this represents an improvement on the position last year when the average excess over GAE was 4·6 per cent., I remain concerned about the burden facing local taxpayers in certain areas as a result of the spending plans of the authorities concerned. Among the regional councils—which, of course, account for the bulk of local government expenditure in Scotland—the authority planning by far the most substantial spending excess—12·18 per cent. above GAE—is Lothian. I have accordingly decided to initiate action in terms of schedule 3 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 in respect of that authority, on the grounds that its planned expenditure for 1991–92 is excessive and unreasonable. A letter has today been sent to the council proposing a reduction of £50—that is, from £310 to £260—in its personal community charge for this year—the equivalent of a reduction in its planned expenditure of £25 million. The letter invites the council to make representations.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the proportion of total local government spending financed by(a) the rates/community charge, (b) non-domestic rates, (c) Government grants and (d) rents and local charges in Scotland in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The percentages of total local government income from each source to finance rate fund services is shown in the table. Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not yet available. Figures exclude transactions on housing revenue accounts. Total local government income shows slight differences from total local government expenditure because of the use of balances in financing expenditure.

  Local Tax Exemplification
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any information was available to his Department in his recent local tax exemplification on market values of residential property in each local authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Yes. Estimates of the distribution of the housing stock by capital value in each local authority area were provided to the Scottish Office by the Inland Revenue Valuation Office.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he arrived in his recent local tax exemplifications for Scotland at(a) the total valuation of the Scottish housing stock, (b) the total valuation of the public sector stock, (c) the total valuation of the private sector stock and (d) the distribution of properties in each proposed band in each local authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The estimates were based on information provided by the Inland Revenue Valuation Office on the distribution by capital value of the housing stock in each local authority area. This information does not separately distinguish public and private sector stock.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated local income tax rates required to replace the gross income, including rebates, raised from the community charge in each region and district authority on the basis of planned expenditure in 1991–92; what those rates are net of rebates; and what those rates are equalised and unequalised.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Approximate rates of local income tax required to replace the budgeted income from the community charge in 1991–92, including rebates and after receipt of community charge grant, are given in the table. The calculations assume resources equalisation—that the yield of 1p in the pound is the same per adult in all areas. It is not possible to calculate equivalent figures net of rebates, nor on the basis of an unequalised local income tax base.

  Note:

  The local income tax rate for Scotland has been estimated for 1991–92 by dividing the total amount to be raised from the community charge, net of community charge grant, by an estimate of the yield of 1 p in the pound on the basis rate of income tax for Scotland. Income from the community water charge is not included.

  Local Income Tax Rate

  Pence in pound

  Borders

  3·1

  Berwickshire

  0·2

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0·6

  Roxburgh

  0·5

  Tweeddale

  0·4

  Central

  4·5

  Clackmannan

  2·1

  Falkirk

  0·5

  Stirling

  2·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3·4

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1·0

  Nithsdale

  1·0

  Stewartry

  0·5

  Wigtown

  0·9

  418

  Pence in pound

  Fife

  5·0

  Dunfermline

  1·2

  Kirkcaldy

  1·2

  North East Fife

  1·4

  Grampian

  3·3

  Aberdeen city

  2·1

  Banff and Buchan

  1·0

  Gordon

  0·6

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0·1

  Moray

  0·4

  Highland

  3·5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0·3

  Caithness

  0·1

  Inverness

  0·1

  Lochaber

  0·9

  Nairn

  0·2

  Ross and Cromarty

  0·8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·4

  Sutherland

  0·5

  Lothian

  7·2

  East Lothian

  1·5

  Edinburgh City

  2·5

  Midlothian

  1·3

  West Lothian

  0·8

  Strathclyde

  4·0

  Argyll and Bute

  1·8

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1·4

  Clydebank

  2·3

  Clydesdale

  1·7

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0·9

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1·0

  Cunninghame

  1·9

  Dumbarton

  2·8

  East Kilbride

  2·1

  Eastwood

  0·5

  Glasgow City

  2·0

  Hamilton

  1·8

  Inverclyde

  1·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1·2

  Kyle and Carrick

  2·2

  Monklands

  1·8

  Motherwell

  1·3

  Renfrew

  2·1

  Strathkelvin

  1·9

  Tayside

  4·7

  Angus

  0·7

  Dundee City

  1·9

  Perth and Kinross

  0·9

  Islands

  Orkney

  0·1

  Shetland

  —

  Western Isles

  0·7

  Capital Valuation (Domestic Properties)
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department used any building society information in reaching its conclusions on the capital valuation of domestic properties in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No.

  Community Charge Reduction Scheme
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department has made available for the operation of the community charge reduction scheme in Scotland in 1991–92.
  419
  Mr. Lang
  A sum of £43 million has been made available to cover payments to charge payers under the community charge reduction scheme in respect of the 1991–92 financial year. The Government have also undertaken to meet reasonable costs incurred by local authorities in administering the scheme.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long on average it takes for each department of the Scottish Office to pay contractors and suppliers from receipt of invoices; and what representations he has received on this matter during the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  In making payments to contractors and suppliers, all my departments observe the guidance in "Government Accounting". This means that, once liability to pay has matured, payments are made in accordance with the terms and conditions of payment as specified in contracts or purchase orders or, in the absence of such contractual arrangements, within 30 days of receipt. Generally, it is our practice to make payments as early as possible in line with the Government's support of the "prompt payment" initiative.

  In the last five years, three representations have been received on this issue. One arose from a dispute over the goods supplied; the second was the result of incorrectly addressed correspondence; and the third was directed to the department in error.

  Strathclyde Fire Service
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the figures for call-outs to actual fires for Strathclyde fire service for the last available quarter for(a) the whole of Strathclyde fire service, (b) each division of Strathclyde fire service and (c) each station within Strathclyde fire service;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the call-out figures for Strathclyde fire service for the last available quarter for (a) the whole of Strathclyde fire service, (b) each division of Strathclyde fire service and (c) each station within Strathclyde fire service;

  (3) if he will publish a table quantifying the mobilising time from all fire stations in Strathclyde fire service and the attendance time for all fire stations in Strathclyde fire service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Number of crimes and offences recorded by the police and percentage change for each year since 1980 X division, Strathclyde region police authority

  Number of recorded crimes and offences

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total crimes and offences

  16,769

  16,907

  16,658

  16,135

  15,224

  15,176

  15,932

  15,856

  15,671

  18,572

  19,022

  Total crimes

  7,217

  8,007

  8,150

  7,579

  6,765

  7,201

  7,825

  7,897

  7,568

  7,993

  7,680

  Group 1 Non-sexual crimes of violence

  203

  213

  261

  261

  286

  324

  259

  278

  314

  287

  242

  Group 2 Crimes of indecency

  82

  89

  70

  47

  76

  77

  64

  72

  62

  50

  31

  Group 3 Crimes of dishonesty

  4,532

  5,460

  5,629

  5,157

  4,486

  4,866

  5,310

  5,476

  5,157

  5,469

  5,435

  Group 4 Fire-raising, vandalism, etc.

  2,185

  2,094

  1,937

  1,736

  1,548

  1,603

  1,908

  1,756

  1,690

  1,704

  1,513

  Group 5 Other crimes

  215

  151

  253

  378

  369

  331

  284

  315

  345

  483

  459

  Total offences

  9,552

  8,900

  8,508

  8,556

  8,459

  7,975

  8,107

  7,959

  8,103

  10,579

  11,342

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The complement of staff in the public information division of the Forestry Commission is given in the table. Before 1982, the division was responsible for preparing exhibitions for shows, but this work was then delegated to local offices, leading to the reduction of four posts. No posts are recorded as being vacant on 1 April in any year.

  Year

  Complement

  1980

  12

  1981

  12

  1982

  8

  1983

  9

  1984

  9

  1985

  10

  1986

  13

  1987

  12

  1988

  11

  1989

  13

  1990

  13

  1991

  14

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Crime, Strathclyde
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage change in the number of recorded crimes in X division of Strathclyde police for each year since 1980 and for each category of crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:
  421

  Number of recorded crimes and offences

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Group 6 Miscellaneous offences

  4,516

  4,155

  4,067

  3,997

  3,980

  3,824

  3,285

  3,415

  3,073

  3,098

  3,049

  Group 7 Motor vehicle offences

  5,036

  4,745

  4,441

  4,559

  4,479

  4,151

  4,822

  4,544

  5,030

  7,481

  8,293

  Annual percentage change

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total crimes and offences

  —

  1

  -1

  -3

  -6

  0

  5

  0

  -1

  19

  2

  Total crimes

  —

  11

  2

  -7

  -11

  6

  9

  1

  -4

  6

  -4

  Group 1 Non-sexual crimes of violence

  —

  5

  23

  0

  10

  13

  -20

  7

  13

  -9

  -16

  Group 2 Crimes of indecency

  —

  9

  -21

  -33

  62

  1

  -17

  13

  -14

  -19

  -38

  Group 3 Crimes of dishonesty

  —

  20

  3

  -8

  -13

  8

  9

  3

  -6

  6

  -1

  Group 4 Fire-raising, vandalism, etc.

  —

  -4

  -7

  -10

  -11

  4

  19

  -8

  -4

  1

  -11

  Group 5 Other crimes

  —

  -30

  68

  49

  -2

  -10

  -14

  11

  10

  40

  -5

  Total offences

  —

  -7

  -4

  1

  -1

  -6

  2

  -2

  2

  31

  7

  Group 6 Miscellaneous offences

  —

  -8

  -2

  -2

  0

  -4

  -14

  4

  -10

  1

  -2

  Group 7 Motor vehicle offences

  —

  -6

  -6

  3

  -2

  -7

  16

  -6

  11

  49

  11

  Source: Reports to the chief constable of Strathclyde.

  Health Service
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the appropriate figure for the annual uprating for inflation in relation to Scottish health service costs for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such index is maintained. Detailed information of the costs of hospital and community health and family services is published annually in "Scottish Health Service Costs".

  Ravenscraig and Clydesdale Steelworks
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has anything to add to his reply of 22 April,Official Report, column 338, concerning the information he received from the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, relating to the statements made by Sir Robert Scholey to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry concerning the attitude of the Commission to a possible sale of Ravenscraig and Clydesdale steelworks.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 22 April.

  War Crimes
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what investigation the Lord Advocate has directed to attempt to identify persons resident in the United Kingdom who may have been involved in the murder of Germans in Berlin in 1945 by Russian soldiers;

  (2) what investigations the Lord Advocate has directed to attempt to identify persons resident in the United Kingdom who may have been involved in the murder of partisans in southern France in 1945;

  (3) what investigation the Lord Advocate has directed to attempt to identify persons resident in the United Kingdom who may have been involved in the massacre of the Russian officer corps or any of those murdered in Stalin's purges;
  422
  (4)what investigation the Lord Advocate has directed to attempt to identify persons resident in the United Kingdom who may have been involved in the massacre of Polish officers at Katyn;

  (5) what investigation the Lord Advocate has directed to attempt to identify persons resident in the United Kingdom who may have been involved in the murder of Cossacks in Yugoslavia, Russia and Austria in 1945;

  (6) what investigation the Lord Advocate has directed to attempt to identify persons resident in the United Kingdom who may have been involved in the murder of Poles in the Warsaw uprising in 1944.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  So far as the Government are aware, no allegations have been made that persons resident in this country participated in any of these murders.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement of his consideration of the appeal by East Lothian district council against the decision of Lothian regional council to call in the planning consent for the restoration of Archerfield house and the development of the surrounding estate.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: I am considering this appeal case and will issue my decision shortly. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of the decision letter.

  Management Consultants (Fees)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that my predecessor gave him on 13 March 1990 at column 114 and 13 March 1989 at column 35. Additional information is as follows:
  423

  £

  11989–90

  374,620

  11990–91

  807,343

  21991–92

  664,139

  1 Outturn

  2 Estimated figure

HEALTH

  Breast Care Nurses
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many breast care nurses appear on the national register of breast care nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not hold a register of breast care nurses.

  Health Systems (Employment)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the total number of persons employed in(a) private health systems, (b) NHS or equivalent and (c) the overall total in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Germany and (iii) France;

  (2) if he will list the number of nurses employed in (a) private health systems, (b) the national health service or equivalent and (c) the overall totals in (i) the United Kingdom with those employed, (ii) Germany and (iii) France.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information for England is given in the table. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. Information regarding Germany and France is not collected by this Department. My hon. Friend may wish to approach the embassies concerned for details.

  Total staff and nursing and midwifery staff employed in NHS and private sector—England: 19891

  Number

  WTE

  Nursing and midwifery staff:

  National health service2

  486,700

  405,300

  Private health systems3 4

  109,500

  78,500

  Total staff:

  National health service5

  970,900

  796,600

  Source: Department of Health (SMI3) Censuses of medical and non-medical manpower and (SMI2) K036 return.

  1All figures are independently rounded to the nearest hundred (100).

  2Includes agency staff, qualified nurses and midwives, learners and unqualified staff.

  3The only data collected centrally on private sector staff relates to private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  4"Whole time equivalent" relates to the contracted hours of employment in the individual establishments and does not equate to the 37·5 hour standard week worked by NHS nursing staff.

  5Includes staff at the Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities and Family Practitioner Committees and other statutory authorities, agency staff, permanent paid and honorary staff and locums.

  Chainsaw Accidents
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on the number and nature of non-work accidents through the use of chainsaws over each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people claiming exemption from prescription charges were(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted in the last 12 months of which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1989, a total of 52,968 claims for exemption from prescription charges were referred for investigation. The decision to prosecute in any individual case is the responsibility of the family health services authority and such information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what general assurances on financial solvency he seeks when considering applications to establish hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Financial viability is one of the criteria considered when deciding whether to establish a unit as a trust. The unit's management has to have a clear perception of the financial challenges facing it and the plans and ability to deal with them.

  Louth County Hospital
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the capital expenditure on Louth county hospital in Lincolnshire since April 1979 and since April 1975.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority, for details.

  Sign Language Interpreters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities that provide British sign language interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing patients; and which make a charge for the service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Walsall NHS Trust
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future funding of Walsall NHS trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Walsall hospitals' national health service trust, like all other trusts and directly managed units, obtains its income from contracts to provide health services to health authorities which purchase such services on behalf of their residents. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. M. Foden, the chairman of the trust, for details.

  Disaster Counselling
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the report of the working party on disaster follow-up and counselling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a copy of the report of the independent working party on disaster follow-up and counselling, which was published today and which is entitled "Disasters: Planning for A Caring Response". Copies are available in the Library.

  The Government will he studying the report carefully and will welcome the views of interested organisations.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any recommendations have been made by the advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes about the advice that should be given to the public during periods of high ozone concentrations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The advisory group has recently completed a detailed report on ozone and its effects on health and this will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as soon as possible. The executive summary of the report is published today and copies have been placed in the Library. Copies of the summary are available to the public from the Department.

  The main conclusion of the group is that the ozone levels experienced in the United Kingdom during hot summer weather are unlikely to produce any permanent lung damage and general warnings to the public are not justified. However, during periods of high ozone concentration some individuals sensitive to ozone may experience respiratory symptoms while taking vigorous exercise out of doors, and these symptoms may be more troublesome in those with some impairment of lung function. The group has recommended that advice should be made available so that individuals who are particularly sensitive to ozone can take steps to reduce exposure.

  The group's recommendations have been accepted by Government and will be implemented immediately. Information and advice about ozone levels and their effects and how to minimise exposure to ozone is available on the air quality help line set up by the Department of the Environment and the Meteorological Office. The Chief Medical Officer has written to all doctors setting out the report's main conclusions.

  Pregnancy Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures for 1989–90 of the number of clinics in England offering(a) IVF, GIFT and other procedures and (b) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVF.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, some information on these matters is expected to be published in the Interim Licensing Authority's 1991 annual report later this year.

  Eye Hospitals
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the regional health authorities that have a specialist eye hospital in their region.
  426
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The location of specialist eye services is a matter for the health authority concerned. The information requested is as follows:

  Northern

  Eye Infirmary, Sunderland

  North Riding Infirmary (ENT and Eye)

  North West Thames

  Western Ophthalmic Hospital

  South East Thames

  Sussex Eye Hospital

  Kent County Ophthalmic and Aural Hospital

  Wessex

  Southampton Eye Hospital

  Oxford

  Oxford Eye Hospital

  South Western

  Bristol Eye Hospital

  West of England Eye Infirmary

  Royal Eye Infirmary, Plymouth

  West Midlands

  Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, Shrewsbury

  Wolverhampton and Midlands Counties Eye Infirmary

  Paybody Hospital, Coventry

  Worcester Eye Hospital

  Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital

  Mersey

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital

  North Western

  Manchester Royal Eye Hospital

  Special Health Authorities

  Moorfield's Eye Hospital

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures showing the number of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets born in England and Wales in 1990; what was the total number of maternities in that year; and what was the total number of multiple cases of each type which were conceived as a result of (i) IVF, (ii) GIFT and (iii) other forms of assisted births.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1990, there were 701,130 maternities in England and Wales. These included:

  Numbers

  Twins

  7,934

  Triplets

  201

  Quadruplets

  10

  Quintuplets or over

  0

  Total number of maternities with multiple births

  8,145

  Data on the number of births which occurred following IVF, GIFT or other procedures to assist conception are not yet available.

  Female Circumcision
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he is going to issue new interdepartmental guidelines on inter-agency working in cases of child protection, with special reference to female genital mutilation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidelines on inter-agency working in cases of child protection are to be issued under the title of "Working Together" in Autumn 1991. This will draw attention to the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.

  Manchester Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on further plans for changes in the provision of services and jobs within the opted-out hospitals in central and south Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National health service trusts in central and south Manchester will ensure that they respond to priorities set by district health authorities and fund holders.

  Health Care, London
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received a copy of a report published by the Health Economics Consortium at York university called a "Review of the Evidence of Higher Costs of Health Care Provision in Inner London and a Consideration of Implications for Competitiveness."

  Mr. Dorrell
  We received a copy of this report on 24 April from the Inner London Health Authorities Group who commissioned it. We are studying it carefully and will be discussing any implications with the Thames regional health authorities.

  Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure by each regional health authority in each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and adjusted for changes in input unit costs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 16 April 1991]: Tables showing the total revenue and total capital expenditure by regional health authorities for the years since 1978–79 have been placed in the Library.

  The figures for RHAs are influenced by the extent to which they directly manage and account for services, including capital schemes; the balance of such responsibility between the RHA and the district health authorities comprising each region varies from one region to another and has been subject to changes over the period. Additional tables showing expenditure by health regions—RHAs and DHAs—have therefore been provided.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Doncaster Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many items of post are outstanding currently at his Department's offices in the Doncaster area;

  (2) what are his current plans to alter the structure and staffing levels of his Department's offices in the Doncaster area;

  (3) how many staff are employed and at what level in each of his Department's offices covering the Doncaster area; and what were the comparable figures (a) 12 months ago and (b) 24 months ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners, Plaistow
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the E6 and E13 postal districts served by the Plaistow office have not received pensions for up to five or more weeks due to non-receipt of pension books; and if he will make a statement concerning the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), to the office on 30 April.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested, since local social security offices do not keep statistical records of delay in issuing instruments of payment. When this problem occurs, it is dealt with on an individual basis. The manager of the Plaistow office is aware of a number of cases of non-receipt of new order books in time for the next pay day.

  I visited Newham district, which comprises the offices at Stratford, Plaistow and Canning Town, on 30 April. I saw the problems associated with accommodation in the district. The situation is being addressed urgently and a number of options are being pursued to improve the service to our customers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Language Studies
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that French or German will continue to be offered in primary schools after the modern language option in primary B. Ed courses in Northern Ireland has been discontinued.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Language studies is not a compulsory area of study within the common curriculum at primary level; it is, therefore, a matter for schools to decide whether to offer a modern language to their pupils.

  The proportion of primary schools which teach French is small and there is no evidence that this provision is constrained by a shortage of teachers. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland is not aware of German being offered by any primary schools; nor was this language available as an option in the B.Ed.

  The Department has recently established a working group on modern languages, which will prepare programmes of study and attainment targets for key stages 3 and 4. It is expected that the working group will offer comment on the introduction of modern languages at earlier stages.

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish details of regulations and licences to cover generators, transmission, distribution and supply and the grid code for successor companies to Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Needham
  I expect to be able to place preliminary drafts of licences for the generation, transmission and supply of electricity in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Assembly Vote Office at Stormont before the end of June 1991. Details of a grid code will be available later in the year.

  Limavady-Aghinaloo Road
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects work to begin on upgrading the road between Limavady and the industrial site at Aghinaloo.

  Mr. Needham
  No proposals exist for such upgrading.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the executive directors in each of the four area health and social services boards; whether their appointments comply with the provisions of the fair employment guidelines; if these appointments reflect the religious breakdown of the work forces in their respective areas; and if he will make a statement about the proportion of Protestants employed by the area health and social services boards.

  Mr. Hanley
  The names of the officer members of each health and social services hoard, appointed to date, are as follows:

  Eastern board:

  Mr. P. G. Kinder

  Mr. I. R. Reid

  Northern board:

  Mr. D. D. Smyth

  Mr. R. S. Ross

  Miss M. S. Irwin

  Mr. J. S. MacDonnell

  Miss E. M. McNair

  Dr. J. D. Watson

  Southern board:

  Mr. J. E. Lamb

  Mr. B. P. Cunningham

  Mr. R. Blair

  Mr. M. Doris

  Dr. P. Kilbane

  Mr. F. A. Rice

  Mr. T. J. Frawley

  Mr. S. Cuddy

  Mr. D. Burke

  Dr. W. W. McConnell

  1990

  1991

  Number of searches

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total number of searches carried out

  27

  28

  25

  37

  56

  39

  37

  21

  16

  37

  Total number of inmates searched

  19

  22

  17

  26

  31

  21

  21

  15

  16

  27

  Number of prisoners searched once

  13

  17

  9

  18

  23

  15

  13

  10

  16

  18

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  5

  4

  8

  6

  7

  4

  6

  4

  nil

  8

  Number of prisoners searched more than twice

  1

  1

  nil

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  nil

  1

  Reasons for search

  First admission on remand/ awaiting trial

  11

  7

  4

  7

  13

  7

  2

  4

  4

  10

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  5

  12

  13

  13

  15

  14

  8

  7

  5

  15

  Attending remand court

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Attending trial

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  1

  nil

  nil

  Inter-prison visit

  3

  2

  nil

  5

  1

  2

  7

  4

  3

  5

  Pre-release home leave

  7

  7

  6

  9

  4

  3

  8

  2

  3

  2

  Compassionate home leave

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Visits to outside hospital

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Returning from bail application

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Attendance at court for bail

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  nil

  Fines paid

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  2

  nil

  nil

  Working out scheme

  nil

  nil

  nil

  2

  19

  13

  9

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Bail granted

  nil

  nil

  2

  1

  3

  nil

  nil

  1

  nil

  5

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  430
  Members of health and social services boards are holders of an office; in that capacity they do not act as officers or employees of the boards, and their appointments as members of the boards do not fall within the scope of the Fair Employment Acts 1976 and 1989. As for their capacity as officers—that is, as employees—of the boards, I am satisfied that the procedures for appointment are such that any appointments since 1976 have been made with due and proper regard for the law relating to fair employment.

  With regard to the request for a statement on the proportion of Protestants employed by the boards, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the recent publication by the Fair Employment Commission, "A Profile of the Workforce in Northern Ireland: A Survey of the 1990 Monitoring Returns", copies of which are in the Library. This shows that the employees of the four health and social services boards were composed of 50·9 per cent. Protestants, 39·3 per cent. Roman Catholic and 9·8 per cent. non-determined. Excluding those for whom a community was not determined, the proportion of Protestants was 56·5 per cent.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail the number of strip searches made on female persons in Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry monthly since May 1990, giving the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; if any prison contraband, smuggled item, or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the number of, and reasons for, strip searches of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry from December 1989 to May 1990 were provided on 4 July 1990, at columns 601–4. The statistics from June 1990 to March 1991 are as follows:

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish figures showing the number of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets born in Northern Ireland in 1990; what was the total number of maternities in Northern Ireland for that year; and what was the total number of multiple cases of each type which were conceived as a result of (i) IVF, (ii) GIFT and (iii) other forms of assisted births.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information on multiple births and maternities will be included in the Registrar General's annual report which will be published in June 1992. However, figures will be available in unpublished form by the end of May 1991 and I will send a copy to the hon. Member when they are available. In 1990, seven sets of twins and two sets of triplets were conceived following IVF treatment. There were no multiple births resulting from other forms of specialist infertility treatments.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: It would require disproportionate time and cost to provide data on staff complements from 1979.

  The available information including vacant posts is as follows:

  Staff complement

  Staff in post as at 1 April

  1989–90

  52

  50

  1990–91

  61

  54

  1991–92

  60

  58

  Stock of PRC Houses (at 1 April 1989)1

  LA stock

  Private sector

  Total

  Additional allocation

  £

  Brecknock

  228

  28

  256

  120,000

  Cardiff

  172

  16

  188

  500,000

  Ceredigion

  146

  34

  180

  400,000

  Dinefwr

  143

  29

  172

  150,000

  Glyndwr

  191

  21

  212

  66,000

  Monmouth

  529

  260

  789

  1,200,000

  Newport

  166

  177

  343

  750,000

  Port Talbot

  650

  80

  730

  500,000

  Ogwr

  774

  142

  916

  175,000

  Swansea

  1,343

  29

  1,372

  430,000

  1 Latest available verified information.

  Wool
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his assessment of the prospects in 1991 and 1992 for the Welsh wool-producing sector of agriculture.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Returns in Wales from wool production form, on average, 4 to 6 per cent. of individual producers' total returns from sheep farming. Prospects for wool producers thus depend on a range of factors, including market prices and input costs. Prices for finished lambs in 1991 so far have been following the usual seasonal trend and prices for British wool, although weak,

WALES

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 1 May 1991.

  Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Houses
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 10 Welsh housing authorities which share the £4·29 million for prefabricated reinforced concrete houses; how much each received for which purposes; and how many prefabricated reinforced concrete houses are involved in each housing authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: The 10 authorities which share the additional allocation are shown as follows, together with the amounts made available, and the numbers of precast concrete houses in each authority's area.

  The additional resources are mainly to help homeowners who are eligible for assistance under the housing defects legislation. The allocation for Glyndwr and Port Talbot is to assist in dealing with particular difficulties over system built houses in their own stock. The additional funds are allocated against ongoing reinstatement programmes and not specific dwellings.

  have shown some improvement in recent sales. In addition, Welsh sheep farmers enjoy significant financial support through the EC sheep regime and hill livestock compensatory allowances. This support, which takes account of both market prices and income levels, is estimated to total some £96 million in 1990.

  Craft Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding of the craft industry in Wales by the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales respectively.
  433
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales contribute a grant to the Wales Craft Council, employ craft business advisers and undertake a range of marketing activities. Also, craft producers are able to apply for a range of general grants, loans and business services offered by the agencies. The development board estimates support will amount to more than £220,000 in the current financial year. WDA support is estimated at £518,500. Craftspeople may also apply for the services and grants offered by the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the extent of any public funding of the Wales Craft Council for 1991–92, including any conditions upon which such funding will be based.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales have agreed to provide a total of £40,000 a year for two years to the Wales Craft Council to cover specific activities. The funding will be subject to normal conditions.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the report which he received recently from the Welsh Development Agency concerning the craft industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received no such report. I have, however, received an evaluation of the craft initiative, prepared by my Department in consultation with the Welsh Development Agency, among others, and I have placed a copy of this in the Library.

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures for 1990 showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in Wales whose deliveries were(a) spontaneous, including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous, (b) instrumental, including forceps, vacuum and breech extractions, (c) caesarean section and (d) other and unspecified means.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not yet available for 1990. Figures for 1989 are given in the table.

  Estimated percentages of hospital deliveries by type of delivery: Wales 1989

  Type of delivery

  Estimated percentage

  Spontaneous

  80·0

  Instrumental

  7·0

  Caesarean

  13·0

  Note: The information is based on OPCS 4th revision codes for the classification of surgical operations and procedures which were introduced in 1988.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures for 1990 showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in Wales(a) whose labours were induced, (b) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (c) who had elective caesarean section.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not yet available for 1990. Figures for 1989 are given in the table.
  434

  Estimated percentages of hospital deliveries by type of onset of labour: Wales 1989

  Type of onset of labour

  Estimated percentage

  Induced

  3·0

  Spontaneous

  85·0

  Elective caesarean

  5·0

  Other caesarean

  7·0

  Note: The information is based on OPCS 4th revision codes for the classification of surgical operations and procedures which were introduced in 1988.

  Fast Glamorgan District General Hospital
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the date upon which construction work will commence on the replacement East Glamorgan district general hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is for Mid Glamorgan health authority to decide the date in which construction work commences.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds are to be included in the replacement East Glamorgan district general hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This new hospital development is being planned on the basis of a district general hospital of 640 beds. Initially it is proposed that 533 beds will be provided.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that sufficient revenue capital will be available to ensure that the existing level of health provision at East Glamorgan district general hospital will be maintained until the opening of the replacement East Glamorgan hospital; and if he will make a statement as to the likely cost, per annum, of ensuring that provision.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Until such time as the new hospital is open, services will continue to be provided from East Glamorgan hospital. The extent to which services are provided will depend upon the contracts placed with the hospital by the purchasers of its services—mainly Mid Glamorgan health authority and the local GP fund-holding practices. Health authorities and GP fund holders have a duty to secure the best quality and value for money in the services they obtain with the funds provided to them. They will have to satisfy themselves that East Glamorgan hospital meets these criteria if the existing level of provision is to be maintained or increased.

  Cardiac Patients
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities in Wales, besides Mid Glamorgan, have issued directives or recommendations that patients of 70 year of age or over, suffering from cardiac conditions, should be treated differently from patients who have not reached that age.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally. Admission policies and the provision of health care are matters for health authorities to determine in the light of local circumstances and in the best interest of patients.

  Asthma
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by health authority district, the number of in-patients admitted to hospitals in Wales who were diagnosed as suffering from asthma in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of in-patient deaths and discharges from NHS hospitals in Wales, by district health authority of treatment, with a principal diagnosis of asthma is shown in the table for 1987, 1988 and 1989. Information for 1990 and 1991 is not yet available.

  In-Patient deaths and discharges with principal diagnosis of Asthma1 2

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  640

  686

  690

  East Dyfed

  365

  388

  311

  Gwent

  825

  901

  793

  Gwynedd

  440

  409

  339

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,102

  1,147

  881

  Powys

  87

  90

  135

  South Glamorgan

  1,108

  1,299

  1,108

  West Glamorgan

  786

  907

  902

  Pembrokeshire

  192

  218

  217

  1 Excludes day cases.

  2 The information may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths.

  Neath and Port Talbot Hospital
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a date upon which work will begin on the new Neath and Port Talbot hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is for the West Glamorgan health authority to decide the date on which work commences.

  Conwy Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the cost to the tourism industry of the delays in opening the Conwy tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There has been no significant delay in the construction of the A55 Conwy crossing scheme, which is planned for completion this autumn. The upgrading of 51 of the 60 miles of the A55 to dual carriageway standard has already greatly enhanced prospects for the economy of north Wales, including the tourism industry.

  Pregnancy Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures for 1990 of the number of clinics in Wales offering(a) in vitro fertilisation—IVF—gamete inter-fallopian transfer—GIFT—and other procedures and (ii) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVF.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally.

  Archaeological Remains
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to require planning authorities in Wales to inform solicitors making their local searches if there are archaeological remains present on the land.
  436
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Archaeological remains scheduled as being of national importance under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Archaeological Areas Act 1979 are registered as land charges and can be identified during local searches. Details of other archaeological remains are not registered as land charges but information on these is held by the four Welsh archaeological trusts which may be consulted.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to issue a policy planning guidance document in Wales, similar to the PPG 16 issued by the Department of the Environment in November 1990, on archaeology and planning.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Yes. A draft PPG on archaeology and planning in Wales was issued for consultation in September 1990. A copy is available in the Library of the House. We have had a positive response and expect to issue this guidance shortly.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales scheduled for financial management and policy reviews during the current financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In accordance with the arrangements for undertaking regular, five-year reviews of NDPBs announced by the then Prime Minister on 28 January 1988 the Welsh Office will be undertaking financial management and policy reviews of the Welsh Development Agency, Development Board for Rural Wales, Iand Authority for Wales, Sports Council for Wales and the Wales tourist board during 1991–92.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the outcome of his recent consultation on exemptions from, and implementation timetable for, teaching Welsh in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The implementation of the national curriculum and any exemption from it must be considered in the context of my overall policy for the teaching of Welsh in schools. The Education Reform Act 1988 provided that Welsh is an integral part of the curriculum for schools in Wales. I reaffirm the general policy aim, which I announced to the House on 22 January, that Welsh should be studied by all pupils in schools in Wales between the ages of five and 16, though not necessarily to full GCSE level.

  The consultation document on exemptions which I issued last November set out specific criteria and circumstances under which I was prepared to consider a limited range of exemptions from the national curriculum requirements to teach Welsh.

  I propose that there should be an exemption of incoming pupils who transfer late in their school careers to schools in Wales and who had little or no opportunity for studying the language in school in the previous three years. These draft regulations were widely supported. The regulations will also apply to pupils who meet these criteria and who transfer between schools in Wales. All pupils to whom this exemption will apply, will retain the right to

  437
  study the language if they wish and schools will be encouraged to offer them this option. I now intend to proceed to make the relevant regulations.

  There was general approval for my proposals to allow an extended implementation timetable for some schools in four LEAs—Dyfed, Gwent, Powys and South Glamorgan. Two of the schools in Dyfed—Tasker-Millward and Pembroke—have now indicated that they will introduce the national curriculum requirements for Welsh earlier than proposed. I welcome this positive approach. Six other schools requested deferment. Each case has been carefully considered and of these, Fitzalan high school, Cardiff, will be added to the draft order which I am now issuing for consultation.

