Sitting of 8 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Bob Dunn be added to the Committee Selection.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Community Charge
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish a draft Bill on the replacement of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government are currently consulting on the council tax. Our intention is to introduce legislation in good time to implement the new system for the financial year 1993–94.
    Mr. Eastham: Why do the Government intend to wait two years to introduce this new legislation when it is obvious that it could be introduced in the coming year? As the Government appear to have a light legislative programme for the coming year, why are they dithering and not getting on with getting rid of the poll tax? Let us kiss it goodbye once and for all.
    Mr. Portillo: I am delighted to have that welcome for the council tax. I wish that all Opposition Members had been so welcoming. Clearly the hon. Gentleman has been reading the Local Government Chronicle and he agrees with its conclusion that the council tax will do Manchester a lot of good. As for why we cannot legislate earlier, the hon. Gentleman will know, because the Opposition set it out in a document, that it is necessary to consult on the matter, to get it right and to give the House and another place time to consider it in detail.
    Mr. Sims: My hon. Friend refers to the consultation paper, but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he has no intention of altering the bands proposed in the document. Will he therefore take this
    706
    opportunity to explain the basis of the valuation of properties to be put in the bands? I am sure that he will be aware of the concern in constituencies such as mine where it appears that, if the valuation is based on the price of properties as exhibited in the offices of local estate agents, people in quite modest properties will find themselves in the same band as those living in millionaires' row. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could explain the basis of valuation.
    Mr. Portillo: We thought carefully about the number of bands proposed and looked at a number of different options. We decided that seven bands was the right number to put forward as our firm proposal. The capital valuation will be based on capital values—that speaks for itself. A number of special factors may be involved in certain properties and that is one of the matters on which we are consulting.
    My hon. Friend may not be giving enough weight to the fact that the tax is intended to collect much less than the old rating system used to do and that we have arrived at a balance where those in the most expensive properties will be asked to pay two and a half times as much as those in of the least expensive properties. On the whole, people think that that is a fair apportionment of the burden.
    Mr. Wigley: If it will take two years to implement such legislation, have the Government considered introducing parallel legislation, which could come into effect much sooner, to prevent those who presently receive an 80 per cent. reduction from having to pay anything at all under the present poll tax system?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course, we have thought about it, but we do not propose to do that. People on income support who are expected to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge bill receive an addition to their benefit in respect of the average of those 20 per cent. bills. There has been no adjustment to the amount that they get to take account of the fact that the community charge has been reduced by £140, so a number are receiving more in their benefits than they are asked to pay in their 20 per cent. community charge. That is particularly the case in those local authorities where the charge is low.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind that the Labour party proposes to abolish capping and spending limits if it comes to power, will my hon. Friend invite his opposite number to explain to the House how his so-called "fair rates" figures could be kept down to the quoted levels if Labour abolishes capping and competitive tendering? Are not Labour's figures a complete sham?
    Mr. Portillo: Labour's figures are not worth the paper that they are written on—partly because the arithmetic is wrong but also because, as my hon. Friend said, Labour does not intend to limit in any way the amount that Labour authorities can spend. We know that those authorities spend through the roof, if they are given the opportunity to do so. We know also that Labour has opposed the transfer of part of the burden to value added tax. Again, Labour's figures are based on an entirely false assumption—on the lower burden being taken from local taxpayers. However, Labour has spoken out against the VAT increase that made that possible.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Minister clear up at least part of the confusion that surrounds his proposals? Although he

    707
    published figures purporting to show the council tax under a seven-band system, is it not the case that no work on such a system has been undertaken? Is it not the case also that district valuers were asked to provide estimates on the basis of a 14-band system and that the decision was then taken to lop off the top six bands? Why was that done? Does not that decision completely invalidate the Government's figures and show that the unfair and familiar principle underlying the poll tax has been retained? I refer to the principle that the rich should be protected from paying their full whack, while an unfair burden falls on the rest of us.
    Mr. Portillo: We got rid of the unfair principle underlying the old rating system, to which the hon. Gentleman wants to return, whereby the occupants of more expensive properties—even if they had modest incomes—were expected to pay limitless sums towards local government. The hon. Gentleman also wants sole occupants to pay as much as multiple-occupancy households. That was a major unfairness under the rates system, and we are not prepared to return to it.
    The hon. Gentleman has been barking up the wrong tree for some time. We devised a system that appeals to the British public as being fair, because it dispenses with the extremes of the rating system. We prefer to base a system on 1991 values, whereas the hon. Gentleman wants to use 1973 values.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the consequences of the distribution of Government grant of the council tax proposals; and if there will be any significant alteration in so far as it relates to Southend-on-Sea.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Grant will be distributed so as to enable authorities to finance spending at a standard level, by levying standard taxable amounts determined by the Secretary of State. Authorities will be compensated for differences in their expenditure needs and for any variations in their taxable capacity. No major changes are proposed to the current system of standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was public rejoicing in Southend-on-Sea this year, after years of battling to get rid of the terrible safety net, which forced the people of Southend-on-Sea to subsidise other councils? Is he further aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and I and all the people of Southend-on-Sea would be very unhappy if that wretched safety net were reintroduced? Is there any truth in the unique revelation appearing in The Scotsman that Jacques Delors could stop local government reforms by virtue of his latest directive?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to congratulate the electors of Southend-on-Sea on their sensible decision in last Thursday's council elections. Transitional help will continue to be available for households, and we have no proposals to reintroduce area protection grant. My hon. Friend may have been referring to the transfer of undertakings directives, which place a new employer into the shoes of the old employer in respect of dismissals and other aspects of an employee's
    708
    terms and conditions of employment. If that is the case, those directives apply both to the private and public sector and would have no special effect on local authorities.
    Mr. Channon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposed council tax arrangements set out in recent consultative documents would mean that, in future, nine out of 10 households in Southend-on-Sea are likely to pay even less than they do now? It is already a low figure because Southend-on-Sea is a prudent local authority. Does my hon. Friend share my belief that that is why the Conservatives enjoyed such excellent results in the local elections and why the Liberals were routed?
    Mr. Key: I well recall my happy visit to Southend-on-Sea not long ago. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that, had the council tax been up and running this year, a couple living in a house of average value in Southend-on-Sea would have paid £276, as opposed to a community charge of £416.
    Mr. Dalyell rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the hon. Member, but I remind him that we are discussing Southend-on-Sea, not Linlithgow-on-Sea.
    Mr. Dalyell: Up the road from Southend-on-Sea is Heveningham hall. Does the Minister know who owns it? As it is the subject of a grant—the word "grant" appears in the original question—can the Minister assure the House that it is not owned by the Iraqi Government?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been substantial correspondence on that issue. I shall look into the question and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed council tax.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government's council tax proposal has been widely welcomed by hon. Members and by those involved in local government. I look forward to receiving detailed responses to the consultation exercise now under way.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I gently chide him for that reply? The reason is that my right hon. Friend seems not to have included in the representations that he received the thousands of voters in Chelmsford who voted against the Liberal Democrats and voted a Conservative council into Chelmsford, overturning the Liberal Democrat council because they support and like the council tax that my right hon. Friend proposes.
    Mr. Heseltine: Having given my hon. Friend's question due consideration, I certainly forgive him.
    Mr. McCartney: Would the Secretary of State like to make a further visit to Wigan to explain to electors why the rate of council tax to be levied there is double the rate that will be levied in the Conservative borough of Trafford? In Wigan we will have the highest rate levy of all 10 districts in Greater Manchester. When people in boroughs such as Wigan will have to pay twice as much in council tax as those in a borough such as Trafford, does not that show that something is seriously wrong with the calculations?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that I need to go to Wigan to explain the consequences of having a Labour authority in Wigan and a Conservative one in Trafford.
    Mr. Norris: There is no doubt that in my constituency of high-valued properties, the overwhelming majority of constituents will most certainly pay far less under the new council tax than they were paying under the old rating system and that the tax is warmly welcomed in that regard. I suggest that there is one point on which I would invite my right hon. Friend to keep his options open—the question of an additional band at the bottom of the scale, at around £20,000, to take account in my constituency of those who live in mobile homes and other low-cost accommodation, who are often the least fortunate. I suggest that there should be an additional band at the top of the scale at about £250,000, because at present those who live in areas such as mine on the fringes of London frequently find that a value of £160,000 on their property does not mean that they are especially rich.
    Mr. Heseltine: Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's point. It has been made by other people. One must consider the banding arrangements in the context of the sums of money that separate one band from another. It is the Government's view that, having considered the various permutations, the seven-band arrangement with which we have come forward is appropriate.
    Mr. Gould: As the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities could not answer the question about the six missing bands, perhaps the Secretary of State could try to clear up another matter of confusion. What will be the basis of valuation? Will it be capital valuation, without any conditions—as the Secretary of State said—or will other factors be taken into account, as the Minister of State said on Radio 4, or does confusion continue to reign?
    Mr. Heseltine: The only confusion is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman because every time that we answer the question he asks it all over again. The fact is that we have come forward with seven bands. We made it absolutely clear, both in advance of our announcement and subsequently, that we considered a number of other options, but we came to the view that the seven-band option was the most appropriate. That remains the position. As for the broad issue of the valuation process, we also explained that. Whereas the Opposition are in favour of capital values, rental values and building and repair costs as a basis for valuation—whatever that may mean—we believe in capital values, and we are consulting on that basis.
    Mr. Gould: So the Minister of State is wrong.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend the Minister is not wrong. If people wish to suggest to us specific areas where capital values need modification, we shall consider them. Local government may well produce examples that need specific examination. As we are designing a tax for local authorities to administer and collect, the appropriate way forward is by consultation and not by imposition.

    Council Services
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which councils have privatised the most services.
    Mr. Heseltine: My Department does not collect this information. There has been a substantial shift of work to private contractors as a result of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation. In addition, a number of local authorities have gone further, on a voluntary basis, in using private contractors to provide services on their behalf.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was Conservative local authorities that led the way on competitive tendering? Westminster, Wandsworth and Southend-on-Sea have provided better services. Is not it true that those authorities had the lowest community charge? Was not it the Labour party that was dragged screaming into the 20th century when it refused to accept the privatisation of services? Lambeth is one example, with its high community charge and rotten services. Does my right hon. Friend intend to extend competitive tendering to other services?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is correct. The journey to competitive tendering began in 1980 and continued throughout the 1980s. It is also true that the benefits to the local community—higher quality of service at a lower cost—are to be seen significantly in Wandsworth and Westminster. It is a matter of conjecture whether the Labour party has actually got to the 20th century, kicking and screaming or not.
    Mr. Skinner: Despite the hoo-ha about the privatisation of services, is the Secretary of State aware that last Thursday the electors of Britain spoke about that matter and all the other Tory policies? In Bolsover the last four Tories, and the last Liberal Democrat as well, were swept aside. Of the 92 clubs in the Football League, only three are in areas where the local authority is controlled by the Tories. The red flag is flying over Blackpool, Brighton, Plymouth and other seaside resorts.
    Mr. Heseltine: The only overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from last Thursday's elections is that the Labour party would not have secured enough votes to form a Government if there had been a general election.
    Mr. Squire: I shall revert, if sadly, to the original question. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's commitment to abolish compulsory tendering at the insistence of the National and Local Government Officers Association and the National Union of Public Employees is a bad deal for consumers and users all over the country and gives the lie to any suggestion that it has forgotten its bad old ways of union-controlled party policies?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. That is just one more example of why, if the Labour party ever achieved power, it would give us worse services at a higher cost.

    Local Government
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to create additional parish or town councils outside London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: Under current legislation we may consider whether to create additional parish and town councils outside London in the light of recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission. In the context

    711
    of the proposals in our recent consultation document on the structure of local government in England, the Government believe that there may be a case for considering whether to enhance the role of parish councils, especially if a new unitary authority were to cover a wide area.
    Mr. Barron: Has the Minister considered receiving direct representations from parishioners about parish councils? In Maltby, South Yorkshire, where I live, the district council consistently votes against our having a parish council, although many people in the parish believe that we should have one.
    Mr. Key: I believe that 90 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's constituency has parishes. In our consultation paper, we specifically invite representations, and we shall be glad to receive them from his constituents.
    Mrs. Peacock: While my hon. Friend listens to representations on parish councils, will he also listen to representations from my constituents about splitting the metropolitan authority of Kirklees, which provides lousy, inefficient and costly services?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say that it is clear that Labour-controlled authorities have a worse record than Conservative-controlled authorities. However, we do not now intend to alter the structure of the existing unitary authorities.
    Mr. Bellotti: I am sure that the Minister will wish to join me and other hon. Members in congratulating all those victors in town and parish elections last Thursday, including the 17 in Polegate town council, in my constituency, all of whom are Liberal Democrats. Will he assure the House that the current consultations will not affect the delay which may occur in the transfer of responsibilities for community care to local authorities, which the Government's programme shows is aimed for April 1993? Will he further assure the House that the finance to enable local authorities to plan for that transfer will be re-examined?
    Mr. Key: I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the community care programme is proceeding on time However, I have to commiserate with him on his party's dismal performance in my constituency, where the independents are now the largest opposition, as opposed to the Liberal Democrats.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to office there were rumours that parish councils and town councils might be abolished? What he has said today is very welcome indeed, because there is a general feeling throughout the country that town councils provide an essential element in local government in that they are local.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although it is true that parish and town councils have comparatively small environmental powers, we recognise that loyalty to parish and town councils is extremely strong and we wish to ensure that their voices are heard properly.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not answer the question. Will the hon. Gentleman explain
    712
    what the Government plan to do or what recommendations they will make to redress the mismatch between parish and town councils, particularly in the metropolitan districts? As the survey carried out by Aston university and the consultative documents do not address the real problem in metropolitan districts, will the Government take action to ensure that it will be resolved?
    Mr. Key: I assure the hon. Gentleman that before taking action we shall consult properly. That is precisely why we invited consultation. I was glad that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) agreed that that was a sensible way forward. Of course, there are difficulties with parish and town councils. In addition, only about 50 per cent. of the country is parished. There are problems and that is why we are consulting on them.
    Mr. Burt: Will my hon. Friend assure us that he does not intend to create any unnecessary and expensive regional bodies which cut right across the public desire to have decisions taken locally, in contrast with Labour party's policy which would bring back those regional bodies? Does he share the concern of my constituents who last week voted Conservative in a 17 per cent. swing from Labour to Conservative and thus backed and supported the Government's policy to say no to unnecessary regional bodies?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have no plans to introduce regional government. Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of votes cast in the north-west show a remarkable improvement in support for the Conservative party.

    London Docklands Development Corporation
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the next annual report of the London Docklands development corporation.
    Mr. Portillo: I look forward to receiving the annual report from London Docklands in July.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the last annual report of the LDDC shows much more concern for the needs of developers than for those of local people? Is he aware that most of the £1.8 billion allocated to rail transport has been used to benefit developers and that the LDDC is not supporting the London borough of Newham's petition for a proper interchange between three new railways at Canning Town? Would it not be a pity if the design defects of underground stations built in the west end at the beginning of the century were replicated in the east end at the end of the century?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not want to get drawn into the detail of the station, but the LDDC is a development corporation and it has not supplanted the local authorities, which retain their responsibilities. The LDDC has done a tremendous amount of work with local authorities and other bodies on projects which benefit the community. It has spent about £100 million over the past three years on community projects. It will spend about £87 million over the next three years on community projects and it has made agreements with boroughs such as the London

    713
    borough of Newham on the construction of houses and a series of projects on education and training which will benefit local people. That is an extremely fine record.
    Mr. Summerson: The LDDC has a good record of making use of vacant derelict land. Does my hon. Friend agree that other authorities should follow the example set by the LDDC and use their vacant derelict land, thus reducing the pressure to develop green field sites?
    Mr. Portillo: Indeed. The London Docklands development corporation has already reclaimed 600 hectares of derelict land—that sounds like quite a lot to me—and has a remarkable record. I wish that other local authorities would follow the LDDC's lead. We set up that corporation precisely for the purpose of bringing about regeneration and it is succeeding extremely well.

    "This Common Inheritance"
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the objectives listed in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", have so far been achieved; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): In the seven months since the publication of "This Common Inheritance", we have made substantial progress on some 100 of the commitments and proposals that it contained. Many of these were set out in my announcement on 26 March this year. The Government remain committed to the integration of environmental concerns into the whole range of their activities, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. Colleagues in charge of Departments throughout Whitehall are working constructively to press home the White Paper initiatives and to keep up the impetus for progress in the future.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that one of the main aims of the White Paper was to set statutory water quality objectives? Is he aware that that commitment was first made in 1987 when the National Rivers Authority was set up? It was repeated when the Water Bill was enacted and has now been restated in the White Paper. Despite that, statutory water quality objectives have yet to be set. As we discuss the matter this afternoon, raw sewage and industrial effluent are being discharged into our water courses and rivers. Is not it scandalous that it has taken the Government all this time to set out those objectives?
    Mr. Trippier: I totally reject all that the hon. Gentleman has said. His references to legislation omitted the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which also set out water quality objectives. Such objectives are set by the National Rivers Authority in compliance with European directives, which we must implement. As I have stated repeatedly on the Floor of the House, by 1997 we shall be the first member state of the European Community to achieve 100 per cent. compliance with the bathing water quality directives. That is incredible progress.
    Mr. Forman: Was not one of the most important objectives of that excellent White Paper that those sectors of British industry involved in pollution abatement and control should expand as quickly as possible, particularly into the export market? What progress has been made in that direction with the encouragement of the Government?
    Mr. Trippier: Enormous progress is being made, particularly in water consultancy. As my hon. Friend suggests in his question, there is an enormous amount of business to be secured for British industry in work abroad, not least in central and eastern Europe. A new technology scheme has been introduced by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry and that is proving enormously successful. However, we still need more British companies to come forward to explain what they can do to share their expertise and technology with other countries who need it.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is not the real problem that the White Paper lacks any real objective, timetable or overall strategy? If we are to tackle the environmental crisis that we are facing, is not it about time that the Government started to give a lead? Does the Minister realise that it is no use the Secretary of State making the kind of statement that he made yesterday about regulating for higher standards or telling industry to be more aware and concerned about the environment when the Government are putting the interests of electricity shareholders before the interests of the environment?
    Mr. Trippier: I should point out to the hon. Lady that, prior to the reversal in fortunes for the Conservative Government which we all know took place about a few months ago, there were two principal areas in which the Government led the Labour party. One was defence—not surprisingly—and the other was the environment. That should make the hon. Lady hang her head in shame. There is a stark contrast between this Government's record and that of the last Labour Government, who did next to nothing. We have introduced the Water Act 1989, which has been widely welcomed, and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to give us the toughest regulatory regime in Europe. We introduced a White Paper setting out our programme for the next 10 years. The Labour party is absolutely nowhere on that issue: we have taken the high ground.

    Waste Recycling
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in encouraging the recycling of waste materials.
    Mr. Trippier: The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires all waste collection authorities to prepare recycling plans. We shall be issuing guidance tomorrow on how to draw up those plans for consultation. We shall also announce details of the distribution of £12 million of supplementary credit approvals to enable local authorities td invest in recycling. That will add significantly to measures already in place to encourage recycling.
    Details will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but will he have further discussions with local councils to set up schemes, in particular for the individual household waste collection of newspapers, glass bottles and tin cans, which would not only be good for the environment, but would help solve the growing litter problem? Will he join me in congratulating two schools in my constituency, Hexham middle school and Corbridge middle school, on the excellent work that they have done in increasing public awareness about the matter?
    Mr. Trippier: With regard to my hon. Friend's latter question, I am happy to congratulate the schools to which he referred and I hope that he will convey those congratulations to them at the earliest opportunity.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's first question, we have already been a partner in an experiment that has been running in Sheffield, which is now well known as "recycling city", and that experience has been replicated elsewhere. The scheme has been successful in that there have been doorstep collections and waste has been split up so that it can be recycled. Activity in this area will be stimulated by the new recycling credits scheme that we hope to announce within the next two months.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Since we are talking about waste material, how many tonnes of paper were used and how many trees were sacrificed through the scrapping of all the poll tax forms because of Government changes? As it looks as though there is still a great deal of confusion surrounding the council tax, will the Minister recommend to local authorities that they print the new council tax forms on recycled paper or, perhaps, rice paper so that it is more palatable for Ministers when they have to eat their own words?
    Mr. Trippier: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new council tax proposals will use less paper than the community charge proposals.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), my hon. Friend's remarks show that the Government's recycling policy has clear objectives? Will he go further and ensure that recycling takes place in Government Departments other than his own and in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say that all Government Departments should set an example and follow that given by the Department of the Environment. I understand that the Services Committee of the House has introduced an option whereby Members of Parliament can choose whether to use recycled paper, so I hope that the vast majority of, if not all, Members of Parliament will take the option of using recycled paper.

    Rented Properties (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals to provide additional properties for rent in rural areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Yeo): We have taken a variety of measures over the last three years to boost the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas. We have substantially increased public resources through the Housing Corporation for new investment by housing associations, raising the target for the development of new subsidised housing under their special rural programme to 2,250 a year by 1993–94. We recently announced an extra £50 million of credit approvals for rural local authorities for a new programme of low-cost housing and we have amended planning guidance to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that his variety of reasons sounds like waffle? All that he can manage is the provision of 2,000 extra houses in rural areas, despite the fact that thousands have been sold to council tenants and councils have been prevented by him from replacing them. There is now a massive shortage of council rented tenancies for manual workers, particularly people who work in such places as farm factories or local garages. This is turning the countryside into dormitory suburbs for yuppies. Manual workers, including the lower working class, just cannot afford to pay the prices that houses are fetching. Previously, when tenants died, houses became available. When will the Minister ensure that large numbers of council houses are built in villages so that people may have decent places to live?
    Mr. Yeo: As we are within 14 months of a general election, it is most timely that the House has been reminded of the Labour party's underlying hostility to the Government's policy on the sale of council houses. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is clear that his mind is still set in the ways of the 1940s. He sees local authorities as the monopoly providers of accommodation for renting. We wholly reject that solution. We are determined to see a substantial increase in the private rented sector and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his colleagues to support us in that important objective. We are also providing the Housing Corporation with substantially increased resources—rising from just over £1 billion last year to well over £2 billion a year in three years' time—to expand very substantially the provision, through housing associations, of subsidised accommodation for renting. I am glad to be able to say, that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency alone, the Housing Corporation is spending £1.3 million in the current year on the provision of another 40 units.
    Mr. Gill: Although the additional £50 million in the current year is most welcome, I hope that my hon. Friend can assure the House that there will be similar provision in future years so that local authorities and others engaged in the provision of affordable housing in rural areas may have an ongoing programme. It is extremely difficult to generate programmes at very short notice.
    Mr. Yeo: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the need to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing in rural areas. We are pleased with the results so far of the £50 million credit approvals that we have provided for the current year. Obviously we shall keep an eye on the situation. We are determined to ensure that all rural areas will get a fair share, whether through local authority credit approvals or through the Housing Corporation. As I said, the corporation is building up its programme. Over the next three years, including the current year, housing associations will build more than 6,000 units in very small villages.
    Mr. Battle: How will local authorities in rural areas that have no housing—all their houses having been sold off—fulfil their statutory obligation, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, to house the homeless? How can that obligation possibly be fulfilled when there are no council houses?
    Mr. Yeo: A number of schemes are available to local authorities. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the end of my original answer, where I referred to the fact that

    717
    local authorities may now introduce schemes in respect of land not otherwise designated for housing, in which case the land component in the total cost of a house is almost entirely eliminated. In many areas, Iandowners are coming forward with offers of land and it is up to the local authorities to respond.
    Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that houses for renting or for sale should not be constructed at the expense of the environment? In the light of yesterday's published estimates of future aggregate demand, will he look urgently at the possibility of encouraging substitutes? If what is going on is allowed to continue, constituencies like mine will look like a lawn after the moles have been at it.
    Mr. Yeo: I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in this subject and I am glad to be able to tell him that I entirely share his concern that the proportion of recycled and secondary aggregates that are used in all forms of construction should be substantially increased.
    Mr. Soley: Bluster is not going to get the Minister anywhere. Can he confirm that the Association of District Councils, which is Conservative controlled, has consistently told the Government that selling council houses without replacing them—the Labour party's view is that they should be replaced—is leading to a catastrophic shortage of rented accommodation in rural and urban areas? Why does he think that Conservative councils in rural areas have got it so badly wrong and he has got it right?
    Mr. Yeo: The House must have listened carefully and in vain for any hint in the hon. Gentleman's question that he supports the policy of selling council houses. It is perfectly open to housing authorities in rural areas to meet needs in the ways that I have outlined; by co-operating with the housing association movement; by taking advantage of our off-site plan policy so that low-cost housing can be provided at prices that are affordable both for sale and for rent; and through the judicious granting of planning permissions to the private sector, which is also ready and willing to help meet the need.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the council tax would be reduced if Greenwich received the same amount per head for social services and for other services as (a) Wandsworth and (b) Lewisham.
    Mr. Portillo: Neither Lewisham's nor Wandsworth's standard spending assessment would be appropriate for Greenwich, as each has different social and demographic characteristics. Greenwich could reduce its bills under the council tax by reducing its spending, which exceeds standard spending assessment by a larger percentage than any other inner London borough.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is Greenwich council's fault that it lost £2 million on its direct labour organisation and that it is the only council in the country which has met the capping criteria every single year, but that it is not the council's fault that the expenditure needs assessment works against its interests?
    718
    Will my hon. Friend or his officials meet officers from Greenwich, with me, to discuss some of the implications of what is outside Greenwich's control?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that the standard spending assessment works against Greenwich's interest. I remind my hon. Friend that, for example, Greenwich receives much more for education than does either Wandsworth or Lewisham. However, I am willing to discuss with my hon. Friend and representatives of the council the standard spending assessment. If I receive an invitation from him or from the council I shall be happy to join them in a meeting.