  My proposals set out two very specific sets of criteria for the exemptions of a small number of schools from the key stage 4 requirements for Welsh. The Curriculum Council for Wales and a number of organisations, including some teacher associations, were opposed o any exemption in key stage 4. In view of this response, and the advice received from the Curriculum Council for Wales I have reviewed both sets of proposals strictly in line with the criteria set out in my consultation document.

  The first of the exemption proposals related to the five secondary schools in the South Pembrokeshire area covering the period up to 1996–97 by which time all of these schools, in line with the agreement with the LEA, will be expected to introduce fully the key stage 3 requirements. A further 12 schools sought deferment on grounds of similar area characteristics. None was supported by their LEAs and since my proposals applied only to the schools in South Pembrokeshire, the exemptions to he included in a draft order will be limited to these schools.

  Secondly, in the consultation document of November 1990, exemption from the key stage 4 requirements was also proposed for a group of seven schools—six in Clwyd and one in Gwent—with catchment areas or potential catchment areas for pupils across the English border. These proposals reflected the concerns expressed by the headteachers and governing bodies of the schools about the potential loss of pupil numbers. Subsequently a further 11 schools requested similar consideration.

  I have carefully considered the position in the light of the review to which I referred above. I have taken into account the significant number of requests for further exemptions on grounds of catchment areas and the impact such exemptions would have on Welsh education in these areas and on my overall policy for teaching Welsh in schools. As a result of the representations made and by consideration of all the factors, I have decided to reduce the number of exemptions in this category. It will be limited to three schools in Clwyd and two in Gwent. These schools are: Darland high school; St. David's high school, Saltney; the Maelor school, Penley; Chepstow and Monmouth comprehensive schools. They will be included in the draft order which I am now issuing for consultation. I should stress that all exempted schools will be encouraged to make arrangements for Welsh to be an option at key stage 4 for those pupils who choose it.

  Some secondary schools also requested exemption from the key stage 3 requirements. I made no proposals for such exemption and do not intend to do so. All secondary schools in Wales will be required to introduce the key stage 3 requirements for the teaching of Welsh.
  438
  The Curriculum Council for Wales and other bodies expressed the view that all exemptions should be subject to review. I accept that advice. A review will be carried out in the 1996–97 academic year to consider all exemptions. By that time I will expect all schools and LEAs to have established implementation plans to introduce the teaching of the language in all key stages in line with my overall policy for Welsh which I outlined earlier.

  Veterinary Investigation Centre, Bangor
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received concerning the future of the veterinary investigation centre at Bangor since November 1990; and how many of the representations are opposed to the closure.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Sixteen representations indicating opposition to the closure of the Bangor centre have been received since November 1990.

  Farm Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the variable input costs accrued on farms in Wales in each of the last 15 years according to farm size and farm type.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information showing the variable input costs for farms of the same types and sizes is only readily available since 1984–85 and is as follows:

  Variable costs by type and size

  Small

  Medium

  Large

  All sizes

  Specialist Dairy

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  23,679

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  23,259

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  27,464

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  22,354

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  23,750

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  26,299

  Mainly Dairy

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  26,711

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  27,374

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  29,330

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  26,900

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  28,273

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  31,242

  All Dairy

  1984–85

  11,299

  28,108

  69,248

  24,458

  1985–86

  11,275

  27,684

  69,905

  24,317

  1986–87

  11,706

  29,492

  69,876

  25,672

  1987–88

  10,052

  26,026

  64,263

  23,545

  1988–89

  11,140

  26,421

  67,419

  25,133

  1989–90

  11,882

  28,930

  72,161

  27,721

  Hill and Upland SDA sheep

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  13,362

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  13,769

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  13,943

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  14,804

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  14,886

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  15,068

  Hill and Upland SDA Cattle and Sheep

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  13,188

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  13,068

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  15,260

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  14,874

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  15,067

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  19,108

  439

  Small

  Medium

  Large

  All sizes

  All Hill and Upland LFA Livestock

  1984–85

  6,861

  19,167

  42,853

  13,304

  1985–86

  6,944

  20,361

  59,168

  13,577

  1986–87

  8,115

  21,798

  44,017

  14,952

  1987–88

  6,917

  20,707

  52,451

  14,132

  1988–89

  7,643

  19,578

  49,441

  14,732

  1989–90

  7,534

  20,855

  54,748

  15,133

  All Dairy and Livestock

  1984–85

  8,312

  24,338

  58,194

  17,354

  1985–86

  8,353

  24,373

  56,924

  17,315

  1986–87

  9,337

  25,052

  58,228

  18,514

  1987–88

  7,694

  22,895

  58,997

  17,247

  1988–89

  8,485

  22,278

  58,525

  17,712

  1989–90

  8,803

  24,135

  63,991

  19,075

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the net farm income figures, excluding breeding livestock appreciation, for farms in Wales according to farm size and farm type in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Consistent information on net farm incomes by farm type and farm size is only available since 1984–85 and is as follows:

  Net farm income by size and type

  Small

  Medium

  Large

  All sizes

  Specialist Dairy

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  6,346

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  10,614

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  10,932

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  16,073

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  21,328

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  21,628

  Mainly Dairy

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  8,507

  1985–86

  —

  —.

  —

  10,109

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  12,554

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  17,096

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  20,496

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  21,836

  All Dairy

  1984–85

  3,075

  7,835

  20,537

  6,901

  1985–86

  5,106

  12,143

  27,981

  10,485

  1986–87

  5,342

  13,198

  29,266

  11,335

  1987–88

  9,459

  16,804

  40,482

  16,341

  1988–89

  10,262

  21,893

  54,660

  21,099

  1989–90

  10,370

  22,402

  54,032

  21,688

  Hill and Upland SDA sheep

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  10,223

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  7,026

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  9,792

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  9,380

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  15,283

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  9,468

  Hill and Upland SDA Cattle and Sheep

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  7,754

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  9,041

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  9,348

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  12,491

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  16,381

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  10,881

  440

  Small

  Medium

  Large

  All sizes

  All Hill and Upland LFA Livestock

  1984–85

  3,374

  14,153

  29,409

  8,721

  1985–86

  2,632

  14,256

  16,161

  7,616

  1986–87

  3,216

  13,101

  24,739

  7,906

  1987–88

  3,770

  14,929

  31,692

  9,453

  1988–89

  6,454

  19,251

  54,207

  14,250

  1989–90

  2,198

  13,762

  43,363

  8,805

  All Dairy and Livestock

  1984–85

  2,752

  10,665

  24,252

  7,026

  1985–86

  3,357

  12,320

  23,031

  7,914

  1986–87

  3,609

  12,433

  27,225

  8,508

  1987–88

  5,077

  19,970

  33,115

  11,243

  1988–89

  7,277

  19,749

  54,436

  15,767

  1989–90

  4,019

  16,405

  48,085

  12,277

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the net income from management and investment in farms in Wales in each of the last 15 years according to farm size and farm type.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of management and investment income are only available for years since 1986–87 and are as follows:

  (£000)

  Farm type

  Management and investment income

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Specialist Dairy

  6·4

  9·5

  13·5

  Mainly Dairy

  6·6

  10·5

  13·2

  All Dairy

  6·4

  9·8

  13·5

  Hill and Upland Sheep

  2·8

  4·6

  9·1

  Hill and Upland Cattle Sheep

  1·7

  4·3

  8·6

  All Hill and Upland (LFA) Livestock

  1·6

  3·8

  7·9

  Farm Investment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the level of investment in new buildings, plant and machinery in farms in Wales in each of the last 15 years according to farm size and farm type.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Investment details by farm type and size are not available. Figures for aggregate capital formation in plant and machinery are however published in "Farm Incomes in Wales", volume 4, table 3.11, and average investment per farm, by type and tenure is collected as part of the farm business survey and published annually in the same source.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the amount of total interest bills and outstanding bank advances secured by farms in Wales in each of the last 15 years according to farm size and farm type.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available for the number of years or in the form requested. Data collected since 1985–86 shows average bank advances outstanding and interest payments made per farm to be as follows:
  441

  £000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  LFA Livestock Farms

  Average Bank Advance

  17·9

  23·2

  35·7

  23·9

  Interest Payments

  2·6

  3·7

  4·9

  3·6

  All Dairy Farms

  Average Bank Advance

  39·6

  29·1

  32·3

  30·0

  Interest Payments

  4·8

  5·1

  4·3

  4·2

  Forestry
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated by his Department to Coed Cymru in each year since 1985; and what is the estimated allocation to be granted for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Coed Cymru does not receive any financial support from the Welsh Office but is jointly funded by the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales and local authorities.

  Unfit Dwellings
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table of the most recent available data showing the number of unfit dwellings in each local

  Unfit dwellings in Wales, 1986

  Total

  Local authority

  New Town corporation

  Housing association1

  Private sector2

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,253

  62

  —

  —

  1,192

  Colwyn

  257

  85

  —

  —

  173

  Delyn

  450

  95

  —

  —

  355

  Glyndwr

  623

  43

  —

  —

  580

  Rhuddlan

  537

  —

  —

  —

  537

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,665

  857

  —

  —

  807

  Carmarthen

  1,216

  91

  —

  —

  1,125

  Ceredigion

  3,499

  111

  —

  41

  3,348

  Dinefwr

  1,902

  36

  —

  —

  1,867

  Llanelli

  2,960

  707

  —

  —

  2,253

  Preseli

  2,908

  104

  —

  —

  2,804

  South Pembrokeshire

  832

  63

  —

  —

  769

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,903

  399

  —

  —

  2,504

  Islwyn

  771

  44

  —

  —

  727

  Monmouth

  2,199

  220

  —

  81

  1,898

  Newport

  953

  78

  —

  —

  875

  Torfaen

  976

  66

  —

  —

  910

  Aberconwy

  281

  122

  —

  —

  160

  Arfon

  1,285

  239

  —

  —

  1,047

  Dwyfor

  1,611

  94

  —

  —

  1,517

  Meirionnydd

  310

  —

  —

  —

  310

  Ynys Mon

  966

  110

  —

  —

  857

  Cynon Valley

  3,882

  167

  —

  —

  3,715

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,271

  150

  —

  42

  2,079

  Ogwr

  3,107

  323

  —

  —

  2,783

  Rhondda

  4,533

  279

  —

  141

  4,113

  Rhymney Valley

  2,006

  157

  —

  58

  1,791

  Taff-Ely

  2,492

  202

  —

  —

  2,289

  Brecknock

  929

  18

  —

  31

  880

  Montgomeryshire

  1,591

  —

  —

  —

  1,591

  Radnor

  461

  —

  —

  —

  462

  Cardiff

  8,315

  1,561

  —

  —

  6,754

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,389

  271

  —

  —

  1,118

  Port Talbot

  1,354

  558

  —

  —

  796

  Lliw Valley

  1,881

  108

  —

  —

  1,773

  Neath

  1,799

  256

  —

  —

  1,543

  Swansea

  5,320

  767

  —

  —

  4,553

  WALES

  71,687

  8,440

  —

  394

  62,853

  1 Includes charitable trusts

  2 Owner occupied and private rented

  Source: 1986 Welsh House Condition Survey
  442
  authority area in Wales, for the categories (a) unfit local authority properties, (b) unfit housing association properties, (c) unfit public sector properties, other than local authority-owned and (d) unfit private sector properties, other than housing association owned.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The 1986 Welsh house condition survey estimated the number of unfit dwellings in each local authority area in Wales for the following categories:

  (a) local authority properties

  (b) Housing Association properties

  (c) New Town Corporation properties

  (d)private Sector properties

  as shown in the following table:

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to increase resources for the smaller abattoirs of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Experimental Husbandry Farm, Pwllpeiran
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the future of the experimental husbandry farm at Pwllpeiran.

  Persons accepted as homeless 1979–1990 by district

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  1988

  1989

  21990

  Aberconwy

  151

  203

  159

  130

  99

  167

  74

  153

  177

  108

  162

  137

  Alyn and Deeside

  301

  250

  205

  237

  251

  239

  427

  366

  330

  485

  528

  474

  Arfon

  80

  59

  51

  55

  61

  38

  62

  51

  102

  63

  65

  77

  Blaenau Gwent

  333

  361

  388

  464

  459

  454

  447

  489

  463

  595

  695

  841

  Brecknock

  69

  114

  86

  160

  152

  134

  217

  162

  180

  176

  243

  269

  Cardiff

  690

  1,410

  973

  1,053

  730

  862

  1,646

  1,751

  1,592

  2,971

  3,334

  2,483

  Carmarthen

  187

  160

  152

  127

  192

  138

  218

  165

  255

  213

  164

  137

  Ceredigion

  94

  102

  92

  103

  149

  203

  149

  140

  188

  187

  180

  331

  Colwyn

  55

  40

  42

  72

  55

  60

  71

  102

  104

  87

  93

  103

  Cynon Valley

  898

  1,018

  965

  985

  1,207

  959

  840

  942

  603

  710

  530

  623

  Delyn

  175

  151

  264

  240

  197

  255

  297

  391

  712

  679

  1,002

  825

  Dinefwr

  49

  34

  35

  108

  31

  67

  104

  93

  141

  185

  124

  181

  Dwyfor

  138

  60

  106

  74

  69

  124

  126

  142

  163

  119

  178

  162

  Glyndwr

  56

  54

  63

  39

  37

  52

  64

  55

  63

  30

  43

  46

  Islwyn

  189

  175

  159

  68

  118

  143

  142

  139

  121

  204

  313

  370

  Llanelli

  133

  100

  140

  179

  219

  213

  227

  371

  408

  302

  343

  297

  Lliw Valley

  113

  129

  134

  140

  119

  204

  158

  205

  254

  143

  288

  338

  Meirionnydd

  369

  489

  235

  145

  159

  106

  106

  147

  137

  210

  230

  250

  Merthyr Tydfil

  454

  392

  272

  238

  253

  232

  225

  179

  207

  191

  359

  496

  Monmouth

  515

  380

  532

  437

  475

  447

  717

  664

  618

  576

  357

  281

  Montgomeryshire

  124

  110

  125

  89

  83

  58

  52

  97

  100

  156

  127

  188

  Neath

  481

  483

  624

  3..

  1,016

  965

  806

  793

  629

  636

  496

  610

  Newport

  864

  1,110

  1,358

  1,300

  1,218

  1,199

  1,513

  1,258

  1,550

  1,635

  2,460

  2,696

  Ogwr

  338

  343

  517

  736

  599

  448

  826

  1,667

  994

  1,193

  1,176

  1,332

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  170

  133

  94

  112

  160

  226

  164

  304

  357

  327

  442

  303

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  135

  164

  130

  97

  96

  78

  148

  108

  176

  194

  153

  209

  Radnorshire

  19

  38

  45

  14

  19

  34

  54

  23

  31

  60

  36

  64

  Rhondda

  569

  834

  1,164

  1,049

  852

  479

  317

  320

  268

  270

  292

  166

  Rhuddlan

  237

  139

  172

  257

  268

  204

  242

  249

  296

  256

  273

  293

  Rhymney Valley

  534

  720

  510

  284

  418

  344

  629

  643

  410

  580

  655

  439

  South Pembrokeshire

  143

  188

  181

  202

  230

  280

  224

  165

  210

  271

  241

  248

  Swansea

  1,604

  1,838

  2,820

  1,887

  1,416

  1,396

  762

  685

  654

  439

  345

  450

  Taff-Ely

  390

  253

  200

  188

  158

  176

  186

  278

  321

  395

  442

  568

  Torfaen

  1,049

  978

  723

  790

  675

  426

  531

  958

  708

  881

  968

  1,216

  Vale of Glamorgan

  620

  749

  636

  1,329

  896

  726

  570

  427

  293

  755

  1,042

  1,160

  Wrexham Maelor

  235

  471

  353

  212

  238

  441

  411

  567

  522

  717

  740

  863

  Ynys Mon

  137

  83

  33

  26

  44

  54

  50

  62

  65

  106

  49

  97

  Wales Total

  12,698

  14,315

  14,738

  13,626

  13,418

  12,631

  13,802

  15,311

  14,402

  17,105

  19,168

  19,623

  1 Excludes data for Islwyn for the October to December quarter.

  2 Figures exclude those made homeless in Colwyn as a result of the major flooding incident in February 1990. No breakdown by number of persons is available.

  3 = Not available.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of representations received by his Department concerning the axeing of grant aid for converting farm buildings into tourist accommodation under the farm diversification grant scheme; and how many representatives have been critical of this decision.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The statutory instrument ending capital grant assistance for tourist accommodation, other than for camping and bunkhouse barns, under the farm diversification grant scheme came into operation on 16
  444
  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing, for each local authority in Wales, the number of persons accepted as homeless in each year since 1979 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The numbers of persons accepted as homeless by each local authority for each year since 1979 are shown in the table.

  January 1991. As of 30 April my Department had received 11 letters concerning the withdrawal of this grant assistance, of which 10 questioned the decision.

  Education Spending
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing(a) the revenue budget for 1990–91 and (b) the standard spending assessment for 1990–91 for each local education authority in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The standard spending assessment for each county council in Wales relates to the totality of
  445
  services it provides and is not hypothecated to individual services. The following table gives the 1990–91 standard spending assessment for each county, together with the comparable estimated revenue expenditure:

  1990–91

  £ million

  Estimated net revenue expenditure1

  Standard spending assessment

  Clwyd

  244·9

  225·4

  Dyfed

  208·5

  202·3

  Gwent

  256·4

  248·4

  Gwynedd

  145·5

  142·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  328·7

  320·1

  Powys

  78·0

  77·7

  South Glamorgan

  234·7

  228·7

  West Glamorgan

  221·4

  205·4

  1 Net of sales, fees, charges and specific grants.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing(a) the capital bid for 1990–91 and (b) the capital allocation for 1990–91 for each local education authority in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Capital resources for Welsh local authorities, including those allocated to education authorities are distributed mainly by means of formulae which have been endorsed by the local authority associations. They are not hypothecated to particular services and are not subject to bids. At the all-Wales level I set the total assumed gross expenditure for education in 1990–91 at £53·7 million. The latest available projection, at October 1990, by local authorities of their planned spending was £49·3 million.

  WDA Industrial Units
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh Development Agency industrial units are empty awaiting tenants in each of the counties of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Number of units vacant and available for letting (as at 30 April 1991)

  County

  Number

  Clwyd

  55

  Dyfed

  42

  Gwent

  87

  Gwynedd

  62

  Mid Glamorgan

  76

  South Glamorgan

  3

  West Glamorgan

  38

  These vacancies represent 11 per cent. of the agency's total portfolio.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Wales if he will publish a table showing, for each local authority in Wales, the(a) 1990–91 housing investment programme bid and (b) 1990–91 housing investment programme allocation of capital spending.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Local authorities were not asked to specify in their housing strategy and investment programmes the level of central Government input they 446
  required towards their 1990–91 housing programmes. Details of housing annual capital guidelines—ACG—and supplementary credit approvals—SCA—for discretionary home renovation grants and special projects for each authority in 1990–91 are given in the table. The figures exclude resources for old style home improvement grants and mandatory home renovation grants for which final claims have yet to be submitted.

  £ million

  Authority

  Housing ACG

  SCA

  SCA

  Discretionary Grants

  Other

  Alyn and Deeside

  1·752

  0·157

  0·130

  Colwyn

  1·077

  0·137

  0·286

  Delyn

  1·611

  0·143

  0·850

  Glyndwr

  1·093

  0·125

  —

  Rhuddlan

  1·053

  0·164

  1·904

  Wrexham Maelor

  5·925

  0·298

  0·230

  Carmarthen

  1·277

  0·202

  0·306

  Ceredigion

  1·227

  0·248

  0·520

  Dinefwr

  0·996

  0·189

  2·015

  Llanelli

  3·757

  0·335

  —

  Preseli Pembroke

  2·004

  0·327

  1·576

  South Pembroke

  1·066

  0·116

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  3·597

  0·433

  0·267

  Islwyn

  1·884

  0·180

  1·750

  Monmouth

  2·150

  0·290

  1·624

  Newport

  2·971

  0·312

  2·834

  Torfaen

  3·580

  0·213

  2·183

  Aberconwy

  1·279

  0·158

  0·400

  Arfon

  2·206

  0·233

  2·537

  Dwyfor

  0·915

  0·186

  0·415

  Meirionnydd

  0·696

  0·108

  1·534

  Ynys Mon

  1·675

  0·203

  1·151

  Cynon Valley

  2·328

  0·522

  5·257

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2·167

  0·210

  0·997

  Ogwr

  3·306

  0·351

  0·220

  Rhondda

  2·325

  0·548

  3·931

  Rhymney Valley

  4·035

  0·373

  0·300

  Taff Ely

  2·602

  0·229

  —

  Brecknock

  1·051

  0·166

  0·965

  Montgomeryshire

  1·260

  0·242

  2·395

  Radnorshire

  0·418

  0·119

  0·344

  Cardiff

  7·089

  0·949

  6·090

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2·487

  0·314

  —

  Port Talbot

  3·085

  0·204

  1·070

  Lliw Valley

  2·222

  0·263

  0·342

  Neath

  2·157

  0·181

  —

  Swansea

  6·608

  0·571

  1·090

  Wales

  86·929

  10·000

  45·513

  Right to Buy
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the number of right-to-buy sales completed in each local authority in Wales since the Housing Act 1980 came into force.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the table:

  Total Right to Buy Sales1

  Welsh Districts

  October 1980—December 1990

  Aberconwy

  1,712

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,509

  Arfon

  1,369

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,322

  Brecknock

  1,435

  Cardiff

  7,607

  Carmarthen

  171

  Ceredigion

  1,417

  447

  Welsh Districts

  October 1980—December 1990

  Colwyn

  0

  Cynon Valley

  1,481

  Delyn

  1,215

  Dinefwr

  872

  Dwyfor

  385

  Glyndwr

  1,244

  Islwyn

  3,654

  Llanelli

  3,352

  Lliw Valley

  1,895

  Meirionnydd

  871

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,193

  Monmouth

  1,859

  Montgomeryshire

  1,333

  Neath

  2,398

  Newport

  4,077

  Ogwr

  4,520

  Port Talbot

  3,455

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,269

  Radnorshire

  571

  Rhondda

  741

  Rhuddlan

  912

  Rhymney Valley

  3,675

  South Pembrokeshire

  833

  Swansea

  4,010

  Taff-Ely

  3,820

  Torfaen

  3,706

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,578

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,488

  Ynys Mon

  1,634

  Wales Total

  80,583

  1 Excludes right to buy sales from New Towns.

  Urban Motorways
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total mileage of urban motorway in each urban area of Wales(a) already constructed and in operation, (b) under construction at present and (c) planned for the future.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The only length of motorway in Wales fitting this definition is the 1·5 mile M4 Port Talbot bypass in West Glamorgan. No additional urban motorways are either under construction or planned.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to his Department of his visit to Fishguard and west Wales on 1 May.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On Wednesday 1 May 1991, I was received by the mayor of Fishguard and Goodwick town council at the town hall Fishguard where I was introduced to county, district, and local representatives.

  I was then taken on a tour of Fishguard and Goodwick area by coach with the town clerk, Mr. Harold Rees, including a visit to the Fishguard factory of Slimma (Wales) Limited.

  At a formal meeting later in the town hall I received presentations from the following speakers:

  Mr. C. B. Fenemore—Route Director, Sealink Stenna, Fishguard harbour.

  Mr. A. Daniels—Executive Director, Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. D. K. Jones—County Engineer and Surveyor, Dyfed County Council.

  Mr. R. Anderson—Planning Officer, Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council.

  Chief Inspector Horne—Dyfed Powys police.

  448

  Councillor W. Lloyd Evans—County/District/Town Council.

  Mrs. M. Griffiths—Chairman, Fishguard and Goodwick Chamber of Trade.

  Councillor A. Allison—District/Town Council.

  Councillor B. Colnet—Fishguard and Goodwick Town Council.

  Councilor D. Davies—District/Town Council.

  Mr. Geraint Howells—MP, Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire.

  At the conclusion of the meeting, I visited Fishguard harbour and attended lunch aboard the Stenna Felicity hosted by Sealink Stenna. During the afternoon I had meetings with local NFU and FUW representatives, Carningli rural initiative, the Fishguard music festival, the spirit of youth festival, Gwyl Gwaun, the chamber of trade, including political meetings at Fishguard Bay hotel. As soon as the cost of the visit to the Welsh Office is known, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mumbles (Development)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will inform Swansea city council and other interested parties of which procedures he has decided to adopt in relation to his determination of the Bright and Pepper/Fairclough development at Mumbles, Swansea.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: I shall announce the procedures as soon as I am content that the environmental assessment submitted by the applicants is complete.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to inform Swansea city council and other interested parties of the procedures which are to be followed in relation to the environmental impact study by(a) the developer, Bright and Pepper/Fairclough, and (b) the independent consultants appointed by Swansea city council to ensure that all information necessary to determine the application for development at Mumbles, Swansea, is available to him.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: My officials are scrutinising the environmental statement and supplementary information submitted by the developers and others. Should the environment information provided be considered inadequate to complete a full assessment, the developers will be required to supply further information under regulation 20 of the Town and County Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. In this event, Swansea city council and the other statutory consultees will be informed.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Cardiff)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions since 1979 on which incidents have occured at AWE, Cardiff, involving a release of argon gas contaminated with beryllium powder into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There have been no such occurrences.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the standard procedure to be
  449
  followed at AWE, Cardiff if the steel vessel containing beryllium powder were to burst within the furnace under pressure; whether that standard procedure has been altered during the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It would not be in the national interest to give details of AWE Cardiff's processing operations. However, during the site's many years of work with beryllium the most stringent health and safety procedures have been developed including careful control and monitoring. In the event of an abnormal occurrence the systems are designed to safeguard the work force, the public and the environment against potential hazard.

  Gulf War
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many under-18s were injured or killed whilst serving in the armed forces during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  According to our records, no service personnel under 18 years of age were injured during hostilities in the Gulf, but one soldier aged 17 was killed.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures for the rate of premature voluntary release in(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest premature voluntary release—PVR—annual exist rates are for the year to 31 March 1991 and are given in the table.

  Percentage rate

  Officers

  RN/RM

  3·24

  Army

  4·19

  RAF

  2·31

  Service men

  RN

  6·21

  RM

  6·42

  Army

  2·83

  RAF

  4·22

  PVR figures for females are not currently available, but are being collated for future publication. The figures in the table therefore relate to males only.

  Army Helicopters
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make further resources available to improve the defence capability of Army helicopters in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The defensive capabilities of Army helicopters are kept under review.

  Schools (Efficiency Exercise)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been awarded under the Ministry of Defence's efficiency exercise incentive scheme to private schools; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Grenadier Guards
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the three Grenadier guardsmen who lost their legs and sustained other injuries in the course of their duties on a live firing range in Canada in July 1989 have received the automatic payments to service men when they are invalided out of the service including a tax-free war pension, a tax-free service pension and a tax-free lump sum and terminal grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Only one of the guardsmen has been discharged from the Army. He was awarded an immediate service invaliding pension and terminal grant by the Ministry of Defence. A war disablement pension, which is administered by the Department of Social Security and is payable following discharge from the armed forces only where a disability is due to or aggravated by military service, has been awarded at the 100 per cent. rate and a payment issued. This is tax free. As a result, his service invaliding pension, which has been in issue from the date of discharge, has been converted to a higher, tax-free, service attributable pension. He has also been awarded an additional tax-free lump sum.

  Armed Forces (Crown Proceedings) Act
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the Armed Forces (Crown Proceedings) Act 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 by the Armed Forces (Crown Proceedings) Act 1987, we have received 2,249 claims for compensation from members of the armed forces. A total of 271 claims have been settled at a cost of £3,433,414. Nine hundred and thirty seven claims have been repudiated and 1,041 are still under investigation.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific factors still remain to be settled before the decision on the replacement for Chieftain tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The hon. Member would not expect me to give details at this stage of a competition.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect consideration of the potential use of helicopter gunships is having on the timing of his announcement of the replacement for Chieftain tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are considering all relevant factors before making a decision on the equipment for our future main battle tank fleet.

  Service Men (Compensation)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that compensation available to service personnel should be in line with awards by the courts to civilians in comparable cases.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where responsibility for paying compensation will rest in
  451
  the event of a member of Her Majesty's forces currently being provided to serve under contract to a private company, namely Royal Ordnance, for mine-clearance duties in Kuwait, suffering injury or death in the course of his duties; and whether he will ensure that such compensation will be no less favourable than that payable to a British civilian employed by a British company.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are still discussing the details of this deployment with Royal Ordnance, and appropriate compensation arrangements are one of the matters under consideration.

  Live Ammunition (Training)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the practice adopted by the Army in training with live ammunition; and if he will state the number of serious injuries suffered in the last five years both in the United Kingdom and outside on such training exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: Use of live ammunition in training exercises is covered by a variety of range, safety and weapon systems instructions.

  A number of serious injuries arising from training using live ammunition is set out in the table:

  Number of serious injuries caused by training with live ammunition

  Year

  Number

  1986

  16

  1987

  14

  1988

  23

  1989

  20

  1990

  12

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy is adopted by his Department in compensating those service men seriously injured as a result of training where live ammunition is used; and if he will make a statement on how many cases remain outstanding in the past three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: Since the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 became law, service personnel have had the right to pursue common law claims for damages against the Crown for any injury they suffer which they believe to have been caused through a negligent act or omission on the part of the Ministry of Defence, its servants or agents. Such claims are considered on a strict legal liability basis. It is not possible to give the number of cases which involved training with live ammunition and where claims are still outstanding as statistics are not held in a manner that can show this.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the practice of using live ammunition in training exercises is being reviewed by the Army; and when it was last reviewed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: The regulations regarding the use of live ammunition in training exercises and range safety instructions are kept under constant review.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his official visit to the United States to promote Britain as a tourist destination.

  Mr. Howard
  The purpose of my visit was to lend support to the efforts of the British Tourist Authority and the tourism industry to impress upon north Americans that this is an ideal time to visit Britain. While I was in the United States I addressed the World Travel and Tourism Council, the only Government Minister from outside the United States to do so.

  Strikes
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals to change the procedures for calling strikes.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no proposals to announce at this stage, but the law on strikes is a matter which the Government keep under active review. Unlike the Labour party, we have no intention of changing the law to make striking easier.

  Manual Workers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average number of hours worked per week for people engaged in manual occupations,excluding overtime, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated from the labour force survey that the average basic usual hours worked per week by people in manual occupations, excluding overtime, was 35·6 hours in Great Britain in the spring of 1990.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his current estimate of the total of people employed in more than one job who are counted more than once in the employment statistics.

  Mr. Jackson
  Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available. However, the labour force survey estimated that 724,000 people held a second job as an employee in the spring of 1990.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In March 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,092,700, a fall of 26 per cent. since the June 1987 election.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds are included in the most recent unemployment statistics.

  Mr. Jackson
  In January 1991 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom aged under 18 was 2,709.

  Low Wages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of workers employed at wage rates below 50 per cent. of the male median wage.

  Mr. Forth
  We estimate the number to be around 3 million.

  Trade Unions (Sequestration)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to restrict the power of the courts to sequestrate union assets.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Sequestration is a penalty which may be imposed on any organisation which commits contempt of court. To restrict the powers of the court to sequestrate union assets would, therefore, be to give a special, and totally unjustifiable, privilege to trade unions.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils became operational in April.

  Mr. Howard
  Twenty-three training and enterprise councils became operational in April 1991 which brings the total of operational TECs up to seventy-four. The remaining eight TECs will be operational later this year.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the textile and clothing industries about employment levels.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment Ministers meet representatives of the textile and clothing industry from time to time, but there have been no recent discussions on this subject.

  Retraining (Cumbria)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve retraining schemes in Cumbria.

  Mr. Howard
  Cumbria training and enterprise council is now responsible for training schemes in Cumbria and is currently restructuring ET to meet local needs more effectively. It will be launching several new training packages today, including pre-recruitment training, short duration training and a training and recruitment package. This is an excellent initiative showing how TECs can provide an immediate and flexible response to the needs of their constituents.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial tribunal cases have found in favour of the appellant during the past 12 months; and how much compensation has been paid.

  Mr. Forth
  In the year up to the end of March the industrial tribunals found for the applicant in 5,033 cases and awarded a total of £3,490,454 in compensation.

  Community Employment
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the report from Full Employment United Kingdom recommending community employment for the unemployed in return for benefits after one year's unemployment.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am grateful to Full Employment United Kingdom for sending me a copy of its report which I read with interest. Constructive contributions to the discussion about the further development of our programmes and services for unemployed people are always to be welcomed.

  Restart Courses
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist to enable benefit claimants who have been unemployed for over two years and who are in part-time employment to attend compulsory restart courses.

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

  Jobs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs he expects to be created in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department does not offer forecasts of employment.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the total number of ET training agents who have received approval for(a) each of the first five criteria and (b) each of the last four criteria set out in approved training organisation process;

  what is (a) the total number of ET training agents, (b) the total number of ET training managers, (c) the total number of ET training agents awarded approved training organisation status by 31 March and (d) the total number of ET training managers awarded approved training organisation status by 31 March;

  (3) what is the total number of ET training managers who have received approval for (a) each of the first five criteria and (b) each of last four criteria set out in the approved training organisation process.