    Farm Shops
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to make farm shops liable to uniform business rate.
    Mr. Key: Farm shops are, and have always been, liable to non-domestic rates.
    Mrs. Gorman: Even though my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) gave overwhelming support last week to the Government's new policies on local taxation, with an 8 per cent. swing to the Conservatives wiping out a long-standing majority for Labour on Basildon council, thus reducing it from the Arsenal to the Accrington Stanley——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we relate this to farm shops?
    Mrs. Gorman—nevertheless the greengrocers of my constituency are concerned that while they pay the uniform business rate, farm shops do not. Unless my farmers, who are extremely versatile, have taken to growing bananas, pineapples, oranges and kiwi fruit, there is a case for an even playing field to be created for those who sell vegetables all over the country.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to congratulate her electors on a sensible decision last Thursday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we wish to see the market operating on, perhaps, a level turnip field. Of course, farmers pay rates not only on farm shops but on agricultural buildings used for the storage of fruit and vegetables grown elsewhere, or for the storage of intervention board surplus grain or skimmed milk. Where produce is sold at the farm gate, the local Inland Revenue valuation officer may make an assessment for rates. A permanent stall situated at the entrance to a farm, used on a regular basis for the sale of farm produce, might be regarded as rateable.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that under the proposals for the council tax there are no plans to exempt farm shops from paying some form of rates? Will he also acknowledge that in scores of small businesses families who live above the shop and at the moment pay the poll tax upstairs and the uniform business rate downstairs would be exceptionally angry if there was any hint of exemption for farm shops?
    Mr. Key: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are no plans to alter the rating of agricultural premises. We looked at the non-domestic rating system in the first part of our review of local government structure and finance

    719
    and decided to retain the principle of the uniform business rate. That does not mean that we are wedded to every detail of the existing business rating system. We are certainly prepared to listen to those who wish to suggest improvements, but we do not envisage any major changes.
    Mr. Lord: Is my hon. Friend aware of the immense pressures on farm shops and on all village shops for a series of reasons? Is he further aware that often the people who depend most on those shops are the elderly and those without transport who cannot travel to supermarkets to get goods at cheaper prices? When looking at these matters, will he do all that he can to ensure that we do not pile any more burdens on small shops in rural areas?
    Mr. Key: Yes, of course, I shall be delighted to ensure that we give due consideration to important sources of community focus in rural areas. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that it was the revaluation process that many small businesses, and village shops in particular, found difficult rather than the tax itself. If the reform had not been introduced, the small business community would be carrying a burden in excess of £1 billion extra under the old rating system.

    Environmental Assessments
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss proposals for the environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes.
    Mr. Trippier: The European Commission has not yet formally adopted proposals to require environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes, but it is a matter which I expect to discuss in due course with my counterparts from other member states.
    Ms. Quin: Would not the draft proposals allow environmental considerations to be built in at every stage of the planning process and much more fully than they are at present? For that reason, will the Government put their weight behind the proposals and ensure that progress is made on them as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Trippier: I could not possibly put my weight behind the proposals as currently constituted by the Commission because they are, in truth, half-baked.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Too tough.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady intervenes to say "too tough". Rather than any commitment in any Labour party document, I can at least see one in the Government's White Paper in September which stated:
    "The United Kingdom is committed to a more systematic approach within Government, to the appraisal of environmental costs and benefits before decisions are taken."
    The proposals suggested by the European Commission are in a mess and the vast majority of the member states accept that. I hope that they will be tidied up so that we can achieve our objectives, which I am sure that the hon. Lady shares.
    Dr. Hampson: My hon. Friend has led a number of construction industry export drives. Before he joins European Ministers, will he talk to the Treasury about the export credits guarantee policy that it pursues and which has put our construction industry at a disadvantage
    720
    compared with the European industry, to the point that it now seems that the British trade centre in Moscow will be built by the French and the British airport terminal in Moscow by the Italians?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly be happy to raise the matter with my Treasury colleagues.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Given the Minister's commitment when answering question 7 and again in mouthing platitudes from his White Paper, why cannot he now say that he will endorse the principle of environmental assessment of planning and structure development at the local planning stage so that consideration of environmental matters is built into the system and so that we do not deal with them on an ad hoc basis and often far too late? The Minister should put his commitment where his words are supposed to be.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of such matters, as I discovered again in Committee this morning, shows an alarming gap; perhaps he suffers from delusions of adequacy. He has again revealed that he is unaware that the Government have already accepted the principle of environmental impact assessment. It is there in black and white in the White Paper. We intend to deliver and we are concerned about the detail which would have to come from the European Commission.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Although I welcome the Government's commitment to a cleaner environment and especially the White Paper, will the Minister confirm that he will do all that he can to ensure a level playing field in Europe? He will be aware of the 1 million mythical olive trees that the common agricultural policy set-aside scheme supports. Can he assure us that there will not be 1 million mythical rivers for which Europe gives clean water grants from money taken out of our pockets? We obey the rules, but Europe often does not.
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend has a very good point, but I should put it in a very different way. On environmental matters covering Europe, we play cricket, but I am pretty sure that others play rugby. Experience teaches me that the position will improve and that there will be a more level playing field after the introduction of the European Environmental Agency. Then we can make fair comparisons, carefully analyse the statistics put to the agency and compare like with like. At the moment, I am not satisfied that we are doing so.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In the light of the incident off the north Norfolk coast last Friday, will the Minister put on the agenda at the next Council meeting the environmental assessment of the transport by sea of hazardous chemicals? Is he aware that the loss overboard of the ethyl acrylate containers revealed two major defects? First, there is a lack of security in the transport of potentially lethal cargoes which could have a damaging effect on the marine environment. Secondly, once overboard, there was no labelling on the containers, which added to the risk to both marine life and the people trying to find the containers in the difficult waters off that coast.
    Mr. Trippier: One point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned worries me—that the containers were not labelled. However, my understanding of the incident is somewhat at odds with what the hon. Gentleman has expressed to the press and in a letter to the Department of

    721
    the Environment. Immediate action was taken last Friday. It was confirmed at 3.40 pm that the araldite hardener was no danger to the marine environment and that the other chemicals were only marginally toxic. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I wishes to mislead the House or indulge in any form of scaremongering which could put the fear of God into many people when it is not necessary. The chemicals were properly stowed in a well-found ship, but the tanks broke adrift in had weather. That can happen and it has happened. So far, according to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily. I shall look into the precise point that the hon. Gentleman makes about labelling and write to him.
    Mr. Favell: As a north-west Member, my hon. Friénd may have read in the local press that the Department of Transport has been reported to the European Commission for failing to obtain an environmental assessment of the impact of the A6 bypass. He will certainly have had experience of driving up and down that miserable road and the traffic conditions on it. When he meets his counterparts in Europe will he tell them that the people of Stockport are well capable of assessing the environmental impact of the bypass and that the European Commission should mind its own bloody business?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall have a careful look at that, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not use such colourful language.

    New Houses
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses for sale he expects will be completed during 1991–92.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The Government do not make forecasts of completions by private housebuilders.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that Blyth Valley borough council in my constituency has accrued £23 million over 10 years through the sale of council houses? Is he further aware that with that money it could have built at least 1,000 houses, but it has built only 290 houses during the whole period? When will the Government start building council houses for the needy and homeless?
    Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is £23 million which his local council would not have had if he had listened to Opposition Members. There would have been no right-to-buy receipts to have a debate about. Thanks to the sale of council houses, we have sustained a far higher level of capital expenditure on public sector housing than would have
    722
    been the case. For the future we look to housing associations, not local authorities, to build affordable homes for rent.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the number of people in Britain who own their homes is one of the greatest achievements of the Government in the past 10 years? Does he further agree that the key to ensuring an adequate supply of new homes in future which people will want to buy and want to rent is to continue the policy of requiring local authorities to put in place statutory local plans which define where the houses shall be built? The release of adequate land is central to the supply of new houses.
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our planning policies are designed to ensure that there is a five-year supply of land to meet housing needs throughout the country. Through regional guidance and monitoring of the structure of the district plans, it is our aim to ensure that land is available to meet the housing needs of local people.
    Mr. George Howarth: In view of the obvious gaps in the information that is being fed to the Minister about the number of starts in homes for sale, I shall help him. I do not know whether he is aware that, earlier this week, the Building Employers Confederation conducted a state-of-trade inquiry into that subject. Its conclusion was—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am coming to the question. Its conclusion was this:
    "We are pleased to see the very slight improvement in the private house building sector. Any real recovery in the housing market still seems to be a very long way off and will depend crucially on further cuts in interest rates and mortgages"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase, please. Do not quote.
    Mr. Howarth: There is no increase. What is the Minister going to do about that?
    Sir George Young: With house prices stable, with earnings rising between 5 and 10 per cent., and with interest rates falling, the prospects for house buyers and house builders are excellent.
    Mr. Dickens: What is the point in building more and more council houses when, at the moment, half a million council houses stand empty? We were talking earlier about recycling. If local government recycled council houses more quickly when they stand empty for weeks and sometimes months, there would be no problem with the homeless in this country.
    Sir George Young: I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will have been heard throughout the country. The 10 worst local authorities for voids are either Labour or Liberal Democrat controlled.

Bangladesh (Aid)
3.30 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The cyclone which struck Bangladesh on the night of 29 to 30 April was one of the most serious disasters in the region's history. Eye witness accounts have underlined the scale of the tragedy. The whole House shares in our grief and sympathy for the Bangladeshi people.
Precise assessments have been hindered by the severe damage to communications caused by the cyclone, and by continuing bad weather. Neither international donors nor the Bangladesh Government waited for information before starting relief operations. On 30 April we authorised our high commissioner in Dhaka to spend up to £250,000 on immediate relief needs. This formed part of the £2.5 million initial contribution announced in the House on 2 May by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). On 3 May I announced a further £2 million, bringing our total support for immediate disaster relief to £4.5 million.
A major relief effort is now well under way. Fifteen bilateral donors have offered assistance as well as some international organisations. The British response is one of the first and the largest. The physical difficulties involved are massive. Severe damage extends over an area the size of that part of England south of a line drawn between London and Bristol. Much of it still remains under water. Up to 15 million people have been affected.
The port of Chittagong and its equipment have been severely damaged. Rough seas continue to limit access to the islands, which are hardest hit.
The international relief effort must be co-ordinated and duplication avoided wherever possible. At the request of the Government of Bangladesh the United Nations Development Programme is acting as co-ordinator of the relief programmes of the international donor community. To assist in this task we are meeting the costs of two United Nations disaster relief staff.
British experience with previous disasters in Bangladesh, like the major floods of 1987 and 1988, is that non-governmental organisations, working with the support of the Government of Bangladesh, can operate very effectively providing relief. In the immediate aftermath of the cyclone, the priority has been to move stocks of food, clothing, medicines and shelter already in the country to the disaster zone, and to ensure adequate supplies of clean drinking water.
Of the £3.3 million of bilateral assistance announced last week, some £2.5 million is already being spent through a number of British NGOs and international agencies on food, shelter, clothing and medicines. A further £50,000 has been allocated for urgent medical supplies and water purification tablets, recommended by our medical adviser based in Dhaka. Staff from our irrigation project have already gone to assist local and British NGOs, who, together with UNICEF, are working to secure cleaner water in the affected areas. Our aid vehicles have also been made avilable to transport urgently needed supplies.
We have established an emergency office in Chittagong that is providing on-the-spot assessments. This will promote co-ordination with other agencies and
724
Government officials. It is staffed by a highly experienced British aid official who undertook similar work during the 1988 floods.
Some hon. Members have asked why we have not sent boats and helicopters. Our high commissioner in Dhaka is in constant touch with the Bangladesh authorities and other donors. He advises us daily on the most effective uses to which our money can be put, taking into account what is being provided by others. We have just heard that large numbers of boats, including at least 100 collapsible boats provided by Japan following the 1988 floods, are available in Bangladesh. Ten Royal National Lifeboat Institution boats which were donated by Britain in 1988 are being used by the Bangladesh Red Crescent. The high commissioner does not recommend provision of further boats from the United Kingdom. Six Bangladesh Navy ships are engaged in getting supplies to offshore islands. Relief goods are also being transported to Chittagong by rail.
Helicopters clearly have an important part to play as long as large areas remain inaccessible to surface transport. In the first instance this need can most effectively be met by countries within the region. India and Pakistan have already provided some helicopters, and I hope that other neighbouring countries may do likewise.
We are playing a full part in addressing Bangladesh's immediate relief needs as they become known. The co-ordination machinery is in place in Dhaka to try to ensure that all efforts are used to maximum effect and with the minimum duplication. I met the high commissioner of Bangladesh in London yesterday to discuss priorities.
I am pleased to announce that we are making available a further £2 million. This brings our total emergency commitment to date to £6.5 million. The £2 million will cover requests from NGOs for further priority relief supplies and the cost of sending the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, Fort Grange, equipped with medical facilities and disaster relief stores and two Sea King helicopters to assist with relief operations.
In the longer term, we have to accept that it will never be possible to protect Bangladesh totally against floods and cyclones, but certain things can be done to mitigate the effects of such natural disasters. The international community is already helping Bangladesh to develop its flood action plan, which includes further measures for cyclone protection. Other rehabilitation and construction needs will be considered once the immediate relief requirements have been met.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: With such a terrible death toll in Bangladesh, where tens of thousands of lives have been lost and millions of people are without homes, how can the Minister expect us to believe that that is an adequate response to their plight? Welcome as it is, an extra £2 million brings the total to just £6.5 million for what the Minister herself called
"one of the most serious disasters in the region's history."
Ten days after the tragedy, people in Bangladesh are asking, "Where is the help? Why doesn't it come?" They need water, food, medicines and shovels to bury the dead. They need to rebuild their homes and telecommunications system. They need money for cattle, tools and seeds for planting the next harvest. Delivering those is a massive logistical task. It cannot be left to charities. It must be done by Governments, so why has a military operation not been set up?

725
Is it not the case that the Minister's Department is virtually paralysed because the value of the aid budget is still 12 per cent. less in real terms than it was in 1979? Why has the Minister consistently failed to get more money from the Treasury? Does the right hon. Lady recall that, when a cyclone swept 1 million lives away in Bangladesh in 1970, a British amphibious squadron was there in just over a week, and the Minister was there in under a week, like the present French Minister?
Two years ago, when Hurricane Hugo hit Monserrat, HMS Alacrity served as a centre of communications. Surely there must be a frigate that could do the same in Bangladesh now from the Gulf—or is it that, because of the high rates charged by the Ministry of Defence for the use of planes, the cost of military operations will decimate the aid budget in a matter of days unless the ODA gets new money? Is that why the Minister wasted 10 valuable days before sending two Sea King helicopters? Why were only two sent, when the high commission says that at least 30 are needed?
The German Defence Ministry recognises the training value of using the military in civilian disasters, and the military training budget bears much of the cost while the aid budget bears only a fraction. Why cannot we do the same? Is it not true that the ODA's disaster unit is totally overwhelmed? Why is the disaster unit tucked away as part of the information unit? Why did the Foreign Office set up a round-the-clock Gulf crisis unit on 2 August with 50 staff, while the ODA's disaster unit has just six officials? Excellent though they are, those six officials are struggling to co-ordinate aid to victims of famine, cyclone and Iraqi persecution.
The Minister stressed the importance of international co-ordination, and said that the United Nations Development Programme is co-ordinating the relief effort in Bangladesh. Can she tell us why the United Kingdom's contribution to the UNDP has been cut by 52 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Bangladesh is one of our largest recipients of bilateral aid. Why has disaster preparedness not played a larger part in our long-term aid? Can the Minister assure us that British aid will be provided for reconstruction over the coming months and for cyclone shelters over the coming years?
Finally, will the Minister recognise that there will be more terrible and unnecessary deaths from cyclones and other disasters unless rich countries such as ours care enough about the poorest people in the world to match the killer winds and waves of Bengal with a hugh global effort to fight poverty and deprivation?
Mrs. Chalker: The extra £2 million that I have announced makes Britain the largest single national donor. I will consider further assistance for immediate relief or, to pick up the hon. Lady's last point, for longer-term rehabilitation as it is needed. In that respect work, has already started.
The hon. Lady asked many questions. The help has been in action since Tuesday of last week. The fact that all the detail has not been available even to me has a great deal to do with the awful problems of communication. It is perfectly true that France and Switzerland have been helping with internal communications, but those are by no means all restored. I received a telegram literally after I walked into the Chamber informing me that the problem of reaching the Bangladeshi people is caused not so much by transport difficulties as by the very poor weather.
726
The hon. Lady may not know that a tornado struck north of Dhaka last night and has obviously stretched resources there. When we were in contact with the high commission this morning, I made available a further £100,000 for the immediate needs of the people affected by that tornado.
The hon. Lady went on about the delivery of assistance within Bangladesh. A donor cannot expect to go into a country and act at variance with the Government of that country. One must act through the Government and the non-governmental organisations, and that is exactly what we are doing.
The hon. Lady mentioned a possible ministerial visit. Willing as I am to go, I do not think that that is immediately appropriate. I am thinking carefully about it, but I am anxious not to tie up necessary helicopter transport. Sadly, that is what happened last week when, I am told, three out of four relief helicopters were involved in ferrying visitors around rather than doing their relief job. I will go once the immediate crisis is over, provided that I can do something truly productive.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction are already part of the Bangladeshi flood action plan on which Britain has been engaged for a considerable time. We shall look at the disaster preparedness in such regions, particularly in Bangladesh, with the international agencies, as we started to do last year.
Sir Timothy Raison: I thank my right hon. Friend for the help that she has given in meeting this ghastly tragedy and for the assurance that she will consider making further contributions, which look as though they will inevitably be needed. Is the system of stockpiling that already exists to deal with the recurring crises in Bangladesh adequate? If not, will she assure us that that will be a high priority in future help?
Mrs. Chalker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Stockpiling of tents, sheeting and blankets must take place in the countries and regions involved. It is not sufficient simply to stockpile in this country as we have done, which has helped us to deal with the three simultaneous crises that we now face as a donor country. It is not sensible to stockpile food which could not be used within a reasonable period because food may not remain suitable for human consumption during that time. But I am told that adequate food is available in Bangladesh and we have made money available to the non-governmental agencies to enable them to buy food in Bangladesh for the people affected by the awful cyclone.
Sir David Steel: The cash and personnel help that the Government are giving is, of course, extremely welcome, but the right hon. Lady will know that six days ago in the House hon. Members from both sides raised the question of the supply of inflatable boats and helicopters. The right hon. Lady has just described the area affected as being equivalent in size to the south of England below the London-Bristol line, including 15 million people. In those circumstances, are not 10 rubber boats and three helicopters pitifully inadequate in comparison with the actual need?
Has the right hon. Lady approached our American allies, who have a large amphibious force in the Gulf which is no longer required there and which could be made available in the bay of Bengal?