  Mr. Jackson
  In April 1990 the nine criteria considered in awarding approved training organisation status to ET training providers were consolidated into seven which cover the same ground. The total number of ET training agents and training managers is not available, nor is separate information for training agents and training managers covered by the approved training organisation process. A total of 880 of those ET training agents and training managers who commenced on 5 September 1988 were still contracted by the Department of Employment or by training and enterprise councils to deliver employment training on 31 March 1991. By that date all had received approval for each of the first four criteria and 809–92 per cent.—also for the last three criteria and therefore for approved training organisation status.
  455
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether those released from prison or young offender institutions are eligible for employment training in Bradford; and what assessment he has made of the likely implications of alternative policies in this area.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: Persons released from prison or young offender institutions who are 18 or over and under 60 are eligible for employment training if, at the time of seeking entry, they have accumulated 26 weeks of qualifying time spent either in unemployment or in custody or both. In addition, such persons can be eligible for fast entry into employment training if they have special training needs associated with disability, literacy, numeracy and language difficulty or if they qualify as skill shortage or enterprise entrants or labour market returners. A proportion of persons released
  456
  from prison or from young offender institutions who are eligible for employment training are also covered by the Government's guarantee and aim. Eligibility for employment training is not defined or limited by location within Great Britain. There is no intention to apply alternative eligibility arrangements in Bradford and no assessment of other possibilities has been made.

  Training Investment
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average invested per capita for trainees on courses organised by the training and enterprise councils; and what are the comparable figures for training schemes in West Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Wage Rates: Average Increases
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the average increase in wage rates in the public and private sectors of the economy respectively in the last year; and what are the comparative figures for Germany and Japan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the new earnings survey estimates that in the year to April 1990, the increase in weekly earnings was 8.9 per cent. in the public sector and 10.1 per cent. in the private sector. Comparative figures for Germany and Japan are not available across the public and private sectors. However, the latest available figures for earnings in manufacturing show an annual increase of 8.75 per cent. in Great Britain compared with 5.7 per cent. in the former Federal Republic of Germany and 4.1 per cent. in Japan.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most informative Answer. Does it not follow that if we are to restore our balance of payments situation and check the rise in unemployment it is necessary to impose very strict control over increases in earnings in this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, pay is a matter for employers and employees to determine. They must bear in mind the long-term consequences of their decisions on competitiveness, investment and jobs.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, might be helped if the Government stopped deliberately sending the cost of living soaring, particularly for old people? I have in mind the recent increase in VAT and other measures. Such increases sometimes compel employees to submit wage claims to pay the increased bills which they receive.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at the moment the rate of inflation is dropping, and dropping fast. That will benefit not only old age pensioners but everyone in the community.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that every attempt by government at long-term control of wage and price movements in this country has been an unmitigated disaster?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy for that argument. I see no room for the Government to interfere again.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister give comparable figures for the increase in directors'
976
salaries? Does he not agree that restraint on wage claims, for which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly asks, must start at the top? Some lead must be given by those at the top of industry and elsewhere. They must not take large increases regardless of the cost of living.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the same remarks as regards wage increases can apply to all sectors of the economy whether they be increases for directors or people working in lower capacities. However, it is a fact that many companies rely on board compensation committees, including their non-executive directors, to determine the right link between top management pay and company performance.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a number of the reported wage settlements, particularly the one reported today, are linked to greater flexibility in operations? Does this not contribute to greater productivity, as desired by the Government? For example, is he not aware that in Germany I.G. Metall has recently negotiated a deal which is several points above the rate of inflation in Germany?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her finger on a most important point—productivity. However, if unit wage costs increase, that bears down on the competitiveness of the industry.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can one take it from my noble friend's answers that in the area where they have control—the public sector—the Government will exercise control, bearing very much in mind the considerations that he has just mentioned?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The Government are slightly bound by pay review bodies, formulas and such like which are affected by the settlements in the private sector. However, where they can, the Government exercise that control.

Adult Education
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further proposals they have for the development of adult education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government's proposals for the future of further education, including the further education of adults, will be set out in a White Paper which will be issued shortly.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I look forward very much indeed to that White Paper. Is the Minister aware that the problems in education have made adult education the poor relation of the service? That is shown in the HMI report on adult education published earlier this year which shows that expenditure per head varies between £10 and a few pence. Does the noble Baroness accept that one of the

977
great strengths of adult education is the high motivation of the students involved? That means that the Government—this should appeal to the present Government—and the LEAs get great value for money. Something should be done as a matter of urgency about adult education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for the Government's part, the money going to LEAs has increased. Over the past year the SSA for education for local authorities was 16 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation. If one breaks that down to the heading which includes adult education, one sees that that too was 13 per cent. How that money is deployed is very much a matter for the local education authorities. I do not know whether the noble Lord is advocating prescription from the centre.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea whether the White Paper will cover the WEA and other kindred organisations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give that assurance. It will.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the local education authorities which get the money have a statutory obligation to look after other areas of education but no statutory obligation to support adult education? In those circumstances, it is very probable that adult education is, as many of us have seen, being neglected. At this time of rapid change and high unemployment it is important that people should learn and continue to learn. Adult education should be maintained and a lead from the Government would help that enormously.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is not a statutory area of education. Therefore, it is a matter for local education authorities. I hope that there is not too much gloom in this respect, because the amount of adult education across the country is considerable. It is most important that the worst should be brought up to the standard of the best.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us something about local management of schools? She has just said that it is for LEAs to ensure that provision is made for adult education. However, LMS is very much a matter for the governors. If they choose not to make their premises available or try to make the cost too high, that will affect adult education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if that was a general criticism of the education service I would agree with the noble Baroness. However, the practice is that many schools which now have their own budgets are increasing the provision of education which lies outside the normal statutory day.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if more money is being put into education —whether adult or general education—it is very curious that so many teachers have been made redundant both in further education and in schools in general?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not true that a large number of teachers are being made redundant; the facts simply do not bear out that statement. It is true that the pupil-teacher ratio has increased, more so than ever before.
Lord Peston: My Lords, obviously we must wait to read the Government's White Paper. However, can the Minister tell us anything about what is happening to adult education in London at present? Now that the ILEA has gone, and bearing in mind that the remaining authorities are not obliged to provide adult education, the strong impression has been gained by some of us that adult education is actually beginning to decline in inner London. Can the noble Baroness tell us anything about that; in other words, can she throw any light on the matter? Further, do the Government have any idea as to what might be done about the situation, other than saying that it is up to the local authorities to do what they like?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that, for example, the main four colleges are in fact funded by the London Residuary Body. We all know that that will eventually move out of the frame and that there will have to be an alternative system of funding. It is too early to give indications as to exactly what the new funding will be. However, there is no questioning the fact that the activities within those colleges will continue. Of course, the funding mechanisms will be sorted out and addressed in the White Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like the noble Baroness to address her mind to the real problem. I refer to the fact that adult education is not mandatory, as has already been pointed out, and therefore under any kind of financial pressure (as adults do not bring very much money with them) any local authority will be tempted, so to speak, to neglect that sector. Are the Government willing to let that happen willy-nilly?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have no plans to make adult education mandatory. I do not know whether the noble Lord's party has any plans to do so. However, we know that in practice adult education across the country is alive and well. Where a local education authority singles it out as a particular priority, it receives more attention than is the case with the authorities which do not believe it to be a high-priority consideration. I do not believe that adult education is at threat. I am sure that the noble Lord will see the Government's real commitment to it when the White Paper is published.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that self-fulfilment at a later age is what adult education brings about—and which indeed is very important—is it not of the utmost importance to the country's economy that re-education and re-training should continue at a higher rate than that which exists at present? Does the Minister agree with that view? Further, is it not something in respect of which very quick action should be taken?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the significance of

979
higher education. I am a product of adult continuing education. I know that it is important to a very large number of people, especially young people who are training and re-training. Again, when the White Paper is published, the noble Lord will see our commitment in that respect.

Marine Nature Conservation
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards designation of the third marine nature reserve.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, the Nature Conservancy Council identified five sites as suitable for marine nature reserves in addition to those already designated at Lundy and Skomer Island. Consultations to resolve the objections received in the case of the proposed reserves at Menai Strait and Loch Sween are continuing.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, as it has taken 10 years to designate two of the seven sites identified in 1981, is it not obvious that the formula is not working? Surely we must either assume that we need a different formula or that the Government are not behind the present one. Therefore, is it not time to seek a better way of saving our very precious marine conservation sites? If they were at risk 10 years ago, the situation must be much worse by now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the frustration and concern of the noble Baroness. Indeed, she has posed such Questions many times across the Dispatch Box. However, I must say, first, that the Government's commitment to marine nature reserves is absolute. We intend to achieve success, and some success has been achieved thus far. But, secondly, a high degree of co-operation is absolutely paramount, not just in establishing designation of reserves but in operating them successfully following designation. We aim to achieve that high degree of consensus and think that early imposition would be counter-productive.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if we are to make progress in relation to marine nature reserves such as the Menai Strait, in which many parties are interested, the provisions of the 1981 Act are impractical, as the noble Baroness said, and cause a great deal of aggravation? Will she consider whether management agreements could be enacted in such cases, especially the Menai Strait, where the foreshore is owned down to half mean low water mark as opposed to the high water mark?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The possibility of introducing in England some of the management agreements on marine waters that exist in Scotland is under active consideration. We are talking about areas of the sea, and short of having policemen running around in little boats, control would be difficult to operate in any way
980
other than with a high degree of consensus among local interests to preserve marine life, which of course is the subject of the Question.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Select Committee of another place reporting in 1985 recommended in recommendation No. 18 that Sections 36 and 37 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be amended so as to give the Secretary of State power to set up a marine nature reserve if all efforts to achieve one on a voluntary basis have failed to produce results? In view of the fact that protracted consultations throughout the last decade have produced only two MNRs out of the seven selected by the NCC and that her noble friend Lord Belstead speaking from the Dispatch Box on 7th July 1987 gave the House an assurance that the Menai Strait and Loch Sween would probably be designated during that year—three and a half years ago—has the time not come to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee of the other place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the success should be recorded. We are talking about seven sites. Two, Lundy and Skomer, have already been designated. On the Menai Strait, my understanding is that the Countryside Commission for Wales is already producing a second plan to try to establish a degree of consensus. The power exists for the Countryside Council for Wales to go to the Secretary of State for Wales and ask to go down the road that the noble Lord outlined. Voluntary agreements are operating in the Isles of Scilly and St. Abbs Head. We hope that a voluntary management agreement can be established for Loch Sween.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is there evidence that the reserves which have not been designated have come to a great deal of harm during the waiting period?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will he different opinions about that point. It is important that we work to achieve co-operation at all the places mentioned because, as I keep having to repeat, it would be difficult to establish a high degree of co-operation if designation were imposed.
Baroness White: My Lords, is it not right that further thought should be given to this matter? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was right. The NCC, as it was, and the Countryside Council for Wales, which as the Minister rightly said is the body now concerned, have put in a great deal of time, energy and man hours with no visible sign of progress. That means that second thoughts are required. It is clear from the long interval that has elapsed, and after the promises made in 1987—four years age—that the present system does not work. Are we to understand that the Secretary of State for Wales has some powers which the Secretary of State for the Environment does not possess and will be able to solve the problem independently?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The work is painstaking and time-consuming but it is important that consensus should be achieved. The Menai Strait is the case most likely to end up on

981
the Secretary of State's desk. That means that the Secretary of State could instigate a public inquiry, and the weight of a public inquiry behind public opinion would be an important marker as to what the Secretary of State would do next.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, was not the designation of the Skomer marine reserve held up for years and years by an organisation called the Sub-Aqua Divers' Federation? One wants 100 per cent. consultation, but one organisation can hold out and stop the whole thing. Who is stopping the designation in the case of the Menai Strait? We understand that it is the yachtsmen. Is that so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the yachtsmen are the predominant interest. I believe that we established that point last time this Question was asked. Nevertheless, Skomer is now designated. All that work is now behind us and a successful marine nature reserve is established there.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the local inhabitants of Loch Sween have great reservations about the effect the proposed marine nature reserve would have on their lives and livelihoods?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes the point for me. Different interests will be involved in different places. The local people at Loch Sween feel a great deal of anxiety and disquiet. That anxiety needs to be addressed and properly accommodated. To achieve voluntary agreements with local interests would be a better way forward than for the Government to impose on the people a solution that they clearly do not want.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best way to obtain a voluntary agreement is to see that as far as possible people are not financially hurt by the marine nature reserve? Therefore the suggestion made by her noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is well worth considering.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take the points made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend back to my department.

Usk Barrage Proposal: Fish Pass
2.56 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Welsh Office has written to the technical consultants to Newport Borough Council's River Usk regeneration project giving what the council claims to be preliminary approval to a design for a fish pass for the proposed Usk barrage and saying that "the proposed design for the fish pass should enable an effective fish passage situation to be achieved".
Lord Reay: My Lords, in response to an approach from Newport Borough Council's consultants, the Welsh Office indicated by letter on 21st March that the design proposals for a fish pass to be incorporated in
982
to the proposed River Usk barrage should enable an effective fish pass to be achieved. The letter went on to state that that was a preliminary view which did not amount to an approval under the terms of the relevant legislation and was offered without prejudice to formal consideration of any future application to the Secretary of State for provisional approval under the terms of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does he think that it was sensible for the Welsh Office to write such a letter which created such widespread confusion since, as he made clear, it was not giving provisional approval to the fish pass? The result of its letter was that Newport Borough Council issued a press release headed:
"Usk Barrage fish pass receives approval from Agriculture and Fisheries Welsh Office".
That in turn resulted in a number of press reports in Welsh newspapers indicating that the fish pass had been approved. Was it not also strange that the Welsh Office concluded that the fish pass would resolve the difficult and possibly insoluble problem of fish passage, given the fact that the NRA regarded that fish pass design as unsatisfactory; the discussions were going on, not on that design but on a different design; and that the fish pass did not deal with the problems of a shortened estuary and the impoundment of water above the barrage? In those circumstances, was it not a mistake to write that letter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we consider it reasonable to comment upon preliminary drawings which fish pass promoters may provide in advance of a formal submission for the Secretary of State's approval. That is a practice which saves time and possible abortive work and expenditure for the promoter and other parties involved. The action in this case was entirely in line with previous practice. In the past, the NRA and its water authority predecessors in England and Wales have made use of that informal assistance when they were the promoters of fish pass proposals.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, quite apart from the fish problem, is the noble Lord aware that there is widespread worry about the broader environmental consequences of the barrage? Specifically, do the Government accept the demands of the National Rivers Authority for a full environmental survey before this scheme commences?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the National Rivers Authority has been closely involved in discussions with the promoters. Of course we shall consult them at the appropriate stage. The Government's position is that we are waiting for an economic appraisal and an environmental assessment of the barrage proposals before expressing any further views.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I preface my supplementary question by reminding the House that I sponsored the River Usk Barrage Bill on its Second Reading. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent upon the promoters of the Bill to discuss with the Welsh Office first the fish pass and then the barrage itself? It is also incumbent on them to discuss water

983
quality and fisheries and, we hope, to reach agreement with the National Rivers Authority. Does the Minister agree that the promoters had every right—indeed, a duty—to o seek the view of the Welsh Office and that the Welsh Office was perfectly correct in giving that view? Does he further agree that the promoters are doing everything they possibly can to discuss with all authorities in a proper manner what we hope should be considered before the Bill goes into Committee in this House?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot speak for the promoters, but I am glad of the noble Lord's support that it 'vas entirely reasonable of the department to offer its preliminary view in this matter.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister explain to a mere townee whether it is the fish that receive the pass or the fishermen?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my understanding is that the pass is to enable the fish to pass up the river.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister slightly on one matter on which he has already spoken. Whatever the advice tendered by the Welsh Office officials, can he confirm that it should be agreed with the National Rivers Authority?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that I answered the question with respect to the National Rivers Authority. At present it is engaged in discussions with the promoters and we shall consult it at an appropriate stage. The authority has an obligation in the matter which no doubt it will follow.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify that? Is he saying that the National Rivers Authority may carry out a survey of the environment and in the meantime the scheme will not go ahead?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the present situation on the proposals is that the Bill is due to go into Select Commit tee on 4th June.
Lord Moran: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the last words spoken in this House by the late noble and gallant Viscount, Lord De Lisle, were to ask whether the Government would support the National Rivers Authority on this problem? Will the noble Lord assure the House that in future the Welsh Office and the National Rivers Authority will co-operate in considering all aspects of the problem, especially the fish pass?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that the National Rivers Authority will co-operate. It has a statutory responsibility for maintaining, improving and developing fisheries. In this case, it served a formal notice on the promoters that there should be such a pass.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour. During this adjournment the Second Reading of the Sunday Entertainments (Video Supply) Bill will be taken.

Medical Qualifications (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the definition of a primary United Kingdom qualification for recognition as a medical practitioner. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strathcarron.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 22 [Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, leave out lines 46 to 50 and
insert:
("(5) Any approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section shall be given subject to conditions as to the purposes, manner, kinds of places and any other circumstances in which any prescribed device is to be used.
(5A) Any such approval as is mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be given having regard to the requirements of section 39 of the Road Traffic Act
1988.
(5B) Before giving any such approval as is mentioned in subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the representative bodies of highway authorities.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to Clause 22 dealing with camera technology. It will be recalled by the Committee that at our Second Reading there was approval all round the House for the adoption of camera technology with regard to prosecutions for speed offences and also to observance of the red light. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, as well as speaking to Amendment No. 37, I speak to the consequential Amendment No. 38.
Amendment No. 37 substitutes for subsection (5) new wording which is almost the same as that in the Bill but slightly changed to provide for the insertion of new subsections (5A) and (5B). There is no disagreement on the conditions required in subsection (5), but the new subsection (5A) has an additional requirement to have regard to matters in Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. They relate to the powers of the Secretary of State and local authorities to give road safety information and training.
Section (5B) sets out that:
"Before giving any such approval … the Secretary of State shall consult with the representative bodies of highway authorities".
I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is essential that there should be the closest co-operation in the use of this technology between highway authorities and the police. The second amendment is consequential. A somewhat similar amendment was moved in Committee in the other place and the Minister appeared somewhat sympathetic to the points raised. He said:
"the Home Office and Department of Transport will consult those organisations soon to work out guidelines for the implementation, covering such issues as siting, signing, cost and operation".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 22/1/91; col. 103.]
This intended co-operation was to be in connection with guidelines. As we see from our amendment, it goes much further than guidelines. I hope that it will be possible, in the light of the provisions I mentioned, for the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that local authorities should be consulted about the implementation of the Bill's provisions for the use of enforcement technology in their role as highway authorities. I can assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's intention to draw up guidance on how the introduction of technology should be managed. It might be necessary
986
to draw up separate guidance for different aspects of implementation, for example, on the operation of the devices for the police or siting of the devices for highway authorities. But there would be a common element in all of this which sets out the road safety objectives and the need for close liaison at a local level between the different agencies involved—the police, courts and local authorities. With this in mind, the Home Office and the Department of Transport will be consulting representative bodies of these groups with a view to working out guidelines. It would not be appropriate for all these aspects to be covered in the type of approval which is intended to set down standards of accuracy and reliability for the equipment. That is why we believe that separate non-statutory guidelines will be needed to address more general matters related to the implementation of these provisions.
Turning to the question of the use of evidence from the devices in court, I do not believe that it will be necessary to provide defendants with an extract from the vehicle record in advance of the hearing. That would add further unnecessary bureaucracy to these procedures. It will of course be open to the defendant to bring evidence to show that there was an error in identifying the vehicle from its registration plate. We do not need to provide for that in the legislation. I hope in the light of these assurances that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he has given although I note that he did not make any specific reference to the points I made regarding Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, I shall read very carefully the Minister's remarks, which seemed to be rather promising. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Interim disqualification]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 22, leave out lines 6 to 14.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 40. This amendment simply clarifies the effect of a period of interim disqualification on the length of disqualification which is ordered on sentence. It is intended to make it clear that the periods of disqualification imposed for two or more offences for which sentence is passed at the same time should all be reduced by the interim period. This will ensure that the sentence will always take account of the period of disqualification which the offender has already served.
The amendment also makes it clear that references to disqualification elsewhere in the legislation should usually be treated as references to the full period before the reduction is made. I invite the Committee to support this helpful amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 22, line 18, at end insert:
("(12A) Where on any occasion a court deals with an offender—

(a) for an offence in respect of which an order was made under this section, or

(b) for two or more offences in respect of any of which such an order was made,

any period of disqualification which is on that occasion imposed under section 34 or 35 of this Act shall be treated as reduced by any period during which he was disqualified by reason only of an order made under this section in respect of any of those offences.
(12B) Any reference in this or any other Act (including any Act passed after this Act) to the length of a period of disqualification shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to its length before any reduction under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 68, line 12, leave out ("Level 3") and insert ("Level 4").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not altogether dissimilar to an amendment that was moved in another place save that the amendment moved in another place referred to imposing a penalty of five years or a fine, or both, whereas this amendment seeks to add the words,
"1 year or a fine or both".
The North Report stated:
"We received comments, particularly from some Police commentators, that the current relationship between the penalties for failure to stop and for drinking and driving encouraged a driver involved in an accident, who thought he was over the legal limit for alcohol to drive off without stopping. Even if the driver was subsequently identified"—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 41 or No. 42?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I apologise to the Committee. I am not moving Amendment No. 41; I am moving Amendment No. 42.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 69, line 15, leave out from ("substituted") to ("and") in line 16 and insert ("1 year or a fine or both").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for the vigilance of the Minister. If I had continued, Heaven knows what might have happened to the Chamber and everyone in it. I am now moving Amendment No. 42. I shall repeat the extract from the North Report as it is highly relevant:
"We received comments, particularly from some Police commentators, that the current relationship between the penalties for failure to stop and for drinking and driving encouraged a driver involved in an accident, who thought he was over the legal limit for alcohol to drive off without stopping. Even if the driver was subsequently identified and prosecuted for failure to stop, he might well escape with a lesser penalty".
The difficulty with the situation at the moment is that there is a large disparity between the penalties for failure to stop and those for other offences. The comparison that is most vivid in this context is that between the proposed new penalty for hit and run offences—that is, six months or level 5 on the standard scale, or both—and the maximum for the new offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The explanation that was given by the Minister in another place, which may or may not be repeated here, does not answer my query. I agree with the Government that the five-year period which was suggested in an amendment in another place created a penalty that was too substantial. I hope the Minister will agree that to suggest one year's imprisonment is much more reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I start from the position that failure to stop after or to report an accident are serious offences. We have therefore accepted the North Report recommendations of increased penalties. Schedule 2 of the Bill provides a period of six months' imprisonment. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to increase the penalty to one year's imprisonment. If there is evidence in a hit and run case that the driver was at fault through his standard of driving, a charge of dangerous driving can be brought. That will then carry a maximum of two years' imprisonment. Equally, if a death is caused or there is evidence of drink-driving, the driver can be charged with the substantive offence. Where there is no evidence of any other driving offence being committed, however, I believe that a penalty of one year's imprisonment would be disproportionate to the offence. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not altogether convinced by that reply. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 69, lin0e 27, leave out ("In").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 43 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. These are technical amendments which result from the change to the penalty points attributable to offences which involve obligatory disqualification. Schedule 2 amends the penalty points from four to a range of three to 11 for those offences where a court decides exceptionally not to disqualify. While we consider it would be extremely rare for penalty points to be awarded in a manslaughter case, we believe that the penalty points available should be consistent with other offences involving obligatory disqualification. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, I hope he will say why the Government are proposing to drop the minimum penalty from four to three points.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are doing so to achieve a greater range. We now have a range from three to 11 points whereas previously it was fixed at four points. I am not suggesting, except in the most exceptional circumstances, that three points would be imposed, but it is useful to have that flexibility.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 69, line 29, after ("etc)") insert ("shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the entry relating to manslaughter or culpable homicide, in column 4 for "4" there shall be substituted "3-11".
(3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Penalty points to be attributed to offences]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 23, line 31. after ("offence") insert ("in the last column of Part I").
On Question, amendment, agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Courses for drink-drive offenders]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 25, leave out lines 27 to 32.
The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to delete subsection (2) of Clause 29 which provides for an offender's period of disqualification to be reduced if he satisfactorily completes an approved course. I say at the outset that I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. I merely seek the opportunity to discuss one or two issues which have emerged in discussions between the Department of Transport and those who have presented submissions to it.
The background to the Government's concern about drinking and driving and the amendment is that there are a number of drink-drivers who repeatedly offend. It is generally accepted that the highest risk group is young men under the age of 30 who are skilled or semi-skilled. However, offences among those of an older age group—those between 40 and 50—seem to be on the increase, whereas it appears that those among the younger age group, although at an unsatisfactorily high level, have reached a plateau.
Those who are concerned about the Government's ideas for an approved course, about which we know very little, question whether the criteria of two or more convictions, a blood alcohol level of 200 mg or more and a refusal to give a sample are the right criteria on which to assess whether a driver is a high risk as regards drinking and driving. In the case of young men under the age of 30 those criteria are probably a useful guide to re-offenders. However, for the older age group it is generally accepted among medical practitioners and others involved with the problem of drink-driving offences that the assessment of what is a drink problem among those who drive is a more complex matter and requires a more thorough assessment.
Experience in West Germany has revealed a marked reduction in repeat offences among drink-drivers involved in model programmes which have been introduced there, particularly among older drivers. The treatment which is available in Germany includes counselling. The reduction has been about 60 per cent. in the case of those over 50 years of age, 38 per cent. for those between 35 and 50, and for those between 25 and 35 there was a markedly lower reduction of about 20 per cent.
An assessment procedure has been proposed to the Department of Transport by eminent medical representatives. It has been suggested that those identified as having serious alcohol problems should be screened out before offenders attend the courses. It has also been proposed that doctors on the Department of Transport's list of medical practitioners should assess offenders using the same procedures as the high-risk offenders scheme; namely, a questionnaire filled in by the offender and the doctor, and three medical tests. For some reason—perhaps the Minister can throw light on this—the department has consistently rejected such an assessment procedure, despite the well-publicised West German success in this area. The existing rather rough and ready criteria, such as the high blood alcohol count and refusal to give a sample, seem to be inadequate.
It is proposed by the Government that the scheme should be self-financing, paid for by the drivers themselves. The North Report assessed the cost of courses as in the region of £150 for each offender. It is now generally agreed that that was pitched too low. Another issue concerns who would organise the courses. I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on that aspect, too. I imagine that they would be organised by the probation service and voluntary agencies dealing with alcohol abuse, among others. They would be likely to have difficulty in raising adequate funding for start-up costs in the preparatory period when no income would be coming in.
The timescale proposed by the Government is remarkable when one considers the experience in Germany and the United States, which was reviewed by the North Committee. It is remarkable that the experiment which the Government have outlined should require six years. That will mean that, without assessment such as I have described as being desirable, the government scheme would not start before 1999 at the earliest. Is it not possible for an experiment to be brought forward to offer a larger number of rehabilitation courses in the first year in order to provide more evidence on which to work at an early stage?
I reiterate that it appears that a course of rehabilitation for drivers who have been convicted of drink-driving offences, involving both education and counselling, is essential. It might perhaps be augmented by an income-related charge on the drivers themselves. Reducing such offences will save lives. The figure may have changed, but I believe that the Department of Transport estimates the cost to society of each road fatality as about £600,000. I do not deny that a national programme of the kind that I have

991
outlined, with proper assessment and education, would be expensive. However, set against the cost to society and the resulting reduction in grief and misery of families who lose a member of their family in such a way, a relatively expensive programme would seem a small price to pay. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I fully understand the points made by the noble Viscount. I am grateful to him for affording me an opportunity to give the Committee a little more detail about how we see these rehabilitation courses operating. We all condemn drink driving. We have no wish to see drink-driving offenders get off lightly, but that is no part of the proposed experiment in rehabilitation. We must remember that these courses are designed to educate and to change attitudes. They will have no effect if participants do not wish to benefit from them. In common therefore with other court disposals with a rehabilitative purpose such as probation and community service, the court may make an order only if the offender consents. There must therefore be an incentive for offenders to attend courses. This is particularly important when the offender will be expected to pay a fee for the course as a demonstration of his commitment.
The noble Viscount referred to the funding of the courses. I expect that offenders will pay for the cost of the courses themselves. It should be within the means of those. who can afford to run a car and drink.
A reduction in the period of disqualification seems to me to provide a proper incentive. The reduction will be no more than a quarter of the total period of disqualification and it will have to be earned by successful completion of the course. The courses are aimed at reducing recidivism rates. If successful, the benefits will not be simply to individuals but to society as a whole. I am conscious that if these courses do not have a significant effect on rates of reoffending, the offender's reduction in his period of disqualification will not be matched by any wider benefit. That is why we propose a carefully monitored experiment in selected course areas. We shall not be activating the powers for a wider scheme if we are not confident of the benefits. But experience from abroad gives us grounds for optimism.
Therefore I hope that we have struck the right balance between on the one hand the need for punishment, which will continue to be reflected in both disqualification and fine, and on the other hand incentives to rehabilitation, with road safety benefits which will accrue to us all.
The noble Viscount queried the length of the experiment. Courses are likely to last at least eight to ten weeks. A three-year experiment is needed to study a sufficient throughput of offenders. A further three years is needed to complete the experiment by monitoring the recidivism rates. I understand that that is why the experimental period is as long as it is.
The noble Viscount also asked about the course organisers. A wide variety of organisations has expressed an interest in running these courses. We are
992
confident that they will be able to operate successfully on a self-financing basis, as happens, for example, in certain states in the United States of America.
So far as concerns the assessment criteria, we do not believe that medical assessment prior to attendance on the courses is appropriate. We are looking at courses which can be attended by all who are considered suitable by a court. These are not medical programmes of a kind particularly suitable for high risk offenders. They are intended to educate offenders in the effects of drinking and driving.
I hope that I have answered sufficiently the questions raised by the noble Viscount, but I shall of course read again with care what he said this afternoon.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the Minister for answering the points that I raised. I shall read what he said carefully, as indeed will others who have an interest in this field. I think that where the department and others who are concerned about the Government's plans are most anxious and perhaps differ to a greater degree is in the area of assessment. The problems of assessment and the need for assessment will probably become clearer the more quickly the Government's courses become operative and as more evidence on which to base any further adjustment becomes available. I feel confident that assessment will be a very important part of this area.
There are many who drive motor cars and have alcohol problems. They may be going through what the experts in this field call the period of denial, which means that everybody else knows that they have a drink problem but they themselves do not acknowledge it. It may be extremely helpful outside the whole area of drink driving, although it will be enormously helpful and effective there, for families to have the additional impetus of an assessment made under the Department of Transport scheme. It will enable them to push into treatment people who clearly have a problem; those whose fellow employees in business cover up for them when they come back from lunch clearly incapable of doing an afternoon's work; those who are difficult to live with at home; and so on. Those are the people who drink and drive cars. They are a problem and sometimes cause grave accidents.
Nevertheless I thank the Minister for his courteous and detailed answer, which I shall read with great interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Disqualification until test is passed]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 29, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 35 and insert ("for a period not less than twelve months").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the new retesting provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 more into line with the North Committee's recommendations. We seek, first, to widen the scope of mandatory retesting to include all offences

993
involving disqualification for 12 months or more (that is the amendment to line 29) and, secondly, to require any retest to comply with the North double-length test, which concerns the other two amendments.
Clause 31 requires the court to order an extended driving test for a limited range of offences. That would exclude the excess alcohol offences, notwithstanding the fact that they comprise something like 50 per cent. of all disqualifications for 12 months or more. North recommended that retesting would be an appropriate course to take in respect of offenders who had a substantial period of disqualification and where the conduct of the driver brings into question his competence as a driver. It would also be a warning and an opportunity for self-correction.
North also recommended that it should be mandatory for the courts to be able to prescribe extended driving tests wherever misconduct attracted a disqualification of 12 months or more; and further, that the courts should have a discretion to order a retest as a penalty for any offence attracting a possible 12 months' disqualification, even though the court may not impose such a disqualification in the circumstances.
The rationale is that going back to the status of a learner driver and having to exhibit L plates and be accompanied by another person when driving represents not only an inconvenience but also an embarrassment. That, therefore, represents the point of the penalty.
At page 219 of the report, North had this to say:
"While retesting would then be a disposal which the courts should have discretion to use in many cases, we believe that, at a certain level of seriousness, misconduct attracting disqualification should also attract an obligatory retest, partly because of the seriousness of the offence, partly because of the time which the offender will have spent off the road. We set this level at a disqualification for 12 months or more. This will mean among other things that virtually all drink drive offenders will have to take a further test after their disqualification has expired. We see this as a requirement which will come to be a substantial deterrent to drinking drivers, and one which reflects the growing seriousness with which society, we believe, views their conduct".
I think that that is right. It is a pity that the Government chose not to go down the same route. The trouble is that the Bill does not follow those recommendations. The amendments delete all references to specific offences. They provide that in all cases a re-test ordered by the court, whatever the circumstances, shall be an extended driving test; that is to say, the driving test would be extended from the normal 45 to 90 minutes. It would be similar to tests that are provided for drivers of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. Therefore there is good precedent for deploying such tests.
The Minister in another place resisted a somewhat similar amendment and therefore resisted the North recommendations. He asserted that both the North recommendations and the amendment were "well intentioned but misguided". With respect, that is no argument. Bare assertions do not necessarily amount to naked truth. We shall expect rather more from the Minister in this Chamber. We are entitled to ask: Why does the Minister say that North's proposal in particular was well intentioned but misguided?
994
Perhaps the Minister considered an argument that was put to North: that the normal test might not prove to be suitable in all situations. The question is posed in paragraph 18.30 of the North Report:
"Will not such a person drive like a lamb during his test —he has every reason to do so—and revert to his old and irresponsible ways immediately he has passed?"
However, North having posed the question, still argued that the remedy that I put forward today is the appropriate one. In such circumstances learner tests should amount to more than a mere test of mechanical handling; they should also deal with attitudinal matters.
The Minister in another place also said that it was the Government's intention initially to restrict mandatory extended re-tests to manslaughter and the new dangerous driving offences; and, in the light of experience, to consider extending the mandatory requirement. My submission is that when the court imposes disqualification for 12 months or more it follows that the offence must be regarded as very serious. It evidences the fact that the driver is incompetent, irresponsible or both. That aspect goes to the very heart of my proposal today.
The Minister sought to distinguish "drink drivers" from other bad drivers. He asserted that in such cases the standard of driving was not always the principal issue; rather, that it raised an attitudinal problem to which I have already referred. Perhaps I may give further and better particulars in answer to that. If one sends offenders to rehabilitation courses it does not guarantee any change in drink-driving attitudes because—speaking bluntly—it is not apparent that such courses are altogether successful. Moreover, they are available only to those offenders who are deemed to be suitable by the courts. Many driving offences have as much to do with attitudinal problems as with deficiencies in driving skills. Consequently to exclude drink-driving offences but to include manslaughter does not seem to make a lot of sense. To ignore risks to other road users or to pedestrians whenever drink driving offences are committed—and those risks are always inherent in such situations—equally makes no sense.
The real argument of the Government in opposing the proposals is economic. At the present time there are only about 1,000 instances a year where magistrates' courts have the.discretion to order a re-test, whereas if the North recommendations were applied the figure would increase dramatically to about 100,000 re-tests for drink-driving offences alone. Surely that factor demonstrates how inadequate is the exercise of discretion currently being applied by the courts. No one can be satisfied with 1,000 re-tests in circumstances where the situation is extremely grave.
In another place the Minister also said that the Government would make resources available as and when necessary. Therefore it follows that the argument of a substantial increase in the number of re-tests is not a valid reason for opposing the amendment.
The Minister also argued that to double the length of time of all re-tests would be unfair to elderly drivers who may have committed a relatively minor offence.