727
Finally, did I understand the right hon. Lady to say that the Ministry of Defence has sent her Department a bill for the use of RFA Fort Grange? If so, will she send it back?
Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to keep the needs of the Bangladeshi people in the forefront of the news. We are not just talking about 10 boats; 100 boats are already there from our previous donation. We knew that they were there, but they had to be found by the Bangladeshi people before they could be used. It was far quicker to do that than to send 100 new boats, which would have had to be acquired.
We have said that we will consider further needs, so the right hon. Gentleman need not be in any doubt about our intention to obtain not only a daily report but a many-times-daily report from the people who are there and who can judge far better than I or any other hon. Member what can best be done to help the people most effectively and quickly. I am in touch with other Governments about their plans, and I shall remain so to see what can be delivered quickly to the area. It is important to ensure that the Bangladeshi Government get the help that they can best use, as was done last week.
Sir Richard Luce: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her prompt action, which is an example to many other Governments. Does she agree that this latest tragedy reinforces the urgent need for some permanent international machinery which can stand ready to advise vulnerable Governments and nations on how to deal speedily and urgently with catastrophes of this kind? Will my right hon. Friend take a lead on that?
Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. After my visit to Jordan, when we faced the crisis of Asian refugees from then occupied Kuwait and other parts of the region, I started to put work in hand to examine this issue of the international response. The United Nations disaster relief organisation has always been ready to get into situations which these days seem far beyond its capacity. That is why I am discussing with fellow members of the Community and with international organisations how a better immediate international response could be provided. Work has already begun, and I hope that, before too long, other countries will follow our lead in making the same level of response.
Mr. Peter Shore: I thank the right hon. Lady for her swift response to the desire on both sides of the House for a statement today. The House will understand the great logistical difficulties involved in getting help to the remote and damaged areas of Bangladesh, and the problems caused by the breakdown of telecommunications between Bangladesh and this country.
What the Minister has already said makes it clear how crucial is the supply of helicopters. The collapsible boats would be fine in ordinary circumstances, but apparently the bay of Bengal has been so rough that people have not been able to use boats. In fact, many boats were sunk during the cyclone, so helicopters are the only way to bring assistance to the people who have been so badly affected. However, there are only nine helicopters in Bangladesh at the moment—four of its own, three from India, two from Pakistan, and two from Britain. I am delighted that we have sent those helicopters—they will play a crucial role
728
—but could we not bring ourselves to make a bigger effort to secure the means to get supplies to the people most in need of them?
Lastly, the House and the country most want to know whether, in reacting to that great and continuing disaster, the Government are clearly committed to sustaining a suitable and adequate response. We should like to hear not only that the right hon. Lady will take action, but that she has the backing of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in meeting the further demands that will certainly be made by the people of that terribly damaged area.
Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Member is absolutely right to draw great attention to the enormous waves and continuing bad weather conditions in the area, and to the fact that boats there could not operate. We were sorry to note the sinking in the bay of Bengal of a trawler, which I believe was carrying representatives of the non-governmental organisation CARE. We have to consider what is feasible, out there on the water. At the moment, that means making some deliveries by boat and some by helicopter. However, I have been informed that weather conditions have been such that not even helicopters could fly safely into the affected areas.
It is far better to wait—although that is very painful for the people on the ground—than to lose a helicopter, its pilot, and all the medicines aboard. That is why the operation is taking time. I understand hon. Members' frustration that things seem to be taking so long, and I share that feeling, but I must ensure that we continue to be able to look after the equipment that we and other nations supply.
I have been in touch with our chargé in Bangkok to support the request by the Bangladeshi Government to the Thai army for the loan of its helicopters. Those helicopters are nearby in flying terms, and are suitable for operating in the adverse weather conditions that so often exist in that part of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the support of my right hon. Friends. I assure him that I have the fullest support of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and of all the other members of the Cabinet.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House is pleased that there is a statement on this important matter today. Will hon. Members ask brief question so that, hopefully, I may call every hon. Member who wishes to put a question?
Mr. Rupert Allason: Given the apparent disagreement among the NGOs, is there not a danger of wasteful duplication? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in future, more aid should be channelled through the United Nations disaster relief organisation?
Mrs. Chalker: I do not find from my discussions with the non-governmental agencies that they are disagreeing; they are working together extremely well. The United Nations disaster relief organisation simply is not large enough to handle the enormous amount being handled both by British and local NGOs in Bangladesh. We have every reason to be thoroughly proud of what British NGOs and people on the ground are doing.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that hundreds of thousands of British citizens have relatives who may have died, been injured or made homeless in this terrible disaster. Could she share with the House what is being done to get information to that community? Is there a helpline that they can ring? Is her Department in touch with their organisations? As she can imagine, today there must be thousands of people, especially in the east end of London, wondering, and wanting information, about their loved ones.
Mrs. Chalker: I am very well aware of that problem. Although I do not have the same size community with roots in Bangladesh in my constituency as the hon. Lady has in hers, I have many connections and friends in the same worried state as I understand her constituents must be in. As I have already outlined, our difficulty is with the telephone lines and the failure to communicate, or even to have registers of where people are. Sadly, the identification of many people who have died is not an easy process. As soon as the Government of Bangladesh can give us information, I know that they will do so, but at the moment it is very difficult. I could not envisage setting up a hot line, because the information that could come in simply might not be accurate in the confusion that still exists in Bangladesh.
Dr. John Blackburn: Would my right hon. Friend pay a warm and generous tribute to the large Bangladeshi community in this country for the aid that they are going to give, and would she support them in their efforts? Secondly——
Mr. Speaker: Single questions, please.
Dr. Blackburn: Well, finally, would my right hon. Friend give special attention in the long term to the importance of restoring Chittagong, which is Bangladesh's only sea port, to bring in aid and support?
Mrs. Chalker: The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is yes.
Mr. Ernie Ross: What is the Minister doing in the longer term to deal with the problem of poverty which exists in that country—poverty which is accentuated when natural disasters hit Bangladesh? For instance, when this is all over, the clearing up will start. Farmers who have lost all their crops will have to buy in seed again. What efforts is the Minister making, with the Bangladeshi Government, to ensure that those same farmers do not put themselves further into debt by having to purchase the seed that will be required?
Mrs. Chalker: Quite apart from this current disaster we have a £50 million-a-year aid programme with the Bangladeshi people, much of which is delivered through local non-governmental organisations, which are active with the farmers and have helped to set up credit unions and so on. All that will continue. Our immediate efforts must be directed towards the relief of those poor people, on tiny scraps of land, who have very little to eat and have no cover. However, I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the long term, the supply of seed for planting is important and we shall continue to support the Bangladeshi people in the way that we have done, which helps to alleviate poverty.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her prompt, careful and caring reaction to this disaster in Bangladesh. Would she convey to those people in the ODA, the emergency relief organisations and the NGOs the thanks of this House and of all those who are suffering for their hard work over many long hours in response to this disaster? Could she make representations to the Bangladeshi Government that, in the rehabilitation process, people are moved away from the low-lying islands and offshore areas to higher ground?
Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the British NGOs, and especially to the ODA disaster relief unit, which comprises nine, not six, officials and which also has the help of many support staff, senior officials in the Department, the Ministry of Defence and the diplomatic wing officials in the work that we are now doing.
I am well aware that the rehabilitation needs will be very great. However, I do not like programmes of forcible movement unless adequate conditions can be provided. People have to be persuaded to go. I am certain that we shall discuss the relocation of people with the Government of Bangladesh, but it is much too early to say exactly how it could be achieved.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The right hon. Lady has rightly placed emphasis on the need for international co-operation and co-ordination in this matter. In that context, what overtures have been made to, and what response received from, the American authorities about the possibility of using the substantial American presence in Diego Garcia, which could be a centre from which aid could come? Will she also tell us when she anticipates that the Fort Grange will reach Bangladesh?
Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the Fort Grange will be in Bangladesh next week, preparing the helicopters as it sails into those waters.
The question of international co-operation—including co-operation with the United States of America and any other country that has bases and likely equipment in the area—is under discussion and being pursued. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend see any risk of an epidemic of cholera in the coming weeks? If so, what is the position with the provision of supplies of cholera vaccine?
Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, cholera vaccine is one of the specific recommendations from the British medical aid adviser in Dhaka. A large quantity of septrin will be sent to Bangladesh, because that drug is not readily available there. We shall also send the other urgently required medical supplies forthwith.
Mr. Max Madden: Has the Minister had cause to reflect on the energy and efficiency with which the British Government mobilised for war in the Gulf, and compared it with their response to the disaster in Bangladesh, which has been so dilatory and gravely disappointing? Why has more money not been made available more quickly? Why have not helicopters, amphibious craft and other equipment been redeployed from the Gulf to Bangladesh? Does the Minister understand that, so far, the Government's performance

731
leaves many in this country and in Bangladesh thinking that they are suffering not so much from aid fatigue as from aid paralysis?
Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to the careful answer that I tried to give his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the weather conditions. In recent days, they have made the use of craft already in Bangladesh impossible. The vehicles to get the goods to the people are available in Bangladesh, but the weather conditions have made the task difficult.
The hon. Gentleman brings totally non-comparable factors into his argument. We are not in a war, as we have recently been, but we are dealing with one of the most severe of natural disasters, to which all countries of the world need to respond. That is why all the partners in the flood action plans, and all the partners in the UN agencies, should be seeking to contribute as much as Britain. If they had all done their bit, the people of Bangladesh would already be in a far better state.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not rather sad that such a great tragedy should be the subject of party political claptrap? Is my right hon. Friend aware that she was extremely sensible not to waste resources by swanning off on a personal public relations exercise? She should be congratulated on that.
My right hon. Friend told us that Britain's contribution was the largest. What efforts are being made in the EC to persuade some of our partners to step up their contributions, given that they are so good at sermonising on the subject?
Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his realism. Our German partners have contributed DM 15 million of assistance. Our Danish partners——
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: That is more than us.
Mrs. Chalker: No, it is not more than us. The hon. Gentleman cannot calculate. At today's rate of exchange, that is £5.068 million. Other countries have contributed various sums, but none as large as Britain's contribution. The French contribution in which my hon. Friend is interested amounts in pounds to £1.18 million only.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Perhaps the Minister would explain to her hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) that the reason why there might be some political divide on the matter is that Opposition Members represent large numbers of constituents with relatives who are suffering. While Conservative Members are busy congratulating the Government, our constituents are extremely worried that comparatively little help has been sent, while there is so much hardware in the Gulf that could be used even in bad weather conditions. What international arrangements are being considered for earlier warnings of possible floods? It happens repeatedly and is obviously an international issue as warnings must come from higher up the Ganges. Other countries must be involved, so that steps can be taken to protect people and to evacuate them in good time.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady is quite unfair in what she says about my hon. Friends and their relations with
732
Bangladeshi friends and constituents. I made it quite clear in answer to a previous question that I have already been in touch with Bangladeshi friends. I am just as concerned as she is, but the reason why I will not throw the British taxpayers' money into an aircraft which cannot get to its destination is prudence—not stupidity or unwillingness but prudence. The money has been put up and we know that we can use it to help the Bangladeshi people, and that is exactly right.
Sir John Stokes: While we are all most sympathetic to the appalling tragedy in Bangladesh and are grateful for the lead that the Government have given, and for the support of other Governments and private individuals to alleviate the suffering there, we must ask ourselves whether we should be discussing the matter as we have no control over it and no responsibilty for it. Furthermore, should we not fix our own agenda in our discussions here, rather than using that fixed by the television companies?
Mrs. Chalker: I can assure my hon. Friend that we do fix our own agenda. However, when so many people are in need, I believe it absolutely right, first, that the world should be told by the media what is going on, and, secondly, that the British Government, in partnership with other donors, should do their best to play their part in relieving the tragedy affecting those people. I and the Government will continue to make sure that that happens. There are tragedies all over the world and whether they are natural disasters or the man-made effects of conflict in places such as Ethiopia and Sudan, we have a moral duty to help the people involved.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister should be aware that many of my constituents, all British taxpayers, are deeply concerned, because of their family ties, about the scale of the tragedy in Bangladesh. They feel, as I do, that the British Government's response so far has not shown the necessary urgency or generosity. Will she reconsider the point that has been raised on several occasions about the need for helicopters? Will she give us a guarantee that, if the Bangladesh Government or responsible non-governmental organisations request the assistance of British helicopters, those helicopters will be sent?
Mrs. Chalker: I have already said that the important thing is to get the aid that the Bangladeshi Government can use to its destination as quickly as possible. That was why, yesterday, I made an approach to the Thai Government, knowing that the Bangladeshi Government—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Why only yesterday?"] I was only told yesterday. The Bangladeshi Government had requested nearby helicopters. The point of doing that work in a logical and sensible way is that we do not waste resources and that we get them to the people who need them. There is no lack of urgency in my Department or in the Government. It is a question of what is practical in some of the worst weather conditions ever in the bay of Bengal.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I remind my right hon. Friend that many Conservative Members also have Bangladeshi constituents? We commend her for her vigorous and effective efforts to help their relatives. Does she agree that her comparisons with the Gulf war are very useful? It took six months to build up the troops for

733
the Gulf war and more than 30 countries were more than actively involved. Should there not be an international reaction to such disasters, instead of the British Government being well out ahead but leading a somewhat straggling pack?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank her for what she said at the beginning of her question. It was notable that we had time—not that we wanted it—to build up our forces and stocks and make the necessary assessments and other preparations to free Kuwait from the invasion of Saddam Hussein and his troops. My hon. Friend is also right to say that more than double the number of countries were involved in the Gulf conflict as have made any attempt to help in the present crisis. We need a better international response but, until we have one, we are pleased to continue to do our best and to take the lead where we can.
Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister says that she has the support of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary. Is the £6.5 million to which she referred—that is only 40p a head for each person affected—new money to her Department or does it come from her existing budget? If it is from her existing budget, is not money being snatched from one area of need to help people in another?
Mrs. Chalker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no current aid activity is being displaced or delayed by the £6.5 million expenditure and that £1.2 million of the 10 million ecu aid package announced by the EC and the balance of £5.3 million are from our disaster relief funds. As yet, those funds are uncommitted and are specially kept in the budget. We are well aware of the pressure of having three simultaneous disasters on our hands. I am not afraid to ask for new money when it is necessary but, until I have used my budget, I cannot make as good a case as I can when I have used it. Given the response that I received for £20 million for another disaster last week, I have no doubt that I shall receive an equally generous response from my right hon. Friend.
Mr. William Cash: Did my right hon. Friend hear that there is a great deal of comment about taxpayers' money and Government expenditure on aid? Does she agree that the British Government have done extremely well to be at the forefront of providing that money? However, does she also agree that, although money could be made available through voluntary contributions, it would not be a bad idea for those who can afford it—there may be more such people than realise it—to give as much as 5 or 10 per cent. of their net salary for this month to help the people in Bangladesh and also those in Africa and Iraq?
Mrs. Chalker: I believe that no public are as generous as the British when it comes to giving money for people in need. That is why the British Government have taken measures every year in our budgets to make it easier for people to donate funds, and more beneficial for voluntary agencies to carry out such splendid work. I hope that the British public will respond to the current appeals. The Government will back the people in responding to the needs of those who have been so badly affected overseas.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that she is protesting too much to the House and
734
not enough to the Treasury? If she is addressing the three areas of crisis that she mentioned, why do we read in this morning's newspapers that undernourished children in Ethiopia are having their supplementary food rations halved because donors have not provided the necessary food? Why could she not answer the simple question that was asked on television last night, about whether Britain has donated the 0.7 per cent. of GNP that virtually every other European country has given? Is she not ashamed that Britain has donated only 0.31 per cent. in the light of the crisis that she has outlined?
Mrs. Chalker: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to respond to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised on the Ogaden, although it lies outside the scope of this statement. I, too, saw with horror this morning's newspaper report about the specific problem in the Ogaden. I gather that it is partly a delivery problem, but we are looking into the matter with the non-governmental agencies, and I shall ensure that the food that we have already put in the pipeline is destined for such districts. That is exactly what the World Food Programme in Addis Ababa is seeking to do at present.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, which is regularly raised, we have to gain the support of the British people, which now exists, for a higher percentage, and seek to make the aid programme grow in real terms. That is exactly what my predecessors and I have sought to do, and I hope that we will achieve that aim.
Mr. Michael Lord: Is it not the sad truth, which we are all loth to accept, that sometimes the forces of nature are so overpowering that there is nothing that man can do in the short term to combat them? While the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I am sure, cares as much about that as we all do, there is little point in suggesting that we provide shovels to plant seed on ground that is still many feet under water.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement to the House, which shows real purpose on the part of the Government. Will she assure us once again that we shall do all we can in the short term and stand ready to give the right help in the right place when it is needed?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right to say that the forces of nature are quite terrifying and cannot necessarily be coped with in the short term. That is why we have been supporting work towards the convention on climate change, under which we hope that all countries will take steps to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming and make the difficulties experienced by such low-lying districts all the worse. We pledged £40 million in 1990 to help the global environmental facility work, which will help countries such as Bangladesh.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I reiterate the points made by my hon. Friends about the urgency of the position in Bangladesh, where hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk? While the weather is obviously very bad at present and makes it difficult for helicopters to get through to the offshore islands, that is no excuse for not getting helicopters to Bangladesh so that they can then be used when the weather gets better. Clearly, the Ministry of Defence has at its disposal all the helicopters necessary,

735
but they have to be placed in position. Will the Minister make arrangements to get the helicopters there immediately so that the relief aid can be provided?
Mrs. Chalker: I remain firmly convinced that we must work with the Government of Bangladesh on the plans that they are making for the provision of food, medicine and shelter. We shall be guided by the information that we receive from them, and from our aid co-ordinators on the ground. We shall put in all the aid we can, in conjunction with other countries—the problem cannot be left to Britain alone.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Frend accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, that the staff of the non-governmental organisations and the Overseas Development Administration deserve congratulations for coping with this and the other two great disasters, which are prompting urgent and effective action from private individuals, the national Government and multilateral agencies? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if she needs to come back to the House for approval for extra money to be added to her budget during the year, she will receive a great welcome from both sides of the House? Other people would like her to be successful in achieving movement towards the 0.7 per cent. of GDP target, preferably in a planned, co-ordinated and urgent approach.
Mrs. Chalker: I am certainly aware of the excellent work of the NGO and ODA staff. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said in the second part of his question, and I am glad that I shall have his support.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) made a plea on behalf of Bangladeshi farmers. I should like to make a similar plea on behalf of the fishermen—[Laughter]—the Bangladeshi fishermen—and it is no laughing matter. Many of these people lost their lives along with their boats and fishing gear. With regard to their colleagues who lost boats and gear, will the Minister discuss with her European Community colleagues the urgent need for replacements? Surely, in the maritime communities of the EC, there must be up to 1,000 boats suitable for use by these fishermen, who should not be saddled with heavy loans for the purchase of vessels. The EC and its fishing communities ought to be able to help.
Mrs. Chalker: I certainly note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we shall consider it. The most important thing is that the Bangladeshi fishermen should be able, when the weather improves, to regain their livelihood. I fully appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark rose——
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Member present for the statement?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I understand your resting between questions, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I do so at times.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while nature can never be entirely stopped, we can spend money on super-computers and satellites? The better we can forecast tragedies, the better our chance of saving lives. If we could stop nature, we should be better than any god or any David Icke. If money were spent on forecasting, it would help to save human life, which is what we are all most concerned about.
Mrs. Chalker: I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of satellite warning systems. I understand that the people of the area were given two to three days' warning of the cyclone but that, sadly, some of them were unwilling to move.
Mr. George Foulkes: Some could not.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: some were unable to move. However much satellite warning is given, the machinery has to be in place locally if people are to be able to move; and they have to be willing to move. One cannot make people move, and that can result in great tragedy.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall try to call hon. Members who are standing—not those who have been meditating. I hope that questions and answers will be brief, as there is a very heavy day ahead of us. Mr. Nellist.
Mr. Dave Nellist: There is a business motion.
Mr. Speaker: Do not argue, please.
Mr. Nellist: All I said was that there is a business motion.
Did not the Minister see last night's television news, which reported that, according to aid agencies, more than 500,000 people in Bangladesh had lost their lives, and more than 10 million had been made homeless? It has been announced that two additional Sea King helicopters are to be provided, but a total of 11 helicopters is completely pathetic. In the case of the Gulf, a huge task force was mobilised for the sake of oil. In the case of Bangladesh, where there is no oil, all that the Minister can say is that contact with those who have helicopters is under discussion.
Will not the Minister recognise that, if the cycle of drought, flood, famine and cyclones—decade after decade—is to be broken, she and her Department will have to consider not only the removal of poverty from that country but also the solution of the debt problem? The amount of money coming back to the west in this way each year is greater than the amount that goes out to tackle disasters.
Mrs. Chalker: I am glad to be able to say that international concern can be expressed at the long-term consultative group in Paris at the end of this month. The major donor agencies will be able to discuss what might need to be done for the future. I hope that those who estimate that more than 500,000 people have died are exaggerating. The Government of Bangladesh said today that they believed the number to be in the region of 200,000, but it will be quite some time before we know.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Whatever the figures, the Minister will accept that the disaster for Bangladesh is worse in terms of deaths, disease and homelessness than the events in Kuwait and Iraq over the last year. Given that, may I put it to her that the House and, I believe, Bangladeshis, wherever they are in the world, expect Britain, because of our historic ties with that country, to lead the mobilisation of the western world to go to the rescue of Bangladesh now? We have the capacity to do so. The west has the ships, the aircraft, the helicopters, the personnel and the skill to do so. Next week will not be soon enough.
Mrs. Chalker: If anyone has lost a loved one in a disaster, or has someone crippled by disease, for that family and that person that is the deepest tragedy. Whatever the total numbers, if we add them up across the whole world, it is a sad world in which we live. I hope that the efforts that we are already making to mobilise the western world will succeed, but I repeat that Britain is playing its part and will go on doing so. What I want is support from our partners and others who can also contribute and not leave it all to Britain.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Minister has acknowledged the contribution made by members of the Bangladeshi community in Britain. She will know of initiatives in various cities by the Bangladeshi community. One problem is co-ordinating such initiatives. Can she offer any assistance to the various groups, such as Indian restaurants run by Bangladeshis in Manchester, who do not know where to send their contributions? Should it be done through the high commission for Bangladesh or through her Department?
Mrs. Chalker: I think that the best thing is to make the contributions to the aid agencies which are already working in Bangladesh. Concern, Save the Children Fund, CARE Britain, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. Y-Care, and, I believe, Christian Aid and Action Aid have already set up operations. In addition, the British Red Cross has put money into the Bangladeshi Red Crescent. All those organisations are worthy of support. Those who wish to donate should donate cash to those organisations, because many of the goods which are needed by the people are available locally in the region. Putting cash into the region is helpful to it, as the hon. Gentleman understands. That is better than sending goods which may or may not be suitable in Muslim communities.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I accept that the Minister and her Department are doing the best they can in the face of the great series of tragedies, within the constraints of Government policy. Does she find it as distasteful as I do, when turning on the television at night, to see desperate, starving people and, often in the same bulletin, to see her parliamentary colleagues calling for tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts? Will she accept that many people in my constituency, and no doubt many who support her party, would willingly pay higher taxes if they could be sure that the money would be used to help the people in the desperate situation that we see on television every night?
Mrs. Chalker: One reason that this Government have made sure that it is easier for people to give has been their willingness to forgo tax so that people may donate to worthwhile causes. I can think of no more worthwhile causes than the people who are suffering from the
738
Bangladeshi floods, the people suffering in Africa and the people suffering from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and from the penalisation of Kurdish people in Iraq. They are all worthy causes. Of course, there are many more besides.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The ODA is trying to deal with three major disasters. I understand that it deals normally with about 90 disasters a year. It does not have the resources to handle all that. There are six officials in the disaster unit; I believe that the staff have been increased because of the Kurdish problem. The ODA needs more resources from the Treasury. Only in that way can we begin to handle the problems as they should be handled.
Mrs. Chalker: To correct the hon. Gentleman, there are nine officials and their support staff. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how long?"] There have been nine officials for some weeks. We have been drawing on our professional advisory resources, on senior officials, on the Ministry of Defence and on the diplomatic wing, as I made clear in answer to an earlier question. We are coping very well, but the pressure is great. I am deeply grateful to my staff, many of whom have been working enormous hours, all weekends and all hours of the night. They deserve the House's congratulations, not some of the more mean-minded comments that I have heard over the past two weeks.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Should not the ludicrous procedure whereby the Ministry of Defence invoices the Overseas Development Administration for the use of military equipment be terminated immediately? What possible justification can there be for taking money out of the ODA's stretched budget and putting it into the Ministry of Defence's budget? How can the Minister possibly justify that? Will she terminate it immediately?
Mrs. Chalker: I would that I could change all the things that the hon. Gentleman thinks desirable and, even better, those which I think desirable, as quickly as he makes the case for doing so. It is right that we should calculate the proper cost, but I am looking for ways to assist our relief efforts. We find it most convenient on some occasions to use the Ministry of Defence and, on others, to use private chartered aircraft to carry our goods where they are needed.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In the longer term, will the Government organise trips by contractors to Bangladesh—as they have done to Kuwait—to ensure that, in the future, there are adequate flood defence measures—or at least an attempt to provide them—so that such a tragedy is unlikely to be repeated? Will the Government provide real money for such facilities?
They could perhaps think of using the ability, technology and techniques of workers in this country to preserve and develop lives in Bangladesh instead of pouring away £10,000 million on Trident nuclear weapons. Most people recognise that the priority of preserving life is better than the preparation for destruction.
Mrs. Chalker: I have been very pleased to acknowledge the work of British engineering firms, consultants and others in the Bangladesh flood action plan work, which has now been going on for some time. We have always supported British companies in doing that work, and we

739
shall continue to do so. I hope that the action will provide work for people in this country, but I cannot deny that I believe that it is absolutely right that, where British companies can do good work abroad, they should be helped to do so and should be given the contracts in order for them to gain work so that people in this country may have employment.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: It appears from the view expressed by some Conservative Members that they doubt the Government's responsibility. Does the hon. Lady agree that some countries, especially this one, exploited Bangladesh to create their wealth over the years? Therefore, does she agree that there should be no consideration of limited aid to Bangladesh at this time?
Mrs. Chalker: I get the firm impression that the hon. Gentleman is living in the past. Bangladesh is a very poor country, and it has always been poor. Year after year, this country has sought to help Bangladesh. Our annual aid programme is £50 million, and this year our aid to Bangladesh is already much higher, because we shall continue to help that country once the flood waters have subsided.
Mr. Tony Banks: In an earlier reply, when comparing the Government's response in Kuwait to their response in Bangladesh, the Minister said that we were not at war. Many of us think that we should be at war—at war against poverty and against disasters in areas such as Bangladesh. As such disasters are, tragically, likely to continue to occur around the world, could we not benefit from the peace dividend by converting a significant proportion of our armed forces into a disaster response force? The forces have the material and the skills which could be put to such great use in a disaster area such as Bangladesh or elsewhere.
Mrs. Chalker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was already aware that we had increased our poverty alleviation measures throughout the world and intend to continue to do so. No one could be more grateful than I to the British officers and men who work in various places in the world to alleviate the awful problems that countries face. They do not work only in the well publicised and sudden disasters: British troops go anywhere and everywhere to help when they are needed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that nothing characterises the Government more than their attitude to war, their patriotism and jingoism and their attitude to the starving thousands and millions throughout the world? Would not she be better displaced today and on other occasions when there is a need for Government money if the budget had been increased to 0.7 per cent. of GNP? Is it not a fact that we live in a society based on the entrepreneurialism of the Tories, in which Gazza can be sold for £8.5 million while we have a paltry £6.5 million for the Bangladeshis?
Mrs. Chalker: I am glad to say that I have no responsibility for Gazza. I do not intend, in the hon. Gentleman's word, to be displaced. Some of the best
740
entrepreneurs among many of my friends and acquaintances have come from southern Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. They are among the best entrepreneurs we have.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I gave her office notice this morning, about the long term, and especially about the flood action plan to which she referred in her statement? What consideration is being given to the effects of global warming on the snows? Will she call into her office Dr. Houghton and Dr. Keith Browning of the Meteorological Office for a considered opinion about the effects of the Kuwait oil fires which are apparently affecting the snows of the Himalayas? We read this morning that the effect has now reached as far as west China. She should ask about the effect on the Bangladeshis of what happens in the upper areas of the great rivers.
Mrs. Chalker: I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that Saddam Hussein's action in setting fire to the oil wells of Kuwait was environmental vandalism of the worst order. I cannot predict with any certainty the environmental consequences for the Indian sub-continent or wherever else there may be difficulties. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are studying the emerging scientific work with great care. The immediate priority for my Department is to bring urgent relief to those affected by the awful cyclone and the continuing bad weather, but I shall ensure that our chief natural resources adviser is made fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's question and that we use all the information available to us from scientific sources to pursue the matter.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Last but not least, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for leaving me until last. I usually walk up and down the stairs to my office three times a day for exercise but the exercise that I have had in the past hour and 10 minutes will save me the trouble today.
Will the Minister allow me the pleasure of simplifying her statement for her? One hour and seven minutes into answering questions on her statement, all that she has announced is a miserable, inadequate £2 million additional money for the NGOs and an extra two helicopters some time next week. Everything else is under discussion. That reflects the level of the Government's concern about the plight of the Bangladeshis. Will she answer the question put to her by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? Has the Ministry of Defence sent to her office an account for the use of the vessel that is to go to Bangladesh? If it has, does she support the transfer of overseas aid to the defence budget?
Mrs. Chalker: I will use overseas development resources to help the people of Bangladesh. I shall use not only what has already been announced and what was announced last week and today, but any other resources that are necessary.
The hon. Gentleman does not understand—I do not blame him for that—the way in which Government financing and accounting works. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the resources of one Department are just handed over to another, he is much mistaken, and he would have been mistaken in his own Government, in which he served for a while. The resources that are

741
necessary for the Bangladeshi people will be provided, but they must not be provided just by the British people; they must be provided by the whole international community.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that we are disappointed that many of the questions asked last Thursday have still not been answered today, nearly a week later? I refer to questions about the deployment of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines with sophisticated communications, helicopters and boats, as requested by the Government of Bangladesh, as a Tory Government did in 1970 in response to a similar disaster. It is no use hiding under the excuse of the weather, because, in another area last week, the Minister blamed the European Community and she had to confess her error on that as well.
Will the right hon. Lady admit, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said today, that the charge that the Ministry of Defence makes would devastate an already inadequate ODA budget? Will she now stand up with some courage at the Dispatch Box and say that she will get the Chancellor—at least she will ask the Chancellor—to agree the additional funds to the ODA to cover the cost of all necessary military personnel and equipment to deal with this emergency?
As you know particularly, Mr. Speaker, we have a special responsibility to Bangladesh as a Commonwealth country to lead the aid effort. We have not just a. moral responsibility to act both speedily and generously, but, following the elections in February, which I had the privilege of attending, a responsibility to underpin the democracy that now exists in Bangladesh.
Mrs. Chalker: Nobody is more glad than I that Bangladesh now has a democracy. We obviously must help the Government of that country, who are very new and very inexperienced, to carry through the work that they are seeking to do. That Government obviously have no experience of disaster co-ordination, but their army has, and that is why it has now been called in to play a central role in alleviation.
I am, and hope I always will be, a realist about what can be done. I believe that more resources are necessary in these exceptional circumstances, but, however helpful he might think his comments are, the hon. Gentleman must leave to me the approaches that I have made, and continue to make, for the resources that I need to carry out my job efficiently.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a serious and perplexing matter relating to European Community Standing Committees A and B. I am deeply concerned about those Committees and, inter alia, their modus operandi. This morning, European Community Standing Committee B was adjourned after about 16 minutes—the Minister may confirm that—among some confusion and irritation felt by Committee members. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), with characteristic courtesy and good sense, agreed to the adjournment of the Committee.
The irritation this morning was caused by, among other things, the dismally late production of the documents that were to be considered by Committee members. Growing anger and concern are being felt by the permanent members of European Community Standing Committee B about the way in which it is treated in terms of, first, the disgracefully short notice of its meetings and, secondly, the unacceptably late production of the documents.
In addition, I am given to understand that Standing Order No. 102 governing such Committees is to be changed, with no consultation whatsoever with the permanent members of the Committee. You know, Mr. Speaker, that those Committees are engaged in very important work—the consideration of draft directives, regulations and other paraphernalia flowing from Brussels. We deserve at the very least some guidance on this disquieting matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am well aware that documents were not available this morning. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order at some length, because it is important that the matters that he raised are on the record for the Leader of the House to deal with tomorrow, as they are matters for him. Does the Minister wish to say something?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): Perhaps it might help the House if I explain what happened and the circumstances. The explanatory memoranda from the Department were made available to the Vote Office when they were published last October and February.
Last week, the report of the Select Committee was delivered to the European unit of the Department of Trade and Industry on Friday. On the next working day, which was Tuesday morning, those papers were delivered to the parliamentary unit at 10.45. There were 100 documents to be photocopied, and they were photocopied. They were delivered to the Hallkeeper's Lodge at 1.15. Those who delivered them were assured by those who work in the Hallkeeper's Lodge that they would be put on the letter board, and I am assured that they were put on the letter board. Therefore, those documents were available to hon. Members by lunchtime yesterday.
If there has been any fault, I am entirely responsible, and I apologise to the House. I have given instructions that in future, even if reports or documents are late coming from Select Committees, the DTI should deliver its

743
documents to hon. Members a full five working days before the Committee meets. I apologise to the House. I am responsible, not my officials.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not the same point of order?
Mr. Nicholls: My point of order concerns your responsibility for the accuracy of our proceedings, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of early-day motion 775, which is entitled "Alternative to Council Tax" and sets out the inadequacies in Labour's plans. Today's Votes and Proceedings state that 53 of my hon. Friends have also signed it. The difficulty is that the list now includes also the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
The implications of that are really quite difficult. If the hon. Gentleman now wants to join myself and my hon. Friends, it may be the start of a long overdue process of conversion. Having seen the hon. Gentleman perform in the House over a number of years, I doubt whether he has undergone a conversion. I think that he has probably been slightly careless in signing early-day motions.
The problem is that we know from the proceedings in the House yesterday that you were able to quote for us from "Erskine May" and point out that, in normal circumstances, obvious mistakes can be corrected. One must simply assume that the addition of the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West is an obvious mistake. The difficulty is that that view may not have any consensus within the House, because we know that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has been complaining loudly about any change to the record whatsoever.
Is there any consensus about what should be done? Have we any way of finding out whether the hon. Gentleman is a convert to the cause or, in the interests of ensuring that the record stays how Opposition Members want it to stay, should it remain as a standing reproach to the hon. Member for Bradford, West?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no intimation from the hon. Member concerned that he has complained about this matter. It may be a mistake; it may not. No doubt we shall hear that tomorrow.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Department of Trade and Industry or from the Ministry of Defence that they would have wished to have made a statement this afternoon on the news that emerged after 12 o'clock this afternoon, the latest time for raising Standing Order No. 20 debates, that Rolls-Royce is to axe a further 3,000 jobs in Coventry, Bristol, Derby and elsewhere?
I realise that it is possible—I shall try to do so tomorrow—to raise with the Leader of the House the possibility of a debate on this matter, but thousands of anguished families throughout the country will be worried about why those Departments are not at least liaising with that company to talk about diversification and the guaranteeing of jobs, particularly on the day when we hear how air transport is sorely needed all over the world to cope with disasters. Have those Departments approached you, Mr. Speaker, about making a statement to the House about those disgraceful redundancies?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that this news broke after 12 o'clock, which is when I consider such matters. I have not had any information since that time. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises this matter at business questions tomorrow, when I am sure that he will get an answer; what he has said will undoubtedly be reported to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, during my brief absence from the Chamber, a Conservative Member with nothing better to do drew attention to the fact that my name appears on early-day motion 775. I am pleased to inform you that that was a mistake and that the Table Office is kindly making arrangements to withdraw my name.
Mr. Speaker: I am not surprised to be given that information.

Asylum Seekers and Refugees
4.50 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to facilitate the safe entry into the United Kingdom of asylum seekers and their families; to provide a right of appeal against refusal of entry, and a right of independent representation; to make administrative provision for the resettlement of asylum seekers, refugees and their families; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would change the way in which asylum seekers and refugees are dealt with in this country. They are not well dealt with now and it is time to change our approach to them.
The 1951 convention on refugees, which was agreed at Geneva in July 1951, defines a refugee as
"someone who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a political social group, or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."
That was what was agreed after the second world war about those seeking political asylum. Since then, the issue has grown in importance throughout the world. Much of what is written in the newspapers deliberately exaggerates the number of cases in this country in which political asylum is being sought. However, like other European countries, I believe that this country deliberately tries to foist the refugee problem on to other much poorer countries. The largest number of refugees are not in western Europe, but in the poorest countries, such as India, Jordan, Mexico and other places near to considerable conflict.
In the past 11 years, there have been 83,000 applications for political asylum in this country, of which only 13,000 have been granted, with 17,000 being given exceptional leave to remain, which is a sort of halfway house. At least 15,000 applications for political asylum are outstanding.
The purpose of my Bill is to alter the procedures in order to speed them up and to make the system much fairer. The current law on immigration and refugees is unfair and contrary to the general principles of English law in that it has a presumption against rather than in favour of the applicant, as is the case in civil or criminal law.
The Bill has three main proposals. The first is the creation of a refugee protection agency, which would have the job of deciding requests for refugee status, of ensuring that the people carrying out the interviews are properly trained in psychological as well as normal interviewing techniques, and of providing independent interpreters to undertake the translation of the interviews. All decisions would have to be conveyed in writing to the applicant within three months of the initial application. At present, many applications take several years, which often means great hardship for the applicant and his or her family who are often unable to come to this country to join the applicant.
The Bill's second proposal is the creation of a refugee review board, which would hear all appeals before anyone could be removed from this country. A majority of the board's appointed members would have to make a decision against the applicant being granted refugee status for there to be any decision against the applicant. At the board, any applicant would have the right to legal aid. Again, the decision would be taken within three months.
746
If the board were in operation now, last week's disgraceful incident involving a Zairean refugee could not have occurred. Despite representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that refugee was bundled out of the country and is now back in Zaire. We do not know his fate.
There was another scandalous case not long ago in which a Kurdish person from Turkey, Shiho Iyuguven, was denied the right to asylum in this country and was subsequently removed, despite strong representations from myself and many others. That applicant refused to go and subsequently took his own life in a horrific and successful suicide attempt at Harmondsworth detention centre. Those are just two of the many cases in which people have been removed from this country against their will and are put in considerable danger if they return to the country from which they came. If they go to a third country, their families are often put at considerable risk of retribution from the oppressive regime that they sought to leave.
The third part of my Bill provides for the introduction of a charter of rights for asylum seekers and refugees in this country. The decision on whether someone should be admitted to this country is that of central Government. Nobody seeks political asylum lightly. Nobody leaves his own country lightly, even if running away from considerable danger. We have a responsibility to treat the people who are admitted into this country humanely and decently. I find it sad when highly motivated groups of people from Somalia, Zaire, Iran, Iraq and central and south America find that, having sought asylum here, they are unable to work because no decision has been made on their right to work. They also find great difficulty in getting housing and are allowed to receive only 90 per cent. of the income support or social security benefit for which they have applied.
My proposed charter of rights would include a right to housing and education and access to the social services. It would also place a responsibility on central Government to ensure that sufficient resources are given to the predominantly inner-city local authorities that are doing their best to provide the necessary services to support people who have sought political asylum. There is something wholly wrong when people who have fled in fear of persecution end up begging for support from churches and charities simply to make ends meet when, as other European Governments have accepted, it should be the responsibility of central Government to provide the local authorities with the necessary finance so that they can provide the housing and education that are so valuable and necessary for those who have sought political asylum.
The charter of rights would also provide for the right of family reunion. Nothing can be more devastating than family separation. Last Friday an asylum applicant from Somalia visited my surgery. He was desperate with worry and concern about his family because he does not know where they are. He is having great difficulty communicating with them and it is unsafe for him even to write to them because of the retribution that might be meted out. He is the sort of person whose family should have the right to come to this country so that they can join him in some safety.
We live in an age when, tragically, racism and xenophobia are on the rise again in Europe. I have a feeling that the Government's approach to this matter, through the Trevi group, which we set up to deal with

747
terrorist attempts throughout Europe but which has now turned itself into a secret organisation dealing also with immigration and refugee policy, has been to agree to adopt a refugee policy in Europe that relies on the lowest common denominator and tries to push the refugee problem elsewhere—never mind the fact that European countries have consistently supported the oppressive regimes, such as that in Iraq, which have forced many people to seek political asylum in the first place. The 1990 Dublin convention is also unfortunate because it exempts people's right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights for justice in cases where they have been denied the right to political asylum.
My Bill also seeks to amend the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, a disgraceful piece of legislation which seeks to fine carriers for bringing into this country people who are not subsequently legally admitted. Last year £6 million was collected in fines under that Act. It means that people seeking political asylum have to pay extortionate air fares to cover the fine that the carrier has to pay if those people are not subsequently admitted to this country. I have met people from Turkey who have encountered that.
That militates against legitimate seekers of political asylum. I pay a warm tribute to the churches and voluntary organisations which have done so much to support people seeking political asylum in this country. I mention especially the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and its general secretary, Ann Owers, and the British Refugee Council, and Jessica Yudelivich who provided much of the information that forms the basis of the Bill.
Nobody in this country has ever woken up in the morning to a military coup or has had his family taken into custody. No one has ever found himself in the position of having no rights of free expression or movement. No one has ever had to leave Britain, probably never to return. We have a responsibility to recognise that those who suffer such fates and who seek political asylum receive justice when they seek safety in this country.
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the motion?
Mr. Howarth: I do indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I oppose the Bill with some hesitation because the House was kind enough last week to give me leave to introduce my National Enterprise (Reconstruction) Board Bill.
The whole premise of the measure is to make it easier for yet more foreigners to be admitted for settlement in our overcrowded kingdom. Its other premise is that the Government are lacking in humanity and are mean. The nation and the Government have no need whatever to be ashamed of their performance in this area because we have an honourable record of responding to the needs of others. Those of us who have been in the Chamber for the past one and a half hours heard my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development set out at length Britain's response to the latest natural disaster in Bangladesh. As she said, we are among the first and largest donors and that is indicative of the measure and nature of our response.
748
There are many other examples showing the support that the United Kingdom, its people and its Government have given to others in need in recent years. The Government have put our forces at the disposal of relief organisations in countries such as Ethiopia which have suffered from famine. Our people have dug deeply into their pockets and I am sick and tired of listening to Opposition Members constantly urging people to give more while they do nothing. The Opposition do not dig into their own pockets but they constantly ask the Chancellor to do something, as though he had money of his own upon which he could draw. The Chancellor can draw only upon our money.
A further example of the United Kingdom's humanity was the admission of the Ugandan Asians when they were being persecuted by Idi Amin. Vietnamese boat people have also been admitted and the House recently sanctioned a measure to allow 50,000 Hong Kong Chinese to settle in the United Kingdom. That worthy record shows that over many years the Government have responded sympathetically, often in the face of opposition from our people who resented some of the measures.
Let us look at our record on the acceptance of asylum seekers. In 1987, 460 were accepted. In 1988 the figure was 970 and in 1989 the number accepted for settlement had risen to 3,000. Between 1979 and 1989 some 34,000 people were allowed to stay in this country and a further 17,800 were allowed to remain here under exceptional leave arrangements.
It is a matter of great concern that applications are rising alarmingly. In 1989 there were 15,500 applications and I understand that last year, for which no official figures are yet available, there were getting on for 30,000 applications. That is 20 times the number of people who applied in 1979. Opposition Members should not lecture us about humanity, because our record in these matters is good.
We deplore the Governments and systems of government in many countries and, since the demise of the much-maligned great British Empire, most countries probaby fall into that category. Under the inspiring and determined leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), this country became a place to which people from all over the world wished to beat a path. [Interruption.] That is because of the liberal regime that operates here, and the freedom of expression that Opposition Members seek to deny me. This is a great country to which people from all over the world are anxious to come. However, these overcrowded islands simply cannot become some kind of safe haven for the world's opposition parties. It is enough that it harbours its own Opposition.
We owe it to our constituents to take their concerns into account. There is no point in Opposition Members wearing their hearts on their sleeves and engaging in the sanctimonious humbug that has emanated from the Opposition all afternoon. The money that is sought is that of our constituents. Opposition Members who visit working men's clubs and pubs will find that people are perfectly prepared to pay into voluntary funds organised by the relief agencies. However, they resent Opposition politicians taking money out of their pockets and preening themselves on how concerned and caring they have been.
We cannot be expected to sort out the consequences of everyone else's civil wars, corruption and socialist economic mismanagement. However, the Bill must be seen

749
in the wider context of immigration policy generally. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The Bill is Labour's Trojan horse by means of which they want to effect a policy of uncontrolled immigration, trading on the good will of the British people to accommodate those who have found affliction and oppression abroad.
There is deep resentment in my constituency about a story which appeared last week about an Asian family with seven children who arrived here knowing just one word of English—house. They were instantly housed ahead of people, taxpayers, who had been on the housing list for many years. Labour's policy is to encourage such immigration. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to express his view.
Mr. Howarth: A fine cartoon by Jak in the Evening Standard found its way to the Express and Star in my area. It shows an Asian family queuing at the immigration desk and uttering three words in English—"G band house"—reflecting the new council tax arrangements. During the last Labour Government's five years of office about 250,000 new Commonwealth citizens were admitted to the United Kingdom for settlement. That was about 50,000 a year. Under this Government the figure has fallen in the last five years to an average of about 23,000—less than half the rate that prevailed under the last Labour Government.
The Conservative party and the Government have a firm and fair policy on these matters, which include the question of asylum seekers. Labour's policy would pave the way for a massive influx of immigrants. The Bill is part of that process and should be rejected.
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 proceeded to a Division—
Mr. David Ashby (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to stand in the Lobby, shouting abuse at the hon. Members as they go in to vote saying, "This way for the racists. All the racists go in here."? Would it not be right for the Serjeant at Arms to tell the hon. Member concerned to eject himself and get away from there?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is certainly not in order for hon. Members to shout abuse at each other. I hope that, if that has been occurring, it will cease forthwith.
Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not someone tell that hon. Member to stop and eject him, because his abusive behaviour is interfering with voting? Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arrange that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that has been happening, I hope that the hon. Members involved will take note that from the Chair I have strongly deprecated such conduct.
Mr. Ashby: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The problem is that hon. Members in the Lobby cannot hear what you are saying. They are in the Lobby stopping people from voting and it is still going on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that what I have said from the Chair has, in fact, been conveyed to those hon. Members.
Sir Bernard Braine(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been an hon. Member for more than 40 years and I have never before witnessed the sort of behaviour that has been taking place for some time during this Division. It was threatening in character, abusive, and it might have confused hon. Members coming in to vote. In that respect I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). It is no use expressing an opinion from the Chair that cannot be heard by the offenders. I hope you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will instruct the appropriate Officer of the House to call upon the hon. Member involved to desist.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that there has been no physical obstruction in the Division Lobbies. That is my concern from the Chair. I repeat that if there has been verbal abuse, it is grossly out of order and I strongly deprecate it.
Mr. Ashby: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) did not just say, "This way racists"; he also said, "Pick up your legs and goosestep in" and other phrases of that sort to hon. Members who wish to vote freely. Would it not be right for you to call that hon. Member to order and to explain himself? I see that he is entering the Chamber. It is disgraceful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing further I can do at this stage. The doors have now been locked, but it is exceedingly important in this place that we observe restraint in our language and in our conduct.
Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be proper to ask the hon. Member to apologise for his obstructiveness? Should we not have an apology for his misconduct?
The House having divided: Ayes 116, Noes 73.

Division No. 137]

[5.08 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Dalyell, Tam

Allen, Graham

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dixon, Don

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Doran, Frank

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Barron, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

Battle, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Beith, A. J.

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bellotti, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fearn, Ronald

Bradley, Keith

Fisher, Mark

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Flynn, Paul

Buckley, George J.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Caborn, Richard

Foulkes, George

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fraser, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Carr, Michael

Gordon, Mildred

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Graham, Thomas

Clelland, David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Cohen, Harry

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Corbett, Robin

Hardy, Peter

Corbyn, Jeremy

Haynes, Frank

Crowther, Stan

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Cryer, Bob

Hinchliffe, David

751

Hoey, Ms Kate (vauxhall)

Nellist, Dave

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

O'Hara, Edward

Home Robertson, John

Parry, Robert

Hood, Jimmy

Patchett, Terry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hoyle, Doug

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ruddock, Joan

Illsley, Eric

Salmond, Alex

Johnston, Sir Russell

Sedgemore, Brian

Kirkwood, Archy

Sheerman, Barry

Leighton, Ron

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Livingstone, Ken

Short, Clare

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sillars, Jim

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

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

McCartney, Ian

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McFall, John

Steinberg, Gerry

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Stott, Roger

McLeish, Henry

Turner, Dennis

McMaster, Gordon

Vaz, Keith

Madden, Max

Wallace, James

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Meale, Alan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Peter Hain.

Mullin, Chris

NOES

Adley, Robert

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

Aitken, Jonathan

Buck, Sir Antony

Allason, Rupert

Budgen, Nicholas

Arbuthnot, James

Butler, Chris

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Aspinwall, Jack

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cran, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Beggs, Roy

Dicks, Terry

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dover, Den

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dunn, Bob

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Durant, Sir Anthony

752

Evennett, David

Nelson, Anthony

Favell, Tony

Neubert, Sir Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nicholls, Patrick

Fry, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gale, Roger

Powell, William (Corby)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Riddick, Graham

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Gregory, Conal

Speed, Keith

Grylls, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

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

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Janman, Tim

Thornton, Malcolm

Jessel, Toby

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Walden, George

Knapman, Roger

Watts, John

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Wells, Bowen

Lawrence, Ivan

Wheeler, Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Wiggin, Jerry

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Mr. Gerald Howarth and Sir John Stokes.

Mudd, David

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Dave Nellist, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Bernie Grant, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Keith Vaz, and Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

Asylum Seekers and Refugees

  ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES BILL
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to facilitate the safe entry into the United Kingdom of asylum seekers and their families; to provide a right of appeal against refusal of entry, and a right of independent representation; to make administrative provision for the resettlement of asylum seekers, refugees and their families; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 May and to be printed.
  [Bill 154.]

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 77 and Schedule 14)
  Considered in Committee [Progress 7 May.]
  [MISS BETTY BOOTHROYD in the Chair]
  5.20 pm
  Sir William Clark: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I want to raise a matter that I believe affects the constitutional behaviour of the House. It is obvious from the events surrounding the presentation just now of a private Member's Bill that anything that occurs outside this Chamber is not within the purview of the Chair. We have seen today a violation of the procedure of the House, whereby an hon. Member stood outside either the Ayes or the Noes Lobby, exhorting right hon. and hon. Members to vote this way or that way in a very offensive manner. Something should be done to prevent right hon. and hon. Members from being subjected to that kind of behaviour by someone who does not really believe in democracy.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I will take no further points of order on that matter. A number were raised earlier. Mr. Speaker will be made fully aware of what took place, and if he has anything to report to the House, he will do so tomorrow.