995
That may have certain echoes of support in this Chamber. The facts, based on our experience, are encouraging to elderly drivers. They are that very few are likely to be encompassed by disqualification for 12 months or more. The statistics establish that quite conclusively. But it is stretching credulity to assert that disqualification for 12 months or more results from a relatively minor offence. That cannot be so.
In conclusion, I argue that re-testing and re-training have to be seen as penalties and therefore as deterrents. That is wholly appropriate where circumstances indicate that a driver by his serious conduct—and I have indicated that disqualification for 12 months or more must be as a result of serious conduct—may have vitiated the competence that is implicitly created when he passes his L-test. I believe that such deterrents are likely to be more relevant than a fine, which is the penalty most frequently deployed by the courts. We believe therefore that re-testing and re-training need to be added to the armoury of deterrents available to a court. After all, fines are limited by ability to pay. Imprisonment is one of the most expensive ways of dealing with such situations. Probation and social work places the resources available under very great strain. I believe that it is a sensible proposal. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because it is an issue: to which I referred at Second Reading. I too have sympathy with it. My name should be included on all three amendments, not only Amendment No. 47.
I consulted my colleagues at RoSPA on the subject. They are very keen on the idea. They tell me that there is little evidence that a double-length driving test achieves a better driving attitude. All it is likely to indicate is whether or not the candidate is able to keep up the act for twice the length of time. RoSPA is serious about trying to rehabilitate such drivers. It believes that we should look more at the psychological testing techniques now available and should set up a trial using such techniques to establish whether the driver in question is suited to use potentially lethal motor vehicles on the public highway.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, introduced the amendment more cogently than I can. I support his amendment and look forward to my noble friend's reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton- Davis, has explained, in practice the amendments would have two important effects. The first would be to subject all disqualified drink drivers and all other drivers disqualified for more than 12 months to compulsory re-testing. The second effect would be to provide that all re-tests provided by the court should take the form of the new extended test. I understand the motives behind the amendments. However, as my honourable friend in another place said, I think that they are misguided.
It is our intention initially to restrict compulsory re-testing to the dangerous driving offences in which
996
the deficient standard of driving is a major component of the offence. A further extended test is a useful discipline here in determining whether an offender should be allowed back on the road at the end of a period of disqualification. The penalty is not simply being used as a deterrent.
The issues on drink-driving are different. Drink-driving is a menace. I have no disagreement with that. But it is a different type of offence. The offender is being punished for driving when he should not have done. He is not necessarily being punished for driving badly; and it is not clear that a retest would necessarily serve any purpose except to add a further penalty. That was a plank in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Of course, there are drink drivers for whom a retest is appropriate. In those cases the courts can use their discretion to order one. Furthermore, we are taking a power to extend compulsory retesting by order. In the light of experience we shall consider whether that power should be used and for what offences. I am sure that that is the right approach.
The courts' discretionary power to retest does not depend on a disqualification of 12 months or more. It is open to the courts to order a test when anyone is before them for an offence punishable by discretionary or obligatory disqualification.
It is also misguided to make all retests extended tests. We have provided in the Bill that the most serious offences which carry obligatory disqualification should attract the extended test and that those offences which carry discretionary disqualification should attract the ordinary test of competence to drive. I think that distinction is important, particularly in cases such as those of elderly drivers who may have committed a relatively minor offence. In such cases the courts will wish to decide whether to exercise their discretion to order a retest. The extended test would be too big a stick. I should be reluctant to do anything which would discourage the courts from using that discretion.
The noble Lord referred to the length of the test. He will wish to bear in mind that the courts already have and will continue to have wide discretion to order retests. That is not always intended to be punitive nor is it a response to irresponsible behaviour. More often it is ordered in cases where a court is worried that an offender's powers may be failing, perhaps as a result of age. Would it be right to subject such people to the new extended test?
I agree that the amendments address the serious problem of drink-driving. However, I believe that they propose an inappropriate solution and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. He has reiterated what was said in another place by the Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Chope. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for his authoritative support. It comes from RoSPA, and no one can question that organisation's credentials. Therefore, the issues need to be regarded more seriously than either Minister has yet been prepared to do. The Minister is also saying that North

997
is misguided about the issue. There is potent evidence from North, from RoSPA and from the opposition in support of my propositions.
The Minister agrees that drink-driving is a menace. However, he chooses to say that it is a different type of menace from that of driving badly. He did not argue, nor could he, that it was anything other than grossly irresponsible and that it could lead to anything other than the most tragic consequences. I believe that putting a person convicted in such circumstances through the trials and tribulations of retraining and retesting must be taken more seriously by the Minister.
I am a little puzzled. The Minister appeared to argue that the situation as predicated by Clause 31 was a matter of experiment and that experience might lead the Government to extend the provision. However, that experience is limited to a small number of cases. The retests are mandatorily extended to manslaughter and to the new dangerous driving offences. It follows that the number of cases will be small and will bear little relationship to the issues that we are now considering. In any event, that experience will take a long time to gain.
The number of manslaughter and dangerous driving offences is small. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how many cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving there have been during the past year. Approximately 150,000 people per year, two thirds of whom are drivers affected by drink, will be able to regain their licences after 12 months without invigilation as to whether they are suitable.
There was a contradiction in what the Minister said. At one turn he said that my proposal is misguided. At another turn he said that the Government will look at the matter in the light of experience. Therefore, if he is not excluding the possibility it is difficult to see that the proposition is misguided. I should like to hear what statistics the Minister has on the matter. If he cannot explain them now perhaps he will write to me. Can he indicate the number of people who will be exposed to the tests under Clause 31? I do not propose to test the Committee today but shall return to the matter at a later stage. However, I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to inform the Committee about any available statistics.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: When taken together manslaughter, causing death, and dangerous driving offences—that is, those covered by compulsory tests—are likely to be between 6,000 and 7,000 per year.
Lord Tordoff: On this occasion I am in agreement more with the Minister than with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. There is a qualitative difference between the two types of offences. It is possible to be a competent driver but to be driving in a manner which is dangerous because one is under the influence of drugs or drink. Therefore, it is necessary to wean people away from driving under such influences. Having done so it is probable that they will be
998
competent drivers. I accept that both instances are dangerous and may cause a great deal of damage and mayhem.
My noble friend Lord Falkland has suggested that we ensure that people are rehabilitated and weaned away from their drinking habits. I believe that will correct the drunken driver who will then be capable of driving as well as the next man. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to take a retest.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It will be very interesting to find out the likely cost of the rehabilitation proposed. It will also be very interesting to know what success is achieved in that regard. I do not exclude that possibility; indeed, I welcome it.
I cannot agree that there exists a qualitative difference, for which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, argues. He seems to be saying that one can be competent but irresponsible. I believe that the sort of irresponsibility which we are considering in this context is such that the deterrent penalties which I seek to introduce would prove to be of considerable value. They would have a major effect in deterring such crimes.
Having regard to what has been said by the Minister and other Members of the Committee, I shall consider the matter before Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Conditional offer of fixed penalty]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 34, line 20, leave out ("75(6) (a)") and insert ("75(8) (a)").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clauses 34 to 39 agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 39, insert the following new
clause:
("Charges for suspensions of parking spaces
.—In section 49(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted "to make such charges as may be appropriate for such suspensions" after the word "order" where that last appears in that section.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has asked me to move this amendment as she is abroad.
I understand that on-street parking places—mainly, parking meters and residents' parking bays —often need to be suspended for a variety of reasons such as domestic removals, builders' skips and road works. The effect of that suspension is to make it illegal for public parking while the suspension is in place. At present a number of local authorities make a charge for the suspension of on-street parking places, meters and residents' bays to cover administrative costs and the loss of income. That charge is based on an interpretation of the present law and has been

999
the subject of a query on a number of occasions although it has never been subjected to a legal challenge.
A number of councils believe it is reasonable that authorities should have costs reimbursed and that an explicit power to charge would clarify the law once and for all. The new clause attempts to achieve that. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is deputising for his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. However, I should like him to clarify one matter for me. The amendment refers to Section 49(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. When I refer to that I find that it empowers:
"the local authority, the chief officer of police or any other person … to provide for the moving, in the case of emergency, of vehicles left in the parking place; to suspend the use of the parking place or any part of it on such occasions or in such circumstances as may be determined".
It seems to me that this amendment seeks to make charges in cases where the individuals concerned have no responsibility whatever. The section covers the removal. of a car in an emergency and yet the amendment suggests that charges should he fixed for such a suspension.
Lord Tordoff: In principle, I support the amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, moved it on behalf of his noble friend Lady Gardner. When I saw that she was not in the Chamber, I was about to move it on her behalf.
One sees so many occasions when the suspension of parking bays is abused by contractors of one sort or another One need go no further than Great Peter Street to see what has been happening there over the past yea r. On one side of the road the pavement is taken up by contractors. There are skips along the side of the shuttering which has been erected. The parking bays have been suspended on the other side, and contractors' vehicles are parked down that side of the road. Frequently it is impossible to get through Great Peter Street. Attempts which I have made to use the hotline to Westminster council have proved totally abortive.
Considerable disruption is caused on the suspension of parking bays, not merely to the people who wish to park their cars there, but also to people going along th.2 highway. I believe that a cost should accrue to people who have the privilege of suspending parking places.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I have some sympathy with the principle underlying this amendment but I regret that I am not able to accept it. It was a recommendation of the TAPWORK report—which was the product of a joint working group of the Department of Transport and the local authority associations—that it would be right in principle for those who request the suspension of designated parking places for commercial reasons to reimburse the local authority, though there may be good reasons for exempting statutory undertakers and emergency services. The New Roads and Street Works Bill, which is now in the other place, establishes the principle that highway authorities should be able to
1000
charge public utilities for costs such as those associated with making traffic orders and erecting signs.
I believe it is reasonable, as a first step, to consider the operation of the principles in the New Roads and Street Works Bill, when enacted, before considering their extension to the recovery of charges from other bodies for purposes such as those covered by the present amendment. If this consideration were to show that there are overall benefits to he obtained from such an extension, then the Secretary of State could use his existing powers to make appropriate regulations under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. An amendment to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not required. I suggest that we should keep the situation under review. I assure my noble friend that should we decide to act, an amendment to this Bill is not required. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded by that to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Will the Minister assure us that the Government will look at this seriously? This is a great problem, particularly in our inner cities. Will the Government assure us that they will look actively at this problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can give that assurance. We have already taken a similar situation in hand in the New Roads and Street Works Bill.
Lord Swinfen: I do not know the answer to the queries which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. This amendment was thrown at me rather late on Thursday evening by my noble friend who suddenly found that she would be abroad today, the timing of the Committee stage of this Bill having been changed. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's queries to her attention.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his support. I thank also the Minister for the faint hope which he gave. I shall withdraw the amendment but reserve the right for my noble friend to bring back a new amendment if she believes that to be right at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 52A:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Variations of charges in off-street car parks
". After section 36 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (which deals with charges at, and regulation of, parking places) there shall be inserted—
"Variation of charges at parking places
36A—(1) Where, by virtue of section 36 of this Act, any charges have been prescribed by a designation order or by an order under that section, the authority making that order may vary those charges by notice given under this section.
(2) The variation of any such charges by notice is not to be taken to prejudice any power to vary those charges by order under section 36 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed by any local authority giving notice under this section.
(4) The regulations may, in particular, make provision with respect to—

(a) the publication, where an authority propose to give notice, of details of their proposals;

1001

(b) the form and manner in which notice is to be given; and

(c) the publication of notices.

(5) In giving any notice under this section a local authority shall comply with the regulations.").
The noble Lord said: First, I apologise to the Committee that there is an error in the amendment. The amendment states:
"After section 36 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984".
It should in fact refer to Section 35. As I do not intend to press the amendment today, that is rather academic. Nevertheless, one should think in terms of Section 35.
The amendment is fairly self-explanatory with the footnote. At the moment Clause 39 introduces a simplified procedure for varying charges for designated parking places. The new clause seeks to extend that procedure to changes in the level of charges in local authority car parks off-street. At present if a London borough—I am advised by the London Boroughs Association whose chairman we hope to welcome to our Benches shortly—wishes to increase the level of its parking charges, it needs to go through a lengthy procedure prescribed in the Road Traffic Regulation Act. The authority must first make an order to vary the charges and that has to be widely advertised in the London Gazette and the local press. The belief that advertising in the London Gazette gives the matter a wide circulation always surprises me. It certainly was not regular reading in the part of London in which I used to live.
Any objection must be considered and the order must then be formally ratified by the borough council. In Clause 39 a simplified procedure is introduced for varying on-street charges and a regulation-making power is created which allows the Secretary of State to specify the form of the procedure to be followed in varying charges. That will allow for a more flexible and streamlined system. The new clause seeks to extend the new procedures to the variation of charges in local authority car parks off-street. There seems to be no reason why the benefits of Clause 39 should not be extended to car parks. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The new clause introduced into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by Clause 39 of the Bill is restricted to changes in the procedures for varying charges at on-street parking places because these places in London are the main topic of the parking provisions in Part II of the Bill. However, the Government accept that the arguments for introducing the new clause after Clause 39 can be applied with equal force to changes in off-street parking charges.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the present amendment is defective in that it refers not to Section 35 of the 1984 Act but to Section 36, which concerns parking on roads; but the Government are prepared to consider whether a suitable amendment might be brought forward at Report stage. Such an amendment would be without prejudice to consideration of further amendments covering off-street parking. That is a
1002
separate issue and we shall be debating it with the noble Lord's proposed amendments to Part II of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will welcome those remarks on his present amendment and be content to withdraw it.
Lord Tordoff: I not only welcome them, I am delighted by them. I apologise for the error in the drafting. I am sure that when the amendment comes back from the Government it will be better drafted in more ways than one.
I accept what the Minister says: that this is not in any way grouped with the other amendments which deal with off-street parking. That is why I specifically did not seek to group them in our discussions today. I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to the Government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 52A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 40 [Parking attendants]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 39, line 27, leave out from ("may") to end of line 30 and insert ("provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants.
(1A) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.
(1B) A parking attendant shall be—

(a) an individual employed by the authority; or

(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant.

(1C) Parking attendants in Greater London shall wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine, and shall not act as parking attendants when not in uniform.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 169.
Clause 40 inserts a new clause after Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in order to provide the local authorities with a clear general power to appoint parking attendants. Amendment No. 53 will enable parking attendants in London and elsewhere to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas—which are provided for by Amendments Nos. 160 and 161—as well as the new "permitted" parking controls provided for in Part II of the Bill. We shall be debating those amendments later in the context of Part II. Amendment No. 53 will also make it clear that local authorities can employ private parking contractors if they wish; and will provide for parking attendants in London to act only when in uniform. Amendment No. 169, which, with your permission, I will take with Amendment No. 53, introduces a consequential change to Clause 72. It defines "parking attendant" by reference to Clause 40 as amended by Amendment No. 53.
The new Clause 63A(1A) arises from the decision to enable London authorities to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas. It provides the means by which parking attendants will have the power to enforce parking and waiting regulations in a

1003
SPA approved by order of the Secretary of State. Where a SPA order is agreed, for a borough or part of a borough, the order itself will then be an "enactment" which can confer the necessary additional enforcement functions on the parking attendant.
The new Clause 63A(1B) makes it clear that local authorities in London and elsewhere may employ private contractors as parking attendants. It is an important part of government policy that local authorities should provide local services as efficiently as possible. We want to see local authorities acting as enablers, not necessarily as direct providers of service. Enforcement of permitted parking controls will represent a significant activity in many areas. It will the represent be important for the authorities and the communities they serve that those services should be provided in as efficient a manner as possible. That may well suggest that they should test the market for the possibility of contracting out. Naturally, where private parking contractors are employed as parking attendants, they will be subject to the same controls and safeguards as those applying to parking attendants employed directly by the local authorities. It will be for the local authorities to satisfy themselves about the suitability of those attendants whose services they obtain under contract, in the same way as they will for those attendants whom they will employ themselves. And the Secretary of State will expect to be satisfied about the local authorities' arrangements before he sanctions the introduction of the new parking system in London. Once the arrangements are established, they will be subject to the safeguards provided by the system of parking adjudicators.
The Government have listened carefully to the debates in this Chamber and in the other place about parking attendants' uniforms. The new Clause 63A(1C) provides that parking attendants in London shall wear a uniform determined by the Secretary of State, and that they shall not act as parking attendants unless they are wearing that uniform. It follows exactly the principles in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which govern the provision of uniforms for police traffic wardens. It contains the important principle that enforcement action should not be undertaken unless the enforcer is wearing his or her official uniform. Thus enforcement action could be void if the proper uniform is not worn.
Although the clause provides for the Secretary of State to determine the parking attendants' uniform, I should make it clear that the Secretary of State does not intend to rule out scope for appropriate local variation. Rather, he has in mind determining the need for key features. Those will be expected to include clear identification as a parking attendant, identification of the local authority on whose behalf the attendant is acting, and a personal identification number. He might also prescribe a requirement for basic garments. But he does not wish to be over prescriptive, and will wish to take account of uniforms already worn by local authority parking attendants. There is at present no case for the Secretary of State to determine the uniforms of local authority parking
1004
attendants outside London, since their functions are not affected by the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: In general, we are in agreement with most of the provisions in Amendment No. 53. The noble Lord will recall that there was considerable discussion during Second Reading on the question of uniforms, training and other matters relating to parking attendants. However, I am a little concerned about what the Minister said in regard to subsection (1B) (b) which concerns persons being contracted to do the work. I ask what consultations will take place in drawing up guidelines. It is essential that there should be proper guidelines; parking attendants will be important people doing an important job for the community.
I do not know whether I read the Bill correctly, but in subsection (1C) reference is made to parking attendants in Greater London wearing such uniform as determined by the Secretary of State. When I examine the Bill, I note that there is a definition of the meaning of "local authority" as applicable to that section. The meaning shall be that set out in Section 32(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. When I turn to that section of the Act, it makes clear that it is referring to competent local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland.
Unless I am wrong, local authorities throughout England, Wales and Scotland can appoint parking attendants. If that is so, why should it be laid down that attendants only in Greater London must have uniforms? Surely all parking attendants in all local authorities which decide to adopt this procedure should have uniforms. Traffic wardens throughout the country have the same uniforms. I am certain there will be objections if parking attendants in different parts of Great Britain wear different uniforms, some of a non-district character.
Perhaps the Minister could say whether my interpretation is correct. If it is not, perhaps he could point out to me where I have gone wrong.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I welcome the provisions of the amendment so far as Greater London is concerned. Perhaps my noble friend will answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to whether uniforms can or should be prescribed for parking attendants outside London.
I rise also to ask my noble friend a question. Is any offence committed if someone wears a uniform that is either the same or broadly similar to that prescribed for a parking attendant? If an ill-disposed person were wearing a uniform which could well be mistaken for that of a parking attendant it would greatly facilitate the commission of certain offences. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is any provision, either in this Bill or elsewhere, for preventing unauthorised people dressing themselves up as parking attendants and interfering, perhaps dangerously and maliciously, with vehicles and their owners.
Lord Tordoff: To extend something that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, I am not clear where there is a definition of Greater London in the Bill. I thought that the Government had abolished Greater London some time ago. I think we all know what is meant by Greater London, but where is there a definition of it in the statute?
Lord Swinfen: I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that Part I of the Bill referred to the country as a whole. Clause 40, to which this amendment appertains, is in Part I. Therefore, why is this being limited to Greater London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: On the question of why this applies to Greater London only—and we normally refer to the London authorities and the City, that being the definition—there is no case at present for the new subsection to cover local authority parking attendants outside London, since there are no firm plans for them to assume the same responsibilities as attendants in London. If a general power enabling the London parking provisions to be extended to other parts of the country were added to the Bill, this clause would need to be suitably modified.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there is no offence of impersonation but, if a parking attendant were impersonated, enforcement would be void.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend can go further than that. I fully understand that the enforcement would be void, but would the person impersonating a parking attendant by wearing a uniform he guilty of an offence? In other words, is there anything to prevent anybody from doing that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am told that there is no offence of impersonation, but my noble friend makes a very good point. It is a matter that I shall look into.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, decisions about contracting-out parking attendants will be for the local authorities. Advice on the key features of parking attendants' uniforms and possibly training will be included in the Secretary of State's parking guidance to the London authorities. Outside London there will be no change in the attendants' responsibilities.
To add to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, Greater London still exists as an administrative county.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord sits down, London is not the only area with serious parking problems. I do not understand why this provision is being made for London alone. Surely parking is just as difficult in many other parts of the country and proper supervision is just as important, sometimes more so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In due course we shall be coming to an amendment which seeks to extend the parking provisions outside Greater London. Perhaps we can deal with the matter then.
Lord Underhill: I still do not think the Minister has satisfied me in answer to my question. Clause 40 reads:
1006
"(1) After section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, there shall be inserted—
Parking attendants
(1) A local authority may appoint…
(2) In this section 'local authority' and 'parking place' have the meanings given by section 32(4) of this Act".
As I have already stated, Section 32(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. There is no limitation to London.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure whether I can go any further. I shall certainly look carefully at the question the noble Lord has raised and I shall write to him if there is anything I can add to what I have said so far.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 54:
Leave out Clause 40 and insert the following new clause:
("Parking Attendants
40. After section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted…
"Parking Attendants.
63A.—(1) A local authority may appoint, with or without remuneration, such officers and servants as they think fit for the supervision of parking places in their area.
(2) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice (The Secretary of State's parking attendants code) with a view to co-ordinating the action of local authorities with respect to parking attendants.
(3) Before issuing or varying any code of practice under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations representing local authorities as he thinks appropriate,

(b) such organisations representing the employees of local authorities as he thinks appropriate,

(c) any Chief Officers of Police, and

(d) such other persons and organisations as he thinks appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State's parking attendants code may, in particular, include provision with respect to—

(a) appropriate training for parking attendants,

(b) appropriate forms of dress for parking attendants while on duty, and

(c) appropriate means of identification of parking attendants.

(5) It shall be the duty of any person appointed under this section to identify himself on request and to provide information—

(a) within Greater London, as to the rights contained in section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and

(b) in any other case as to the proper officer to whom any complaints regarding a parking attendant or parking charges or both, should be addressed.

(6) Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall be evidence that any parking charge was improperly levied or, as the case may be, that the parking attendant was not acting within his authority.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring power on a local authority to contract out any of the duties and responsibilities contained in this section or, contained in the Secretary of State's parking attendants code.
(8) The Secretary of State's parking attendants' code may be varied at any time."").
The noble Lord said: It may be thought that this amendment is linked to the previous one, which we have agreed, but Amendment No. 54 covers a large number of points most of which were dealt with by

1007
noble Lords in our debate on Second Reading—that there shall be proper training, consultation and forms of dress and that there shall be appropriate means of identification, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
It may be necessary to make adjustments to the amendment at a suitable stage, because it seems to us that consultation and guidance are better left in the hands of local authorities. But I should like the Minister to deal with the various points under the headings in Amendment No. 54 so that we can treat it as a probing amendment to see how the Government would view such provisions being put into a Bill which goes far beyond Amendment No. 53 which we have just agreed.
Lord Tordoff: While I appreciate the thinking behind the new clause, I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the Association of London Authorities has some problems with the amendment. It feels that the code of practice should be constructed locally rather than written on to the statute in the name of the Secretary of State. Its view is that it would easier if the Secretary of State were required to produce advice for local authorities to make their own codes of practice. As a decentraliser, I have sympathy with that idea, though I have great sympathy with the details contained in the noble Lord's amendment in terms of training, dress, identification and so on.
4.30 p. m.
Lord Underhill: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I gave the proviso that it may be best if these matters were left for guidance and implementation by local authorities within the local government structure. Having said that, there are still important points on which we should like the Government's view as to whether these are matters that the Government would accept, or whether they have queries on them. It goes far beyond Amendment No. 53, which we have just agreed, and covers points that many noble Lords raised in our Second Reading debate as being essential concerning the appointment of parking attendants.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In replying to this amendment I am happy to cover the points raised in it. We have already discussed some of the issues in connection with Amendment No. 53, which the Committee has just accepted. I have explained why the Government believe it is important that the local authorities should have the opportunity to contract out for 1 he services of parking attendants. I repeat that it is an important part of government policy that local authorities should provide local services as efficiently as possible. The employment of private contractors is likely to contribute to meeting this policy and I believe it would be wrong to deny local authorities access to such contractors if they believe they can provide a suitable service. The private sector has a legitimate part to play, and is already doing so both on behalf of local authorities and the Metropolitan Police.
I have also introduced a new provision which requires that parking attendants in London should wear a uniform determined by the Secretary of State and that they should not act as parking attendants
1008
unless they are wearing that uniform. Although we propose that the London authorities should have some flexibility over the provisions of uniforms, I have said that the uniforms will need to include such key features as identification as a parking attendant, identification of the local authority, and the attendant's personal identification number.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not see the need for the Secretary of State to issue the local authorities in London or elsewhere with a code of practice about the employment of their parking attendants. It will be for the local authorities to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the attendants whom they employ or whose services they obtain under contract, in the same way as they do for other areas of work. The Secretary of State will be issuing parking guidance to the local authorities in London, after consultation. The guidance will cover such matters as training and uniforms; and the Secretary of State will take the local authorities' proposals in these areas into account before he sanctions the introduction of the new system of local authority parking control.
The Bill does not affect the position outside London. Functions of parking attendants there are unchanged. We have no-evidence of any need to issue local authorities outside London with any guidance about the execution of their present parking enforcement activities. Parking attendants in London will be identified by the features of their uniform. Clause 65 of the Bill, as we are proposing to amend it by Amendment No. 132, will provide that, on payment of the wheelclamping release fee, motorists are to be informed of their right to make representations to the relevant local authority and, if they are not satisfied with the response, to appeal to the parking adjudicator.
In regard to subsection (6) of the proposed amendment, it will be obvious from the parking attendants' uniform, and from any penalty charge notice which the attendant may issue, which local authority is responsible for the parking controls. That is already the case, for example, in Westminster where contractors operate as parking attendants on the authority's behalf. Furthermore, the penalty charge notice will provide the local authority's address. Therefore, I do not believe that subsection (6) is practicable. It would not, for example, be possible to prove that a parking attendant had not been adequately trained. No similar provision applies to traffic wardens, who are responsible for enforcing the criminal law. Sufficient safeguards are already supplied by the Bill as drafted and by the added requirements provided for in government Amendment No. 53 with respect to uniforms. That should, I hope, cover all the points in the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the various points contained in this amendment. I shall not go back to the position of Greater London and other areas because the Minister has promised that he will write to me on that matter; though in view of his remarks I was a little intrigued by what is contained in subsection (5) of this amendment which states:

1009
"(a) within Greater London, as to the rights contained in section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and (b) in any other case".
Does that mean in any case other than in Greater London? If that were so, there may be a further reason for me to await with great interest to see what the noble Lord writes to me on whether or not this provision covers areas outside Greater London. I am grateful to the Minister for his information, which we shall read carefully and see what action to take at the next stage. In the meantime, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether this might be an appropriate point for me to put a question to the Minister? I apologise if it has been raised earlier, but I have only just returned from abroad and could not get here earlier. Are there any plans afoot to outlaw the practice of paying parking attendants on a piecework basis? That is, to pay them according to the number of parking tickets issued as opposed to paying them on a normal hourly, daily or weekly basis.
Paying parking attendants on a piecework basis, as I understand occurs in the City of Westminster, can lead to every sort of abuse and should not be tolerated. Can the Minister give us some information on that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is a different issue from the one we have been debating. So far as I am aware there are no plans to change arrangements. As I said just now, it is up to the local authorities if they use contractors to do this. We think that contractors can provide a good service. Obviously they have to abide by the rules laid down on when they can issue tickets, and those rules will be strengthened by features in the Bill, including the new parking adjudicators.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 40, insert the following new
clause:
("Extension of parking provisions to areas outside Greater London
.—(1) In this section expressions to which meanings are assigned by section 72 of this Act have the same respective meanings and "highway authority" has the meaning given by section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 but does not include a London authority.
(2) On the application of any highway authority the Secretary of State may by order provide that the provisions of sections 57 to 69 of this Act, or of any of those sections, shall apply to that highway authority and to the area of that authority as they apply to London authorities and to London subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(3) For the purposes of any order under this section the Secretary of State may, in relation to the highway authority which has applied for the order and to the area of that authority, amend or repeal any provisions of sections 57 to 69 of this Act, as so applied, or amend or repeal the provisions of any Act mentioned in Schedule 6 or Schedule 7 to this Act in so far as the provisions so mentioned are inconsistent with the contents of the intended order and in particular the Secretary of State may make provision for

(a) the issue by the Secretary of State of parking guidance after such consultation (if any) as he thinks appropriate;

(b) the appointment of parking adjudicators by such means as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate; and

1010

(c) the issue of penalty charge notices.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument by which that power is exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes a new clause. I say at the outset that the Opposition welcome the idea of enabling London boroughs to enforce decriminalised parking offences on roads which do not comprise main arteries or roads serving them. The Government deserve congratulation. What we are now talking about is seeking to extend that idea to authorities outside London.
A Home Office chaired working party went into this question. It was concerned with enforcement powers not simply in London but throughout the country. The working party agreed —I imagine that everybody in this Committee agrees—that the situation in London is more serious and more acute than elsewhere in the country. Nonetheless, there was significant evidence—and I shall come back to this later —which emphasised the high level of unenforced parking contraventions in areas outside London.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when writing to the local authority associations announcing the Government's reply to the working party report (at that time he was responsible for parking enforcement) said:
"We have decided that change to the operation of parking enforcement outside London would not be justifiable".
Regrettably he gave no reasons for that conclusion, and that conclusion was, to say the least, thoroughly unsatisfactory.
At Committee stage in another place the Minister for Roads and Traffic said on 5th February, at col. 329:
"There is not sufficient evidence to warrant changing parking regimes outside London, but that will be reviewed in the light of experience of the coming months and years in London".
At Report stage, on 26th February (cols. 872 and 873) he said that the report of the Home Office working party,
"concluded that the problem was in London and that although it is not true to say that there are no problems outside London, we should tackle the problems there first".
He went on to say:
"I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a flexible attitude to the subject and that if he were persuaded of the need to extend these powers outside London he would have no hesitation in introducing the necessary legislation. At this stage there is no case for proceeding in that manner".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/91; cols. 872–73.]
What it comes to is that the Government have to be persuaded that the evidence supports the view that there should be an extension to London; and presumably from that comment, that they have an open mind about the matter.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which supports this new clause, does not demur from the view that the parking enforcement problems in central London are much worse than elsewhere in the country. I have already indicated that that is the position. Clearly urgent action needs to be taken in this capital city to deal with the problem. But there are, as the association asserts—it has considerable