Clause 31

  RELIEF
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 21, line 14, leave out '1992' and insert '1991'.
  Unemployment is rising, the economy is in recession and our trading relationships with our European partners require our economy to be as strong and competitive as theirs. In those circumstances, it is right for us to discuss education and training. It may be commonplace to say that this country's greatest single asset is the skills and abilities of its people, but I predict that over the next decade that will become even more self-evident.
  In a timid but nevertheless welcome way, the clause acknowledges the need for education and training. It will allow people to claim tax relief for course fees, assessment, and regulation costs for properly accredited vocational training. It requires a claimant to be a United Kingdom resident who is undertaking a course without any public financial assistance or other type of tax relief to help with its cost. Companies have always been able to obtain tax relief for providing training, and the clause is designed to allow individuals who incur expenses to do the same.
  I shall leave to one side for the moment the issues that we want to explore with the Government on other amendments. As far as it goes, clause 31 is welcome—so welcome that our amendment is intended to make the tax
  754
  relief begin this tax year rather than in 1992, as the Government intend. I understand that the cost of the change that we propose would be about £15 million, although I suspect that it might turn out to be less.
  I can think of only three possible objections to our proposal. First, it might be argued that the MIRAS-type arrangements that are supposed to accompany the tax relief cannot be put in place in time. That does not seem to be an insuperable reason for not granting the relief now. It would be possible, by deduction or set-off, to give taxpayers the relief at the end of the tax year.
  Secondly, it might be suggested that the regulations for those not liable for tax, but who would nevertheless be able to take some advantage of the scheme, would not be in place in time, so that the arrangement could not start in 1991. That does not seem to be an insuperable difficulty, either. I do not think that many people would come into that category. It may be possible to think of examples of people without a charge to tax who would still be able to pay for their own vocational training, but it is hardly likely that there will be many. I am sure that the Inland Revenue would be able to deal with the small number involved.
  The third possible Government objection is that the public expenditure implications of starting the scheme in this financial year rather than the next would be beyond their resources. They may say that they could not possibly spend up to an extra £15 million on training. Such a sum would be slightly more than a quarter of the publicity budget of the Department of Employment, which puts the matter in perspective. We could forgo a little publicity and encourage more training instead.
  The real disagreement between the Government and ourselves is whether, in the present economic climate—with rising unemployment and industry complaining of skill shortages—it is necessary for the future well-being of the economy to make training a priority use of public expenditure. Of course, the costs of the scheme are important, but so is the price of unemployment. It costs the state about £8,000 per annum if a person who could be economically productive is kept unemployed.
  The costs of our declining international competitiveness are important, too. I welcome the present direction of trade agreements, but they mean that over the next decade our ability to compete internationally is bound to become even more important. To forgo training in those circumstances seems foolish.
  Other important costs are those that skill shortages cause British employers, who will rightly argue that skill shortages are not easily met in the short term. It is a privilege of speaking from the Opposition Front Bench to be able to draw on examples from one's own community. There could be no more pertinent example than that offered by Tyneside, where my constituency lies. It is an area noted for its skilled work force. The skills there have been accumulated over generations because of the presence of the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries. Those industries have endured an enormous, and probably permanent, shake-out, in employment terms, in the past decade. Alongside that, no region has suffered more from persistently higher than average levels of unemployment. Yet, in spite of that residue of highly skilled manual workers on Tyneside, employers are complaining of skill shortages. The high unemployment rates that the Tyneside community is still enduring are composed of unskilled workers more than any other single element.

  755
  The Swan Hunter shipyard is a good example, as it is not always easy for that major employer on Tyneside to find people to fill skilled vacancies. That might surprise Conservative Members, in view of the shake-out in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, but it is the case. There is a waiting list of about 2,000 people for the occasional unskilled job at that workplace. Those circumstances will be mirrored throughout Tyneside and if they are mirrored there, where there is a residue of skilled labour, how much more likely are they to be reflected in other parts of the country?
  5.30 pm
  The Government have got their priorities wrong. They are estimating negative growth in the economy for the next year. By implication at least, the Government are saying that, given the country's growth rate, unemployment will be a problem. Therefore the Government should be in a position to do something about it.
  The something that they have done is to cut expenditure on training. That is not a minor point of detail which divides us, but an issue of principle. The Labour party's view is that expenditure on education and training will be crucial to our position in the international trading community in the next decade and will be a necessary element in pulling this country through the recession.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speeches I always enjoy—especially the witty parts. Could he enlighten the House still further on his party's policy in this matter? He has just begun to talk about it. I seem to recall that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that the increased expenditure on education and training which the Labour party hopes for would essentially be financed by borrowing rather than by taxation. Is that still the case? Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimates of the effect on interest rates, were that to happen?
  Mr. Brown: Investment in training has to be a priority for the economy. Before the last Budget we did something that Oppositions do not normally do. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we set out our own proposals for the Budget. They included the expenditure of about £800 million—if my memory is correct—on training, as well as the training levy; we proposed a 0.5 per cent. levy on the payroll, which we believed would generate more than £1.4 billion. We added the two figures together and said that that amount would be spent on training. Those measures were part of a package presented before the Budget.
  When we come to office we shall have to measure our objectives against the changes that have been made in this year's Budget. We shall not come into office with the tax system that we endured last year or the year before. We shall certainly not be able to go back to where we were in 1979. Therefore, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that we will definitely spend X amount and that, whatever the position of the economy, so much must be spent on training; nor can I say that rates of income tax will be Y rather than Z. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not my prerogative to do so.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): Come clean.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says come clean, but, assuming that there will not be a general election before the next Budget day, which does not seem to be a very safe assumption, will he stand up and say what the basic rate of income tax will be after the next Budget?
  Mr. Maude: I can certainly assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that it is our intention to reduce the basic rate of income tax. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman over the fact that he is proposing to spend all that money without giving the slightest indication of where it will come from. The only conclusion we can draw from that is that if the Opposition were elected to government they would increase the basic rate of income tax, as all other Labour Governments have done.
  Mr. Brown: I have this in common with the Financial Secretary—we both have good intentions and we are setting out the direction in which our tax policies intend to travel.
  Mr. Maude: Yours are up and ours are down.
  Mr. Brown: The Financial Secretary says that ours are up and theirs are down and he does not mistake the position, as we see it. We have made it very clear—it is one of the matters that are to be firmly established—that the top rate of income tax under a Labour Government would be 50 per cent. and not 40 per cent. We have said that we intend to introduce a banded system, although we have not said where the bands will sit. Clearly that would impinge upon the prerogative of a Chancellor. We regard the 50 per cent. rate as a firm pledge. Conservative Members argue that that is too much, but Opposition Members view it as trying to arrive at a consensus with top-rate earners. That figure would be the norm, would not move about from year to year, would endure and, in time, would probably be accepted by both Labour and Conservative Governments as a consensus.
  The Financial Secretary has put his finger on the heart of the disagreement between us. Even this Government have benefited from economic growth, and if there are extra fruits to be distributed as a result of such growth, it is our view that the money should be invested in the economy in ways which stimulate further economic growth, especially on training the people of this nation. It should be invested in the work force. As the Financial Secretary has spelt out perfectly fairly, it is the Government's belief that the money should be spent on further direct tax cuts for high-rate and indeed basic-rate taxpayers.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary does not disagree with that explanation, because it is at the heart of the disagreement between us. We think that the position of the British economy requires Government incentives to invest in the supply side. We regard training as a special priority.
  I am surprised that that is thought to be controversial. It can only be thought so in the context in which the Financial Secretary puts it. There is such a breadth of disagreement between us on that matter that I think it will be a fundamental issue on which the next general election will be fought. We believe that a failure to invest could underpin the existing lack of skills and exacerbate the present situation. As a protest, I shall ask my hon. Friends

  757
  to join me in voting—if the Financial Secretary does not accept this amendment—to bring the starting date for this modest little relief forward to 1991. The Financial Secretary may well say that it cannot be afforded. However, if he says that even that expenditure cannot be afforded he is saying something very heavy about the Government's commitment to training and to expenditure on training.
  Mr. Maude: In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has talked as if this measure, in the Budget and now in the Finance Bill, to introduce tax relief for people who pay for their training were the only thing that the Government are doing about training. Clearly that is not so. He has used the debate on this amendment to talk in general terms about training and about what the Government are doing or should be doing and what he believes could be done.
  I shall deal first with the specific issue raised in the amendment—whether the relief could be brought forward a year to the 1991–92 tax year. The date has nothing to do with constraints on public spending. I see no need to apologise for exercising tough discipline on public spending, but that is not the concern in this case. There are overwhelming considerations of practicality.
  One of the most important features of the relief is its delivery at source, which will allow it to extend not only to those who are working and could benefit from a conventional tax relief, but to those who do not have current taxable income. That feature will give the relief greater impact and flexibility. For a variety of reasons, relief at source requires a long run-in period. The regulations will need to be drafted and brought into force. Administrative systems will have to be designed and put in place. Those in colleges and institutions running the scheme will need to know precisely what to do. We are conscious that the providers of training will have some extra administrative work. We intend to consult widely on what would be the best and simplest scheme for them. We are already working hard on that.
  The provision will take time to implement and it would be unrealistic to expect the new relief to begin before April of next year. Even that will impose a strict timetable, but I believe that it can and will be delivered. The delay will allow the accreditation process for the national vocational qualifications and the Scottish vocational qualifications to get further ahead, so that a more comprehensive coverage is available when the relief begins next year. Therefore, the Government are unable to accept the amendment.
  The hon. Gentleman talks as though this were the only measure that we were taking on training.
  Mr. Forman: Is it true that relief at source—which is the method that the Government have sensibly chosen—has the benefit of not discriminating against the self-employed if they wish to take advantage of the arrangements?
  Mr. Maude: Certainly. A person who is self-employed will receive the tax relief at the time of making the payment for training, rather than waiting to obtain it when the final calculation of his tax is made.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East talked rather grudgingly about the measure, apparently because it encourages individuals. I do not take issue with what he said about the need to stimulate investment in training, to encourage it and to give incentives. That is precisely what we are doing. The measure provides an
  758
  incentive for investment in training, including a direct incentive for individuals to provide training for themselves.
  I freely confess that the measure does not form part of a great national scheme. There will not be a huge bureaucratic organisation or a national body to decide who should have what training. It will be for individuals to decide for themselves. That makes the hon. Gentleman uncomfortable. The Labour party's approach to training is based on compulsion. Why else would it propose a payroll levy in which every employer is forced to pay a levy for everyone who is employed, with all the bureaucratic paraphernalia that that would inevitably involve?
  Mr. Brown: The Minister has a right to indulge in attacks on our payroll levy scheme—that is a matter of contention between the parties. He is entitled to make those points, but many employers have welcomed the scheme. Many employers who invest heavily in training will be beneficiaries under the scheme.
  However, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that we have given the substance of the clause a grudging welcome. We have not, but we believe that it is no substitute for a proper commitment to training from the Government. In its own little timid context, the proposal is welcome. It is so welcome that we are trying to introduce it a year earlier. We are not against it, because it helps the individual; I have no quarrel with that.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Maude: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was against the measure: I said that he was grudging about it. If describing it as a "little timid" measure is not being grudging, it would be interesting to know what is. That is hardly fulsome, whole-hearted praise. The hon. Gentleman hardly speaks like a man full of enthusiasm for the measure. I stand by what I said, and stand by my view that the Labour party is only interested in compulsion. It is only interested in training if people are made to do things. That is a sort of puritan ethic: it is good only if it is not enjoyable—if it is not what people want to do.
  My mind goes back to the old days of compulsory levies and industrial training boards. There were many bodies, committees and national boards and, in theory anyway, much training was taking place. At the end of it, however, there was no great addition to the nation's stock of skills. We should be considering not how much is put into training, but what extra skills are acquired.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister is babbling on in a nonsensical way about training. Does he not realise that the compulsory training schemes were introduced by a Conservative Government, not by a Labour Government? Employers' organisations by the score welcomed them. Without those compulsory levies, many employers bitterly criticised those who poached their apprentices and other trained people after they had taken the time and energy to train them. Those employees were simply sucked away. Does the Minister agree with such practices?
  Mr. Maude: I agree with those employers who warmly supported the ending of compulsory levies and the disbanding of the national bodies. In the past decade, the amount spent on worthwhile training for the enhancement of skills has increased dramatically.

  759
  I am not just referring to public spending, although I point out in passing that, for every £100 spent on training at today's prices by the last Labour Government, £250 is spent now. I am not talking only about that huge two-and-a-half-times increase in public spending on training. What matters more is the money spent by the private sector. Skills for business are what make a difference to the economy. Sometimes, the Labour party talks as though all that was needed was investment in plant, no matter what the plant was. The same applies to training: it does not matter what the skills are. Labour Members think that all that can be stirred together to make a vibrant economy. Anyone who deals with these matters knows that that is not so.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Was it not Mr. Robert Carr who introduced the Industrial Training Act 1964, which created the industrial training boards? The Minister should not denigrate those industrial training boards. Some of them provided people, especially young people, with first-class training.
  Mr. Maude: I am sure that some first-class training was provided. The complaint was that skills were not being enhanced under the old compulsory system of training. We now have a system of training delivery which is employer-led, based locally, not nationally, with the emphasis on training and enterprise councils, which have been a remarkable success. They were in operation well in advance of the proposed timetable, and will make a huge difference. The emphasis will be on what comes out at the end.
  The training programmes will focus heavily on qualifications and employment training will focus heavily on getting people jobs. That must be the test of whether training is successful. Youth training should lead to qualifications, and employment training should lead to employment. The funding of training and enterprise councils is designed to fulfil that objective, with a quarter of the funding related to output quality—whether the trainee achieves a job or a qualification.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister explain why, when we discuss training, hardly any mention is made of the training needs of employees and of our fellow citizens who suffer from physical and mental handicap? Why are they always at the end of the queue for employment training places?
  Mr. Maude: I do not believe that to be the case. Ample provision for handicapped people is made within the £2.7 billion of public money which is spent each year on training and enterprise. I do not accept for a moment that they are at the end of the queue or that no thought is given to the trainees. The purpose of the measure we are discussing today is to give trainees an incentive to enhance their skills.
  The amount of training being provided is increasing in a way that should win forthright and enthusiastic support across the Chamber. Each year, the private sector spends about £20 billion on training. That is excellent news. The training culture is improving hugely. There is no doubt that, in previous decades, many businesses considered training to be a low priority. We have paid a price for that in the past. There is no doubt that, in the recession in the
  760
  early 1980s, spending on training by businesses fell. A good many businesses considered training to be dispensable. It is a source of considerable satisfaction that that does not appear to be happening in the current recession, although pressure on businesses' costs is intense.
  The most recent economic situation report by the CBI, published last month, asked how much companies expected to spend on training and retraining in the next 12 months, and whether they expected to spend more, the same or less than they had spent in the past 12 months.
  The outcome was most satisfactory and encouraging. At a time of recession, with intense pressure on costs, 26 per cent. expected to spend more, 49 per cent. expected to spend the same and only 18 per cent. expected to spend less. That means that the attitude toward training in the private sector has improved considerably. When the economy begins to move out of recession, businesses will be very much better placed to recover quickly, and their capacity to produce and to meet renewed demand will be greater than it was in the early 1980s. That bodes well for the future.
  The Government have absolutely nothing to apologise for in their approach to training. Apart from the huge increase in public spending on training and enterprise, there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of training. We should be concerned about the output. What matters is not what the Government put in but what those who undergo the training get out of it. There is no doubt whatsoever about the quality of training.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will be big enough to accept that the quality of training in Britain is vastly better than it ever has been. With the introduction of the national system of vocational qualifications and the national network of locally based training and enterprise councils, with all their local links and local knowledge of what is needed and what can be provided, the quality of training is continually on the increase. I hope that, just for once, the hon. Gentleman will be big enough to accept that.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I have a letter from the Staffordshire training and enterprise council saying that
  "it would be failing in its responsibilities to the local community if it did not highlight the fact that its adult training budget is totally inadequate for the current needs of the County."
  I had a meeting with some of the trainees, who are halfway through their training programme and are now going to lose their places and be unable to take part in the vocational training that the Minister is so fond of quoting. What will he do for the people of Staffordshire who are losing out on his training schemes?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady refers to particular circumstances and budgets. I cannot comment on the circumstances of one particular training and enterprise council.
  Mrs. Golding: Why? Is it too trivial?
  Mr. Maude: No. It is not trivial at all, it is a matter of considerable concern, but every organisation paying for training in the public sector is subject to a budget. That is the case under this Government, just as it was under previous Governments.
  It is worth making the point again that the budgets for training are substantially larger than they were under the

  761
  last Labour Government. For every £100 that the last Labour Government spent on training, we spend £250. I am delighted if many people are seeking training in Staffordshire; those people are very much better placed today than they would have been under the last labour Government.
  Mrs. Golding: The supervisors who have been supervising trainees for many years are losing their jobs in Staffordshire because there is no room for them. Eventually the Staffordshire training and enterprise council will have to spend money on training new supervisors. It is a nonsensical programme and a waste of money.
  Mr. Maude: No doubt the hon. Lady can raise that with the local training and enterprise council.
  Mrs. Goulding: I have.
  Mr. Maude: It is a matter for the TEC how it arranges its affairs locally, and no doubt it will do so.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: We should start by putting the debate into the context of the United Kingdom's appalling failure to train our young people compared with training in other countries. The Department of Education and Science statistical bulletin issued in January 1990 revealed that the United Kingdom has 35 per cent. of its 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education or training compared with, at the top of the range, 79 per cent. in the United States of America. At the middle of the range France trains nearly twice as many 16 to 18-year-olds. Those statistics show what a long way we have to go to provide a reasonable level of training in Britain.
  The Minister referred to the quality of training provided through the training and enterprise councils. I would be the first to agree with him that some of the training provided by the TECs is of a higher quality than before, and that is certainly to be commended.
  I should like to make a particular point about training in rural areas and the way in which TECs are coping with the requirements placed on them. I have a letter which has been sent out to trainers by the chief executive of Powys TEC, which is based in my constituency. That TEC started with a bang and is already doing good work. One of the problems in rural areas is that many trainees must travel great distances to their traineeships. The public transport—or rather the absence of it—in those areas is such that many trainees cannot take part in such schemes unless they take lodgings during the week.
  6 pm
  A case was brought to my attention last week of a young 16-year-old girl who had taken a training place with a veterinary surgery in a small town in my constituency. She has been working there successfully for five or six months and has been enjoying her training. Last week, she was told by the training agency that managed the scheme that her training would have to finish within seven days because it was no longer possible to meet the cost of her lodging in eastern Montgomeryshire, where she lodged during the week. She could not travel to work every day because her training place was 45 miles from her family home. No public transport was available and she was too young to drive, so there was no way in which the scheme could continue if the training agency kept to its decision.
  762
  Through the intervention of the chief executive of Powys TEC, that training agency was forced—I use that word advisedly—to change its mind and the girl was allowed to continue her training. That happened because her mother contacted me on the day the decision was made known and I contacted the chief executive on the same day. Action was then taken which many trainees would not have the initiative to take themselves.
  There must be many trainees around the country, particularly in more heavily populated areas, who are losing their training places halfway through. As a result of that case and another which I shall mention in a moment, steps are being taken by Powys TEC to avert such problems in the future. However, just a few weeks ago, training for a number of ladies and, I believe, one man to provide a day nursery in Machynlleth was brought to an end at a stoke—almost without notice. It was summarily terminated after the expenditure of a large sum of money to provide the equipment and decorate the premises where the day nursery was to be situated. This was a much more difficult problem to handle because the training organisation concerned was losing money on the scheme.
  The reaction of the chief executive of Powys TEC, Claire Coates, has been commendable. She has contacted every trainer and urged them to absorb travel and lodging costs where necessary. However, in a letter to them she had to say:
  "In the meantime, travel costs have been included in your contract price which will mean that you are likely to make a loss on some trainees' travel costs and gain…on others".
  If any group of people understands the market and the balance sheet, it is the Government. What proportion of businesses are willing to make a loss on contractual arrangements? Most businesses, particularly small and medium-size trainers, will pull the plug on contractual arrangements on which they are losing money.
  In this instance, it is not merely a matter of a decision not to supply widgets because an organisation cannot make a profit on them or to bring a bus service to an end despite the difficulties that that causes in rural areas. These decisions bring misery into people's lives. I therefore make a plea, on behalf of a rural area, to the Minister to look into the problem and to ask his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that training costs in rural areas are fully covered so that we do not run into the problems that were suffered by the young girl whom I mentioned.
  Nevertheless, it is fair to give a measure of welcome to a proposal that encourages training. The Minister will expect me, as a Liberal Democrat from a long Liberal tradition, to welcome a measure that places the initiative in the hands of the trainee and lets the individual say, "I am going to better my prospects by choosing my own training scheme." That is an excellent idea.
  It is also a good idea that, under the simple scheme that is proposed, tax relief at source will be provided. However, it is extremely disappointing—as has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, (Mr. Brown)—that tax relief will not become available until 1992. Will the Minister investigate whether tax relief could at least be provided in the current financial year on new courses in which new machinery and new office procedures are being set up anyway? Why cannot tax relief be provided at source to new trainees? Surely the Inland Revenue can cope with those administrative arrangements. A Government machine capable of introducing a 2.5 per cent. increase in VAT across the board in just a few

  763
  weeks should be able to manage the administrative procedure to introduce this new change—at least in part—in less than 14 months.
  Will the Minister explain why the proposal is limited? Why does not it include national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications at the highest level? Why does it discriminate against professional qualifications? Will it include relief for distance learning qualifications, such as those provided by the Open university and elsewhere? It should do so but does not.
  The Government's measure may be wise but it is not generous. The cost of relief will be nil in 1991–92—the scheme is not yet effective—and will cost £20 million in 1992–93, including a public expenditure element of £5 million in respect of non-taxpayers. When the NVQs and SVQs are fully developed, the cost is expected to rise to £40 million, including a public expenditure element of £10 million. What is £10 million? How many yards of motorway can be unrolled for £10 million? It can probably be measured in hundreds of yards, but certainly not in miles. Surely the Government can find more than a mile or two of motorway to support training for national vocational qualifications. The Government should be funding training much more generously and considering a far more extensive scheme. There is nothing wrong with requiring companies to provide a small proportion of their payroll to train people between the ages of 16 and 19. We believe that, probably on the basis of asking too few or the wrong people, the Government have grossly overestimated industry's reaction.
  The Government are particularly failing to support training for the unemployed to any reasonable extent, either in this proposal or elsewhere. Unemployment is increasing at an alarming rate. In the past three years, year on year, redundancies have increased. Today, we heard the shocking news that 3,000 people are to be made redundant from the aircraft division of Rolls-Royce. That is but one example of what is happening.
  There is a catalogue of companies that are currently making people redundant. It includes Marks and Spencer and Rolls-Royce, which are at the top of the class in British industry. As an hon. Member from the Labour party said——
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Member for Makerfield.
  Mr. Carlile: Yes, the hon. Member for Makerfield may have his credit. The hon. Gentleman made a good point when he said that those companies are also major trainers.
  Mr. McCartney: I always do.
  Mr. Carlile: I will not accept that every point that the hon. Gentleman makes is good.
  Major trainers are now making people redundant. This highlights the need for much greater support for training, particularly for those who become unemployed as a result of the Government's economic policies and their failure to introduce a real strategy for manufacturing industry. Last month's trade figures showed beyond doubt that imports are rising relative to exports. That tells its own story.
  In the past, the quality of training schemes provided for the unemployed has not been good, as the poor attendance rates demonstrate. One cannot blame the trainees. If the training programmes were good enough, the trainees would turn up for them in much greater numbers. When
  764
  unemployment fell and resources were freed, resources could have been used to increase the quality of training; but the Government simply cut the training budget in 1991–92 by £350 million.
  Now that unemployment has begun to rocket again, the Government still continue to make insufficient provision. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Employment of another £120 million for the main training schemes operated by the training and enterprise councils not only failed to restore the cuts of last summer and preceding years but failed to allow for the size of the increases in unemployment. That funding failure is especially regrettable when TECs are attempting to establish themselves in the face of many functional difficulties, such as those I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
  We believe that extra resources should be devoted to starting the transformation of Government training schemes into quality programmes, which would be well regarded by participants and employers alike. The Minister referred to payroll requirements. Employers would not complain if they thought they were getting "value for money"—I believe that the Government understand that phrase. I support schemes that give value for money, as do, I believe, all responsible companies in this country. Many of those schemes could be provided by companies in-house, provided they met the requisite standard. That is the sort of philosophy that should be guiding the financing and devising of training schemes. I fear that, as yet, that philosophy has not led the Government's thinking.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I welcome clause 31, which introduces new tax relief for vocational training. It recognises that it is not just the Government and employers who have responsibility for training, but individuals, and that it is right to give individuals some incentive to better themselves. The new tax relief, modest though it may be, is most welcome. I believe that, in future, it may cost more than the Treasury has estimated because there will be a wide take-up as people seek to take advantage of the new relief.
  When I looked at amendment No. 14 I had some sympathy with the suggestion that the relief should be introduced immediately. After all, if it makes sense to introduce a new tax relief, we should make it available to taxpayers and others at the earliest opportunity. However, I understand that if we are to adopt the approach chosen by the Treasury, of allowing people to deduct the tax from payments that they make, it will not be practical to introduce such a change until the beginning of the next tax year. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that adopting that approach would allow non-taxpayers as well as taxpayers to take advantage of the relief. That is welcome and I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) say that that part of the proposal will cost £5 million, which is a lot of money. After all, we are talking of £5 million of relief, so that means £20 million of expenditure by individuals with no taxable income. That seems quite a lot of money, and if the Treasury is right, I welcome the fact that people without a taxable income will