1011
experience in this field—serious problems elsewhere. There are problems in urban areas, where the position is at r resent rapidly and markedly deteriorating. The extension of the powers proposed for London to other areas should not wait until there is a possibility of further legislative time.
We believe that the Bill is the right vehicle for dealing with the matter now. We all know, particularly those who have been in ministerial office, that it is not easy to obtain the necessary time for legislative proposals of this kind. I hope the Minister will not use the argument about the wrong vehicle. There could not be a more clear and well defined vehicle in which to deal with this matter.
I am encouraged to some degree by the fact that on 28th March, in reply to a Written Question in another place asking what representations he had received concerning the extension of proposed London traffic measures to all metropolitan districts and whether he would make a statement, the Minister for Roads and Traffic said:
"Thy: Department has received representations by and on behalf of a number of local authorities outside London for changes to be made to the Road Traffic Bill so that the new, decriminalised parking regime for London can be available elsewhere. We are considering these representations".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 28/3/91; col. 511.]
The door does not appear to be shut. I hope the Minister will not shut it today.
It was in the light of the response by Ministers to similar new clauses tabled in another place that we are now considering this new clause. What we have to consider, as I have indicated before, is the evidence that is Available concerning the situation other than in London. Joint police highway authority studies on parking enforcement in Sheffield and Rotherham were commissioned by the Home Office working party on parking enforcement. I shall not weary the Committee with the full details of the results of those surveys, but suffice it to say—I do not think the Minister will disagree with what I am saying—the surveys show that only a minute proportion of vehicles found on yellow lines in those particular areas had been served with a parking ticket. In response to that finding the police said that the contraventions found were often on side streets and had resulted in no major congestion or road safety problems. The police then argued, on that basis, that the findings did not support the case for change outside London.
We do not dispute that many of the contraventions which were found in the Sheffield and Rotherham surveys did not result in major congestion or road safety problems. What we do not accept is that that undermines the case for change. It is indisputable that the law is not being enforced at present.
It is important to understand that the police view of the objective of parking enforcement has to be seen in somewhat narrow terms; namely, in relation to maintaining the free flow of traffic. That is what the police seek to achieve. However, parking is a very much more important issue than that. It is an important transport policy tool. The availability of parking space can have an important influence on a person's decision whether to travel by car or by public transport. The availability of additional free space and
1012
unenforced parking restrictions on yellow lines can seriously undermine broader transport policies which are designed to encourage the greater use of public transport.
Yellow lines are introduced for a range of reasons other than maintaining the free flow of traffic on main routes. Local traffic management and environmental considerations can be important. These are local authority rather than police objectives, but the responsibility for allocating enforcement resources lies with the police. Manchester City Council, supported by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, has become convinced that the argument I am putting forward is the right one. It is supported by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. It is supported, too, by many other local authorities—Wolverhampton, Strathclyde Regional Council and so on; I do not propose to list them all. Equally, the Automobile Association supports these representations. Therefore, given the evidence of problems outside London—the Minister must be aware of those problems—there is growing support for change. Increasing importance is given to parking issues in the context of broader transport policies and related problems.
I hope that the Government will not simply push the door a little more ajar today but will come forward as clearly as they have in relation to the matter previously raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and welcome this idea. Incidentally, I very much welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in relation to an earlier debate. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think that my noble friend the Minister has a case to answer. It is a fact that there are many areas outside London that have very serious parking problems. I shall not waste the time of the Committee by discussing whether in some cases they are as bad as in central London, though personally I believe that to be so. If my noble friend wants evidence of that, I suggest that one weekend he takes his own car and tries to park in Newbury. He will find that at least as difficult as anywhere in central London. I suspect there are other towns and cities in this country where that is so.
I thought the noble Lord opposite made a very good point in regard to the problems involved in legislation. If we do not put at least an enabling clause into this Bill then, as I understand it, before we can extend these parking regulations to places outside London we shall need further legislation. I do not need to tell my noble friend, because he knows only too well, how difficult it is for a departmental Minister to get time for legislation. As one who was at one time responsible for a number of road traffic Bills, I could tell the Committee about some of the problems that I had on that very point and the harsh language that I had to use to certain of my colleagues in order to secure the opportunity.
It seems to me that it would be reasonable at least to include an enabling clause so as to enable provincial towns and cities to be looked at on their merits by his

1013
right honourable friend. For that reason I like the general approach of this amendment, though I should find difficulty in supporting it because I very much dislike subsection (7) which seems to be quite wrong and unduly restrictive.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, I should like to express my support for the view put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We are all conscious of the difficulties experienced in the provinces when moving in urban towns where traffic problems are considerable and where parking problems are horrendous.
As my noble friend said, the proposed new clause gives the Secretary of State an enabling power to make the extension by means of making an order, so far as I understand, under subsection (2). That seems to me to be just what is required. If my noble friend the Minister were to agree to this, or to something like it, it would put a future Secretary of State in the position where he could take action when he was satisfied that a town had a serious enough problem.
The reply received from the police that the traffic flow is not impeded is not adequate. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a good point in that respect. The position about parking governs a whole range of factors, especially whether the driver of a motor car uses his car. Indeed, if he cannot park it he will probably use public transport. The problem is acute enough now in many towns to be worthy of consideration. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be prepared to look again at the proposal with a view perhaps to putting it in the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister replies, I did not understand the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the "subsection (7)" which he dislikes. I am afraid I have to point out to him that there is not a subsection (7) in the proposed new clause.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If that is what the noble Lord says, then that must be so. I read that subsection as saying:
"Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring power on a local authority to contract out".
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can clarify the position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe that my noble friend is referring to the previous amendment, rather than the one presently under discussion.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his introduction and explanation of the amendment. The Government appreciate that the London parking provisions in Part II of the Bill have attracted considerable interest beyond London, and that there have been calls for their extension to other areas. That is a measure of the soundness and popularity of the proposals; and I find that most gratifying.
The Government have been listening to these calls, and are mindful of the contribution that sensible parking policies can make to reducing traffic congestion, particularly in urban areas. We do not
1014
believe that it would be right to have an automatic application of Part II to the whole of the county. But we see some attractions in the provision of general enabling powers of a kind similar to those proposed in this amendment. We are therefore urgently considering the legal and policy issues which would be involved with such an extension of powers. I envisage that this consideration will be completed shortly, and I expect to be able to make a statement at Report stage. I am mindful of the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—regarding legislation.
In the light of what I have said, and on the understanding that this Chamber will be able to return to the issues for further consideration at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that most positive response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, notwithstanding his reference to the non-existing subsection, for the remarks he made.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In that connection, I should point out that the diagnosis of my noble friend the Minister was exactly right; I was indeed glancing at the previous amendment. I thought that the subsection in question was also included in this amendment. I apologise accordingly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows, I am always happy to accept, and at least to consider carefully, any criticisms from him. However, I am glad that I do not have to consider that one.
I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for his support. We look forward to returning to the matter and considering what the Government have to say and, preferably, what they table on the Marshalled List on Report. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Variable speed limits]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 39, line 36, leave out ("In").
The noble Lord said: With leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 60, 62 to 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 162, 172, 173 and 176. These amendments are largely of a technical nature. They are designed to improve Clause 41 which provides for variable speed limits to be imposed by highway authorities in certain circumstances.
They are designed to put beyond doubt the power to impose variable speed limits on motorways and to enable the Secretary of State to require the ancillary equipment associated with speed limit and other traffic signs to be of an approved type. That will enable the department to set standards of accuracy and reliability for those devices. In order to assist the development of new and improved speed limit signs, there is provision for the use of non-prescribed speed limit traffic signs. I can assure Members of the Committee that those

1015
signs will usually be variations of existing signs, which the department must be able to test in the field before approving them for wider use.
The amendments also deal with a number of consequential changes, and are designed to clarify that certain references in the existing legislation to speed limits are to be treated as references to fixed speed limits, not to variable speed limits. I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to support these essential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I welcome these government amendments. There should be flexibility for future action in this respect. The Government are arming themselves with that possibility. However, can the Minister give us some indication whether he envisages the provision of further regulations dealing with issues other than those listed in the clause and, if so, what they might be?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure that I can deal with that question. There will be regulations to deal with those matters which are listed in the clause. That is what the clause says. I shall have to look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 60:
Page 39, line 37, after second ("roads)") insert ("shall be amended as follows.
(2)").
Page 40, line 15, at end insert ("in particular").
Page 40, line 16, leave out from ("may") to ("an") in line 17 and insert ("have effect by virtue of").
Page 40, line 21, at end insert:
("(3) In subsection (3) for the words "under subsection (1)" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of subsection (1) (a)".
(4) At the end there shall be added—
"(6) Any reference in a local Act to roads subject to a speed limit shill, unless the contrary intention appears, be treated as not including a reference to roads subject to a speed limit imposed only by virtue of subsection (1) (b) or (c) above."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 40, line 21, at end insert:
("() In Schedule 6 to that Act (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes) in item 1 there shall be inserted after ("passenger") the words ("excluding public passenger vehicles") and there shall be inserted

1A

A public passenger vehicle

60 60 50")

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is essentially to ascertain the Government's current views on the proposals dealing with speed limits for coaches. I should at this point declare an interest in the matter. When I was responsible for transport policy in the Commission, I put forward a proposal in this regard with which the amend rent now before the Committee is essentially in line. That proposal does not seem to have made very much headway.
My understanding is that the Government take the view—although I hope that I am wrong—that the question of speed limits is not a matter for Community
1016
competence. I have especially singled out coaches because, to some extent at least, this country seems to be out of line with the practice in most other member states where there is a limit of 60 mph on motorways. I am especially worried with that aspect. The proposal was initially put forward in order to achieve a harmonised speed limit.
If one is talking about a wider principle in this respect, one of the main difficulties with traffic safety within the Community is that there are so many variations; that is, not simply in relation to speed limits but also in relation to a whole host of other matters. Some people complain that we drive on the left-hand side of the road while others drive on the right. Indeed, I have always found that one of the most iniquitous things was having to take account of traffic coming from your right into a road and giving it precedence. For a driver from this country, that is difficult. It obtains in France and Belgium except on main roads. Much more important, however, is the need for coaches which travel in this country and then frequently on to the Continent to have some understanding that there is a single speed limit.
My second argument is that there have been disquieting circumstances relating to a number of coach accidents, details of which I do not propose to rehearse. Virtually throughout the year, but most especially during the summer, one hears of coaches travelling on motorways and elsewhere at speeds in excess of 70 mph. We should not ignore the practice of continental Europe. I do not propose to press the matter today, but I want to probe the Government as to their intentions: first, in regard to the proposal that has emanated from the Commission; and, secondly, in relation to the practice which should be deployed in this country.
If the Minister is worried about the economics of the matter, I suggest that travelling safely and at lower speeds is much more important than reaching one's destination a quarter of an hour or half an hour later, or whatever it may be. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It was recently announced in another place that the Government are reassessing all vehicle speed limits. That would of course include those applying to buses and coaches. It would therefore be wrong to seek to reduce the motorway speed limit on buses and coaches in advance of that assessment. As the noble Lord will be aware, coaches are required to be fitted with speed limiters to ensure that they cannot be driven at more than 70 mph. We shall take full account of the concerns that the noble Lord expressed when considering that issue.
The Commission's proposals to harmonise PSV and HGV speed limits have not been taken forward. The Government believe it right that individual member states should determine the limits. There are significant variations in the standard of road construction throughout Europe and differences in road user behaviour, traffic law and enforcement policies.
The amendment is unnecessary should we decide to make a change, because Section 86 of the Road Traffic

1017
Regulation Act 1984 gives the Secretary of State power to amend vehicle speed limits by regulation. We could make a change without needing to accept the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend amplify what he said about speed limiters in coaches. From my observation, I can only say that they cannot be effective. I have seen coaches travelling at more than 70 mph, especially on the M.3 and M.4. If my noble friend relies on speed limiters as an effective method of controlling speeds, I suggest that he has another look at them.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord said. Some coach companies have timetables which would preclude the coach from travelling at anything except beyond the proper speed limit. It is worth looking at the timing of coaches going from London to Yorkshire. It would be impossible if they were to travel at the speeds at which they should be travelling. That accords with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a good one. Many coaches travel across Europe and so there is some value in having uniformity. A coach may start from here and then go across France into Italy, Spain or wherever. For many years I have driven to Italy through France. I have been accustomed to high speeds, especially in Italy from the more adventurous Italian drivers—that is pretty well all of them. They will pass on the wrong side at the drop of a hat. My impression is that over the years driving on our motorways has become faster and faster. It is common now when driving along, as I normally do, at between 70 mph and 80 mph to be passed again and again. There is a tendency with the high performance motor cars, which are now common at not very high prices, for drivers to go faster and faster. It is not only coaches that do so.
If my noble friend is considering this matter, he should study the only real cure, which is traffic police on the motorways. It is an expensive solution, but it is the only one. Those of us who have driven in the United States have experience of freeways which may have six lanes on either side. If the speed limit is 65 mph—or whatever it may be—everyone keeps to it. If a driver weaves, the traffic police have him. There are traffic police all over the place. They result in drivers obeying speed limits and the traffic rules and driving more safely than we do.
We have always resisted such a proposal, because it is expensive. It is not a matter of having just one or two traffic police. Quite a number are needed. If my noble friend is studying the problem of speed limits for coaches, they will not be enforced unless we have traffic police on the motorways. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, coaches travel at 75 mph to 80 mph now. They will not keep to 60 mph, 70 mph or anything else unless they are made to. I ask my
1018
noble friend to include in the review the major point relating to traffic police, what they cost, and whether we could put the proposal into action.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the first part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, but unhappily I do not agree with what he said about traffic police. He mentioned the position in the United States. The United States has 44,000 law enforcement agencies of one type or another. England and Wales have 43 police forces. I am well aware that there are forces such as the California Highway Patrol which are extremely efficient. One of the reasons for the existence of those agencies is the Balkanisation of the police forces in California and elsewhere.
One of the problems involved in having a separate traffic police force, the idea of which has been advanced by many people over a number of years, is that it would make sense if it dealt only with traffic offences, but that is not the position. A substantial police effort on motorways is involved in dealing with travelling criminals. One has only to consider what the problem would be if one had more than one police force in an area, with one responsible for traffic and another for general crime. The idea sounds attractive, but on greater reflection I hope that the Committee will not be attracted by it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting debate. On speed limiters, since 1st April 1991 all coaches first used from 1st April 1974 which are capable of 70 mph must have speed limiters. I note what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said about the effectiveness of speed limiters. I draw his attention to Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 which relate to the checking of the calibration of speed limiters which should be a help. Speed limiters have only just been introduced. I hope that we will see the benefit of speed limiters over a period of time. If the amendments are agreed, that will help.
I was horrified to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, had to say about speed limits requiring to be broken in order to meet timetables. That is extremely worrying. However, she should note that Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act makes it an offence to time a journey according to the timetable necessitating breaking a speed limit. So it is already an offence and if the noble Baroness can provide any evidence to me of such breaches, I shall be happy to take them up.
My noble friend Lord Nugent called first for a review of all vehicle speed limits. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it is not just the coaches. Obviously the Government's decision to re-assess vehicle speed limits has been reinforced by the debate in the Committee this afternoon. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was necessarily right when he said that my noble friend Lord Nugent advocated separate traffic police. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the possibility of separate traffic police, but I believe that my noble friend was calling for more enforcement of the regulations by the ordinary motorway police. If I am wrong, obviously my noble friend will put me right.

1019
I also draw the Committee's attention to provisions in the Bill for the use of technology which will help the situation.
Lord Clinton-Davis>: I agree with the Minister that the short debate has been interesting, and we are encouraged by the Minister's response. He will study what has been said by Members on both sides of the Committee. We are not simply concerned with speed limits but with their enforcement. There seems to be a gaping hole here at present; the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is right, as is my noble friend Lady Phillips. I am sure that the Minister will take that to heart.
My experience from driving on motorways during the past months is not encouraging as regards this experiment or the required use of speed limiters. Perhaps they are flexible speed limiters, and that worries me. Of course, time will tell and I am sure that the Minister will keep close surveillance on the matter through his officials.
I an also encouraged by what he said about the re-assessment of speed limits that his department is carrying out. Can he tell the Committee how far that assessment or re-assessment has gone and when conclusions are likely to be reached? Is there any possibility that it might be in time for the matter to be dealt with either here or in another place during the passage of the Bill?
I do not propose to become too involved in whether we have separate traffic police on the motorways. I was intrigued by the phrase about the Balkanised state of law enforcement in California, no doubt with Serbo-Croats, Croats and other people. I should like to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about that, but perhaps not on this occasion as we still have many amendments to consider.
The only other matter to which I advert is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I am disappointed by the Minister's comments on the attitude the Government take about the proposal from the Commission. It is correct that it is bogged down at the moment. I should have liked him not to use the trite argument about variation of road user behaviour and variations in enforcement. That applies to the whole gamut of matters affecting the creation of the single market. There are always different patterns of behaviour on the part of consumers, industrialists and everyone else in the Community. However, we have decided, as a Community, to embark upon the idea of 1992.
No doubt it would be appropriate at this stage to say how much not simply this House but Europe owes to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for the strenuous work that he carried out on that issue. However, that is a stale argument. For people who travel abroad in increasing numbers, including coach drivers, carrying precious loads of people, I should have thought that we would need to re-think the subject and the whole attitude of a European or Community policy in relation to speed limits. That is not wholly germane to the Bill. I am encouraged in part, at least, by what the Minister said.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, he asked me
1020
specifically whether I expected the results of the review to be with us before we concluded consideration of the Bill. The answer is that it is unlikely. However, as I said in my reply to him, we do not require an amendment to the Bill to alter the speed limits. That can be brought about under regulations made under Section 86 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is quite correct, I overlooked that. Having regard to all the arguments we have heard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 65:
Page 71, line 4, at end insert:
("The Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)
. In section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of district councils to maintain certain highways) in subsection (2) (c) (ii) for the words "under section 84 of that Act imposing a special limit" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of section 84(1) (a) of that Act imposing a speed limit".
. In each of sections 90A(1) and 90B(1) of that Act (construction of road humps) at the beginning of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "(whether or not the highway is subject to such a limit)".
. In section 90F(2) of that Act (interpretation) for the
definition of "statutory" there shall be substituted—
"statutory speed limit" means a speed limit having effect by virtue of an enactment other than section 84(1) (b) or (c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (temporary and variable speed limits)."").
Page 73, line 11, leave out from ("(1) (b)") to end of line 12 and insert (", as substituted by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, for the words "83(2) or 84" there shall be substituted the words "or 83(2) or by virtue of section 84(1) (a)".").
Page 73, line 12, at end insert:
(". In section 17(2) of that Act (traffic regulation on special roads) at the end there shall be added—
"(d) include provisions having effect in such places, at such times, in such manner or in such circumstances as may for the time being be indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the regulations." ").
Page 73, line 12, at end insert:
(". In section 44 of that Act (control of off-street parking outside Greater London) in subsection (5) for the words "under section 84" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of section 84(1) (a)".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 62 with Amendment No. 56, as I did with Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 73, line 13, leave out paragraph 22.
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 3 was included in the Bill to overcome a perceived difficulty with Section 46(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that local authorities outside London need to make a separate order to specify parking charges at

1021
designated parking places. However, Section 49(6) of the 1984 Act provides that these charges may be specified in the same order as designates the parking places. Paragraph 22 is therefore unnecessary and should be removed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Page 73, line 25, at end insert:
(". In section 65 of that Act (powers and duties of highway authorities as to placing of traffic signs) after subsection (1) there shall be
inserted—
"(1A) The power to give general directions under subsection (1) above includes power to require equipment used in connection with traffic signs to be of a type approved in accordance with the directions."").
Page 73, line 25, at end insert:
(". In section 85 of that Act (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions) in subsections (I) and (2) (a) the words "the prescribed" shall be
omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 with Amendment No. 56. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 73, line 42, at end insert:
(". At the end of section 99 of that Act (removal of vehicles illegally parked) there shall be inserted—
"(6) For the purposes of this section, the suspension under section 13A or 49 of this Act of the use of a parking place is a restriction imposed under this Act."
. At the end of section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked) there shall be inserted—
"(12A) For the purposes of this section, the suspension under section 13A or 49 of this Act of the use of a parking place is a restriction imposed under this Act."").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 69 and, with the leave of the Committee, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 as well as Amendment No. 175. The purpose of these amendments is to enable the police to remove or wheelclamp vehicles which have been left in designated parking places, such as meter bays and residents' bays, and which the police have suspended from use. New powers are necessary because of provisions in the Bill which enable the police to suspend these parking places temporarily in extraordinary circumstances, and because of other provisions which decriminalise the controls over these parking places in London.
The power of the police to undertake wheelclamping and removal action depends on the vehicles being parked in contravention of a restriction. Amendment No. 69 to Schedule 3 provides the necessary restrictions. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 to Schedule 6 broaden the powers of the police so that they can temporarily suspend parking places in London which have been designated on an experimental basis. Amendment No. 175 to Schedule 7 enables the police to undertake wheelclamping action in all cases where they have temporarily suspended parking places under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
The amendments will enable the police to continue with their present practice with regard to suspended parking places and will provide a valuable extension to cover action in extraordinary circumstances, such as disruptions to public transport services. They will therefore help the police to meet their existing responsibilities, for example those for handling emergencies and ceremonial occasions, and help them further to keep traffic moving. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 73, line 42, at end insert:
(". In section 103 of that Act (supplementary provision as to removal of vehicles), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Regulations made under sections 99 to 102 of this Act may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or in respect of different
areas."
. In section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked), in subsection (12) there shall be added at the end "or classes of case or in respect of different areas".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 70, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 174. These are technical amendments. They are made in consequence of the provisions of Part II of the Bill which provide for the introduction of a new, decriminalised system of local authority parking controls in London. Amendment No. 70 to Schedule 3 amends Section 103(3) and 104(12) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so that regulations made by the Secretary of State covering action by the police to wheelclamp, remove and store vehicles which are parked illegally or to remove and store vehicles which are parked obstructively or dangerously or which are abandoned or broken down may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or in respect of different areas. This will enable the Secretary of State to change the present regulations, for example to distinguish between breaches of designated or permitted parking place orders as opposed to other contraventions and to provide that the police have only limited powers in respect of removals from designated parking areas.
Amendment No. 175 to Schedule 7 repeals Section 99(2) (c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The section is duplicated by the new Section 103(3) of the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 73, line 46, after ("paragraph") insert ("(b) or").
Page 73, line 47, at end insert:
("The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54)
.—(1) In section 36 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (construction of road humps by roads authority) at the beginning of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "(whether or not the road is subject to such a limit)".
(2) In section 40 of that Act (interpretation of sections 36 to 39) at the end of the definition of "statutory" there shall be added the words "other than section 84(1) (b) or (c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (temporary and variable speed limits)".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 74, line 41, leave out ("Section") and insert ("In section").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 73, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76 and 178. I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for tabling an amendment to Schedule 3 which draws attention to the provisions in the Bill relating to cycle races on footpaths and bridleways. I am aware that there has been criticism of these provisions and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing this to our attention. In clarifying the meaning of public way in this section, we took new powers to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for the authorisation of cycle racing on footpaths and bridleways. I am aware of the concern of the Byways and Bridleways Trust and other organisations about the possible conflict which that change might create between cycle racing and the condition which is attached to the use of cycles on bridleways by the Countryside Act 1968. Section 30(1) of that Act provides a right of way for cyclists on bridleways on condition that they must give way to pedestrians and horse riders. It is difficult to envisage a cycle race taking place under that condition.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would introduce a prohibition on cycle racing on footpaths but it would still allow authorised cycle racing on bridleways. I see that the noble Baroness is not in her place. Perhaps she does not intend to move her amendments. As I have already indicated, that might give rise to conflict with the requirements for cyclists to give way to pedestrians and horse riders contained in the Countryside Act 1968. Nor do I believe that a specific prohibition of cycle racing on footpaths is workable. There is no general offence of cycle racing on a footpath, but neither is there any right of way for cyclists. Local authorities can introduce local prohibitions creating offences using their traffic regulation or by-law powers where there is a particular problem.
We propose therefore to return to the existing position in Section 31 which prohibits cycle racing on bridleways outright, with no possibility of authorisation; neither would it be possible to authorise cycle racing on footpaths. I hope the Committee will consider these amendments sensible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 74, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 75. I now call Amendment No. 74.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 74, line 41, leave out from ("ways)") to ("For") in line 1 on page 75.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved].
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 75, line 3, at end insert ("but does not include a footpath").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 73. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 75, line 3, at end insert:
(".—(1) Section 41 of that Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be added the words "(by means of the fixing of plates or otherwise) and the circumstances in which they are to be marked,".
(3) In subsection (2) after paragraph (j) there shall be inserted—
"(jj) speed limiters,".
(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Regulations under this section with respect to speed limiters may include provision—

(a) as to the checking and sealing of speed limiters by persons authorised in accordance with the regulations and the making of charges by them,

(b) imposing or providing for the imposition of conditions to be complied with by authorised persons,

(c) as to the withdrawal of authorisations." ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 179. In the interests of road safety and fuel efficiency we already require coaches to be fitted with speed limiters, and we have recently proposed that new heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes gross weight should be fitted with limiters. We have already debated the issue of speed limiters on coaches.
The reason for introducing this amendment is to enable us to exercise control over the way that speed limiters are calibrated. If they are to fulfil their function of restricting the speed of vehicles to the motorway speed limits or to any lower speed selected by the vehicle operator they must be properly installed and calibrated to the characteristics of the particular vehicle.
This is best achieved in a workshop specially equipped for the purpose. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to require the checking and sealing of speed limiters only by persons authorised by him. This means that only an authorised person would be able to seal the system against tampering and before doing this he would have to ensure that the speed limiter was properly connected and also that it had been correctly calibrated. It would enable the Secretary of State to impose conditions to be complied with by the people authorised to check speed limiters, to provide for charges and for the withdrawal of authorisations, for example if they failed to meet the necessary standards.
In addition, the amendment would make it an offence to forge a speed limiter seal or any plate containing particulars required to be marked by the Construction and Use Regulations; and it would also make it an offence to impersonate a person authorised to check and seal speed limiters.

1025
I commend these amendments to the Committee as a necessary means of ensuring that speed limiters function correctly in practice and to provide reasonable safeguards against tampering or other interference. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I must apologise to the Minister for missing his introduction. I am aware that his Amendment No. 73 pre-empts my Amendment No. 75. Therefore I shall not of course move Amendment No. 75.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I apologise to the noble Baroness. We are now discussing Amendment No. 77 which concerns speed limiters. I replied —I hope satisfactorily—to the amendment of the noble Baroness. She will be able to read that reply in the Official Report. I hope that what I have said about the government amendments will take care of the concerns of the noble Baroness.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend mentioned the installation of speed limiters in heavy goods vehicles. Will he indicate to the Committee what speed is to be permitted for heavy goods vehicles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is at this stage a proposal to introduce speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes gross weight. The present speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on motorways is 60 miles per hour.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does my noble friend mean that that will be the limit imposed by the speed limiters, or will some lower figure be added?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Provided no change is made in the speed limit by the review that I have referred to, that would have to be the limit at which the limiters were set. Obviously we could not set the limit lower than the speed limit which is allowed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 75, line 3, at end insert:
(". In section 33(1) of that Act (control of use of footpaths and bridleways for motor vehicle trials) for the words "under this section by the local authority" there shall be substituted—

"(a) by or under regulations made under section 13 above; and

(b) by the local authority under this section." ").

The noble Baroness said: This is a rather more complicated amendment. I hope that the Minister can put me right on the matter. The issue was raised by the Ramblers' Association, which feels that there is an anomaly between Sections 12, 13 and 33 of the Road Traffic Act. I have spent a considerable amount of time on the subject and it seems to me that an anomaly exists. Therefore I am afraid that I must introduce the amendment at some length.
Section 12 of the Act makes it an offence to promote or take part in a race or trial of speed on any public highway, including footpaths and bridleways. Section 13 allows the Secretary of State, through regulations, to authorise the holding of competitions
1026
or trials on highways but not racing or trials of speed. Section 33 adds to the requirements of Section 13 by requiring a trial between motor vehicles which makes use of a footpath or bridleway to be subject to authorisation by the local authority. In turn, the authority must be satisfied that the owners and occupiers of the land have given their consent.
However, subsection (4) of Section 33 provides that the holding of a trial authorised under the section is not affected by any statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths and bridleways. Some such provision is clearly needed in order to overcome the conflict which would otherwise arise with Section 34 of the Act which makes it an offence to drive on a footpath or bridleway.
Some local authorities have taken the view that subsection (4) enables them to authorise a race or trial of speed which would be illegal under Section 12 and have claimed that the words "trial of any description" in Section 33(1) add weight to that argument. It is hard to believe that Parliament could have had the intention of banning races or trials of speed on roads, no doubt on grounds of safety, but permitting them on footpaths and bridleways.
A local authority's power to authorise events on footpaths and bridleways should be limited to those events which the Secretary of State is prepared to authorise under the regulations made under Section 13. That would be the effect of the amendment. Its purpose is to remove the anomaly. However, it would not prevent the reasonable, occasional use of footpaths and bridleways by motor vehicle trials which are not races or trials of speed. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am aware of the anxieties which lie behind the noble Baroness's amendment on trials between motor vehicles. I should, however, point out to the Committee that as the law stands at present local authorities have the power to authorise a "trial of any description" between motor vehicles on footpaths and on bridleways under Section 33 of the Road Traffic Act. It is important to note, however, that they cannot do so unless they are satisfied that the owner and the occupier of the land over which the footpath or bridleway runs have given their consent in writing. They can impose such conditions as they think fit.
When that section was introduced in the Road Traffic Act 1956 it was clear that trials authorised in this way could include trials of speed which, because of Section 33(4), would not be caught by the offence of motor racing on a highway (under what is now Section12 of the Road Traffic Act). When Section 13 (which provides for the regulation of motoring events on public ways) was originally enacted in 1962 it was not considered necessary for such trials to be authorised under that section. I do not believe that it would be right to change the arrangements now. Local authorities already have powers to impose such conditions as they see fit. Authorisation under Section 13 would merely add another bureaucratic hurdle without any safety or other benefits.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: As I said in introducing the amendment, there is a rather complicated interaction between the various sections of the Act. I should like to study carefully the Minister's answer to see whether it meets all the points that I raised. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment Nos. 79 and 80:
Page 79, line 8, at end insert:
("(1A) After paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(cc) any seal required by regulations made under section 41 of this Act with respect to speed
limiters,".
(1B) In paragraph (d) for the words from the beginning to "Part II of this Act)" there shall be substituted the words "any plate containing particulars required to be marked on a vehicle by regulations under section 41 of this Act".").
Page 79, line 25 at end insert:
(".In section 177 of that Act (impersonation of, or of person employed by, authorised examiner) after the words "a person authorised" there shall be inserted the words "in accordance with regulations made under section 41 of this Act with respect to the checking and sealing of speed limiters or a person authorised".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 with Amendment No. 77. With the leave of the Committee I shall move the amendments together. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 80, leave out lines 5 to 10 and
insert:
(". In section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (requirement of warning etc of prosecution of certain offences), in subsection (1) for the words "where a person" to "convicted unless" there shall be substituted the words "a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless".
. For subsections (4) to (6) of section 2 of that Act (requirement of warning of prosecution: supplementary) there shall be substituted—
"(4) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act in relation to an offence is not a bar to the conviction of a person of that offence by virtue of the provisions of—

(a) section 24 of this Act, or

(b) any of the enactments mentioned in section 24(6);

but a person is not to be convicted of an offence by virtue of any of those provisions if section 1 applies to the offence with which he was charged and the requirement of section 1(1) was not satisfied in relation to the offence charged."").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Clause 23 of the Bill provides for an extended system of alternative verdicts under which offenders charged with certain Road Traffic Act offences may be convicted by the court of certain lesser offences where the more serious offence charged is not proved. The amendment adjusts those provisions in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which deal with notices of intended prosecution to take account of alternative verdicts. The effect is that, if an offender is charged with an offence for which a notice of intended prosecution is not required, he may nevertheless be convicted of a lesser offence for which such a notice would have been required. If, however, a notice is
1028
required for the offence charged, that notice must be properly issued if the offender is to be convicted either of that offence or of an alternative lesser offence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 43, insert the following new
clause:
("Power to apply enactments to tramcars and trolley vehicles
.—(1) In this section—
"operated under statutory powers" means, in relation to tramcars or trolley vehicles, that their use is authorised or regulated by special Act of Parliament or by an order having the force of an Act,
"road" means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,
"tramcar" includes any carriage used on any road by virtue of an order under the Light Railways Act 1896, and
"trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads without rails and moved by power transmitted to it from some external
source.
(2) References in this section to a class of vehicles are to be interpreted as references to a class defined or described by reference to any characteristics of the vehicles or to any other circumstances whatsoever.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and any orders or regulations made under any of those provisions which would not otherwise apply to tramcars or trolley vehicles operated under statutory powers shall apply to all tramcars or trolley vehicles whether or not operated under statutory powers or to such tramcars or trolley vehicles of a specified class subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Different regulations may be made under subsection (3) above as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances.
(5) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles on a road is inconsistent with any regulations made under subsection (3) above, he may by order repeal, amend or adapt that special Act or order to such extent, or in such manner, as he considers appropriate.
(6) Before making any orders or regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.
(7) Any power conferred by this section upon the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument by which that power is exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) No provision of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and no order or regulation made under any such provision which is applied by regulations made under subsection (3) above shall have effect as so applied until those regulations are in force.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to introduce a new clause designed to bring trams and trolleybuses when running in the street within the scope of the road traffic legislation.
Members of the Committee may recall that at Second Reading I mentioned that there are some alarming gaps in current legislation in respect of such vehicles. With the Greater Manchester Metrolink System well under construction there is an urgent need to remedy the situation before, happily, trams start

1029
running once again on the streets of Manchester and, I hope, elsewhere later. For those Members of the Committee who know the area, it will provide a light rail system from Bury in the north to Altrincham in the south, with on-street running in the heart of Manchester. The Bill before us today presents an opportunity to introduce the necessary legislation.
At present trams and trolleybuses are exempt from a great many of the provisions relating to road traffic. Most of the exemptions date back many years and in some cases they originated in the Road Traffic Act 1930. Over the years legislation has been amended and anomalies have arisen. The exemptions have not been looked at in any detail in recent times. Indeed, in the absence of trams and trolleybuses there was no need to do so. However, with the likelihood of more and more such transport systems appearing on the streets of Britain, such as South Yorkshire's Supertram, West Yorkshire's trolleybus proposals for Bradford, the West Midlands Light Rail System, as well as systems proposed for Bristol and Croydon and other such schemes which are currently in embryo, this would seem to be the time to address the issue of those exemptions in the light of modern traffic conditions.
The list of exemptions from legislation is a long one and applies to a number of Acts, in particular the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 alone there are some 68 provisions from which trams or trolleybuses are exempt in one way or another. By way of example, they include provisions relating to driving recklessly, driving without due care and attention and driving when unfit through drink or drugs.
A particularly good example of an exemption which is no longer appropriate is that which exempts trams or trolleybuses from provisions which require compulsory insurance or security against third party risks. The exemption dates back to the Road Traffic Act 1930. At that time most tram and trolleybus undertakings were run by public authorities which could carry their own insurance risks. Today, however, such systems will, in the main, be run by private operators and the rationale behind that particular exemption has now disappeared.
The Committee will understand the complexities that will arise if it were sought to make amendments in respect of each or every section or subsection of legislation where such exemptions may be found. For that reason my proposed amendment seeks instead to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to provide that those current provisions which would not otherwise apply to trams or trolleybuses shall in fact apply. The amendment further provides that the Secretary of State has power to amend, repeal or adapt any special Act of Parliament or any order having the force of an Act which is inconsistent with any such regulations. That is not to say that there will be no exemptions in future for trams or trolleybuses.
Indeed it is well recognised that some exemptions must continue. The Department of Transport has consulted widely on this issue and a large degree of
1030
consensus has already been reached as to which provisions should apply and which exemptions should continue. If the amendment is passed, the power which will be given to the Secretary of State has the virtue of flexibility and should ensure that the anomalies in road traffic legislation which have arisen over the past 50 years should no longer occur. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: On behalf of the Opposition I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing it forward. As he said, there has been considerable interest in light transit and light rail systems. It is vital that they should come within road traffic regulations. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
I understand that the first line of the Manchester Metro is likely in the autumn. That shows the urgency of the matter if that line is to function in a few months' time. We welcome the fact that there is flexibility in the amendment in the order-making power that is provided in this new clause.
Subsection (6) of the new clause states:
"Before making any orders or regulations… the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit".
We are always somewhat concerned when we see the phrase "as he thinks fit". I am certain that the Minister will accept the amendment or the general principle or say that he himself will bring forward an amendment on these lines, but I wonder whether he will indicate the type of organisations that the Government will consult before bringing forward such regulations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I welcome my noble friend's interest in the application of road traffic law to tramcars and trolley vehicles. As he said, at present road traffic law applies in principle to trams and trolley vehicles but there are a number of exceptions. Those have grown up over the years and are neither consistent nor in all respects sensible; for example, trams and trolleybuses are not subject to speed limits. With the imminent introduction of the modern systems to which my noble friend referred it is important to take action to regularise the legislative provision.
As my noble friend is no doubt aware, last summer the department consulted on the application of various road traffic provisions to light rail and trolleybuses. The outcome of that consultation indicated that such measures would command widespread support in principle. I do not have a list of those with whom the department consulted to give the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at this stage, but I shall be happy to write to him with that list.
Lord Underhill: I was not so much asking about those with whom the consultation had been held. With the flexible approach in this amendment, order-making powers will be given to the Secretary of State. We welcome that. Can the department or the Minister give an indication of the type of organisations that will be approached in making those orders? That will be very important even though we welcome the flexibility that they provide.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I take the point made by the noble Lord. I expect that they will be the same organisations as were consulted the last time around. But I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with confirmation or otherwise about that.
This new clause seeks to provide the powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce the necessary changes. As my noble friend will understand, I have been advised that the drafting is not perfect and we cannot accept the amendment in its present form. However, I am pleased to say that I should like to consider it further with a view to returning to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, replies—I am sure that he will withdraw the amendment—I hope that the Government will come back quickly on this matter. As both noble Lords said, there is considerable urgency. I was in Manchester about a fortnight ago. Track is being laid as fast as possible. There is the slightly weird sight of people digging into Market Street to put down new track and unearthing the old track that has been there for probably 100 years. It is nice to see the full cycle of trams before one's very eyes. The idea of Manchester tram drivers rushing down Market Street while under the influence of drugs or drink without any check on them at all seems to be quite weird. I hope that the Government will move quickly on this matter.
Lord Teviot: I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but before doing so I thank my noble friend for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his support. I hope that the phrase "as he thinks fit" will be dealt with in the Government's amendment at a subsequent stage. A number of amendments have been introduced over the years and this one is very nearly right. All amendments have to be tidied up in one way or another. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 44 [Designation of priority routes]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert:
("(1) A new council for Greater London ("the London Traffic Authority") shall be created for the purposes of transport planning and traffic
management.
(2) The London Traffic Authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also Amendments Nos. 82B, 82C, 85A, 88A, 89A, 89C, 89D and 89E. Amendments Nos. 85A to 89A are consequential.
It is strange that London should be virtually the only city in Europe—indeed the only city in Europe —in which there is no strategic planning authority and where the major role over detailed local issues is discharged by central government. As a consequence of this Bill the powers of central government will be further extended so that they will be responsible for detailed parking regulations, the location of pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes on many roads in London. I suggest that that is faintly ludicrous.
The Government will probably argue that these roads are of some national status but one wonders whether that is the case when one looks at the situation in terms of traffic borne by those roads. In London as a whole no more than 5 per cent. of all traffic either starts or finishes its journey beyond the boundaries of Greater London. Barely one car in 1,000 thousand starts and finishes its journey outside Greater London. So there is a situation in which the vast bulk of traffic on the priority routes, which we are considering in the context of this amendment, will be local to London. We call for the operation of priority routes to be overseen by a new council for Greater London rather than by the Secretary of State.
Even on the roads which the Government have indicated will be priority routes, only about 15 per cent. of traffic will start or finish the journey outside Greater London, save on those stretches of road near the Greater London boundary where obviously the proportion will be higher. In those circumstances it is therefore extremely difficult for national government to take a truly balanced view of the local issues involved or to be fully accountable on such detailed local matters.
I turn to the proposal for a new council. We do not suggest that it is the reintroduction of the Greater London Council, although I am bound to say that the Government's attitude about the Greater London Council was coloured by one individual member of the council rather than by the application of any serious thought. But those were days of yore and one must hope that they will not be repeated by the present Government—of however short a duration that may be under the present leadership of Mr. Major. I hope that the Government will take a more sensible view on this proposal than they took about the Greater London Council.
The amendment does not propose the reinstallation of the GLC. We look for a more streamlined body that would have more clearly defined powers in strategic areas. The need for such a body is given added emphasis by the number of London-wide bodies which are already involved in planning and transport issues that are run by joint borough committees. Perhaps I may give the Committee a small list of them: the London Planning Advisory Committee; the London Boroughs Transport Committee; the London Committee on Concessionary Travel; the London Committee on Accessible Transport; the London Road Safety Committee; and the London Channel Tunnel Group. It is a very impressive list. I believe that it would be better to have an organisation with powers strictly defined on strategic areas of policy.
The new council could incorporate such bodies as the Traffic Control Systems Unit, the London Accident Analysis Unit and the new joint committee for parking enforcement which we shall discuss later.
There is an overwhelming case, which has been reiterated by Members of the Committee on both sides of the Chamber, to cure the obvious deficiency of there being no proper strategic planning unit for London. That needs to be achieved. This amendment is one way of doing so. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is intriguing to watch how the ghost of the Greater London Council still seems to haunt the Benches opposite. They still have an almost subconscious craving for the re-creation of that body or something like it. However, I believe that the Committee will wish to consider the amendment from a practical point of view. What good would it do? Whatever may be the system in some other cities, as the national capital London must be very much the concern of central government. Much of the nation's economy depends on the efficient operation of the City of London and the finance houses therein. It is the seat of government. It is the centre and headquarters of most of our major industries. It is upon the efficient working of London that much of the national well-being depends.
Therefore it seems to me logical that a department of central government, to wit the Department of Transport, should have responsibility for transport problems generally in London, whatever may be the acceptable case in other parts of the country. That also has a practical advantage. It means that Ministers in either your Lordships' House or in another place are directly answerable for what happens or does not happen in respect of certain operations in London. If responsibility were shunted off to some council, Ministers would go to their Box and say, "That is nothing to do with us. We have no authority in the matter"; whereas, as the position stands—and I hope will continue to stand —Ministers will have to answer for the proper operation in particular of the red routes which we shall discuss in a moment and which are obviously of the greatest importance for the operation of so many of the activities in London.
I hope that my noble friend will not be attracted by any sentimentality about the Greater London Council but will consider the position from a practical point of view. In any event, it would be necessary to retain in the Department of Transport and in central government the ultimate authority in a number of matters affecting transport in the capital city. It is inconceivable that central government should shed that. If certain matters are retained, the amendment simply involves putting in another layer of subordinate government which would have to be consulted. It would undoubtedly result in delay, in increased bureaucracy and in a slowing of decision.
I hope that my noble friend will be resolute and will say that he does not wish to set up such a body. I hope that he believes, as many of us do, that it would do no good and quite a bit of harm.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has referred to our sentimentality and our attachment to ghosts of the past. However, is he not in touch with current views in London? Is he not aware that there is a genuine desire for a return to an elected body to co-ordinate matters in the capital city? It is the only capital city of any size in the world which has no such body. The proposal is nothing to do with the past; it is what the present position requires.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I can only say that I have not observed any passionate desire for the creation of such a body. The noble Lord opposite may have contacts
1034
denied to me; it is possible that I have contacts denied to him. However, so far as I can recall, not a single person has spoken to me indicating a craving for the setting up of a Greater London authority. On the contrary, when that is suggested, most people shrug their shoulders in horror and remember what a mess the previous authority made of it.
Lord Strabolgi: One of the consequences of the abolition of the GLC is the void that it has left in the planning of London. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says, there is very little overall planning. For example, I cite coaches. The noble Lord knows—I have experience of it—of the coach problem in Victoria. That station has grown in recent years. There are 1,000 coaches going down residential streets every day particularly in the summer. Four authorities (if I may so call them) are involved: the coach station, the Westminster City Council; the Grosvenor Estate; and the department. I am a member of the local residents' association. I am on its committee. For some years now we have struggled to achieve some overall plan for this very important coach station. It is lunacy to bring coaches—I refer to long distance and not tourist coaches —from the North into the centre of London. There should be various coach stations around the perimeter with proper communications.
The problem is that there is very little overall planning or overall view. It seems to be left to market forces. The buck is passed around among the four constituents the whole time. We are sent from the Grosvenor Estate, which is always helpful, to the local authority, the Westminster City Council. We are then sent to the department, but get nowhere there. The issue is again a matter for local questions and nothing happens.
This is an enormous coach station in the middle of a busy part of London for which no one appears to be responsible. Furthermore, no one appears to have any idea what to do about its future. The proposal in the amendment may not be perfect and may result in bureaucracy. However, if the Department of Transport is to be responsible, let it take some responsibility, have an overall view of the situation and take action.
6 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: There appears to be a slight disagreement about the matter. The need for main traffic routes from the periphery to the centre of London is well established. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the majority of traffic in London is moving. However, there is a vital need for priority routes in order to keep the main flow of traffic moving, in particular during the morning and evening commuter periods. I believe that the life of London depends upon that. Members of the Committee have only to look at the movement of public transport in London. Sometimes during commuter periods the buses are slowed down to five or 10 miles an hour. For many years there has been a need to establish priority routes.
In order to do so it is necessary for an authority clearly to indicate where the routes shall lie and strictly

1035
to enforce traffic and parking regulations throughout the priority periods. The fact that that has not been done is an indication of the difficulty of obtaining agreement among the 33 highway authorities which make up the metropolis, including the London boroughs. It is extremely difficult for them to agree on technical matters. In addition, the strands of political difficulties that run between them would make it impossible for them to establish the priority routes and the strict disciplines that are necessary to make the system work.
There is a record of disagreements among the London boroughs. Indeed, they have split into two different bodies —the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. That gives one an idea of the difficulty of reaching major agreements. For many years we on the Standing Conference for the Planning of London and the South-East talked about the redevelopment of Docklands. The GLC was most anxious to obtain a single view. Although the need existed, the London boroughs in the area concerned would not co-operate. What has since been done by the single authority is magical. Perhaps it is the best major city redevelopment in Europe.
The London boroughs were invited to take responsibility for traffic lights. They refused to do so because they could not agree and the Secretary of State has taken on the responsibility. Such experience has shown that any attempt to set up a body which would be elected by all 33 London boroughs and the local authorities within the metropolis would be bound to flounder and fail to reach agreement on issues that need clear decisions and strong disciplines to make them work. The proposal therefore is not practical.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the GLC had an effective team of traffic engineers and offered strategic guidance. However, the London boroughs did not always take a great deal of notice and continually reminded the GLC that they were the highway authorities. Of course the great anomaly in London is that each local authority is a highway authority. As I said on Second Reading, I congratulate my noble friend, the Secretary of State and their predecessors on their courage in grasping the nettle and saying that there is only one way to establish a system of priority routes. The Secretary of State must take control and set up the office of director of traffic. We must have consultation at every level with every London borough and every local authority. Everything should be done to try to obtain their agreement because they are greatly concerned about routes which go through their areas. I hope that a large measure of agreement will be secured, but at the end of the day the Secretary of State must take the decision and lay down the disciplines. However attractive the noble Lord's scheme is as regards gathering together the democratic interests in our vast metropolis, I am afraid that it will not work. I hope that my noble friend will stick to his plan and reject the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has sold the pass. He complained about the inability of the
1036
33 London boroughs to get their act together. The answer is to have the type of planning arrangements suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I do not necessarily accept every jot and tittle of this series of amendments and I should not like to set about drafting an appropriate amendment. The Government are papering over the cracks that were left by the removal of the GLC. It was not a body whose passing I totally regret, but in this area it was capable of doing a proper job.
The title of Traffic Director of London is a total misnomer. Were he such a person there might he something to be said for his position, but he will be no more than the director of red routes. The impact of red routes on the rest of the traffic management of the Greater London area is beyond his remit. It is not for the Traffic Director of London to deal with coaches in the Victoria area, in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has problems. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, attempts to put the integration of a proper traffic system before the Committee.
The proposal cannot be dismissed on the dogmatic premise which came from the Government Benches and which doubtless will come from the Front Bench in a moment. Such dogmatism does no good for the traffic management of London. I hope that the Government will think again, not necessarily accepting this amendment but examining the question of red routes. I do not suggest that no priority routes should come into the centre of London, nor that this country's capital should not have special arrangements. But I suggest that the Bill is a piecemeal approach and that it is necessary to set up a strategic authority to oversee the movement of traffic in the capital.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Committee will not be surprised to know that the Government cannot accept these amendments. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will be delighted to know that we have no intention of recreating a GLC-style authority for transport in London. We want action to tackle London's urgent traffic problems. We do not want more bureaucracy and grand strategic plans like the Greater London development plan, which took 11 years from the start of preparatory work to ministerial approval and was out of date before work could begin.
We have set a broad framework within which those with transport and traffic responsibilities can work. This contains five main elements.
First, we must make sure that London is properly linked to national and international transport networks. That is why we are constructing new road links to east London and Docklands. It is why BR has opened a new direct service from Liverpool Street to Stansted and why legislation is before Parliament for the construction of a new rail link between Paddington and Heathrow.
Secondly, we have to ensure that people and goods do not have to travel through London if they do not need to. This is not just a roads issue: for example, new rail facilities are being installed to link the Channel Tunnel to areas beyond the South East. But of course the main need is to avoid forcing people on to London's already congested roads. Since 1983 the

1037
number of heavy goods vehicles in London has been cut by a quarter. The number in central London has nearly halved—impressive proof of the success of the M.25. We want to make sure that the motorway continues to provide an effective by-pass for London. That is why we are planning to add a fourth lane to the whole of the M.25. The privately financed Dartford Bridge will be open later this year, removing one of the M.25's worst bottlenecks.
Thirdly, we have to cater for growth in demand for transport within London. We want to meet those demands with transport systems which are safe, efficient and respect the environment. For many types of journey that points to better rail services. We are opening up Docklands and poorly served areas of south-east London with the Jubilee Line extension costing over …1 million. Substantial relief to central London commuters will be provided by the …1.4 billion east-west Crossrail which will directly link BR's suburban services into Liverpool Street with those into Paddington. We have safeguarded the route of the Chelsea-Hackney Underground line. Network SouthEast is now receiving new coaches at the rate of eight per week, and this is set to continue. The …100 million redevelopment of Liverpool Street station will be completed by the end of this year. On London Underground the first of the Central Line's new trains, part of the line's …700 million modernisation programme, will enter service in little more than a year from now. Those are impressive figures.
Fourthly, we have to tackle the congestion blackspots on London's roads. We have to accept that many journeys and deliveries in London cannot realistically be made by rail. Road traffic in London is likely to go on growing, though more slowly than in the rest of the country. The department plans to spend some …1.9 billion over the next 10 years on selective improvements to the trunk road system—the upgrading of the North Circular is an example—to remove the worst bottlenecks and accident black-spots; and in this financial year we have accepted for transport supplementary grant 37 major borough road schemes worth over …450 million.
However, we cannot hope to meet all the demands by building major new roads. That brings me to our fifth priority for action; that is, obtaining more from the existing network, which means better traffic management. The Road Traffic Bill contains a major new initiative in this area by providing for the implementation of a network of priority routes. The routes represent an efficient way of overhauling London's principal road network and allocating additional road capacity in accordance with transport and environmental objectives. The routes will complement the longer-term transport programmes and will bring real benefits to London in the short to medium term.
The routes will be based on existing primary routes in London. Special stopping, loading and unloading controls, strictly enforced with appropriate penalties and other traffic management measures, will smooth the flow of traffic so that people and goods can reach their destinations in London more reliably and safely.
1038
Better reliability will cut down on wasted resources; more suitably parked vehicles will help to reduce accidents; and less stop/start conditions will reduce highly polluting vehicle emissions. I am sure that those measures will be welcomed by all sides of the Committee.
New controls and traffic management measures will provide additional capacity which can be used to help existing road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, and will draw traffic out of residential areas. Special help will be provided to buses, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent referred. Buses have the potential to be one of the most efficient means of transport, but they suffer badly from congested conditions. Improving their services is the only way of increasing public transport capacity in the short term.
The introduction of the priority routes will be co-ordinated by our traffic director, who will work closely with the local authorities within the framework of the Government's overall policy. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, Ministers in Parliament must answer for the actions of that traffic director and the Department of Transport as a whole.
The approach and actions I have described add up to a coherent strategy. It avoids the need for a masterplan and a strategic traffic authority to seek to implement it. So far as the priority routes are concerned, the traffic director will provide a firm strategic direction, over which there will be wide consultation with the local authorities and others.
We are confident of the success of these proposals. Although we have not yet completed the assessments of the findings of the first survey of the trunk road part of the red route pilot scheme, anyone who has travelled along the route, as I have, will have observed that journey times are more reliable, traffic is moving more freely and there is less illegal parking. There have been reports in the newspapers of bus drivers and passengers commenting on shorter journey times. That has been confirmed by officers of London Buses Limited.
Some commentators have also remarked on the positive benefits for traffic now that the first part of the pilot scheme has settled down. Some people, such as certain traders, are having to make adjustments but we have made every possible provision for essential activity on the route.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: This is a very interesting Second Reading speech on Part II of the Bill. However, I do not believe that it addresses the specific points raised by the amendment. We have heard about the wonders which the Government are carrying out as regards the M.25 and the Channel Tunnel link. I do not remember the Government putting very much money into the high speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel. Perhaps the Minister will address himself specifically to the amendment before the Committee.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am doing that. I am seeking to persuade the Committee that the Government's transport policies for London have coherent and easily recognisable aims. Therefore, we

1039
do not need a new traffic authority as proposed by the amendment. I have moved through the various modes of transport and I am now commenting on the red route proposals with which this Bill is specifically concerned.
For all the reasons I have given, I agree most strongly with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he asks what good this proposal will do. I do not believe that the proposal would achieve anything. The Government have the right proposals in the Bill for improvements on red routes. I believe that the Committee should reject the amendment.
Lord Strabolgi: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether that firm strategic direction and the other matters which he mentioned include any consideration of the Victoria coach station? I spoke about that in the debate at some length. He ignored the question. This is London's main coach station which has been allowed to grow in the middle of a residential area. It is a conservation area and is probably the most beautiful area in the whole of London. The Government seem to do nothing about it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am tempted to say that the Government will do exactly as much as the GLC did when it was in power. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the provision is not directly concerned with the introduction of red routes, although that will help with the passage of coaches to and from central London. The local authority has powers to restrict coaches on certain routes and certain roads around the area; those powers can and should be used.
Lord Strabolgi: But that is no use if there is a central coach station. I am not speaking of tourist coaches but of long distance coaches which come into the centre of London from the North, South, East and West. It is the one coach station in the whole of London. Surely that must be considered from a strategic point of view. It is far too big a problem for the local authority. I understood that the Department of Transport was taking over the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I understand it, London Regional Transport is responsible for the coach station.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If I may say so, the Minister is strangely dismissive of an important point made by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I do not propose to enlarge on the argument at this time but would encourage my noble friend to come back to the point at Report stage when the Minister may have considered it. It was not in his brief today and he was therefore unable to reply properly. I cannot accept a situation where he is so quickly dismissive of a cogent argument.
It has been an interesting debate, as I felt it might be when I tabled the amendment. I was in no way disappointed by the obvious response of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He spoke about the "ghost" of the GLC inhabiting these Benches. But it is the spectre of disorganisation and chaos of London
1040
transport that inhabits London today. It is that which is the problem and that which needs to be put right. It is that problem which the Minister refuses to address properly, and I shall turn to his argument in a moment.
The noble Lord stresses the importance of London as our capital city. I agree with everything that he said in that regard. However, does he not see the chaos which now haunts us? Whatever the Minister may say, the Government have been in office for 12 years and the people of London know that the situation is not one which will be satisfied by government promises. The Government have lost credibility on the issue. The people of London must live with the situation day in and day out. They know that it is a situation which is hugely detrimental to sustaining the capital as a centre for commerce, as a financial centre and as a capital of which we can all be proud. A great deal is at stake. In that respect I am afraid that the noble Lord did not follow the argument that he adduced.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene and ask whether, in his eloquent speech, he will address himself to the idea of why interposing yet another layer of authority between the department and the local authorities would be of benefit.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was about to turn to that point so it was remarkably anticipated by the noble Lord.
I believe that the noble Lord is himself overwhelmed by the arguments which consumed his Benches when they were discussing the GLC. The Government advanced no serious proposition at that stage. The arguments were directed to their malevolence and attitude in regard to one specific individual. I have my own reasons for not being a great admirer of his, but that is another matter; I would not have decided to dismantle a strategic authority. In many respects it performed well under that leadership and indeed under the leadership also of many others, including the LCC before it. The LCC was dismantled also for ideological reasons; the Tories knew that they could not win it. They thought that they could win the GLC and were largely disappointed on that front too. Therefore they simply go about dismantling things.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asks what benefit there would be. That is a perfectly reasonable question. I believe that because of its central importance to this country we should follow the example of other cities. When we look at Paris, New York, Brussels or almost any capital city in the industrialised world, we see that it is regulated by an elected assembly. That is because in regard to strategic matters elected representatives should exercise the authority.
The noble Lord refers to that as bureaucracy. We could refer to bureaucracy intervening in any area of democratic government. Democracy does involve delay from time to time but that is not a reason for dismantling parliaments; it is not a reason for

1041
dismantling the concept of democracy which we all hold so dear. But somehow or other London is to be excluded from that consideration.
The noble Lord then said that London must be the concern of central government so that Ministers may be directly answerable for all the operations carried out in London. He and I and many others in this Chamber and in another place know that before and during the rule of the GLC there were many debates about London. Ministers from both parties were not afraid of coming to the Dispatch Box in order to join in those debates. Government had a role to play; admittedly in some respects it was an advisory role but in other respects it was a central role. Therefore I cannot accept his argument and it belies the experience of many of us.
Eventually the noble Lord came down in favour of this series of quangos or tangos—I know not what they are. I understand that a quango is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation and a tango is a totally autonomous nongovernmental organisation. There is a whole series of them; is that not over-weening bureaucracy? I mentioned no fewer than six organisations dealing with London transport in one way or another, plus the Traffic Control Systems Unit and the London Accident Analysis Unit; there is now to be another in the form of the Joint Committee for Parking Enforcement. That is nine separate organisations. Is that not bureaucracy gone riot? The argument does not stand up.
I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and thought that he would come down positively in favour of the arguments I adduced. He dealt with them one by one to support everything I said, and most classically the argument regarding the difficulty of obtaining agreement between 33 different authorities. That was a point seized on by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is for precisely that reason that we need an elected body which is capable of bringing the pieces together when we are dealing with matters of such moment to the people of London. I cannot accept that it is right for a government, which cannot be in touch with so many of the issues that affect those concerned, to take them over, albeit through the traffic director.
The Minister went on to repeat his Second Reading speech. I believe that he is somewhat out of touch with reality. Why do we now have promises? Why have we not had action in the past 12 years? Why has London been reduced to such a state under their tutelage? The fact is that transport has become a matter of enormous concern to Londoners, who are not going to be distracted by the kind of arguments we have heard today.
There is a totally different attitude to rail and road. The Minister said they are providing …1.9 billion for selected improvements in dealing with the road network. It is about time that they did so. But why do they take a different attitude about rail? Why is the financing of the railways on a different basis from that relating to road transport? These are serious matters.
1042
I am not entirely sure that the Minister was wise to raise such wide issues in relation to this proposal. However, that is a matter for his choice.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he would give way and explain to me why—not in the 12 years that the Government have been in power but since they took over control of London Regional Transport—investment in the underground system has been much higher than it was in the days of the GLC.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It was because the GLC had restrictions imposed upon them by the Government's local government policies, as the Minister well knows. It was not free to do all it wanted to do. It was answerable to the Government in many respects, and the Government cannot slide off the argument on that basis. We are not asking for the re-installation of the GLC, as I have indicated. This is a much narrower matter, although nevertheless necessary. I am sorry that the Government, supported by some of their colleagues, have decided to ride away from the argument on the basis of a reiteration of innumerable promises—promises which of course they will not be able to implement, in any event. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I dare say that we shall return to it at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82B and 82C not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 40, line 42, after ("Commissioners")
insert:
("() representatives of the local business community;").
The noble Lord said: Following that merry excursion, I think we can come down to the nitty-gritty of how this will work and try to make it a little more workable.
I wish to move Amendment No. 83 and speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 87 and 90, all of which deal with the question of additional consultation on the proposals for priority routes. In particular, they specifically allow statutory consultation on the red route network, traffic management guidance and the director's network plan for road users and businesses.
The extension of such consultation is important because the impact of the red routes on the local business community, for instance, is clearly a matter of considerable anxiety. That is why in Amendment No. 83 I have specifically included representatives of the local business community on the face of the Bill. It may be that the noble Lord will say that consultations will take place on an informal basis, but it seems to me that as this is a specific group of people whose livelihood would be at risk if the red routes go wrong they should be properly consulted as of right.
Amendment No. 84, which is also in my name, refers to such organisations of road users as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Here one thinks of the Freight Transport Association and of the cycling organisations in the London area. Those people deserve to be consulted on the impact of the red routes on their daily lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who will speak to his amendments, casts the net even wider. I have no great priority for my amendments; but I specifically feel that the one referring to local businesses is extremely important and should be on the face of the Bill in the words that I proposed, or in some other form of words which the Government may care to suggest. It is unreasonable to expect this matter to be left to the boroughs. We have all heard about the inadequacy of the boroughs in dealing with the red routes. Clearly, this should be a matter to be dealt with by the traffic director. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I have not the slightest doubt that there will be much support among your Lordships for Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Certainly, the Opposition will support them. Amendments Nos. 85,87 and 90 are linked with those two amendments. This group deals with the question of the priority routes. Noble Lords may have noticed that there are a number of later amendments in my name, but those deal with the local plans and I shall be speaking to those separately.
Amendment No. 85, also under Clause 44, refers to consultation by the Secretary of State before making a priority route scheme. Amendment No. 87, under Clause 45, deals with consultation by the Secretary of State before issuing traffic management guidance. Amendment No. 90, under Clause 47, concerns consultation by the Director before making a network plan. Those amendments all deal with the general London situation.
Perhaps I may speak about the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, concerning the local business community. At the Committee stage in the other place, Mr. Christopher Chope, the Minister for roads and traffic, said that there is much exaggeration about the impact of the pilot scheme on traders. I wonder whether that is the correct position. In any case, that would not justify the Government in not accepting the amendment suggesting that there should be representatives of the local business community who should be called in to consultation on the priority route scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to the position of cyclists. Naturally we welcome the acceptance by the Department of Transport of the 1,000-mile network cycle scheme in London. But where will cyclists be consulted? We shall be coming to the position of local schemes later in our consideration, but where will be the provisions for the cycling network to be consulted, bearing in mind that people will make journeys by cycle not just in one borough but crossing a number of boroughs? Their views should therefore be considered on a wider basis.
In reply to a question as to whether the public would be able to participate in consultation, Mr. Chope said on 29th January (at col. 235 of Hansard):
"In so far as local authorities choose to participate in the way I hive described, they will take into account the representations made to them by the public.
"As elected representatives of the people, they may not find it necessary to hold formal consultations on every
1044
occasion because they will know the public's views on a particular matter. The public are not being excluded; their representatives will have ample opportunity to participate".
But in col. 233 Mr. Chope had said:
"There is certainly no provision to direct the local authorities to consult, but I should have thought that responsible local authorities would choose to do so".
Therefore, the purpose of the three amendments submitted in my name, that is Amendments Nos. 85, 87 and 90, is to give opportunity by public notice for individuals to make consultations on the priority network scheme. It is vital that that should be done. If the Minister can see why that should not take place, I should like to know where the consultation will be because there can be no more effective consultation than that by the public through public notice.
I shall deal with the other amendments about the local plans when we come to that group.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We have considered these amendments carefully in the light of comments made during this debate and debates at other stages of the Bill in another place. Nevertheless, we remain of the view that it is unnecessary to go beyond what is presently proposed in the Bill. The consultation provisions for priority route designations, the preparation or variation of the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance and the traffic director's network plan will follow normal practice (precedented in the Local Government Act 1985) and encompass bodies which have a statutory role in the operation of London's road and transport systems.
They will include local authorities, either directly or indirectly, and it is reasonable to expect the authorities to consult local road user groups and local businesses. Statutory consultation by the Secretary of State with these groups would not be practicable. Providing such a duty would raise questions on which interest groups to consult. It would be impossible to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive and up-to-date list. This could open the way to disputes and would be thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, we believe that informal consultation would be much better; and in practice the Secretary of State would consult the major national organisations and those with a London-wide remit. The same informal division of responsibility for consultation would be equally applicable to the traffic director's network plan.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, requiring consultation with affected road users by public notice are in practice calls for consultation with the general public. The noble Lord asked me particularly what reaction there had been to the trial scheme. There is no hard information but, as my noble friend said, the indications are good. Once again I remain of the view that consultation with the public is appropriate for the local authorities, which have direct responsibilities to their residents and businesses. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Tordoff: The Government want to have their cake and their halfpenny. They want to play both ends against the middle. They are not going to allow the

1045
local authorities to get on with the job, but they are going to leave all the clearing up of the mess to the local authorities at the end of the day. It is not the Secretary of State's job to deal with consultation; it is merely his job to dictate through the London traffic manager and leave it to the boroughs to do the messy bits.
Once again this reveals a substantial weakness in the Bill and the Government's attitude to it. They are making a mistake specifically over local business people. It may well be that there has not been an adverse reaction in practice, but often the point at which the adverse reaction comes is before a new scheme is put into practice. That is when people's worries and fears need to be calmed, and only someone who has a full grasp of the network is in a position to carry out the consultation process. I do not suppose that we are going to shift the Government on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 85A not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [The Secretary of State's traffic management guidance]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 41, line 17, at end insert:
("() Any such guidance shall include provisions for protecting the interests of disabled persons whose disabilities make it necessary or expedient to resort to the use of a private road vehicle in London;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 86 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 91, 92, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 109, which I hope will meet the Committee's convenience. The Secretary of State's traffic management guidance should draw the London authorities' and the traffic director's attention to the need to consider and do whatever is possible to protect the mobility interests of disabled people who cannot use public transport. If the parking needs of these people are not carefully considered at the start, there is a risk that they will be forgotten until it is too late. A reference to the needs of disabled people on the face of the Bill would help to ensure that this is avoided.
Just as references to the needs of disabled people in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the Transport Act 1985 have led to useful improvements in transport, so would references in this Bill. It might be argued that to draw particular attention to the needs of any one group of road users could be construed as tending to dismiss the needs of other groups. For example, drawing attention to orange badge holders might appear to place others, such as cyclists, at a disadvantage. The Committee will recognise immediately that cyclists can, if necessary, walk. Many orange badge holders are unable to walk at all, and those who can walk can often walk only a limited distance, and often are totally unable to use public transport.
During the Committee stage in the House of Commons Mr. Chope gave an undertaking that the Secretary of State's new traffic management and
1046
parking guidance would address the needs of disabled people. He then went on to ask the Committee to reject the amendment because the needs and interests of disabled people could already be accommodated adequately under the existing law. This is beside the point. The amendment does not seek to increase or change anyone's powers in relation to road traffic and parking. It seeks merely to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are not overlooked.
In many London boroughs traffic planning and management are in the hands of people who know nothing about disability. As a result, whether or not it is intended, traffic control measures often adversely affect disabled motorists more than they need to or indeed should. Judging from the experience with the pilot red route scheme reported by the Islington Disablement Association, a failure to consult at the beginning can lead to many difficulties for disabled motorists. Minor improvements were achieved later, but at much greater expense, and expense of effort.
Opportunities to ease some of the problems created for orange badge holders are lost if their needs are not considered from the start. Such consideration obviously involves consulting local disablement groups with a knowledge of the problems that could be created in the area by establishing a priority route. If nobody is given responsibility for ensuring that the needs of disabled motorists are met, it is quite likely that they will not be met at all. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, myself and other noble Lords. I am extremely disappointed, to say the least, about the way in which the Minister in another place approached this whole problem. The arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, this evening are compelling. There is a clear case for making special exceptions to deal with disabled people for the reasons that he has given and for reasons about which in another context, when we dealt with the New Roads and Street Works Bill, the Minister was to some degree—and this was to be welcomed—accommodating. One can only hope that the Minister in this place will be rather more accommodating than his colleague in another place.
Having spoken to a number of disabled people in the areas affected by the priority routes, I have found that they are concerned not simply by the priority routes but about the inability to park in adjacent roads off the priority routes. It is no good the Minister saying that that is a matter for the local authority. The local authority is vitally affected by the way in which the priority routes work, and there therefore needs to be close consultation, which has not so far taken place, to address the problem. If a disabled person is unable to park his vehicle or is unable to be driven to a place close to where he wishes to go and finds it impossible or virtually impossible to park nearby, what can he or she do?
I am concerned not so much about the allocation of responsibilities as the solution of a very important problem. When the noble Lord also says that what is needed here is someone who can really address the problems of the disabled because he is close to the

1047
advice of people who are so affected, he makes another dramatically important point which I hope the Minister will deal with.
In addition, there is concern about the orange badge scheme. This matter was raised in another place—ineffectually, unfortunately. The Minister will be aware that four authorities in London simply do not recognise the scheme. They are in areas in central London which are absolutely vital.
The Minister will be familiar with these matters from the debates we had on another important area of policy; namely, on the Bill that I referred to earlier which it; now in another place. This issue is no less compelling. I can only hope—I do not propose to say anything more at this stage—that the Minister will address himself to these issues far more positively than was the case in another place, where the response was exceptionally disappointing.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support these amendments. I have added my name to all except Amendment No. 86. The fact that I did not add my name to Amendment No. 86 is pure oversight on my part. I support them all. I see them as very necessary because disabled people cannot use public transport as an alternative. It is crucial to have some reference on the face of the Bill to ensure that the needs of disabled people are catered for.
There is very little that I can add to the comprehensive introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the powerful support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I should like to say a few words in support of Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 which were not tabled in another place. Amendment No. 95 proposes an obligation to consult disability organisations beforehand. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that is very important if the problems encountered by Islington, with the introduction of the red route scheme, are to be avoided.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to the useful references in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the Transport Act 1985 to the needs of disabled people. I remember very well how doggedly my noble friend Lord Ingleby pursued the issue before he achieved the references in those Acts. They have proved 1 o be effective. The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People says so.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments. However, if he is unable to do so, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who I know can be just as persistent as my noble friend Lord Ingleby, will pursue the issue so that eventually either these amendments or something very like them will appear on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to add my voice in support of this amendment. I have nothing to add by way of argument, but I think it might be useful if my noble friend on the Front Bench realised that there is a considerable amount of support for the principle underlying this amendment. I hope very much that great consideration will be given thereto.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: At Second Reading I spoke about the needs of disabled people. I should like
1048
to give the Committee an example of what I did today. I attended a health authority meeting at Kensington Town Hall. I had to pre-arrange my parking. I had to pre-arrange for somebody to help me out with my wheelchair—in fact, that person was not there. I asked a young man of about 20 to lift my wheelchair out of the car. He could not believe how heavy it was. He blew and he puffed. He thought the whole situation was very difficult indeed.
For the first time we have more elderly people in society than young people. This is very important because many of them will in time become disabled. We have legislation before us which has new aspects; namely, the red routes. Therefore I feel it is very important that we have the needs of disabled people on the face of the Bill. I invite the Minister and some of his young and able civil servants to come round London with me and spend the day parking, doing the shopping and visiting a hospital or two, to see exactly what it is like. I say that because, like the young man of about 20, I do not think that they realise what it is like for disabled people and for those who have to help them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be more helpful than his colleague in another place.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: I support the amendment. I should like to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regarding the orange badge scheme. I declare an interest in that I have an orange badge. It is quite impossible for someone from outside London to park in Westminster or Chelsea because the orange badge is not accepted, as was indicated by the noble Lord in his earlier remarks. This means that a disabled person from outside London who cannot walk any distance at all and who has a perfectly genuine orange badge is quite unable to visit any part of the city of Westminster or of Kensington and Chelsea. I believe that other boroughs are also involved. I know about those two boroughs because I applied for and obtained a badge for myself for Westminster which enables me to use the orange badge with a special pass for Westminster. However, it is a major operation and can only be done by someone who actually lives in London. It means that someone living in the provinces, who is perhaps coming up from the countryside, is unable to park. I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to what has been said and will accept my noble friend's proposals.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope I shall be able to reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that these proposed amendments are not strictly necessary. As noble Lords will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment to promote the improvement of transport facilities and opportunities for disabled people. We attach particular importance to their interests being reflected in transport developments. As noble Lords will be aware, our concern is reflected in the provisions of the Transport Act 1985, which established the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to consider these needs and advise the Secretary of State before he issues any guidance about appropriate measures to be taken.