  765
  spend on training at that rate to improve their chances of acquiring taxable income—that is what the proposal is all about.
  Another advantage to the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is that relief is available immediately, both to taxpayers and non-taxpayers. It is not necessary for them to pay the fees and then wait for a considerable period before receiving tax relief. The alternative would be simply to make the relief an allowable expense, so that there would either have to be an adjustment to people's PAYE codes, which would be difficult, or people would have to wait until the end of the tax year before they could claim back the money. The Treasury have adopted the right approach, and I note that it has adopted the same one in relation to a number of new tax reliefs. I accept that it means that we cannot introduce the relief until 1992 because we must set in place the necessary arrangements, introduce regulations and ensure that the people to whom the money is being paid are able to get the tax back from the Treasury.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said that we should ask whether training should be a priority for public spending. Earlier this week, I received a leaflet from Battersea Labour party, which stated that the priorities for a Labour Government would be a massive increase in spending on education and training, and on public transport. Leaving aside the question of where the money will come from and other such issues—although it is important to recognise that both those proposals, however commendable, have long lead times in terms of improving the country's economic performance—it is nonsense to say that we can make an investment on day one and achieve economic growth on day two.
  I recall saying in a debate in the House late last year that one reason why the performance of British management had improved during the 1980s was the expansion of university education in the 1960s. There are long lead times on investment in education and training. The Labour party is misleading the country if it is suggesting that the increased investment in education and training will, overnight, lead to an improvement in our economic performance. I am afraid that life is not like that. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) must answer the question: "How does she square that circle?" I think that she and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) have both said on many occasions that their first priorities for public spending would be to increase pensions and child benefit and that all other increases in public expenditure would have to wait until we had improved our economic performance. They tell us that in one breath and then, in the next one, they say that, in order to improve our economic performance, we must have a massive increase in investment in education and training, transport infrastructure and all sorts of other things. Whom are we to believe? Perhaps we shall have a better idea when we have had a chance to read the text of the speech that the Leader of the Opposition is making on this subject today.
  Apparently the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that, under Labour, there would be no tax reductions for five years. He assumes—I hope that hon. Members will note this—that, come what may, we shall have economic growth of 2.5 per cent. per year. Clearly, he has decided in advance how the extra £20 billion of tax revenue generated by the economic growth would be spent.
  766
  People are naturally very suspicious of the Labour party when it comes to questions of taxation. Indeed, they would do well not to listen to the Opposition. On that score, of course, there is cause for considerable concern, as the Labour party has already told us that it would increase the burden on many taxpayers. But people would do even better to look at the performance of all past Labour Governments, who increased the burden not only on higher-rate taxpayers, but on all taxpayers. In the end, there is only one way in which the extra £20 billion of expenditure to which the Opposition are committed could be funded, and that is by putting an extra burden on every taxpayer.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: On the question of increasing the tax burden on ordinary citizens, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative Government, throughout their time in office, have done exactly that?
  Mr. Smith: What I can confirm is that over the past 12 years the Conservative Government have managed to reduce the standard rate of tax from 33 to 25 per cent. and, at the same time, achieve substantial growth in public spending. That is a very remarkable achievement. At the next election, people will judge the various promises according to past performance.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the system of indirect taxation, which accounts for part of the tax burden on citizens of average and below-average means. Will he confirm that the Conservative party has increased, rather than decreased, the total tax burden borne by ordinary citizens?
  Mr. Smith: What people will want to consider is net take-home pay. During the Conservative Government's period of office, a married man on average earnings and with two children has seen an increase of more than 30 per cent. in his net take-home pay. By contrast, the performance of the last Labour Government over a period of five years resulted in an increase of just 1 per cent. in the net take-home pay of such a person. What people are concerned about is net take-home pay. That is where the Conservative Government have scored, and where Labour Governments will never score. It is in that context that people will set the speech that, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition is to make today. People have not forgotten what life was like 15 years ago under a Labour Government. It was a very unpleasant experience, and not one which people will want to repeat. The present Government have cut tax and have increased spending.
  Investment in training is another priority for the Labour party, but anyone reading the Labour party document that was published a couple of weeks ago will find that it is full of priorities. There is an endless list of priorities, together with an endless list of new Government bodies to spend the money that implementing them will require. Every priority will involve additional public expenditure, and there will be a new quango to do the spending. On the question of training, it is entirely wrong to assume that quantity is in itself a virtue. The quality of investment is equally, if not more, important. That is a matter upon which this debate ought to focus.
  A better means of securing increased investment in training is to improve the profitability of British industry. Whether we are concerned about fixed investment, about investment in research and development, or about

  767
  investment in training, the way to achieve increased investment is to increase the profitability of British industry. Over the past 10 years, we have seen a huge increase in industrial profitability and, as a result, a huge increase in retained profits. That is why there has been a better performance in terms of investment in training.
  The CBI forecast figures that have just been given by the Financial Secretary are very encouraging. It is remarkable that, in the middle of a recession, so many companies should contemplate increasing their expenditure on training or, at least, not reducing it. Clearly, when profitability improves next year—as it will—there will be an increase in training budgets. Employer-led training is so much better. The key is to ensure that training is of the kind that employers want, the kind that makes trainees employable. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has talked about the training of disabled people. I agree that that should be no less a priority than is the training of able-bodied people. Indeed, it is a very important aspect of the whole matter.
  Dr. Godman: I cannot speak about the situation in England and Wales, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in Scotland, the numbers and percentages of people with a mental or physical handicap who underwent employment training in each of the past two years were dismally low. Indeed, that was conceded in a recent answer by the Scottish Office Minister who is responsible for industry.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Interesting as these exchanges are, I must point out that the Committee is dealing with a very specific date, which is mentioned in the amendment. I should like hon. Members to return to that, rather than engage in a general debate on training matters.
  Mr. Smith: I have to accept what you say, Miss Boothroyd, although the debate has ranged very widely. I fully accept that we are discussing a specific tax relief, which involves public expenditure, but hon. Members have been putting that item of public expenditure in the context of the resources committed to training, whether by the Government, by way of taxpayers' money, or by the private sector. Of course, every tax relief has a public expenditure cost. I intended to refer to a particular example of the training of disabled people, but I shall abide by your ruling, Miss Boothroyd, and return to the amendment. Let me say simply that this new tax relief to encourage individuals to better themselves and to enable them to choose training is very welcome, and when it comes into force in 1992 it will be very popular.
  Dr. Godman: I support the amendment, as I believe that it would improve a modest measure. It is surprising that, in relation to training bodies, the Minister should have been so dismissive. I have always regarded the Act that established those bodies as being one of the finest pieces of legislation passed, under the stewardship of Mr. Robert Carr, by the then Conservative Government. It made training provision for very many people. The legislation was passed many years before you, Miss Boothroyd, became a Member of Parliament, and a few years before I came here.
  I do not want to incur your wrath today—or, for that matter, any day—but I have to say that, like the hon. and
  768
  learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who spoke on behalf of the Liberals, I have reservations arising from the Government's failure to make provision for distance learning. This is particularly regrettable in respect of information technology training, which can be provided by, among various institutions, the Open university.
  Distance learning programmes are very important for would-be trainees in many parts of Scotland, particularly the highlands and islands and the Shetlands. I think that I am right in saying that the Open university has in the Shetland islands alone several hundred students who undoubtedly benefit from its unparalleled teaching.
  6.30 pm
  Can the Minister tell us why Scottish vocational qualifications at the highest level are being excluded? It means that the Scottish higher national diploma is being excluded. I know trainees who are studying for such qualifications. If the amendment were passed, others could benefit.
  I am sorry that there is to be a delay in the introduction of a provision which could help many of my constituents. May I remind the Minister that, according to Government statistics, the unemployment rate in the Greenock travel to work area is 13.5 per cent., which is far above the levels of unemployment in constituencies represented by Conservative Members? It is certainly much higher than the national average.
  When we talk about the training of young people, may I point out to the Committee that just yesterday Kvaerner-Kincaid of Greenock announced the redundancies of more than 100 employees, most of whom are highly skilled engineers, but who include 12 apprentices? When employers engage apprentices to undergo training, they have a moral obligation to ensure that the apprenticeships are completed. Kvaerner-Kincaid is acting irresponsibly, even immorally, in putting the apprenticeships under threat.
  Nothing is worse for a young person of 17, 18 or 19 than to have an apprenticeship disrupted. Where can he go? I say "he" because I am talking about 12 young men who are deeply anxious about their future. What are their prospects if the Norwegian company has its disgraceful way and puts them into the dole queue? I told the chief executive, Mr. Hanna, yesterday that it was a disgraceful state of affairs. If the apprentices are put out of work, it will be nothing short of a scandal.
  My constituency and other areas in the west of Scotland are suffering badly because of the lack of systematic training, particularly in electronics and in information technology. That is a matter for regret. If the Government were to accept the amendment, it would make a modest provision much more sensible for many of the people whom I represent north of the border.
  Mr. Cryer: I want to comment on the Minister's reasons for rejecting our useful and modest attempt to improve the modest provisions of clause 31. The Minister said that there were administrative difficulties because regulations need to be drafted. I am surprised that the Government are admitting that they are introducing primary legislation without a thought for the regulations which will flow from it. According to the Minister, the Government have not troubled to look through the Bill to see what regulations will be needed.

  769
  The Minister said that there would be enormous difficulties about consultation. The Government use consultation when they want to and dismiss it when they do not. The Minister is contemptuous of training boards. When the clothing industry training board was told that there would no longer be a compulsory levy to fund it, there was no consultation. The Government did not ask members of the board what they would do about providing training in an area where we have to be competitive. They simply said, without consultation, that there would be no levy. The Minister chose his arguments to suit himself. There was no question of consultation.
  I must reiterate my concern about the machinery of government. We have a slapdash Government who do not know what they are doing from one week to the next. They are so dithering in their attitude that they have not gone through the Bill to check what regulations will be needed to enable tax concessions to be made. It is not a question of whether the Government will get the measure through the Committee. They have a majority of 150 so they know that they will get the legislation through.
  The Minister said that regulations will need to be drafted. It would have been prudent for the Minister to ask his officials, when drafting the Bill, to consider what regulations would be needed. Will the regulations be made under the affirmative procedure or will they be less important in the Minister's eyes? Has he made a judgment? Has he decided just to dig out regulations at some time in the future, some to be made by affirmative resolution and some by negative resolution?
  These are important questions, because most provisions are created not by primary legislation but by secondary legislation, through powers delegated to Ministers. Therefore, Ministers should regularly assess the regulations that will be necessary. It is not as though the Treasury is unaware of the need to produce regulations. Even when tax concessions concern other Departments, the regulations have to be drawn up with the consent of the Treasury.
  The Government have rooms full of people dealing with regulations, yet the Minister tries to tell the House that they cannot draft regulations quickly. It is incredible. I will lay a bet with the Minister that there are five times as many people in Government Departments drafting regulations as there are in the emergency unit dealing with relief for the Bangladesh victims. There may even be 10 times more people involved in drafting regulations, because there are only about a dozen officials grappling with one of the biggest disasters that the planet has seen, in which perhaps as many as 500,000 people have been killed.
  The Minister's argument about regulations does not wash; he has used it as an excuse. He could have accepted our amendment, brought forward regulations and introduced the provisions in this financial year. An element of retrospection might have been needed, but I have never been one of those who says that there should be a bar against retrospective legislation under any circumstances.
  The Government want to induce people to enter into vocational education. That is necessary. We are not grudgingly accepting the notion, as the Minister tried to suggest. We are urging the Minister to ask his civil servants to get cracking on the regulations so that the legislation may be brought into operation in this financial year. What could be better? The Minister is getting support for a Bill
  770
  which is mostly pretty awful, but at least the regulations would help people. We are supporting the Government, but the Minister says no, it is administratively impossible, because the Government have never introduced legislation in 24 hours, never introduced regulations, plonked them before Parliament and brought them into effect during the 40 days within which a prayer can be tabled. We know that that is not true. They have used administrative expediency when they wanted to and when there was the political will to do so. There is not the political will to encourage people to undertake vocational training.
  Why is it especially urgent for people to undertake training? It is urgent because some manufacturing industries are in difficulty, and people might need an additional inducement to encourage them to undertake training in view of the relatively dismal prospects for some of those manufacturing industries.
  Let us take the example of engineering. New car registrations are down by about 20 per cent. The fall in registration in cars manufactured in this country has enormous repercussions. It means that component suppliers such as GKN have shed people and created redundancies because of the downturn caused by the Government's economic policies. The suppliers of steel and tyres and of cloth for the upholstery in cars and other vehicles are all affected by the downturn in demand, which has been created by the Government's blind and foolish ideological adherence to the use of interest rates alone to control the economy. As a result, more people have joined the dole queue. Therefore, there must be some inducements to encourage young people to go into the engineering industry, which is one of our most vital manufacturing industries.
  The inducements should be on the premise that there might be an upturn—not under this Government, but after the next election. With a Labour Government and a decent attitude towards the economy, we shall create jobs, not destroy them. People will then have more confidence, but not at the moment. Therefore, inducements to enter an industry that faces difficulties will be a help.
  The textile industry is important in Bradford. Fourteen thousand jobs depend directly on that industry. It is not an antique industry—it has invested and modernised—but it faces uncertainty, again because of the downturn in demand. There is much short-time working and a continuing trickle of redundancies. I predict that over the next few months mills will close in Yorkshire and the west riding because of the Government's economic policies and also because the textile industry in particular bore much of the burden of the perfectly legitimate sanctions against Iraq. The Gulf war meant that the market diminished in the middle east, which had been a fairly lucrative market for British textile manufacturers.
  People might ask why they should go into the textile industry when it has been contracting for years, and over the past 10 years has lost at least 100,000 jobs in its woollen sector. Why should they go into an industry to learn a craft or a skill only to find that, at the end of the day, they are redundant and that the skill is not required?
  The tax concession is needed now to counteract the economic downturn—the recession or slump—which the Government's policies have introduced once again into our economy.

  771
  6.45 pm
  It makes more sense to give tax concessions now to encourage people to go on a training course than to spend the money on the dole queues. Although Ministers are shy about telling us the cost of the dole queues, they cost between £20,000 million and £25,000 million a year in unemployment payments, various other benefits and loss of tax revenue. The Minister can correct me and give an accurate Treasury figure, but it is far better to start this year with the modest tax concession outlined in the amendment to encourage people to go into training rather than for the Government to shrug their shoulders and say, "It is administratively impossible—we can't do it now," while the dole queues grow ever longer.
  The Minister mentioned the cost of training in relation to Government expenditure. I should like to probe the figures a little further. He said that the Government were already spending that sort of money, so the amendment was not necessary. If the Government are so concerned about training, I wonder whether the figures that he gave for Government expenditure on training include expenditure on the skill centres. I presume that the tax concession would be available to an individual who decided that he wanted to go on a course at such a centre, but what has happened to the skill centres?
  The Minister may not be aware—as he is from the Treasury, he should be—that the centres were a nationwide network run by the Department of Employment to provide training, but what did the Government do? They advertised them for sale, saying that they were making a loss, that they were not effectively run—although the loss was not so big—and that something had to be done about them.
  It was strange that the Government sold the centres—in fact, they did not sell them but gave them away—to the people who were already in charge of running them at a loss. I wonder whether that money is incorporated into the Government's figures. The Government gave the new concern not only about £100 million, but the freehold. The new concern—Astra Training Services, in the main—has been busy closing down the centres, sacking people and diminishing training opportunities. It has sacked about 500 people—the Minister can correct me if he has up-to-date figures. It has been one of the biggest rip-offs of the privatisation procedures, and they have all been rip-offs of the taxpayer to some extent.
  As the Minister knows, the sale is being investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that its report will be produced pretty speedily, because we are dealing with a huge gift of money to Astra Training Services and with the three civil servants who got into the Minister's good books, pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I." That is an Elizabethan poem based on the corruption of Government in that era. The amount of money that would be provided by the tax concession is peanuts compared to the amount of money that the Government squandered on Astra Training Services and on giving away the freehold of important training facilities and sites.
  I hope that the Minister has a few answers, that he will rise to the occasion and say that the Government have many facilities and lots of skilled draftsmen for regulations, that they will draw up plans and regulations, send round a circular and ensure that the minor tax concession is introduced in this financial year. The Minister has the opportunity to do that and to do a bit for people who want to take advantage of training. We
  772
  encourage him in that, and I hope that he will accept the amendment. My guess is that he will not, but people who are looking for training will know where the real concern for training lies—not with the Government, but with Labour. We want an early opportunity in government to put our plans into action.
  Mr. Peter Hain: The Financial Secretary sought to deflect criticism of the Government's measure by saying that it was not all that the Government were doing on training. That is a statement of the obvious. But the proposed £20 million in tax relief on training costs is a drop in the ocean compared with the £245 million that has been cut from employment training and youth training this year. It is a tiny droplet compared with the £1.5 billion cut from public spending on training during the five years from 1987 to 1992.
  The Government's proposal does not even begin to address the skills gap in Britain. In particular, it does not address the dilemma and the problems faced by women trainees. Women should be a prime target for any training scheme, especially in view of demographic trends which are causing a shortage of adult men and making it necessary to bring more women into the labour market. Many women do not have the qualifications to take advantage of the jobs that companies need to fill. Others who would like to return to the labour market after a period of caring for dependants but need to top up their skills to take advantage of opportunities are unable to do so. The measure does not even begin to address that problem.
  Under the clause, there will be a deduction on the basic rate of tax, so those who pay a higher rate of tax will receive much greater relief. As women represent a small proportion of those in the higher tax bands, almost no women will benefit. In addition, the tax deduction will be available to non-taxpayers only in the form of a reduction in the cost of their training place. Many women who are on low pay cannot afford the massive cost that is often levied for a place on a training scheme.
  The main beneficiaries of the proposal will be people who are already in work. They will be mainly professional people. Not many will be women and few will be low-paid workers. That should be considered against the background of the overall impact of the proposal. It is a molehill of a measure compared with the mighty mountain of the skills crisis in industry and across the economy. At present, 60 per cent. of trainees emerge without any qualifications and two thirds of our work force have had no training in the past three years. Many have had no training in their entire working lives.
  The Financial Secretary referred to the rosy picture painted by the Confederation of British Industry by drawing selectively on its forecasts. I invite him to come back into the real world. For example, in west Wales, training places have been halved through the measures taken by the Government in the past year. One example is at a successful company called Kenyons in the town of Pontadarwe in the Neath constituency, which has trebled its turnover in the past two years. It builds industrial refrigeration plants and provides building services. It is a skilled engineering company employing 500 people in that part of the world. It is just the sort of company that we should encourage. In the past few months, its youth

  773
  training places have been cut from 90 to 70, despite the fact that the company had the places and people wished to fill them. The funding was cut by 20 places.
  Only after the managing director created merry hell, as he described it, was the company able to win from the local training authority an additional 10 places. Similarly, employment training places in that company were cut from 30 to 18. Again, that opened up a skills gap even though the company had the opportunity and the desire to fill it. All that is in an area where we desperately need engineering skills in order to compete with foreign companies, which are rapidly taking over our markets. I have been approached by business men in Neath who want to provide places for computer training, which is desperately needed in our information technology society. The funding for those places is not available.
  Several of my hon. Friends mentioned the lack of training opportunities for people with special needs. Training places for people with special needs have also been cut. All in all, the measure does not address the real world. The £20 million tax relief for training which is being provided one way or another should be compared to the £1.1 billion of tax subsidies for personal pensions last year and the incitement to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme in the form of a £6 billion tax subsidy. The £20 million does not even begin to measure up to the needs of our economy.
  The £20 million can also be compared to the tax subsidies to encourage people to take more and more shares and invest more in equities; yet in the past 10 years it has been highly profitable for individuals to invest in shares. People have received an annual gross return of 19 per cent. on their investments. Why is money spent in that direction when it should be spent on funding the training that we so desperately need?
  The Financial Secretary complained that the Labour party's policy was one of compulsion. That is not the case. The Government have abandoned their responsibilities for training and their duty to fund and provide the training opportunities so desperately needed in the economy. The Government have washed their hands of those responsibilities. The Labour party says that the Government should fulfil their responsibilities and duties to people who want to train to fill the skills gaps that are appearing everywhere. The Financial Secretary appeared to suggest that he would leave it all to the private sector. But almost universally the private sector is not filling the skills gap. I would ask why the directors of large companies pay themselves 22.7 per cent. increases in their remuneration when they are not providing the funding for training places that we need?
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) childishly suggested that we claimed that we could accomplish overnight the training revolution that is needed in Britain. No one claims that. The Labour party has never maintained that that would be the case, but we are saying that the Government are paying lip service to addressing the skills desert in society. People see, even if Ministers do not, that the Conservative party is a party of quick buck predators devouring our skills base as they asset-strip the economy. Labour is the party of enterprise and industry which is prepared to invest in skills for a strong economy.
  Mr. Maude: This short debate has been essentially about the proposal in the Finance Bill to introduce tax
  774
  relief on vocational training for individuals. The debate has ranged more widely than that, into training in general, and I welcome that.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke as if the administrative difficulties of putting the scheme into place this year were pure fabrication and a figment of our imagination. He talked as if in the Government there was a sort of regulation factory—if one pressed a button, out would come a set of all-purpose regulations to fit any set of circumstances immediately. However, we are introducing a new scheme which must work. Nothing like it has been done before. The scheme must be relatively as simple as possible for training providers to operate. It must not impose too great a compliance burden on them.
  It is important that we should get the regulations right, so that the system works in the best way possible. It would be dead easy to produce very quickly regulations which were wrong. I prefer to make sure that we get things right and that training providers have the time to set their systems in place and operate them. There is no doubt that to apply the system in this way—tax relief at source—places a burden on training providers. That is part of the price for what everyone has accepted to be a worthwhile measure.
  As I said at the outset, the reason for deferring the implementation of the scheme until next year is that we are anxious to get it right and do not want to introduce it in a way that would be impossible for training providers. In those circumstances, I am not able to accept the amendment.
  7 pm
  Several points, including those raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), related to the ambit of the measure—which vocational qualifications would be within it. That is the subject of a further amendment that we shall debate before long, and I shall deal with it then. However, I shall now deal with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised about higher national diplomas. Most higher national diplomas—this applies particularly to England and Wales; I cannot say whether it applies to the same extent to Scotland—would be at level 4 and therefore included within the ambit of the provision. Perhaps we can deal with that matter in a little more detail in the context of a later amendment.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the provision of training for people with disabilities. Training and enterprise councils are obliged to provide suitable training which meets the needs of local employers and local people, which of course includes those with special training needs. Performance-related funding for this year will reward training and enterprise councils for achievement of employment outcomes for people with special training needs, including people with disabilities. It is by no means the case that people with handicaps are at the end of the queue, with no consideration being given to their needs.
  Mrs. Golding: Will that include adult low achievers, many of whom in my constituency have lost their places midway through their training programmes?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady will understand that that is not something for which I have direct ministerial responsibility. I imagine that it includes people in those

  775
  circumstances, but it will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to provide detailed answers.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred to distance learning. Distance learning will be included if it leads to a national vocational qualification at levels 1 to 4.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made much of the relatively low financial cost of this measure—almost as though that were something that the Government could automatically increase to make it a bigger and more spendid programme. I am bound to say that it is not a cash-limited programme. The figures in the Red Book—the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"—simply reflect the best estimate of demand for tax relief under the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is unable to be present because of an obligation elsewhere, believes that the cost could be more because demand would be greater. That may be the case, but it is simply an estimate of what demand is likely to be.
  A number of other hon. Members referred slightingly to the cost. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) described it as a molehill or a drop in the ocean. I am not sure whether he also said that it was chickenfeed, but someone has described it as chickenfeed. Of course, in the context of the entirety of the Government's training programme and training strategy, it is a relatively modest measure. It is not meant to be the kingpin of the exercise.
  As I said, the Government are spending £2.7 billion overall, which is two and a half times as much as was spent on training in 1979. In that context, the measure is relatively modest—I make no apology for that—but it is particularly valuable because it places the emphasis on individuals' choice, encourages them and provides a direct incentive to enhance their skills.
  In those circumstances, I am confident that the Committee will warmly support the measure and accept that it is not possible to bring forward its implementation in the way that has been suggested, for reasons which are good and will be understood.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. McWilliam. It is a great pleasure for me not only to see you in the Chair but to hope that it means that you will follow our deliberations Upstairs as well. It would be a great pleasure for me if a fellow Member of Parliament for Tyne and Wear joined me in the early hours of the morning as we considered the Finance Bill.
  If you join me and the Financial Secretary for breakfast on Wednesday and Friday mornings during the passage of the Finance Bill, you may find the Financial Secretary a hard man to help and a hard man to please. Yesterday, he complained that I was smiling and nodding as he was speaking, and today he complains that I am grudging and curmudgeonly in my welcome for the clause. There is nothing grudging in our welcome. Most certainly, we are not opposed to it, because it gives some choice to those who are fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of its provisions. Those arguments are not the basis of our reservations.
  I notice that, in defending the Government's case, the Financial Secretary came up with his version of events
  776
  under the previous Labour Government. That is becoming commonplace. The Conservative party is not willing to have the events under the previous Labour Government taught as history in schools, but nevertheless it turns up time after time as fiction in our debates.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out, circumstances were quite different under the previous Labour Government. We had training boards, apprenticeships, a manufacturing base and a balance of payments in equilibrium—things that we do not see nowadays. I was saddened to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about the very last of Britain's marine engineering industry. I followed the slow retreat of that industry from Wearside to Tyneside and then up to my hon. Friend's constituency. It is very sad to hear of the plight of young apprentices.
  Dr. Godman: It is not just a matter of job losses in such a highly skilled sector. The decision announced yesterday could lead to the end of the building in the United Kingdom of slow-speed marine diesel engines—in other words, no building of diesel engines for merchant ships in the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of the extent of the tragedy to which he refers, which is why I made a special point of mentioning it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) picked up the Minister on his main excuse for not accepting the help that we offer him—that it is difficult to make regulations. Are regulations required? Clause 31(2) states:
  "The payment shall be deducted from or set-off against the income of the individual for the year of assessment in which it is made; but relief under this subsection shall be given only on a claim made for the purpose, except where subsections (3) to (5) below apply."
  Clause 31(4) states:
  "An individual who is entitled to such relief in respect of a payment may deduct and retain out of it an amount equal to income tax on it at the basic rate for the year of assessment in which it is made."
  Surely the clause does not require further regulations. It would, of course, be desirable from the taxpayers' point of view if a MIRAS-type arrangement were in place, but that is not necessary. Under the clause, it would be possible to make a start this year. The argument about the technical difficulties and about the need for regulations is so much bunkum. In any case, what does the Minister expect the initial take-up to be?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made a very good point about the difficulties of those who would not have a charge to tax, many of whom would be women, but who might nevertheless want to take advantage of the relief. I find it difficult to accept that many citizens would be in that position—that many people would not have a charge offsetable against tax but nevertheless would have enough money to sustain the financial burden of undertaking such a course.
  Having said that, however, and having done my very best to help the Minister, the real issue that divides us is not the clause, or even the Minister's unwillingness to accept our modest amendment, which has been tabled with entirely helpful intentions; our real quarrel with the Government is their failure to establish the properly funded training programme that is so necessary for the country. It is for those reasons that I seek to put our amendment to the vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 223.