1049
Given these commitments to helping disabled people, it will follow automatically that both the Secretary of State's new traffic management and parking guidance will address the interests of disabled people. My honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave a firm undertaking in the other place that this would be so; and I repeat that undertaking now, although I appreciate that noble Lords have already commented on it.
The Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance will be an integral part of the arrangements for implementing priority routes. It will need to be taken into account by the traffic director in preparing his network plan and by both him and the local authorities in preparing the features of their local plans for priority routes. I have no doubt that local plans will include, as appropriate, measures to protect the interest of disabled people in the same way as I expect other interests will be taken into account.
Implementation of the priority routes will be largely through the exercise of existing powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Regulations made under that Act provide that particular road traffic regulation orders governing stopping and waiting must provide exemptions for orange badge holders in those areas where the orange badge scheme applies. Vehicles displaying a current disabled person's badge are already statutorily exempt from wheel-clamping. Although the law currently provides that a vehicle can be removed when it is parked dangerously or obstructively or is illegally parked, orange badge holders are already exempted from many of the parking offences where removal is authorised. For example, they are exempted from removal where an initial charge is not paid at a meter bay or where their vehicle is left longer than the permitted excess period at a meter bay. In practice therefore orange badge holders' vehicles can be removed where they are parked illegally only in limited circumstances; for example, unlawfully in residents' bays or dangerously. This power is used extremely rarely which suggests that there is no need for further statutory protection.
I believe that ample provision has been made for people with a disability in the red route pilot scheme. Indeed I visited it myself and looked carefully to see what arrangements had been made for the disabled. Orange badge holders and vehicles adapted to carry people with a disability can pick up or set down on red lines. Orange badge holders can park for up to two hours in signed loading areas and for an unlimited time in waiting areas. In addition, certain waiting areas have been set aside for orange badge holders' exclusive use. I hope that perhaps in the future the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will find advantages from such schemes.
I appreciate the fact that the orange badge scheme —I accept what my noble friend Lord Fanshawe said in this respect—does not apply in central London at present. But the Government are committed to considering whether aspects of the scheme can be so
1050
applied. The four central London authorities concerned have agreed to consider the possibility of granting concessions to badge holders.
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he tell us what is the problem? Why should these four boroughs be permitted not to recognise the orange badge scheme? What is to stop the Government using the facility of this Bill to ensure that the law is generally applied throughout London?
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may also be permitted to ask a question. I did not speak before, although my name is attached to the amendment. I very much support it. However, the amendment was much more eloquently moved than I could have done. Can the Minister assure me that, as the law stands at present, the orange badges can be used on the red routes which run through Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, in the same way as they can be used on red routes which run through other boroughs where orange badges are recognised? If he cannot assure me of that fact, the provision must be put into the Bill. That is the only way we can ensure that legislation is on the statute book which will force Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and all the other inner-London boroughs, to comply with the rest of the red route system.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The answer is that the pilot red route does not cover the area of the four London authorities which do not at present recognise the national orange badge scheme. However, as I was about to say, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am confident that discussions with those four local authorities will lead to improvements in the parking provisions made for disabled people.
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but that answer is not adequate. It is not sufficient to say that he has every confidence in the matter. We want the certainty that people with orange badges are treated in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea in the same way as they would be treated in other London boroughs on the red routes. I submit that the only way he can ensure that that is so is to accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen; or, alternatively, the Government must put forward other amendments on the same point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is not strictly a question of accepting these amendments; it is a slightly separate issue. As Members of the Committee will be aware, discussions are taking place about various other changes which may be made to the orange badge scheme in general. I understand that those four central London authorities may join the national orange badge scheme; that is, if the discussions are successful.
I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments have been moved. I trust the Committee will accept that the Government take the needs and interests of the disabled very much into account in their proposals. I am also well aware of the strength of feeling in the Committee on the issue and of the support that the amendments of my noble friend have

1051
received this evening. I hope that my noble friend will allow me to take the amendments away for consideration before the next stage of the Bill. With that assurance, I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We appear to be moving very slowly but nevertheless in the right direction. Having been appraised of the amendments, I should have thought that the Minister could have anticipated the concerns which would be expressed in the Chamber, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and also by others. I should have thought that he would have departed from the line taken in another place and that he would have presented the Committee with a clear assurance, not simply that he would be cogitating on these matters but that he would also be introducing amendments. That is what Members of the Committee want to hear tonight.
I fear that statements that the Minister has every confidence in discussions—which incidentally have been going on interminably—coming somehow or other to a successful conclusion are not enough. This is the right Bill. Indeed this is the time for the Minister to make as significant a contribution on this issue as he made as regards the New Roads and Street Works Bill. We thank him for that. Disabled people throughout the country will applaud him for the initiative which he took at that stage which was not taken elsewhere.
I believe that the Minister has the opportunity to do rather better than to express confidence in these discussions. Tonight he has the opportunity to emphasise that he will examine positively the ideas which have been adumbrated. But he has the opportunity to do more than that: he has the opportunity to say that the Government will come forward with amendments which will take on board the points which have been the subject of long consultations and which have been expressed formidably by the noble Lord in this debate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps the Minister will clarify the following point. As these amendments are supported by organisations for disabled people outside this Chamber can he say what harm they would do? He said that they are unnecessary. However, what harm could they do? They would certainly please many people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear at the end of my speech. I said that I will give careful consideration to the amendments and that I shall return to the issue at a later stage. I had hoped that my noble friend would appreciate that fact. I really cannot go any further than that tonight. It is normal practice in this Chamber that one gives such an undertaking in that way in Committee. I should have thought that that was a very normal thing for Ministers to do. If Members of the Committee will not accept my word that I shall return to the matter on Report, then I do not know what I can do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Members of the Committee will be indebted to the noble Baroness. I believe that she has persuaded the Minister to be a little clearer than he was in the statement that he made before her intervention. To say that he will come back on the matter, means that he will come back with amendments designed to address the difficulties and abuses which exist at present. Now that we have heard from the Minister to that effect, I am sure that the Committee will regard that as making this debate thoroughly worthwhile.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to begin by thanking all those who have supported what I have been trying to do with this group of amendments. It is extremely important that groups of disabled people are properly consulted in these matters. I say that because most of the time such planning and work is carried out by able-bodied people who do not have the real ability to understand the difficulties involved.
It is all very well to say that guidance will be given. This is probably an inappropriate simile, but if you have, for example, a small child on a sunny beach, you do not tell him to put on sun cream; you put the sun cream on for him to ensure that his skin does not burn. That is what I am trying to do in this Bill. I am trying to put these amendments into the Bill so that those who have to deal with these matters will see that the provision is there and take important notice of that fact. When the Bill becomes enacted, it will be the first of their works of reference.
As regards the orange badge scheme which was mentioned by many speakers, I have other amendments which will be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I understand that they will be dealt with on Thursday. However, I am most encouraged by what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the Government considering what to do about the scheme in central London. If my noble friend does not come forward with suitable amendments on Report, I shall be inclined to do so. The matter must be sorted out. As I said, the other orange badge amendments that I have tabled will be discussed later. I hope that I shall receive the same kind of support for them as I received for this group of amendments. My noble friend has said that he will take the amendments away and consider them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I believe that the Minister went further than that. He said that he will be coming back with his own amendments to deal with these matters. That is encouraging. I hope that we shall not return to the stage from which the Minister removed himself.
Lord Swinfen: I do not mind whether my noble friend or I come back at a later stage with amendments that the Government will accept. The important point is that they are put into the Bill. I am happy with the undertaking given by my noble friend, and I offer him the opportunity to talk to me and my advisers between now and Report if he would find that helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Use of vehicles by residents of London
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide for every vehicle in London to display a badge which shall show—

(a) that the vehicle is owned by a resident of London; or

(b) that a fee has been paid for the use of the vehicle in London for the period of time shown on the badge.

(2) For the purposes of this section a "resident of London" is defined as a person whose sole or principal address is in London.
(3) Regulations under this section shall also provide that a resident of London may park his vehicle free of charge in the residents' parking area in the area in which he lives or has his principal address.").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment has two purposes. The first is to deter private cars from entering London. The second is to try to achieve a fairer deal for residents and, bearing in mind what we have just been discussing, to find more parking space for the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
The first requirement is that the vehicle should display a disc similar to a licence disc on the windscreen. One of the points that it should show is that the vehicle belongs to a resident of London. It is not entirely dissimilar to the present scheme, where someone with an address in London can apply for a resident's parking place. This requirement is more stringent. There are plenty of ways of ensuring that the applicant, or the car, is domiciled in London. The alternative is, and this is important, that a fee has been paid for the use of the vehicle in London.
By implication, I am therefore suggesting that residents should be permitted to park their cars free of charge in the area in which they reside. I see no reason why a person who has his home in London and who pays his car tax in the same way as everyone else should effectively be penalised by having to pay considerably more every year to park his car outside his front door as other more fortunate people can who live elsewhere where such regulations do not exist.
Those who wish to bring their cars into London should be invited to pay a considerable amount for the privilege of so doing. One drawback to that suggestion—I can see the argument—is that those who cannot afford to pay for such a privilege would effectively be debarred from bringing their cars into London. There may be people who can afford to do so without any trouble, and the provision would be biased in their favour. That is not what I intend, and there may be a way around the problem.
The scheme should be feasible. I have not, and I do not think that it is necessary at this stage, dotted all the "i"s and crossed all the "t"s. But badges or discs could be obtained from post offices, travel agents or even traffic wardens at the time if the person did not have time to obtain the disc before entering the metropolis. We should not need parking meters because the money would have been pre-paid. There would be designated areas where one could or could not park as at present. Traffic wardens would still exist. If they came across a motor vehicle that did not display a disc
1054
on the windscreen or elsewhere, the driver would be wrapped over the knuckles, or whatever it is that happens to them now. They would have to pay a fine or, better still, have the car towed away to make way for other people to park.
The gates would then be open to consider what people would do with their cars if, understandably, they wanted to drive long distances from their homes to London. Clearly arrangements would have to be made for parking areas, it is hoped adjacent to Underground stations. Public transport would have to be more efficient than it is at the moment and should be made attractive so that people would leave their cars outside London. If the principle were to be adopted, I should be anxious to see that it did not apply to disabled people. A suitable amendment to that effect would have to be tabled later.
That explains the principle of the amendment, and I should be interested to hear what my noble friend feels about it. I raised the matter a few years ago during another road transport debate. It has not got far yet, but I hope that we may make better progress now. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased to have listened to the noble Viscount's explanation of the amendment, because when I looked at it I had no idea that it included what is, in common parlance, road pricing. That is what he is suggesting. As someone who lives in metropolitan Essex, I do not complain about that. It is a matter that cannot be dealt with in an amendment of this kind without consultation or consideration of the regulations that would have to apply.
I fully understand the part of the amendment which deals with residents' parking areas. I passed through parts of London this morning—Leyton, Hackney and Islington—and people there would not be happy at having to display a notice, as required in the amendment, when none of them has a resident's parking place. Tens of thousands of people do not have residents' parking places. They have to park in the road, which is a traffic danger, or they park half on the pavement, which is a danger to pedestrians, especially those with disabilities.
The amendment has far more to it than appears on the surface. Road pricing may have to be considered at some time, but we cannot introduce such a scheme by passing what I thought was an obscure reference to it, until the noble Viscount spoke, without proper consideration of all the problems involved. I am glad that he said that one serious consideration would be public transport. We cannot tackle road pricing unless we alter our ideas about public transport and make it more efficient, cheaper and more easily accessible.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment with such clarity. I agree that the Government should not rule out any realistic ways of reducing traffic congestion in London. I believe that Part II of the Bill is evidence of the priority we attach to reducing congestion and so making life easier for those who live and work in London.

1055
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the supplementary licensing scheme which is proposed in the new clause. I fear that this has a number of disadvantages. First, and most important, it might not do very much to reduce traffic congestion in London. The proposed clause would mean that drivers from outside Greater London would have to pay to enter the capital. Each day 2½ million vehicle trips cross the Greater London boundary. That sounds an enormous number, and it is. But a much greater number of vehicle trips-8 million a day—are made within Greater London. The new clause would provide no deterrent to those trips.
The sort of supplementary licence which is proposed could also give rise to much unfairness. For example, a parent from outside London who drove each day to take his or her child to a school just within the boundary would pay the same charge as a commuter who drove in the rush hour all the way into Central London and who, as a result, contributed much more to congestion. I strongly suspect that enforcement of this kind of scheme could also be a major problem.
To some extent, those are arguments against this scheme rather than against road pricing in general. There hive been proposals for a much more elaborate form of electronic road pricing which, it is claimed, would overcome the disadvantages of a supplementary licence. Electronic road pricing means that throughout London—probably out as far as the M.25 —roadside sensors would be installed. All vehicles would t e fitted with special equipment which would result in the driver being automatically charged when he passed a sensor. In theory, the charges could be varied according to time of day, and they could increase as one got nearer to Central London.
Such a system has never been tried in a city of anything like London's size and complexity. It is clear that there would be enormous practical problems in implementing it here. For example, the technology is not yet available and one can well imagine that enforcing millions of daily transactions could be extremely difficult.
Having said that, I stress that we do not rule out road pricing as a long-term option. The Government are continuing to watch very closely the developments of the relevant technology and experience abroad—though, as I have indicated, this is very limited. However, before we could even think of introducing road pricing in London we should need to undertake very detailed research. We should want to find out whether road pricing would be technically feasible and enforceable and, if it was, what its effect would be not just on traffic but on the whole of London's economy and population.
The Government will certainly bear in mind the points that have been made in this debate by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in considering whether such research should be undertaken. Meanwhile, I hope that after my remarks my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend. The purpose of the amendment was to raise this point and I am glad that he feels that the suggestion may be worth consideration, as the noble
1056
Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Discussion must take place with people when one introduces something new. I hope that some of what has been said will be considered.
I put in a plea once again for people whose sole and principal residence is in London. I believe that it is unfair to expect them to pay more to own a car than those outside London. I ask for that to be considered. On the basis of what my noble friend said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [The Traffic Director for London]:
[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 88B:
Page 41, line 32, at end insert ("and
() of co-ordinating the most efficient management of road space by giving traffic priority to energy and fuel-efficient means of transport.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the use of the most fuel efficient vehicles. Two of these are the humble moped and the small capacity motor cycle ridden by learner riders. The moped is restricted to 50 cc and it is not capable of going at more than 30 miles per hour. It is incredibly economical doing nearly 100 miles per gallon. The learner riders' machines are restricted to 125 cc and a maximum power output of 12 brake horsepower.
I believe that both these types of motor cycles should be encouraged in London and ought to be allowed to use the bus lanes. Owing to its comparatively low performance the moped is vulnerable in traffic. The learner rider is at his most vulnerable in the early stages of being on the road. It would be much safer for him to be able to use the bus lanes.
When I suggested a little while ago on a previous occasion that all motor cycles should use the bus lane, my noble friend had visions of dispatch riders making up for lost time. It was put to me that pedestrians would be in danger. I said that they were already in danger from the buses, taxis and pedal cyclists who cannot be heard coming along. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will take a more kindly view and allow these two small capacity machines which are very fuel efficient to use the bus lanes. I beg to move.
Viscount Craigavon: I support the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. I should declare an interest because I have what he called the humble moped on which I often come to the House. The amendment seems to allow encouragement of cycling, although the noble Lord did not mention it, and it is a fuel efficient means of transport. The Government should be encouraged to discriminate in favour of motor cycles of under 50 cc. which are extremely favourable to the environment. Unfortunately, very few British manufacturers produce them, so perhaps the Government are not encouraged to give a strong response to our pleas. I hope that the Government will take a slightly longer term view on the matter as the roads are becoming clogged with ordinary motor cars. I hope they will encourage people to use fuel efficient methods of transport.
The Viscount of Falkland: I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. As a motor cyclist myself, I should support an amendment which encouraged other motor cyclists to use the bus lanes. However I see the argument that there is a danger with dispatch riders or couriers using the bus lanes. The danger in the problems they present as they meet their deadlines has not yet been dealt with. Perhaps that would be asking too much.
The machines which have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, are eminently suitable for use in bus lanes. Indeed, it is positively dangerous sometimes for them not to be used there. I was glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, rising to his feet because he has the smallest bike I have ever seen and he is the tallest rider of any bike I have seen. I should hate to see him out of a bus lane.
This proposal would encourage others to take to two wheels; apart from motor cycles being more environmentally friendly, they are low consumers of petrol, especially the small machines. It would be an interesting development which may lead to other developments in bus lanes and it would significantly decrease congestion. I support the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I feel something of a trespasser in the debate because I am not so intrepid as any of the three noble Lords who have spoken. I do not have their experience, but nonetheless that did not stop me from speaking on the Second Reading. I broadly supported the proposal then and I support it tonight.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this interesting debate. I have carefully considered the amendment but I am afraid that I cannot support it, largely because it is unnecessary.
One of the aims with priority routes will be to increase their effective existing capacity and to allocate this capacity in accordance with efficiency, safety and environmental objectives. One of the major objectives will be to improve the efficient movement of traffic. This aim will relate to all desirable flows of traffic—including motor cycles, to which my noble friend Lord Strathcarron referred.
As regards the point my noble friend made about allowing motor cyclists to use bus lanes, highway authorities are free to do so under local traffic orders. However, there is no automatic inclusion for motor cycles. That is a decision for the local highway authority. The Government have no plans to alter this arrangement. We believe that there is merit in retaining flexibility. There are some instances where it may be undesirable to encourage motor cyclists to mix with other traffic in bus lanes. They are not slow moving like pedal cycles—the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, referred to pedal cycles—where segregation from the main traffic flow is advantageous. Motor cycles would not qualify either for inclusion on the same grounds as taxis and other high occupancy vehicles. Motor cyclists manoeuvring at speed around
1058
buses could present added safety problems. However, I realise that my noble friend was talking about small motor cycles in moving his amendment.
We are reviewing a range of matters connected with bus lanes, including the implications of adding other high occupancy vehicles, but for the moment we see no need to take away the local discretion which already exists in these matters. For those reasons, I do not feel able to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Strathcarron: I am obviously disappointed with that reply. There appears to be little hope of these modest capacity motor cycles being allowed to use bus lanes. One hopes that the traffic director may be a motor cyclist himself and therefore will see the merit in such a proposal. I hope that at some future date the Minister will feel able to reconsider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 41, line 34, after ("under") insert ("Part III of").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89A not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 89B:
Page 41, line 38, at end insert:
("(6) In setting any objectives under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall take into account—

(a) the need to protect local businesses in London;

(b) the need to protect the environment;

(c) the need to promote road safety;

(d) the needs of people with disabilities;

(e) the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and public transport; and

(f) the need not to encourage further car commuting into central London.").

The noble Lord said: It is noteworthy that Clause 44(2) states:
"The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers… with a view to improving the movement of traffic".
That cannot or should not be the sole purpose of any transport policy. That is one purpose of such a policy, but it is given undue emphasis in this clause. The clause does not refer to questions of safety. The improvement of safety should be—I am sure it is—a purpose of the Government. The clause does not mention any protection of the environment. There is no reference to the need to maintain access to businesses. We know from the pilot projects that have been undertaken so far that there is great concern on the part of business people about reduced turnover. Some business people have claimed they have suffered a reduction in turnover as great as 50 per cent. because customers and deliverers have been unable to stop or find adequate parking.
I have visited the Archway area and I have discussed these issues with a number of shopkeepers. A number of them expressed the anxieties I have just mentioned, although it is fair to say that others were unable to distinguish between the effects of the recession and those of the red route. They blamed both those factors for the reduction in turnover. Nonetheless there is some evidence that businesses

1059
have been prejudiced by the pilot route. There is also evidence that speeding has increased and thereby imperilled safety.
The London Borough of Haringey has carried out studies which indicate that, on sections of the pilot route, 85 per cent. of traffic is moving at speeds of between 39 and 42 miles per hour. In other words 85 per cent. of the traffic is moving at or below those speeds while 15 per cent. of the traffic is moving faster, notwithstanding the fact that it is a 30 miles per hour zone. Such speeding would appear to increase the risk of more severe accidents occurring—if that has not already happened.
In another place the Government resisted any attempts to broaden the general purposes of this clause on the grounds that other issues would be made clear in the objectives which are set out in Clause 46. I do not think it is sufficient for Clause 46(5) to state that the Secretary of State shall set the objectives,
"which he expects the Director to meet in exercising his function;".
The Committee is entitled to know what those objectives are, and they should be inscribed on the face of the Bill. This amendment seeks to achieve that aim.
I hope the Government will accept that the issues I have raised are important. Why should the objectives not be inscribed on the face of the Bill? They would counterbalance the emphasis that is given to improving the movement of traffic that is referred to in Clause 44. It is right that Parliament should not only be consulted but should also know precisely what objectives the Government have in mind in giving directions to the traffic director. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing that the issues identified by the noble Lord in his amendment are important. Some of them were included in the list of policy aims for the priority route network that we published in our consultation document on the Traffic in London legislative proposals and others have been discussed during the passage of the Bill.
The place to discuss policy aims for the priority routes will be the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance provided for in Clause 45. I can confirm that the issues raised by the noble Lord in his amendment will be discussed in that document. It will follow from this that the traffic director will pay regard to them in preparing his network plan under Clause 47. That plan will provide the framework for the local plans which describe the detailed action to be taken. Therefore the needs will filter down to action on the ground. There is therefore no need to refer to these issues in connection with the objectives which the Secretary of State sets for the traffic director. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I found that an unsatisfactory reply because the Minister asserts one overriding objective, that is the improvement of the traffic flow. It is unreasonable to give major emphasis to that issue without mentioning other matters. The consultation document is not satisfactory as evidence of what the Government propose to do because the Governmen
1060
have departed from proposals that they set out in their own White Paper, let alone a consultation document. The same point arises as regards the traffic management guidance. The Committee is entitled to know precisely what the Government have in mind. However, the Minister refuses to provide that information. I shall reconsider what he has said, but I cannot say that I am satisfied with his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89C to 89E not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 47 [The Director's network plan]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Duty of London authorities to prepare local plans]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 44, line 13, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will recall that earlier I spoke to similar amendments dealing with the position in London as a whole. At that time I said that I would be moving subsequent amendments dealing with local plans. Therefore, in moving Amendment 93, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 94, 97, 99 and 100 to 104.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 relate to Clause 48, which deals with consultation by London authorities when preparing local plans; Amendment No. 97 relates to Clause 49 dealing with consultation by the director in preparing a trunk road local plan; Amendment No. 99 relates to Clause 50 and consultation by the Secretary of State in preparing or varying a trunk road local plan; and Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 relate to Clause 53 which deals with consultation by the director before varying a local plan on behalf of a London authority. I shall not read the relevant details of the clauses; but if Members of the Committee have their Bills in front of them, they will see that they all provide for a very limited number of organisations to be consulted, which are mainly statutory bodies.
In Committee in another place amendments were proposed to provide for more public consultation, but they were all rejected by the Government. In relation to the previous group of amendments, I made it clear that the statements made by the Minister in the other place indicated that there were no plans to make it mandatory for local authorities to include the public in consultation.
In relation to a number of other amendments reference has been made to cyclists. My amendments do not deal only with the position in relation to cyclists but with any road users who may be affected by such measures. However, the London Cycling Campaign is extremely anxious that the position of cyclists in general is not being taken into consideration in network plans in London.
We have to decide how we are to include the public in any consultation. In the case of cyclists in

1061
particular, the CTC and the Cycle Campaign Network are very important bodies. However, it will be agreed that the majority of cyclists are not likely to be associated with any organisation and do not join a cycle club. In many cases, their cycles are not used for pleasure but solely to travel to and from work. I must say in passing that some of the cycles that I see when I come from the Underground station may be in a dangerous state and many of them have not been oiled for years. The average cyclist will use his or her cycle mainly to travel to and from work. Cyclists will not confine themselves to one borough but will possibly travel through two or three boroughs.
This morning I travelled down Lea Bridge Road in Leyton where there is a so-called cycle track, but only until 9.30 in the morning. I wonder who was consulted on the proposal that the cycle track should cease to be a cycle track after 9.30 in the morning. I also wonder whether the type of cycle track was the subject of consultation with cyclists or with others. Unless the amendments that I propose are adopted or something like them is put into effect the ordinary road user—who in the case of cyclists is not a member of one of the organisations to which I referred—is not likely to be consulted. The amendments suggest that they should be given the opportunity, through public notice, to make representations.
The Minister rejected the idea of a statutory requirement for local authorities to consult. In a number of instances which I quoted in the previous debate, Ministers made it clear that any local authority worth its salt would consult the public in order to let them know what it was doing. However, the only way in which many people will be consulted is by means of a public notice, giving them the opportunity to make their representations. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the general principle behind the amendments. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Once again I have considered the amendments carefully, and I still believe that it is unnecessary to go beyond what is presently proposed in the Bill. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, requiring consultation with affected road users by public notice are, in practice, calls for consultation with the general public. I remain of the view that consultation with the public is appropriate for the local authorities, who have direct responsibilities to their residents and businesses.
The local authorities will be consulted by the traffic director and the Secretary of State over any plans they may produce and, when invited to respond to specific proposals, it is reasonable to expect the authorities to consult widely in their areas. When the local authorities—or the traffic director or the Secretary of State in the case of trunk roads—implement local plans they will use powers under the Highways Act 1980 or the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
The making of traffic orders, whether for parking places, waiting restrictions or any other purpose, is governed by procedures prescribed by regulations by the Secretary of State. Procedures were revised in 1989
1062
following consultation with local authorities and interested bodies. They provide for proposed traffic orders to be published and advertised locally and in the London Gazette for objections and representations to be made and considered, for public inquiries to be held in some cases and for notification to be given once the order is made. For most orders other than those of a minor technical nature there is a statutory requirement on the order-making authority to consult other highway authorities involved and organisations representing users of the road affected by the order. The 1984 Act itself imposes a requirement on the order-making authority to consult the police.
Many authorities go further and conduct consultation with the local community, particularly on larger schemes. The Government welcome that because public support is an important ingredient for the ultimate success of any traffic management or parking proposal. Where the public are not consulted, direct individuals can learn of proposals from the obligatory notices in local newspapers and, in appropriate cases, from street notices displayed in the area. Therefore there is plenty of opportunity for people likely to be affected by any scheme to make their views known and to influence the decision-making process. Nothing in the Road Traffic Bill bypasses or in any way undermines the procedures laid down in the 1984 Act.
With those remarks, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I agree with the Minister that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents people from making representations. However, the answer that we have just received is in line with the replies which were made time and time again at the Bill's Committee stage in another place. There is no encouragement whatsoever of public consultation. We are told that local authorities will be requested to do so by the director or the Secretary of State. As was said in the other place, common sense says that they will consult the public. It is just a question of passing off a responsibility which ought to be laid down in the Bill. My amendments suggest that by public notice there should be an encouragement for members of the public to take part in any community action on plans in their own area. That seems to be a sensible move. It is not opening up public consultation to suggest that the official notice that one sees in local papers under the heading "Official Notices" will be read by a cyclist who wants to go down Lea Bridge Road, if he learns after it has been decided that there is to be a cycle track.
I am disappointed with the reply. It is a repetition of what the Minister said in the other place. I suppose that in so far as there is continuity, that is to be praised, but there is no movement at all. However, I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 to 96 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [The Director's trunk road local plans]:
Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 44, line 41, at end insert:

1063
("(2) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Director under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that the relevant local authority is not able to prepare a local plan for that section of trunk road under section 48(5) above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House for me to speak also to Amendment No. 98A. Amendment No. 96A deals with the director's trunk road local plans and Amendment No. 98A deals with the Minister's trunk road local plans. The argument is somewhat the same in the case of both amendments.
The amendments provide that there is a presumption in favour of the local authority to prepare the local plan for any trunk road in its jurisdiction unless there is a good reason to the contrary. It makes good sense for the local authority to prepare such a plan, on the grounds that there will be consistency with any local p an prepared for the borough roads in that borough-1 and that the local authority is more likely to engage in proper consultation with local interests.
I should like to emphasise that there are two very important elements. If the proposals for the priority route are not prepared in a way which is consistent with plans for other roads, there is a danger that the priority route will be sterilised, becoming a place which is difficult to service and for businesses to thrive in. There is also the need for full co-ordination between the activities on the priority route and on adjacent side roads—that is a point made in other debates—such as provision for parking and loading. Clearly there will be competition in the side streets for parking space for residents and businesses in that street and for people whose parking is displaced from the priority route. Again that point was emphasised in our debate on disability. Such co-ordination can be achieved best if the same agency performs the task.
Consultation may also be improved if the local authority is responsible for preparing the trunk road local plan and may also be co-ordinated with the same process, consulting on aspects of the priority route and side road measures. If the local authorities do not undertake it, there may also be inefficiency when the director or Minister undertakes his consultation separately. There is also the possibility that the director or Minister will not consult over local road plans.
In previous debates the Government made clear that they see the local authority as responsible for consulting local residents and businesses on red route schemes. When it comes to detailed plans that is neither fair nor effective. Individuals will want to have their say directly to a decision-maker. The timescale may not allow local authorities to undertake their own consultation period within that set by the director or Minister.
I believe that there are sound reasons for these two amendments. The wording is somewhat similar but they relate to two separate clauses and separate director's and Minister's plans for the trunk road schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for expanding on this amendment.
1064
The basic principle of Clauses 48 to 50, which deal with the preparation of local plans for priority routes, is that the local authorities should prepare plans for those priority routes for which they are the highway authority; and that the traffic director or the Secretary of State should prepare plans for those priority routes which are trunk roads, for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority.
In practice, it is likely that the Secretary of State will ask the traffic director to prepare most of these plans, which will cover around two-thirds of the network. The traffic director's new function will be to co-ordinate the introduction and maintenance of the priority route network. He will be well placed to prepare the local plans for these roads as a result of the experience and expertise he gains with the preparation of this network plan. I believe that this arrangement will provide the best opportunity for the early development of a consistent and coherent network. I do not believe the local authorities would be able to achieve the same results in the same time. They would not, for example, be able to bring the same concentration of effort as the traffic director to the development of the plans, because they have so many other highways responsibilities as well.
In the light of those remarks I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. However, I repeat that the traffic director will consult the local authorities fully and will seek to work with their co-operation.
Lord Underhill: I thank the Minister for that reply. At this time of the evening the best I can say is that I shall read carefully what he said and, with my advisers, decide whether or not to come back at Report stage. His answer sounds reasonable and satisfying but it still leaves the vital question of how the local authority will conduct its consultations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [The Minister's trunk road local plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 98A to 100 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Variation of local plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
7.58 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Property Misdescriptions Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Sunday Entertainments (Video Supply) Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
It is a modest little Bill which seeks to legalise the rental of video cassettes on a Sunday. In order to achieve that, it is necessary to amend the Shops Act 1950. The fifth schedule to that Act identifies transactions for the purposes of which a shop may be open in England and Wales for the serving to customers on Sunday. By inserting the words "the supply of a video recording" to the end of the list of transactions which are already legal, we would remove video rental outlets from the threat of prosecution.
Last week there was an encouraging development in the saga of enforcement of our antediluvian Sunday trading laws. The Court of Appeal lifted injunctions against a well-known DIY chain and a building supplies firm and said that they should not have been granted. That was good news for retailers; but if anything it underlines the case for reforming the legislation.
There are currently over 110 prosecutions progressing against video rental shops for trading on Sundays and another 100 local authorities have threatened action but have not progressed it. Authorities from Ashford to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, New Forest to Kingston-upon-Hull, and Windsor and Maidenhead to South Tyneside are taking legal action. Perhaps the latest ruling will deter them from risking taxpayers' money on prosecutions—but who can tell? It is an idiotic way to rule a country. Reform must come, and come soon. However, it is not that larger debate upon which I wish to embark today.
I do not attempt to amend the famous list of goods which may be sold on a Sunday because video rental does not constitute a sale. In the Bill we focus on a service for consumers and not the sale of goods. Many other services are available on a Sunday. It is possible to fill up one's car with petrol at a garage. One can hire a car. One can take a guided tour of a stately home. One can take a coach tour for the day. One can go to a museum, a zoo or an exhibition. The variety of activities available on a Sunday is endless. They do not require the sale of a particular item but are rather a service to the general public. The Bill aims to legalise a further entertainment service on a Sunday, the very day when it is much in demand.
I have listed some of the activities that take place in our leisure time which are available to the general
1066
public on a Sunday. Among those, and very relevant to my argument, are cinemas, theatres and television. Video rental is alone among the audio-visual and visual arts activities in being restricted on a Sunday.
In 1972 the Sunday Theatre Act and the Sunday Cinema Act were passed enabling those places of entertainment to open on a Sunday. West End theatres, on the whole, chose not to do so but many provincial theatres open. In 1972 there was very little television broadcast on Sundays and of course the video had not even been invented. There seems no conceivable reason why one should not be able to rent a video on a Sunday if one is allowed to go to the cinema and the theatre and, at the flick of a switch at home, have a wide variety of television available on a Sunday. All the competitors of video, virtually all of which are regulated and controlled by the Home Office, are allowed to trade on a Sunday.
On Sundays in 1950 the BBC transmitted only four and a half hours of programming, but no other channel existed. Today BBC 1 transmits 18 hours of television, BBC 2 18 hours, ITV 24 hours and Channel 4 20 hours. On BSkyB the movie channel offers a 24-hour service. Cable TV—for which one has to pay —is also available. In moral, social, regulatory or any other terms, there can be little difference between taking out a film from one's local video rental store and taking it home to watch with one's family and switching on possibly the same film on the Sky movie channel. The product is the same; the medium is the same.
Perhaps we are all agreed that Sunday for many of us is a day of leisure. Video rental is a leisure activity. Nationally 28 per cent. of video rental activity takes place on Sunday. The general public, especially children, have more time to rent and watch a video on a Sunday. It is therefore a day of immense value to the industry. Sunday is economically vital to the video rental industry. It is on average the second busiest day. Not to trade on that day means that the trade is lost and the earnings on cassettes become uneconomic. It is rather similar to airlines not being able to use their planes on one day of the week. Saturdays can also be affected because many customers wish to return their titles on a Sunday. The majority of stores are not prevented from trading on Sundays. However, where they are, revenue falls by as much as 43 per cent., rendering the store uneconomic. If the law is not altered, it means that there will be one law for the rich —such as the B&Qs of this world which can afford …1,000 fines—and another law for the poor, the small individual video rental shops which cannot and therefore may well go out of business.
Over 25,000 people are employed in the video software industry, making video the largest visual entertainment medium employer. ITV employs about 15,000 people in total; and BSkyB under 1,000. Some of those jobs in the video industry are increasingly at risk when local authorities decide to enforce the Sunday trading legislation.
The British Videogram Association informs me that it is unaware of any members of USDAW among the employees of its rental outlets; and the very large

1067
majority of its members and staff is in favour of Sunday opening. In most countries in Europe except Germany, similar restrictions do not apply.
The video rental industry has been a great success story in this country over the past 10 years. There has been a significant improvement in the average high street retail outlet and a new breed of superstores has been developed. Strict standards have been imposed via a system of classifications for video works in the Video Recordings Act 1984 but with much tougher criteria having regard to the fact that titles will be seen in the home. A key requirement of that Act is that all video cassettes must be classified—that is to say, censored—having particular regard to the suitability for viewing in the home. That is why the standards are so much stricter than those that apply voluntarily in the cinema.
The Video Standards Council, established in 1989, administers a registration scheme under which all sectors of the UK video industry agree to abide by a code of practice. That code of practice was drawn up with the blessing of the Home Office. I believe that the industry is more strictly and vigorously regulated than any other medium in the UK, despite some of the stories that we read in the tabloids.
There does not appear to be any reason why, if I can go into a newsagent and buy my Sunday papers at the weekend—and as we all know they vary enormously in taste and decency—my children and grandchildren should not be allowed similarly to take out the entertainment of their choice on the one day when they have some time to enjoy it, whether or not it is before attending church.
I do not wish to enter into the debate about the purpose of Sunday and what activities do or do not contribute to a day of rest and enjoyment for family life, or to go down the road of debating which shops should be allowed to open and for how long. Those are all larger questions. We know that Her Majesty's Government are currently talking to interested parties and trying to find a compromise between all the conflicting arguments that are put forward. I believe that it is now high time some consensus was arrived at and that the Home Office should be giving us an indication of the legislation that the Government intend to bring forward. However, as I have said, that is a wider subject and not one which the Bill is designed to address. I believe simply that the Sabbath was made for man and that man, woman and child would derive pleasure from this modest alteration to the law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Newall.)
8.9 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I speak in this debate i n my capacity as chairman of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, a position that I have the privilege to hold. I entirely share with my noble friend Lord Newall the feeling that the law needs to be reformed. I have a great deal of sympathy with him on the proposal. However, I have a number of doubts about it.
1068
Since the defeat of the Shops Bill on 14th April 1986 our campaign has been engaged on building a consensus for reform through our REST proposals. Video products were not available in 1950 and therefore some shops have fallen foul of local authority enforcement action. I appreciate that the recession which we are now experiencing affects the video sector and is bad for the structure of the industry.
The Bill seeks to add the supply of a video recording to the list of exempt goods under Schedule 5 of the Shops Act 1950 in order to make such trading on Sunday lawful. The word "supply" has the meaning accorded to it as appears in the Video Recordings Act 1984. That includes the sale, letting on hire, exchange or loan of a video. I understood my noble friend to say that the gist of his Bill was to permit the letting rather than the selling of videos on Sunday. There is a great deal of difference between the two as I shall explain.
The Keep Sunday Special Campaign has consulted widely on the issue of video hire and video sales since the Bill was drafted. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Video Trades Association, the Alliance of Video Retailers, the British Videogram Association, the OPEN Group and the trade press for responding to our inquiries. I am also indebted to USDAW, to other constituent parts of our coalition and, in particular, to the National Chamber of Trade, the British Shops and Stores Association and to the Churches for detailed and practical expressions of views on the subject. Therefore, I do not speak entirely from my own views but from those of many other interested parties.
This is the 28th attempt to reform or abolish the Shops Act. Feelings continue to run high in the retailing profession and in the country as a whole. The Government have a 1987 manifesto pledge to redeem the Act and have now committed themselves to a programme of discussions with interested parties. Our campaign has accepted the Government's invitation for discussion and will play its full part in trying to reach a consensus. However, if the talks are to succeed the Government will need to take a thorough look at the needs and requirements of retailers, shop staff, local residents, local authorities and the Churches.
The Keep Sunday Special Campaign has produced its own ideas for detailed reform called the REST proposals. They have been on the political agenda for more than two years. Already 145 high street names, 42 trade associations and 44 per cent. of the membership of the British Retailers Association covered by the Shops Act have listed their support for our suggestions. A Harris poll has shown that 88 per cent. of consumers believe that these proposals would meet their reasonable shopping needs on a Sunday.
REST encompasses four headings; namely, recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel. The proposals have been drafted so as to avoid the problems of the Bill that we are now considering and which I shall detail in a moment. Under the REST proposals a system of the registration of shops will make the task of the enforcement officers a routine matter. By allowing certain types of shop to open

1069
rather than certain kinds of product to be sold the proposals circumvent the difficulties of enforcement connected with the updating of Schedule 5. Types of shop traditionally associated with Sunday trading such as small food shops, newsagents and garages, most of which rent videos, would be able to trade in their full product range without the worry of breaking the law. This approach mirrors that adopted by several EC countries including Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. It represents the most realistic and politically acceptable way to reform the law.
I agree that videos appear to fit into the type of shops concerned with recreation and social gatherings. After all, some 21 per cent. of convenience stores and nearly all garage forecourt shops offer video rental, so why not all shops as proposed in the Bill? There are difficulties which I must make clear to your Lordships. First, the Bill uses a universally discredited method for tackling reform. In paragraph 196 the Auld Report attacked an update of Schedule 5 as:
"tinkering with an unsatisfactory law. We are convinced that this is not the recipe for change because of the impossibility of determining satisfactory criteria for a list of exempted transactions; of the inevitability of substituting one set of anomalies for another; and of the difficulty of enforcement, particularly where shops sell a wide range of goods".
Secondly, we have seen that the Bill will permit the sale as well as the hire of video cassettes. According to figures produced by the Video Trade Association, there are 4,500 specialist dealers, 3,000 multiples and 12,000 confectioner, tobacconist, newsagent shops (CTNs) dealing in videos. Perhaps I might divide them into percentages and explain the market share. In particular I shall pinpoint the difference between the various groups of shops as regards hiring and sales. The market share in hiring out videos is 65 per cent. to specialist dealers, 5 per cent. to the multiples and 30 per cent. to the CTNs. I acknowledge that specialist dealers acquire some 25 per cent. of their turnover on Sundays, local authority action permitting. However, the market share in selling videos is totally different. The multiples jump from 5 per cent. to 75 per cent. The specialist dealers fall from 65 per cent. to 25 per cent. while the CTNs have virtually nil. The trade in the sale of video cassettes is a rapidly growing phenomenon with lucrative returns for those involved. If it were allowed on Sundays it would legitimate the opening of several high street multiples especially WH Smith, Boots and Woolworths which, together with record and cassette multiples, have significant video sales.
If the multiples were to open there would be created a great deal of extra activity in the high street on Sundays thereby generating more noise and disruption for local residents. There would also be a need for many extra local authority services, for shop staff to work on Sunday and for several retailers to open up the whole of their shops to customers.
Thirdly, such a development would add to enforcement problems. Local authorities would have to decide whether to prosecute shops for trading illegally in other goods' while other retailers would have to decide whether their interests were being
1070
threatened by the new trade. That might mean even more shops opening and compounding the problem still further.
Fourthly, it would create more problems in respect of anomalies about which we have heard a great deal since the debates on the Shops Bill. If video cassettes are permitted why should not the sale of goods such as records, music cassettes, compact discs and computer games be permitted? I dare say that some of my noble friends' children and grandchildren would appreciate opportunities for acquiring and playing with them on Sundays. Those obvious inconsistencies should not willingly be created by your Lordships. It highlights the need for a detailed look at the whole law and argues against a piecemeal reform of the kind that we are discussing tonight.
Fifthly, noble Lords are aware of the Government's programme of discussions aimed at securing a consensus solution which, in the Minister's words, will be:
"practicable, enforceable, acceptable to the country at large and would obtain a majority in Parliament".
For all of these reasons, I am not persuaded that it would be right at this time to go ahead with piecemeal change and particularly the sale of video cassettes on Sundays. Under the terms of the Shops Act 1950 exemptions in Schedule 5 cater generally for emergencies and perishable items. The sale of video cassettes does not square with that approach. I believe it is entirely reasonable to expect consumers to buy video cassettes either before or after Sunday.
The hire or rental of video cassettes is a more complicated matter. This fits well into the categories of recreation and social gatherings. However, in practice it is not asking much foresight for consumers to hire videos on Saturday for viewing on Sunday and return on Monday. Sometimes that is a practical problem, but I have frequently inserted a video cassette into a box in a wall on my way to catch a train on Monday morning. I know that several video shops which close on Sunday make special offers to consumers on a Saturday to hire two videos for less than the price of two. Noble Lords might also like to consider the nuisance value of many video shops in residential areas which often generate traffic and parking as well as acting as rather undesirable gathering points for groups of young people.
On balance, the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, on the basis of the information available to us at the moment, believes that the answer is to allow the hire or renting of videos within the framework spelled out by the REST proposals. This would mean that any video shop where more than 80 per cent. of its revenue was from the renting or hire of videos, would be permitted to carry out its business on a Sunday. This would cover the majority of the specialist dealers who in turn have 65 per cent. of the market, as I mentioned earlier. We believe that the majority of the CTNs, who altogether cover a further 30 per cent. of the market, would be able to hire or rent videos under the REST proposals because this item would fall within the 20 per cent. of additional items that they could sell over and above items specified within the REST proposals. Overall this would cover probably 90 per cent. of the

1071
market or thereabouts. However, we should only like to see that take place within an integrated and rational framework rather than by piecemeal reform of the law.
Finally, I must draw the House's attention to the fact that the Bill as drafted merely adds to the incidence of Sunday trading without doing anything to improve the working conditions of employees. With the reductions in powers of the wages councils in 1986, which regulated premium payments for Sunday work, and the removal of certain restrictions on the employment of young people in the Employment Act 1989, there is a danger for employees if this Bill becomes law. It is essential that this question is addressed by any reforming measure. The Government have acknowledged this on several occasions.
In the light of all these considerations I would ask the noble Lord to consider most carefully whether withdrawing his Bill at the conclusion of our debate may not advance his cause best. As my noble friend rightly said, we need an urgent reform of the law. I am doing my best to encourage the Minister to keep moving with her discussions so that we can reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
This debate has been a most timely reminder of the complexities of this vital commercial, family and quality of life issue. Should the noble Lord still wish to carry on with his Bill, then I hope very much he will be able to show flexibility in the many areas I have outlined and on which I and other noble Lords intend to table amendments if the Bill is considered in Committee.
I hope, too, that both my noble friend Lord Newall and the House as a whole may increasingly join me in the conviction that the REST proposals have the substance, integrity and flexibility to enable both government and Parliament to achieve a lasting consensus solution to the whole Sunday trading issue.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I must apologise for rising unannounced, but I do so briefly in order to support the noble Lord, Lord Newall, in what seems to me to be a simple and entirely well-intentioned Bill. It seems a terrible, shame that on the day on which people have most leisure to watch a video, they should not legally be able to obtain it.
I speak as a film director and producer in the past. I have made films which are now available on video. It would give me satisfaction to think that on Sundays some of my master works would be seen in the homes of the land.
I hesitate to declare an interest because the chances of my obtaining any income from the proposal are negligible. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Newall, referred to the classification process. I am vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. The noble Lord is right that we take great care in classifying videos. That is a statutory matter under the Act, whereas the classification of films is voluntary. We make a distinction between the two. Various factors apply to home viewing which do not apply to viewing a film in a cinema. I shall not go
1072
into them now. However, I hope that all video retailers will increase exposure of the simple explanation of what those classifications mean. Sometimes it is rather galling for us at the BBFC. We spend a great deal of effort and time on complex debate when awarding certificates only to find that half the members of the public have no idea what the classifications mean.
In the cinema there is one further classification, a "12" certificate: children under the age of 12 are not allowed to see a film which has that classification. It does not yet exist as regards videos, but I hope that it will soon be introduced. It has always seemed to me a shame to go straight from a "U" classification (anybody can hire it) and "PG" (the same, except one is advising that parental guidance should be given) to a "15" certificate, which means that no person under 15 may see it. There must be films which may not be suitable for a tiny tot but which are suitable for 12 year olds. They should not have to wait until they are aged 15. The video industry is nervous about that. I hope that it will overcome its nerves soon and that a "12" certificate will soon be available.
I realise that the Bill will not induce people to be more careful about classifications because they are no different on a Sunday than on a Saturday. I realise too that the Government have no powers of enforcement or even encouragement as regards those matters. It is a matter for the video industry in general and the shops in particular. However, I believe that this is a sensible Bill.
I am not sure that I understand the many complexities about Sunday trading and the reforms which may or may not be needed. I know that we would like to sort it out. However, in the meantime it seems to me that this is such a simple and efficacious Bill that it can do no harm to give it a Second Reading. I hope that your Lordships will look kindly upon it.
8.29 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, this is a simple Bill which I support. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newall, on explaining the thinking behind the Bill and on being such a good advocate for the video industry.
As has already been said, the background to this is that the video industry has been very successful over the past 10 or 11 years. It has now reached the plateau at which all businesses arrive at some time where they find that profits are not moving. That is not helped by the recession, satellite television and so on. The industry cannot be blamed for believing that the constraint placed upon it as regards selling on a Sunday needs attention. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord and agreed with to some extent by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, show that we have a very good argument for allowing people at least to hire a video recording.
As has been said, Sunday is the most obvious day that people have the greatest amount of time to pursue a leisure activity. I do not want to become involved in the arguments on Sunday trading. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, found himself in a difficult position, but with his usual lucid and thorough form of exposition he demonstrated the thinking of the

1073
Keep Sunday Special campaign and showed what a tricky area it is from his point of view if the problem is tackled by chipping away at one piece rather than dealing with the whole issue. I sympathise with him in that view.
With the recent court decisions we see that we are a long way from making sense of the Sunday trading laws in this country. Meanwhile, an organisation like the British Videogram Association must be extremely worried and would naturally like to see a change in the law. I would support that.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, quite rightly from his angle —that of a British film producer, which is not an enviable position these days, but we praise and encourage his persistence—said that he hoped the Bill would be successful because his films might appear on video. He did not explain fully, and most noble Lords may not be aware, that particularly with British films—though it is the same with all films—much of the money invested may not be recouped unless the film is sold not only into the cinema but with video and television rights.
Another anxiety exists which was pinpointed by the noble Lord—that is, film classification. I attended a meeting of the parliamentary film group and had the mysteries of film classification explained to me, complete with all modern technology. I was a little mystified by some of the reasons for the different classifications for video film rather than film in the cinema. One may hire a video film on a Saturday and see the film in the cinema on the Sunday, but the two versions may be very different. As I understood it, the reasons for that are that young people may find something in the film of a violent or sexual nature which is regarded as unhealthy for them to dwell upon, and using the technology of the video machine they could stop, reverse and replay the section over and over again.
While I support the Bill, I would prefer people to go to the cinema. Films would be seen in a much purer fashion and would not have to undergo that kind of censorship, though I understand why it exists. But I am not sure in my own mind that there is a great deal of sense in it.
To see a film in a cinema is a vastly superior experience than to see it on video. However, many people have no other way of seeing a film. They may be old or ill or they may be young people who are not allowed out for whatever reason, or some people may live in areas where the cinema is an unpleasant venue, perhaps due to rowdiness or dirt, or both. That is a situation which is generally improving, but nevertheless a demand for videos on Sundays exists. There is also a demand on a Saturday. Watching a video on a Sunday seems to me to be a fairly harmless activity provided it does not lead to unsatisfactory behaviour and the video is covered by classification.
In supporting the Bill I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I should have thought that the best approach would be for the Government to amend the Sunday trading laws in very short order. They are clearly a mess and the country is getting fed up with them. It is clear that if the legislation were
1074
amended the video industry would benefit. In the meantime, the Bill seems to go a long way towards that end.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the Opposition Front Bench is neutral on the Bill because on the issue of Sunday trading we allow a free vote. Therefore I speak only for myself.
Noble Lords may think of the village of Tideswell in the High Peak District of Derbyshire as, in the words of Neville Chamberlain, "a far away place of which we know little". But last Sunday morning it demonstrated graphically the very anomalies and absurdities which your Lordships are now invited to contemplate at length.
At the centre of the village stands the great and beautiful medieval church known as the Cathedral of the Peak, at which it is still possible to hear the services of the Book of Common Prayer. Inside it last Sunday morning was a worshipping congregation well into double figures; outside it, at its very gates, stood a dozen or so market stalls selling glassware, ceramics, household goods and what looked to me suspiciously like videos.
The stalls were doing a brisk trade in the bright sunshine and the participants outside the church outnumbered those inside by a very wide margin. Up the road, blocked by parked cars—none of which belonged to the vicar—was a car boot sale also doing a thriving business for the sordid motive of private profit, and for all I know selling or hiring videos to eager buyers.
When I passed through the village, the local constabulary was not greatly in evidence. Had it been so, its chief priority would surely have been to prevent crime like theft, disorderly conduct, taking and driving away other people's cars or to regulate the flow of traffic which by now was causing hazard and blockage to the native residents. It would hardly have afforded high priority to ascertaining whether or not videos were being sold or hired from stalls or from car boots or, for that matter, from shops which were legitimately open for the sale of,
"newly-cooked provisions and cooked or partly cooked tripe"
—under the authority of paragraph 1(c) of the Fifth Schedule to the Shops Act 1950.
The market stallholders and shopkeepers traded happily all day. The Derbyshire shopkeeper is not a garrulous man. Had I asked him whether he was aware of the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Shops Act 1950, I have no doubt that I would have found him to be a man of few words. He would probably have given me the benefit of two of them. And so far as I know the vicar refrained from calling down fire and brimstone upon those who bought and sold at the very doors of the House of God.
What was true in Tideswell last Sunday is true every Sunday in thousands of villages, towns and cities throughout the country. The laws on Sunday trading are flouted, disregarded and unenforced.
With that background your Lordships may feel that since such is the case the time is not ripe for a

1075
modest little Bill such as this; we should rather gather ourselves for a wide-ranging radical and wholesale reform of the law in this area. I respectfully submit that we should rather consider that we might support this present Bill since it seems to have ascertained that the rig its of employees are in no way jeopardised and it does not attempt radically to amend that contentious list of items in the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 A ct by which, as your Lordships may recall, we may freely and with a good conscience buy any kind of mushroom so long as it be not in a tin.
The Government have not fully considered the issues surrounding Sunday trading. The last Bill was completely inadequate. The Government need to set out some clear principles on employment practice and so fort before any radical and far-reaching changes are made to the Sunday trading laws. What matters at the moment is the will of the people. The people of this country have decided that they wish to buy and sell things on Sundays. So long as the rights of those who conscientiously wish not to work on Sundays are fully respected and fully secured, we may surely observe the current state of anarchy with comparative equanimity. This modest little measure may do a little to keep the mess and muddle firmly under the Government's nose. On balance, I support it.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the House might find it helpful if I were to indicate the Government's view of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Newall has introduced and clearly explained to your Lordships this evening.
Before commenting on the substance of my noble friend's Bill, I think I should say a few words about the broader context within which it must be seen. We all know very well the difficulties which face anyone who seeks to introduce legislation to amend the law on the highly emotive issue of Sunday trading. There is widespread agreement that the law as it stands at present is badly in need of reform. It is riddled with indefensible quirks and anomalies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, drew attention, which limit public choice and are seen by many—perhaps by a growing number—to be out of step with the needs of society today.
I readily acknowledge that there are those who sincerely oppose any reform of the present law and who would like to see it more vigorously enforced. Among those in favour of reform, there are very many shades of opinion about exactly what form any reform of the law should take. There are also the practical problems of ensuring that, if reform is to be achieved, it is done without creating different, but equally indefensible, anomalies from those which exist today; or establishing a needlessly complicated and costly addition al layer of local bureaucracy to police a new law.
I should like to say something now about the background to my noble friend's Bill. Your Lordships will recall that widespread dissatisfaction with the present state of the law led the Government to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr. Robin Auld QC, to look into the whole question
1076
of the regulation of the late night and Sunday opening of shops under the Shops Acts. The Auld Committee reported in November 1984 after undertaking a very detailed and thorough examination of the many issues which arise in this context. It considered all the options for change. It came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory solution to the problems associated with the Sunday trading law short of total deregulation, and drew particular attention to the difficulties which would arise from any half-way house solution.
Your Lordships will no doubt go on to recall that the Government sought to implement the principal recommendation of the Auld Committee when they introduced the Shops Bill in 1985. Although the Bill was defeated on Second Reading in another place, the Government have since remained committed to the aim of bringing some sense and consistency to the law on Sunday trading. Since they were returned in the 1987 general election, the Government have made it clear that, while they still believe that the principle of total deregulation espoused in the Shops Bill was the correct approach, they would, nevertheless, be prepared to consider a compromise short of total deregulation if one could be found which, amongst other things, commanded sufficient broad agreement from all the interested parties.
In pursuit of that, my right honourable friend, Mr. Timothy Renton, when Minister of State at the Home Office, invited all the various interests to see if they could agree on a compromise solution among themselves and come back to him with proposals for change. The Government have actively assisted in that process and held meetings with a whole range of parties to the debate. They have floated various ideas and encouraged other people to develop them. They have sought to help people identify the dangers as well as the difficulties of certain options. But after all this we remain, for the present, short of any widespread agreement or consensus.
In a fresh attempt to assist the parties concerned to reach agreement on a possible way forward the Government have now embarked on another series of separate meetings with the major interest groups concerned with this issue. It seems to us that there is some common ground between the parties on certain issues on which it may be possible to build. For example, there seems fairly general support for the removal of restrictions which serve to prevent the Sunday opening of small convenience stores and garden centres. But even there some problems of degree and definition still persist on which further work will be required.
We have not ruled out the possibility of holding, at a later stage, some form of round table discussions embracing some or all of the major interest groups in a further attempt to resolve the differences or difficulties which may remain after our talks with them individually. We have been pleased to learn that the Keep Sunday Special Campaign would now be prepared to discuss matters with the Shopping Hours Reform Council under the chairmanship of a Government Minister. In our view, the criterion for fresh legislation should be that proposals are

1077
practicable, enforceable and enjoy widespread acceptance, both in Parliament and in the country at large.
That is the present position so far as the prospects for a comprehensive reform of the law on Sunday trading are concerned. As my noble friend acknowledges, the Bill we are discussing today does not seek to offer any such general reform of the law. Its sole aim is simply to permit the supply of video recordings on Sundays, thereby making lawful the opening of shops which sell or rent out videos to the public on that day.
The Government are by no means unsympathetic to the evident desire on the part of many members of the general public to be able to purchase or borrow a video recording on a Sunday. We recognise that a considerable amount of trade of this sort is now carried out on Sundays and that the law is now probably well out of step with people's wishes in this respect. However, we remain unconvinced that it would be right, at this stage, to amend the law solely in the interests of one particular sector of the retail trade—video rental shops—as my noble friend's Bill proposes. To signify our support for this Bill would, in our view, inevitably lead to the introduction of a whole spate of similar Bills aimed at amending the 1950 Shops Act in the interests of those particular sectors of the retail trade which are dissatisfied with the present law. Given our continuing efforts to arrive at a much wider general reform of the Sunday trading law, we could not support such a piecemeal, ad hoc approach to its amendment.
Moreover, we doubt whether it would be a practical possibility to single out the supply of video recordings in the way proposed in the Bill. A Bill of this sort seems to us almost bound to stimulate questions, and then possibly amendments, about the types of recordings, in addition to videos, that shops ought to be able to sell on Sundays. From this it is but a short step to raising the wider questions of whether to permit the sale or supply of video recording machines, or even radios or televisions on Sundays, or indeed compact discs or computer games.
Nor do we accept the argument that what the Bill seeks to permit should be looked upon in the same light as going to the cinema or a concert on a Sunday—an argument which my noble friend developed. In our view, the kind of transaction which takes place when a video recording is supplied for private personal entertainment is essentially the same as a sale.
Your Lordships will surmise from what I have said that I cannot promise, on behalf of the Government, anything other than neutrality in this House towards my noble friend's Bill, about which we have considerable reservations, as I have indicated. This in no way detracts from the importance of this evening's debate, which gives your Lordships a valuable opportunity to take note of the present position so far as reform of the law on Sunday trading is concerned, and to express your own opinions as to the way ahead.
In coming to a close, I should like once again to emphasise that, whatever may be the outcome of today's debate on my noble friend's Bill, the
1078
Government remain fully committed to finding some way of making sense of the present unsatisfactory situation concerning the law on Sunday trading. We have every sympathy with retailers who find the present law confusing, anomalous and inconsistent, and who cannot meet the widely recognised needs and wishes of their customers without running the risk of breaking the law. I have reminded your Lordships of the fresh attempt in which we are currently engaged to assist in the resolution of the current impasse. I regret that I am not yet in a position to say when the further round of discussions is likely to be completed, nor if or when it might be possible for the Government to bring forward new legislation of their own.
I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend for affording us this opportunity to discuss the law on Sunday trading again today. We have some reservations about the way the Bill is drafted in certain respects, but it is for your Lordships to decide whether it should make progress. On the wider issue of reform of the Sunday trading law as a whole, I repeat that our policy continues to be to try to achieve agreement on proposals which are practicable, enforceable and capable of commanding widespread support both in Parliament and in the country at large.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall be brief, as is my normal custom. I should like to mention one or two points that were said by various noble Lords, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Brentford, who gave his muted support in some respects at least. I believe that some of his apprehensions are a rather pessimistic approach to the improvements in the leisure industry. His interest in Keep Sunday Special is widely known.
I should like to take him up on one tiny issue. He said that the Bill would legalise the sale of video cassettes. In my view, the Bill only amends the schedule of the Shops Act 1950 that exempts transactions, and not the sale of goods, by the inclusion of the words "the supply of a video recording". It has been my advice that this increases the services and transactions which may take place on a Sunday and not the list of goods that may be sold. If the word "supply" as used in the Video Recordings Act 1984 needs to be further defined to distinguish between hire and sell, then I would be happy to look at this in Committee and table the necessary amendments.
Regarding the Auld Report—which was mentioned by more than one speaker—it may well have suggested, and it did, that the Shops Act should not be amended; but what is our alternative in the absence of any Government initiative so far? The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, gave some happy support, and I am grateful to him, even if part of it was personal. That was probably rather light hearted, and I am grateful to him and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their support. I enjoyed the poetic description of life in that area of Derbyshire from the noble Lord, Lord

1079
Morris of Castle Morris, and I am sure that, as he says, those sorts of things go on in very much the same way.
My noble friend on the Front Bench raised one or two issues, which I expected. I have seen letters from the various departments involved, and the Home Office in particular. My noble friend did a remarkably good job considering the way that they have normally answered some of the issues that we have had to deal with. The issue of buying recording machines or televisions is a different matter, but I am glad that they are looking at ways to find some solution, although I think that they must change gear.
I do not think that this is a piecemeal approach; it is a necessary change of something which, as I have already mentioned, is only to do with rental and hire rather than sale. The Government had a Bill in 1986. It is now five years since then; and this delay on any problem that needs to be solved is an example of the treacle of bureaucracy ensuring a sticky chapter in the normally common-sense and widely popular changes in the law. However, I understand the Government's difficulties.
1080
There are independent sectors all over the country becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of action. There is also an increasing number of calls for sensible changes. This was even discussed in another place this afternoon. To remain on the fence brings no credit to the Government—a Government that I support on the whole—and yet they may be pushed by public opinion into a much more undignified position.
I have no alternative but to continue with this Bill. As is the normal custom in this House, I hope that your Lordships will be able to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  EVERTHORPE REMAND CENTRE
  EVERTHORPE REMAND CENTRE
  LIFE SENTENCES: MINISTERIAL DECISIONS
  LIFE SENTENCES: MINISTERIAL DECISIONS
  SENTENCE REVIEWS FOR PAROLE
  SENTENCE REVIEWS FOR PAROLE
  PAROLE RECOMMENDATIONS: REJECTIONS
  PAROLE RECOMMENDATIONS: REJECTIONS
  DRUG TRAFFICKERS: CONFISCATION OF ASSETS
  DRUG TRAFFICKERS: CONFISCATION OF ASSETS
  DIPLOMATS: SERIOUS OFFENCES AND WITHDRAWALS
  DIPLOMATS: SERIOUS OFFENCES AND WITHDRAWALS
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS: PARKING FINES
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS: PARKING FINES
  BST AND GLOBAL WARMING
  BST AND GLOBAL WARMING
  NUCLEAR MISSILES
  NUCLEAR MISSILES
  WEAPON STORAGE VAULTS AT US AIRBASES
  WEAPON STORAGE VAULTS AT US AIRBASES
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES: GRANT AID
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES: GRANT AID
  INTEREST RATE SWAPS
  INTEREST RATE SWAPS
  HUMMING BIRDS: CONTROL OF IMPORTS
  HUMMING BIRDS: CONTROL OF IMPORTS
  MAY DAY BANK HOLIDAY
  MAY DAY BANK HOLIDAY