  Division No. 138]

  [7.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Hardy, Peter

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Allen, Graham

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Home Robertson, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Battle, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hoyle, Doug

  Beggs, Roy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bellotti, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Illsley, Eric

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ingram, Adam

  Blair, Tony

  Janner, Greville

  Bradley, Keith

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lewis, Terry

  Buckley, George J.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Livsey, Richard

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  McAllion, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Carr, Michael

  McFall, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clelland, David

  McKelvey, William

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McLeish, Henry

  Cohen, Harry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crowther, Stan

  Madden, Max

  Cryer, Bob

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dixon, Don

  Meacher, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Nellist, Dave

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fatchett, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  Patchett, Terry

  Fearn, Ronald

  Pendry, Tom

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fisher, Mark

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flannery, Martin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Flynn, Paul

  Randall, Stuart

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Redmond, Martin

  Foster, Derek

  Reid, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Richardson, Jo

  Fraser, John

  Robertson, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Galloway, George

  Rogers, Allan

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ruddock, Joan

  Gould, Bryan

  Salmond, Alex

  Graham, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  778

  Short, Clare

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Snape, Peter

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Winnick, David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Wray, Jimmy

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Wallace, James

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Amos, Alan

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Franks, Cecil

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gale, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Benyon, W.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gregory, Conal

  Boswell, Tim

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grylls, Michael

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

  Hague, William

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hannam, John

  Brazier, Julian

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

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

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cash, William

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Churchill, Mr

  Irvine, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Jack, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Couchman, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Critchley, Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Curry, David

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Day, Stephen

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lightbown, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lord, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  779

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Maclean, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rost, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Madel, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mans, Keith

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Maples, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Mates, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mills, Iain

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speed, Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Speller, Tony

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Squire, Robin

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Needham, Richard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Price, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Redwood, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 21, line 27, at end insert
  '; provided that subsection (1)(d) above shall not apply so as to deny relief under this section for the excess (if any) of the payment over the amount of public financial assistance which the individual either has received or is entitled to receive at the time the payment is made'.
  The amendment and amendments Nos. 15 and 17, which we shall debate later, explore matters of detail in clause 31, the principles of which we have already debated. Will it be possible to make some concession to those who wish to take advantage of this relief and who receive some assistance from public funds? The circumstances that I specifically envisage are those in which some assistance from public funds is provided but the assistance is not up to the value of the tax relief. I do not propose that tax relief should be granted on that proportion of expenditure that is assisted from public funds. However, I should be interested to hear the Financial Secretary's view about providing tax relief on the balance because, given the nature and size of some awards, such a situation could arise, and it seems against the spirit of the legislation to disadvantage someone in that position.
  Mr. Maude: The amendment would allow trainees in receipt of direct assistance also to get relief for any part of the cost for a qualifying course which was not covered by that assistance. The main financial help for people undertaking vocational training is provided by their employers who, typically, meet the whole cost so that the trainee has nothing to find. Generally speaking, there is no tax penalty for such support, provided it is totally related to the current job, as it normally would be.
  Many other trainees can benefit from a variety of Government programmes carefully designed and targeted at specific groups. Young people benefit from youth training and training vouchers and those who have been unemployed for a long time benefit from employment training. The new relief provided by the clause contrasts with both state and employer funded training in being aimed at those people who embark on vocational training on their own initiative and at their own expense. Such people would include mothers who wanted to return to the job market after having families or someone in work who wanted to retrain for a different career.
  Acceptance of the amendment would mean that those who receive public support for undertaking qualifying courses, but only such courses, would get a double amount of help. The clause simply aims to ensure that everyone who embarks on a course for a national vocational qualification can get some help. We shall look carefully at the schemes of public financial support to be included in the Treasury regulations, by virtue of which relief would not be available. When we frame those regulations, I shall take careful account of views that have been expressed. Essentially, the matter can be dealt with in the context of the regulations to be issued on the clause, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am grateful to the Minister. It is not our intention, through the amendment, to give people twice the help that they would otherwise receive, and I do not think that the amendment is framed in that way. It is our intention to allow someone who has had some help from elsewhere to claim tax relief on the remainder of his expenditure. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for taking that issue on board and agreeing to look at it when the regulations are being drafted. That was a helpful assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 22, line 12, after 'entitled', insert
  '; provided however that no tax shall be required to be so accounted for to the Board by the person to whom the payment was made if that person can show (i) that he took all reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the individual in question was entitled to relief under this section and (ii) that at the date the payment in question was made he had complied with any obligation imposed on him by any regulations made under section (32) below'.
  This is an exploratory amendment designed to discover whether the Financial Secretary, when he drafts the regulations, will safeguard the position of colleges that have acted in good faith, but which could find themselves laid open to a charge if they have been duped by a student who has not acted in good faith.
  It seems unfair that an obligation to the Exchequer could fall on a college in those circumstances and the amendment will cover that point. The amendment sets out some conditions. It is not sufficient for a college to say that

  781
  it has acted in good faith; it must be able to demonstrate it. If the Financial Secretary says that the point will be dealt with in the regulations, I shall be satisfied.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Maude: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the concern expressed in the amendment, though understandable, is unnecessary. The regulations seek to protect training providers from having to repay any relief at source granted to a person who did not qualify for relief if the training provider took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the relief was legitimate.
  The regulations will be aimed primarily at trainees who, after beginning a course, have their fees repaid to them. Equally, it is the case that the subsidy should be repaid to the Exchequer, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would quarrel with that.
  There would be no requirement on the person granting the relief at source to undertake any arduous checking of claimants, and we would not expect those providing training to compensate the Revenue for false claims made by trainees. I hope that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary's remarks entirely satisfy me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 17 in page 22, leave out lines 36 and 37.
  It is nice to learn from the Financial Secretary that the regulations are a little further advanced than my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might have thought when he contributed to an earlier debate.
  Amendment No. 17 explores two slightly different matters. The first is the failure of the Government's scheme to offer tax relief at the highest levels offered by the two vocational training councils. I have received a letter—I expect that other hon. Members will have received similar correspondence—from the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants asking why clause 31 does not make relief available for all levels of training, including that leading to professional qualifications. The association is not the only group to have raised this point. The Financial Secretary mentioned it earlier and I refer to it in a neutral way because it needs to be clarified. The amendment is a probing one to seek such clarification.
  My second point is one of detail and I am sure that the Financial Secretary will be able to satisfy me on it. It has been suggested to me that tax relief at the lower level might be clawed back or denied if a student went on to the higher levels of vocational training which do not attract tax relief. I suspect that it is not the Government's intention to claw back or deny such relief, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will set the matter straight.
  Dr. Godman: Earlier the Financial Secretary gave some details of the English qualifications that the clause covered. Will he assure me that he will seek to determine the likely effect on the equivalent Scottish qualifications by approaching his ministerial colleagues at the Scottish Office in the usual way? I do not want to see Scottish students or trainees disadvantaged in any way vis-à-vis their English counterparts. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary, perhaps at a later date, could give me that assurance.
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about professional qualifications and I too received a letter from the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. I do not know what the situation is now, but when I qualified as an accountant many employers paid for training. However, my employer did not, and I had to pay for my training out of my taxed income. I am not asking for retrospective legislation to cover my case 21 years ago, but there is a case for extending tax relief to students who have to pay fees out of their taxed income.
  Mr. Maude: I am grateful for the way that the points have been raised. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is right to say that the matter has aroused some interest and I am glad to have the opportunity to deal with it.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was concerned that the Scottish qualifications included in the scheme should be on all-fours with the English and Welsh ones. I cannot imagine that that will not be the case, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. If necessary, we shall clarify the matter.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East asked about the possible clawback if a trainee moved from level one to level five. I can assure him that that would not happen.
  Let me explain why we have chosen to include simply qualifications from level one to level four. National vocational qualifications and Scottish vocation qualifications will cover a wide range of vocational skills across most industrial groups, based on employer-defined standards of competence and performance. That will mean that the schemes are flexible and that the qualifications will be properly targeted. That will guarantee the success of the qualifications.
  The structure of both schemes is to have qualifications that extend to jobs at all levels within particular industries. Level one covers most manual work and similar skills for each kind of job and level four broadly applies to supervisory middle management and technical skills. Levels two and three will obviously fill the gap between the two in a progressive way. The range of vocational training that the relief will support is quite wide. We hope that by April 1992 about 70 per cent. of the relevant qualifications will be in place and that the accreditation task up to level four will be substantially complete by the end of 1992.
  Level five will in due course cover the very highest levels of vocational training. They will extend to senior managerial skills and to professional and degree level qualifications. We carefully considered including the new level five within training relief, but decided not to do so for a number of reasons.
  First, there is little criticism of our performance in vocational training at that level. British professional skills are internationally recognised as being of the highest quality. Secondly—and I say this with some diffidence in view of the personal experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)—those who embark on training at that level can readily reap the personal financial reward for their investment in human capital. Therefore, they have less of a claim on the support of

  783
  taxpayers. However, that may not apply to those who abandon their professional calling to enter the more doubtfully rewarding profession of politics.
  The third, purely practical, reason is that there are no level five qualifications currently in existence. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications and Scotvec are still discussing with professional and other bodies how best such qualifications might best be brought into the scheme. By restricting relief to levels one to four, we are concentrating resources on practical and supervisory skills, which is where the main criticisms of our current performance are directed, and where help and encouragement are needed.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am grateful for the Financial Secretary's assurance that tax relief given at the lower level of training will endure if a student advances to a higher level, and for the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
  On the more vexed question of exclusions at the highest level, in the light of the Financial Secretary's explanation, I believe that the Bill should proceed as drafted. If it is found that the hon. Gentleman's explanation has not stood the test of time, we can return to the issue in a future Finance Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

  MARRIED COUPLE'S ALLOWANCE
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 15, line 40, at end insert—
  '(3) Subsection (2) of section 257B of that Act shall cease to have effect after the year 1990–91; subsection (1) shall have effect for 1991–92 and subsequent years as if it read
  "(1) Where a man is entitled to relief under section 257A for any year of assessment, he may transfer to his wife the whole or any part of the relief to which he is so entitled; and where such a transfer is effected, he shall cease to be entitled to a deduction from his total income for that year of the amount transferred and his wife shall be entitled to a deduction from her total income for that year of that amount";
  and subsection (3) shall have effect for 1991–92 and subsequent years as if after "relates", there were added
  "(aa) shall specify the amount of relief which is to be transferred to his wife.".'.
  Clause 21 freezes the married couple's allowance at the current level of £1,720 per year for the financial year 1991–92. Only last June, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now Prime Minister and who I suspect exerted some influence over the contents of the Bill before us, said in a speech to Welsh Conservatives that Labour's proposals in relation to the allowance were especially malign, and reserved for special attack and venom any proposal to freeze it.
  Ten months later, the self-same Government, now led by the self-same person, are proposing precisely to freeze the married couple's allowance. It therefore comes as something of a surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends
  784
  and myself to find that a Government who were excoriating such a proposal only a few months ago are now including it in the Finance Bill.
  The married couple's allowance should really be called the married man's allowance in another guise. Under section 257(1)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, which was brought in as part of the Finance Bill 1988, the allowance initially goes to the husband and can only be transferred to his spouse with his consent. Even then, only that part of the allowance that the husband himself cannot use may be transferred—only that portion that he cannot set against his own taxable income. The transfer of the allowance from the husband to the wife can be done only in very limited circumstances, where the husband's taxable income is not sufficient for him to be able to make use of the allowance in its entirety.
  7.45 pm
  That makes a mockery of any pretence that there is independent taxation of husbands and wives. It makes a mockery also of the allowance's description as a married couple's allowance. It is directed primarily—and for the majority of taxpayers, entirely—at the husband and not at the couple. That can lead to discrimination against the wife in cases where there is no specific agreement between the couple as to who might make best use of the allowance.
  The allowance may also discriminate against a couple where different rates of marginal tax are paid by the husband and the wife. If the wife is paying at a higher rate than the husband, yet it is only he who can offset the married couple's allowance against income, the couple will lose, whereas they would not if the wife could offset at least part of the allowance against her income.
  The current operation of the married couple's allowance is not good for equity, fairness, or the dignity of wives in the taxation system. Independent taxation is a mirage. For three years in succession, we have sought to press on the Government a change in the way in which that allowance is applied.
  Mr. Tim Smith: How can the hon. Gentleman assert that independent taxation is a mirage when, for the first time, married women are being sent tax returns?
  Mr. Smith: That may be so, but most married women still cannot make any use of the married couple's allowance, which makes nonsense of any claim of truly independent taxation.
  We acknowledge that an amendment that sought to put into effect the full import of our proposals would not be in order. In an ideal world, we would like to see the married couple offered a choice of how they apportioned their allowance. If they wanted to apportion it entirely in the name of the husband, or in that of the wife, or if they preferred to split it in any way between them, they would be able to choose to do so.
  Failing agreement between the two parties about the proportion that should go to each, we should like an automatic equal apportionment between them. That would be a sensible approach, which would preserve the principles of independence and would benefit a small number of people who are disadvantaged by the way in which the present system operates.
  However, within the terms of the Bill we cannot frame an amendment to put that into operation, because it would increase the tax liability of a limited number of men, and it would therefore be out of order within the terms of this

  785
  Committee. Therefore, we have drafted what I would describe as a second-best proposal, which forms the content of amendment No. 18.
  The amendment goes some way to redress the problem of the present married couple's allowance and would allow it to be freely transferable, with the husband's agreement, whether he could have used it or not. That is the key change as, at present, it is freely transferable from husband to wife only with the husband's consent and if he is unable to make use of it. We are lifting that restriction. Under this amendment, if the husband wished—whether or not he were able to use the allowance—it would be possible for him to transfer it to his wife. That is fairer than the present position, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.
  Having explained why we tabled the amendment, two further matters arise in connection with this amendment and this clause which ought to be named. First, when the Chancellor announced in the Budget that he was going to freeze the married couple's allowance for this year, he said that he would use the money to extend other forms of support to families and children.
  "more should be done to help families with children. I propose to use the resources released by not increasing the married couple's allowance for that purpose."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 179.]
  Note carefully the words:
  "use the resources released by not increasing the married couple's allowance."
  That brings £360 million in revenue to the Exchequer in 1991–92. In 1992–93, it will bring in £490 million.
  In return, the Chancellor made some modest increases in child benefit, but they amounted to a cost of £220 million only to the Exchequer, which leaves a substantial surplus of revenues from the freezing of the married couple's allowance.
  As far as I can tell, those substantial extra revenues have fallen into a black hole, and have not been used for child or family support. The Chancellor should have used the entirety of the money that the Exchequer raised by freezing the married couple's allowance to support families with children in other ways. We have long held the view that support for child benefit is by far the most effective means of targeting help to families with children.
  It is sad that the Chancellor did not live up to his statement in the Budget and use the entirety of the revenue open to the Exchequer as a result of that change to help families with children. He should have done so, he said he was going to do so, but he did not. That is a failure on his part. Later, it would be useful to hear from the Minister of State what will be done with the extra money which falls to the Exchequer as a result of this clause.
  I mentioned child benefit, and it is important to view the measures in this clause and the proposal contained in our amendment against the background of what is happening to that benefit. It is a tax-free cash benefit, paid per child, per week, directly to the person responsible for the child or children—usually directly to the mother. It was introduced in 1977, replacing child tax allowance and family allowance. Child benefit is universal, and is paid regardless of income or capital.
  In Britain, 6.7 million families receive child benefit for 12 million children, at an annual cost to the Exchequer of £4.6 billion. The take-up rate is 98 per cent. Quite clearly, it is the best way to assist families on low incomes with children.
  Child benefit was frozen at £7.25 per week in September 1987 by the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for
  786
  Blaby (Mr. Lawson), until April 1991, when the Government granted a £1 per week increase to the first child, taking the benefit for them to £8.25 per week. The rate for subsequent children remains frozen at £7.25 until October of this year.
  In his Budget statement in March 1991, the Chancellor announced that the rate for the first child would increase by another £1 to £9.25 in October. The rate for subsequent children would increase by a miserable 25p per child.
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor also promised to start uprating child benefit in line with inflation from April 1992. However, child benefit is still below what it should have been if it had been uprated in line with price increases since April 1987, when it was frozen. If that had been the case, the value of child benefit for each and every child would now be £9.55 per child per week. Even for the first child, the value is short of that amount from October this year, and the value for subsequent children is substantially short of the amount that it should have been.
  One of the immediate acts of a Labour Government will be to fulfil our pledge to uprate child benefit in full to the value to which it ought to have been uprated to account for the rise in prices since 1987. That would be a more substantial way to assist families with children than anything that the Government have done in recent months or years, even after considering the repentance in the Budget and in the Chancellor's statement.
  The Government are accruing extra income to the Exchequer by the change that they are making in clause 21. They are not devoting the entirety of that income to the purpose for which it was supposed to be used. They are using only a portion of it to increase child benefit, and they could have used more.
  In tabling the amendment, we are doing two things. First, we are drawing attention to the inadequacies of the present arrangement for the use of the married couple's allowance, and to the unfairness of that arrangement; we are seeking to make it fairer, and to offer couples at least some choice in how the allowance is apportioned. Secondly, we are drawing attention to the fact that the Government should be offering families with children much more support. In freezing child benefit and then neglecting to uprate it properly, the Government have failed Britain's families. Opposition Members will continue to remind them of that during the coming weeks and months.
  8 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister of State wishes to speak. Let me put it on record, however, that my party shares the objectives of Labour's amendment—and shares even more emphatically those of the amendment that Labour Members would have tabled had that been in order. Indeed, we tabled such an amendment; and it is intriguing to note that an amendment along the same lines was debated last year, but somehow slipped through the net. The objective that we share is, of course, to make independent taxation genuinely independent.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views about whether amendments are in order. Given what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in yesterday's debate, I hope that he will make fulsome apologies for having enabled an

  787
  amendment that was out of order to be deemed in order last year. The strictures that he applied to the Opposition were, after all, very severe.
  Mr. Beith: I shall do nothing of the sort. It was Labour's amendment that was found to be in order last year, and it is the Labour amendment that has turned out to be out of order this year. I shall not stray too far from the subject of our present debate; let me point out, however, that my criticism last night related not to whether the amendment was technically in order, but to the confusion that was apparent in the setting out of its objectives. It also related to the failure of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—the spokesman for the official Opposition—to explain how her party could achieve two objectives at once without adding up the cost of both.
  Happily, that does not apply to amendment No. 18. We agree—I hope—that we want to secure genuinely independent taxation that will not depend on the husband's choosing to transfer allowance that he does not require, but will allow each partner to obtain the maximum benefit from his or her share. The current procedures do not allow that. As the arguments advanced in support of them have been largely technical, I should like to think that the Government really wish to achieve the objective of the amendment, and that they will continue to try to do so. Indeed, I rather hope that the Minister of State—who, I am sure, takes a personal interest in the matter—will tell us that the Government are still trying to achieve that aim of genuinely independent taxation and genuinely divisible married couple's allowance.
  I am glad that you called me before you called the Minister of State, Mr. McWilliam, because I want to underline the question put by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith): what is the future of the married couple's allowance? Do the Government intend to phase it out and let it wither on the vine by not increasing it in line with inflation year by year; or is that simply a short-term treatment?
  The failure to index the allowance has released considerable sums, more of which could have been devoted to child benefit. Is it the Government's policy to use more and more of the savings obtained from not indexing the married couple's allowance to fund child benefit improvements? If it is, we can support them in that objective, but so far the position is unclear. The Minister would do us a service if she set out the Government's policy on both the future of the married couple's allowance and the extent to which the savings to the Exchequer will be devoted to child benefit. She should also continue to try to find a mechanism to achieve the objective of the amendment.
  Mr. John Battle: I wish to make a small but, I hope, important point about child benefit and about whether people will actually receive the proposed increase.
  On Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "perception is lagging behind reality".—[Official Report, 30 April 1991; Vol. 190, c. 179.]
  I sometimes feel like turning that phrase the other way round, and suggesting that reality—in terms of tax and benefits—often lags behind public perceptions.
  788
  Many people believe, deep down, that they will receive £140 off their next poll tax bill when it arrives some time in June, as a result of the proposed changes. In fact, we know that that applies to only 40 per cent. of people; but that did not prevent Conservative candidates in the local elections from putting out leaflets suggesting that every person in the country would receive a cheque for that amount, as if it would be signed by the Secretary of State for the Environment himself.
  That is manifestly not the truth; and exactly the same is happening in regard to child benefit. When we consider one benefit, we must also consider its interaction with others. The increase in child benefit has been sold as a great bonus; the brakes are off and, we are told, every family will gain. Will the Minister confirm, however, that the effect of that increase will be rubbed out by the impact of the Government's freezing of single-parent benefit? Lone parents must be among the poorest groups in our society, especially when they have no opportunity to work—or, if they have, can work only in part-time and, usually, low-paid work. Some must stay at home with their children. When the freezing of the single-parent benefit is put together with the increase in child benefit, the result will be that such people will not receive the extra money that the Government are promising.
  This is another classic case of the Government's giving out what they nowadays call a "headline" figure—that usually means a figure that they hope will make the headlines in a newspaper or on television—which does not represent money in people's pockets. What has been given with one hand has, effectively, been taken away with the other.
  If the Government had done the decent thing, they would have uprated child benefit properly. Then we would not have had to witness the farce of the Government's playing with the language in the last Conservative manifesto, in which we were told that the benefit would be uprated "as now". That meant that it would remain "as now" on the day of the last general election. No uprating took place until the public put pressure on the Government to take the brakes off and begin to uprate the benefit in line with inflation—and they are not there yet.
  I hope that, next time, the Government's promises will be listened to carefully. What has happened to child benefit is, in my view, an illustration of what the Government do. They make a promise and wrap it up in language, and people think that they will receive the money; but, when they work out the details, they find that they have been short-changed.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I appreciate the aims of the amendment—and those of the "non-amendment", if I may use EC parlance. I must admit that I have some sympathy with those aims. The amendment is similar in some respects to one that was considered in Committee last year. My right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his sympathy with what that amendment sought to achieve, but felt unable to accept it and others because, in his view, the benefit would not be commensurate with the cost. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has given some idea of what his amendment aims to achieve and of the complications that might ensue.
  There were three reasons for my right hon. Friend's decision last year. I think that it is worth repeating them, because they apply, to a greater or lesser extent, to any

  789
  proposal to make the present arrangements more flexible. My right hon. Friend said that the present straightforward system might he made more complex. He did not want many more people to have to fill in tax returns, and to have to deal with the Inland Revenue, which would place increased burdens on both sides. He also felt that there should be no reduction in the privacy that husbands and wives enjoy under the present system
  The amendment that we are discussing raises similar concerns. The concerns might not matter and the cost might be worthwhile if many people were better off as a result. But the amendment would not have that effect because it would enable fewer than 50,000 people, or about 1 per cent. of the total, to arrange their tax affairs in such a way as to reduce the wife's higher rate tax liability. No other couples would be better off in cash terms as a result of the new transfer option offered by the amendment.
  It is possible for a husband and wife to run their financial affairs separately now. That is why we were the first Government to treat a married woman as a fully independent taxpayer under the new system of independent taxation. I realise that, although a couple might not benefit financially from being able to split the married couple's allowance, they might consider it the right thing to do as a matter of principle. That point was made in the amendment and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  In considering the present amendment we have to look at the principle—which I agree is important—and the practicalities. I believe that the considerations are outweighed by the practical disadvantages of the proposed amendment. The main advantage of the present system is that it ensures that the married couple's allowance is given initially to the partner who is most likely to be able to use it effectively—the husband. That minimises the need for transfer, so it is a cost-efficient way of giving relief to married couples. Of course that is not popular with everyone. Some people do not like it because they would gain more by a different set of rules and others do not approve of it as a matter of principle.
  I assure the Committee that the Government have considered carefully on several occasions various options for making the rules more flexible for transferring the allowance. However, we have always come up against the fact that the benefits to be gained from a change are not sufficient to justify the upheaval.
  Last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained some of the disadvantages of that option. I shall briefly repeat his explanation. Eighty per cent. of taxpayers are dealt with through pay-as-you-earn. The amendment would entail moving away from a system whereby 80 per cent. of these taxpayers do not make tax returns and do not deal with the Inland Revenue but are covered by PAYE. From a practical point of view the amendment could be regarded as a retrograde step. If the amendment were accepted, married couples would have to be informed about the new options and given the opportunity to choose them. The Inland Revenue would have to ensure that the husband's and wife's tax offices, which deal with each other only occasionally under independent taxation, made the necessary adjustments to their records. Procedures would have to be set up to deal with couples who wanted to change their decision later because during the year their income turned out to be more or less than they had expected. That would carry a cost in
  790
  extra staff and extra worry about the options for millions of married couples whose tax affairs are now straightforward.
  Although the amendment is not exactly the same as those that were tabled last year, the intention is the same, and I must reach the same conclusion as my right hon. Friend did last year. I certainly admit quite freely that the present system is not perfect, but in practical terms it is the best possible solution.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised some specific matters including the apparent discrepancy of £140 million between the yield from freezing the married couples' allowance and what is being spent on the increase in child benefit from October this year.
  I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will understand that the social security system is a great ship of the state and it takes time to get new systems into place and that 7 October is the earliest date on which the additional increases in child benefit can be paid. There is generally a six-month lead time before social security changes can be implemented and from that day all families with children will receive a further £1 a week for the first eligible child and 25p a week for subsequent children. To that extent, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is correct that there is a discrepancy of £140 million, but I ask him to regard the Budget as a total package. Of course the £140 million is within all the measures included in this year's Budget. Next year, however, the cost of introducing the increases in child benefit will be accounted for by freezing the married couples' allowance. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that, here again, there was a practical difficulty.
  8.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked about the Government's future intentions for the married couple's allowance. He asked whether the freeze was the first step towards its abolition. He reads far too much into a decision that was taken in an economic situation which called for a tight Budget this year to direct scarce resources towards families with children. It reflects the Chancellor's priorities this year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all the allowances are reviewed each year in the run up to the Budget and considered in the light of the economic circumstance then prevailing.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West asked about the freeze on one-parent benefit. Lone parents already have the £1 increase in child benefit for the first child. One-parent benefit has been frozen, but that freeze is fully offset in income support. The level of one-parent benefit is subject to review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security each year. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, important improvements for lone parents are on the way in the child support Bill which will come to the House next month.
  The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Leeds, West asked about the freezing of child benefit in the past. I remind them and the Committee that the resources from the freezing of child benefit were used for other social security priorities. Annual spending on poorer families has increased by £500 million since 1988

  791
  and the resources released by the freezing of child benefit during that period were in part directed to helping poorer pensioners.
  Mr. Battle: Is it not true that the increase in money to the poorest was used in housing benefit as their rent went up, so in effect it was a subsidy to the housing system?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there were enhanced arrangements for people on income support and family credit which accounted in part for the £500 million. I remind him that the overall spending on families with children is higher now than it would have been had child benefit been regularly uprated since 1988. As we have been talking about the prosperity of families, I remind the Committee that the take-home pay of families on half the average wage has gone up by 29 per cent. under the present Government compared with 4.2 per cent. under Labour and that of the average family with two children has gone up by nearly 37 per cent. compared with a measly 0.6 per cent. under Labour. I think that families know where their best interests lie.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I should begin by welcoming the Minister of State to our proceedings on the Finance Bill as the clause that we are discussing is her first segment of the Bill. I also welcome some of her remarks. She said that she had some sympathy with the aims of our amendment, that she regarded the principle enshrined in it as important and that only practicalities outweighed it in her mind. In another part of her speech, she said, quite correctly, that the present married couples' allowance system is not perfect.
  I welcome all those statements. It is a pity that, although the Government support the principle of making the married couples' allowance a joint decision between husband and wife rather than an automatic accretion to the husband's tax relief, they do not carry their sympathy into legislation.
  The Minister of State said that the cost next year of the commitment to child benefit would use up more of the amount raised by freezing the married couple's allowance,
  I do not think that it would use up all of it. If I am incorrect, I shall happily give way to the Minister. The figures in the Red Book do not seem to indicate that, even then, it would use up all of it.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a minor difference between the two figures. I say "minor" within the context of the Government's whole public expenditure budget, which is enormous—amounting to some £50 million. Given that we are talking about next year, and given the difficulty of predicting the number of children who will qualify for child benefit, the discrepancy should be regarded as just that. It may be ironed out by the birth rate next year.
  Mr. Smith: I am glad that the Minister of State confirms that there will be a shortfall in the use of the money for child benefit next year. Although £50 million may be a minor amount in terms of the overall public budget, I should prefer it if £50 million had been used to support children through child benefit rather than simply being swallowed up by the Exchequer.
  The Minister of State also argued that our amendment, which would allow the husband to transfer the married couples' allowance to the wife if he so wished, would
  792
  benefit financially only 1 per cent. of tax-paying couples. I accept that only a small number of people would benefit financially from such an arrangement, but the point of the amendment is that not only financial benefit but the principle of choice is at stake. A couple should jointly determine what happens rather than having the Exchequer determine by fiat that the whole amount will go to the husband. The amendment is not just about financial gain but is about equity of treatment between husband and wife within the taxation system.
  We believe that the principles that we have adumbrated in relation to the amendment and the clause still stand. The Government's praying in aid of practical difficulties has not stopped them dreaming up systems of local government finance and all sorts of other mechanisms to penalise people. Praying in aid practicalities in defence of doing nothing on a basic principle that is right does not wash. However, because of the Bill's strictures, we could not put forward in its entirety the proposal that we should have liked to make on the married couples' allowance. Our amendment is therefore very much second best, and although it would be a small step in the right direction, it would not be right to push it to a vote. However, I hope that we can return to the matter on a future occasion. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

  BAD DEBTS
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 18, after 'one year' insert
  'and after "elapsed" there shall be added ", or the company or individual liable to pay any outstanding amount of the consideration has become insolvent and (except where paragraph 10(1A)(B) below applies) the person has submitted a claim in the insolvency for the oustanding amount of the consideration.
  (1A) a company becomes insolvent for the purposes of this section if:

  (a) it goes into liquidation in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of the winding up;

  (b) a person who has been appointed in Great Britain to act as the Administrator or Administrative Receiver issues a certificate of his opinion that, if it went into liquidation, the assets of the company would be insufficient to cover the payment of any dividend in respect of debts which are neither secured nor preferential; or

  (c) a composition or scheme proposed by the Directors is approved under Part I of the Insolvency Act 1986. (1B) An individual becomes insolvent for the purposes of this section if:

  (a) in England and Wales he is adjudged bankrupt, a deed of arrangement is made for the benefit of his creditors, a composition or scheme proposed by him is approved under Part VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986 or, after his death, his estate falls to be administered in accordance with an order under Part XV of the Act;

  (b) in Scotland, sequestration of his estate is awarded, he signs a trust deed for his creditors or, after his death, a judicial factor is appointed under section 11A of the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Act 1989 to administer his estate;

  (c) in Northern Ireland he is adjudged bankrupt, a deed of arrangement is made for the benefit of his creditors, a resolution of his creditors is approved by the court under section 5 of the Bankruptcy

  793
  Amendment Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 or, after his death, the court makes an order for the administration in bankruptcy of his estate; or

  (d) in the Isle of Man, he is adjudged bankrupt, a deed of arrangement is made for the benefit of his creditors or, after his death, the court makes an order for the administration in bankruptcy of his estate,".'.

  Clause 14 relates to the recovery of bad debts on which value added tax has been paid to Customs and Excise. It reduces the waiting period for recovering such VAT from two years to one year. The issue is important because it affects substantially many businesses, especially smaller businesses. However, many traders in the smallest category of businesses, with a turnover of under £300,000, use the cash accounting mechanism for paying VAT, which becomes payable to Customs and Excise only when it is received by the trader rather than when the invoices are issued. The cash accounting system gets round the problem of bad debts altogether. The companies that use that system are unaffected by the clause.
  However, other traders must pay the VAT to Customs and Excise as they issue invoices to their customers. lf they never receive the VAT from the customer, they can eventually reclaim it from Customs. Until 1990, they could reclaim it only if the customer could be proved to be insolvent. As a result of the change introduced in the Finance Act 1990, they were allowed to reclaim it if they had written off the debt in their own books and if the debt was over two years old and had not been paid. That helped some traders but disadvantaged others, for example, if the customer who owed the VAT went rapidly into liquidation but the trader then had to wait for two years before he could recover the uncollected VAT.
  In our debates on last year's Finance Bill, we argued that the Government's proposal was unfair. We tabled amendments that sought to allow the old and new reliefs to run in parallel, so it would then be a case either of a period having elapsed without the debt being paid or of the company that owed the debt becoming insolvent and, as a result, the relief being triggered. We suggested that those measures could run side by side and that that would solve the problem. As an alternative, we proposed that the two-year period should be reduced to one year, thus relieving hard-pressed traders and reducing the number of cases where the old system would have given relief before the new system came into operation.
  It is worth examining exactly what happened during the passage of last year's Finance Bill, because the Government's behaviour on the specific issue of bad debts was instructive. When we debated the measure in Committee on the Floor of the House, the Government clearly said that they believed that there was some merit in our argument for a shorter time period than the two-year one. The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has subsequently risen in the ranks to become the Government Chief Whip, said:
  "Our judgment was that two years is an appropriate period of time to elapse before a company decides that a debt cannot be recovered."
  8.30 pm
  The then Economic Secretary said that he was aware of the arguments that we and others, including some of his hon. Friends, had been mounting. He continued:
  "I have concluded that there may be scope for further improvement to the scheme. We shall be examining that possibility between now and Report stage."—[Official Report, 15 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 812.]
  794
  That welcome sign of movement on the Government's part came about last May. But in July last year, when we debated the Bill on Report, there was no sign in the amendments of any extra relief on the bad debt issue. Our proposal for a reduction in the time period from two years to one year was nowhere to be seen. Having given a sign that they were likely to see fit to bring forward some further improvement to the Bill in May, the Government reneged on that commitment when we discussed the Bill on Report in July.
  The then Economic Secretary also spoke in the debate on Report. He said that he did not believe that it was right to go for a shorter period and stated:
  "In the past two months, we have given careful consideration to whether we could justify a further change, but we have come to the conclusion that we could not."—[Official Report, 16 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 797.]
  Having reached that conclusion on 16 July last year, the Government came forward in this year's Budget and Finance Bill debate to say that they were wrong all along. They have, in effect, accepted the arguments that we mounted in Committee and on Report during the passage of last year's Finance Bill and have introduced precisely the proposal that we made in Committee to reduce the qualifying period for relief from two years to one—that is welcome.
  Our amendment seeks to draw the Government just a little bit further along the road to provide relief to hard-pressed traders. The U-turn that they have made on the issue of the time period—agreeing to reduce it from two years to one year—should be accompanied by the additional provision that, if a company becomes insolvent within that one-year period, the VAT bad debt relief should be immediately claimable, rather than the claimant having to wait the full year.
  We believe that that proposal is important for two reasons. First, the rate of company insolvencies and liquidations is currently running at a record level. Some 24,442 firms failed in 1990 in Britain and, in the first quarter of this year, the numbers were up by almost 70 per cent. on the equivalent period for last year. Peat, Marwick, McLintock has estimated that there will be five times as many receiverships in 1991 as there were in 1988. Therefore, the problem of firms going bust and, as a result, being unable to meet their VAT debts to other traders is bound to increase. While the provision of a reduction to one year in the time period is welcome, the introduction of an alternative, parallel system of being able to claim the relief when an insolvency occurs would bring extra relief.
  The second principal reason for the amendment is that cash flow problems often catch out companies, especially small ones, and force them to close earlier than was, perhaps, economically necessary. We propose the amendment in order to assist the cash flow position of traders who have already paid VAT to Customs and Excise but have not received it from the person to whom they sold the goods or services. If the company owing VAT goes into liquidation three, four or five months after the VAT was paid to Customs and Excise, there will be a further seven, eight or nine months to wait before the VAT can be reclaimed—that makes a seven to nine months delay in the cash flow represented by that VAT payment.
  Our proposal would directly assist the cash flow problems of such companies by enabling them to claim the VAT relief immediately upon the liquidation of the person or company owing the money. Therefore, we believe that

  795
  our measure will enable the Government to go further than they have. We welcome the fact that they have now seen the light and accepted this year what we were urging on them last year. However, we wish that they could go a little further and ensure that the "payable on liquidation" system that was in place could run in parallel with their new provision to improve the system further and assist businesses, especially smaller ones, even more than the new clause does.
  Mr. Beith: This useful amendment addresses the particular problem of insolvency. We all welcomed the introduction of the VAT bad debts provision and sought to extend it last year. We have all welcomed the shortening of the period to one year, as announced in the Budget statement. All that is the tip of the iceberg of the bad debt problems affecting small businesses. We believe that many more steps should be taken, including the sort of measures for interest provisions for bad debts supported by some of the Government's own Back Benchers. Bad debts cause severe problems for small business men and women and, with the VAT man on their back as well, they should be afforded any possible relief from bad debt problems that they ought not to be bearing. Therefore, the Government's decision to shorten the time period is most welcome.
  I am glad that the amendment addresses the insolvency problem and I hope that the Minister will be reasonably sympathetic towards it. I hope that she will also realise that, within the purview of her Department, there are other issues affecting small businesses to address. The Government should recognise responsibility for those problems relating to debt, as they presided over the recessionary climate in which those debts arose. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to that problem.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has given us some background to clause 14 and the amendment. He said, as did the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that in 1988 there was a comprehensive review of the arrangements for the relief of VAT on bad debts. During that review, the views of professional and business organisations were sought. The review recommended a change from the old, restrictive system, dependent only on the formal insolvency of the debtor, to a new, comprehensive scheme, providing relief on all bad debts, subject to elapsed time and write-off in the trader's accounts.
  When last year's Finance Bill was debated in the Committee of the whole House and the House, one of the main concerns expressed centred on the effect of the two-year waiting period. During the year there have been representations from professional and business organisations, as well as individuals, to the effect that the waiting period is too long and that, at a time of recession, the cash flow problems thus caused are onerous. I began to wonder whether the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury too would be begrudging, but he welcomed the reduction of the waiting period to one year. It was precisely because of the concerns that had been expressed during the year that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the provision to reduce the period. That reduction should help to meet the concern and the criticisms that have been expressed.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I hope that, in the point that I am about to make, I shall not appear grudging. During the
  796
  passage of last year's Finance Act, people involved in business and industry up and down the country, as well as Members of Parliament, made innumerable representations about the two-year period that the Government then proposed. The Government considered the matter carefully for two months. Why, after their careful consideration, did they fail to accept that one year would be better, whereas this year they have felt able to accept the case that we made then? Why have they changed their minds?
  Mrs. Shephard: I thought I had made it clear that the representations continued during the year. The Government and the customs authorities have listened, and have responded by introducing these changes.
  The old, very restricted scheme allowed relief only on the formal insolvency of the debtor. At the centre of all argument for the extension of relief is the feeling of injustice on the part of a supplier who has to pay tax on a supply for which there is no prospect of payment. That is very well understood. Indeed, that theme was consistent throughout the consultative exercise before the 1988 bad debt review. Many trade associations criticised the inadequacy, the ponderous nature and the unfairness of the old arrangements. It is clear that, on grounds of equity, there are no strong arguments for defending the restrictiveness of the insolvency-based arrangements. The new, comprehensive scheme greatly widens the scope by providing relief on many more debts. It extends relief to the very many cases in which debtors, over a long period, refuse to pay or pay only token amounts, or simply vanish. The new scheme removes a legitimate and long-standing grievance, and, together with the halving of the waiting period now proposed, will provide an immediate boost—estimated at £340 million in 1991–92—to the cash flow of business.
  At the time of the 1988 review, detailed consideration was given to a dual scheme of bad debt relief, and the concept was rejected. Let me outline the main reasons. First, there was the problem of accounting arrangements. There would be a need for voluminous regulations and instructions to cover all contingencies, and an attempt to minimise the dangers of double claiming would be both burdensome and intrusive to business. Let me give an example. The two schemes do not match in every respect. They do not match in clawback. There is no clawback under the formal insolvency scheme, but there is under the new scheme. If that were left unaltered, it would advantage one type of debtor over another. If clawback were extended to the existing insolvency scheme, it would lead to quite a nightmare changeover, in which claims to liquidators under the new scheme would be tax-inclusive, whereas those under the old scheme would be tax-exclusive.
  I know that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is aware that the introduction of regulations—after the contribution of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) I hardly dare utter that word—to cope with this kind of problem would be difficult. The existence of a dual scheme, governed by complex regulations, would be wide open for double claiming—either accidental, by traders not unnaturally confused, or, more worryingly, deliberate, by unscrupulous traders. It would be all too easy to claim once, when the debtor became insolvent, and again when the elapsed time criterion had been met. There is also the question of controlling the system. Any VAT

  797
  system has to he both fair and convenient to operate, not only to business but to the Customs authorities. When one looks at the problems of controlling a dual scheme—complex to operate, and open to abuse—it becomes clear that the control problems would be formidable. We estimate that we should need 150 to 200 extra VAT control staff just to police a dual scheme. I am sure that most hon. Members agree that that would not be a very productive use of resources.
  8.45 pm
  Perhaps our overwhelming reason for not supporting the amendment is that our consultations with business and industry have revealed that the main support for a dual scheme resulted from the waiting time of two years. Indeed, at a recent meeting with the Customs authorities, the CBI said that it would not be interested in a dual scheme if the waiting period were one year. There were other representations to the same effect. The reduction to one year has gone a long way towards meeting the problems expressed by representatives of trade and industry.
  The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned current problems of companies and other businesses, including insolvency and cash flow. In that regard, I should remind the Committee that this year's Budget injected £750 million into business. Many of the Budget measures were designed to help cash flow—the reduction in corporation tax; the extension of the carry-back period for losses from one year to three years; the deregulatory measures; the 40 per cent. increase in VAT threshold; the possibility of quarterly PAYE and national insurance returns for small businesses to help 700,000 firms; and the extension of simplified accounts. The Budget, of which this clause is a part, went a very long way to help companies and other businesses with the problems that they currently face.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I immediately acknowledge that the reduction from two years to one year goes a long way towards meeting the problems that people in business identified when the two-year period was introduced last year. That is precisely why we urged this course on the Government last year. Their repentance is a year late, but, none the less, welcome. The Minister dwelt on the benefits of the new system, but failed to recognise that it has disadvantages where liquidation occurs within a few months of the payment of VAT to Customs and Excise.
  798
  That raises a very genuine problem. I agree that there may not now be as much pressure for a parallel scheme of this kind as there was last year, when the period was two years, but insolvencies that occur within a very short period of the payment of VAT present serious problems. I hope that the Government will consider whether such a parallel scheme could be implemented. We may even find another case of the repentance that we have seen this year. Of course, it will be a different Government of another party who will introduce next year's Bill.
  The Minister referred to practical problems. She talked about the complexity of the clawback system and about the dangers of double claiming. We accept that there might be practical difficulties, but they would not be insurmountable. When something is worth doing, it is worth overcoming practical difficulties to do it. None the less, I hope that, in respect of this issue, we shall be able to proceed by means of consensus rather than confrontation.
  It is a matter to which I hope the Government will pay continuing attention. If it becomes identified during our further deliberations on the Bill that business is unhappy without the parallel provision of an insolvency trigger for VAT bad debt relief, I hope that the Government will consider an amendment even at the 11th hour.
  With that hope and with the wish to proceed by consensus if possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill (Clauses 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31 and 77 and Schedule 14), reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS BILL [LORDS]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Roads (Western Isles)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Good communications are the key to economic progress. That is especially true the more remote and peripheral people are from the core, and therefore especially true in the Western isles. We need good communications both between us and the mainland, cut off as we are by the waters of the Minch, but also internally, between the various islands of the Hebridean chain.
  The Western Isles council currently maintains a roads network of approximately 740 miles of adopted road, of which only 155 miles are of double track width. The remaining 585 miles are single-track and of extremely sub-standard foundation and alignment. That presents a huge problem for the development of good communications, and is therefore a major impediment to economic progress in the islands. I accept that it cannot all be tackled overnight or even over the next decade, and I want to make a plea this evening for a focused effort to tackle one crucial part of that road network, the main road running north and south through the Western Isles, which I shall refer to as the spinal route.
  The spinal route runs from Ness in Lewis to Leverburgh in Harris; and then from Newton in North Uist to Ludag in South Uist, and from Eoligarry to Castlebay in Barra. Upgrading would ensure a good north-south road linking the island chain, serving the most populated areas in the Hebrides, including all five of the mainland ferry terminals. The strategic nature of the spinal route for future economic development and inter-island as well as mainland communication means that the benefits of upgrading will be widely spread and provide maximum value for money.
  I do not propose to dwell on the inadequacies of the present road. The Minister is familiar with the islands from the days when his family used to own a sizeable chunk of them, and he and his brother were themselves familiar sights, tramping through the heather in their kilts. He knows full well the deplorable condition of the road network in the islands, particularly in the Uists, as do the officials from the Scottish Development Department who visited the islands last year to make a special report on this issue. To refresh his memory, however, I have provided him with some photos to peruse. What they depict are not isolated tracks in the most remote parts of the islands but sections of the main spinal route, the main economic thoroughfare of the Hebrides over which all trade and commerce have to pass.
  Why is the road network so bad? Most roads in the Western isles have been developed from rough footpaths to cart tracks and then to vehicular carriageways by means of various layers of clay, stones and rocks being placed one on top of the other, with no attempt to remove the underlying layers of peat which, in places can be up to 3 m thick. That results in a road which floats on a peat foundation and which is therefore prone to excessive shrinkage, expansion and consequent deformation under even moderate traffic. In addition, climatic conditions contribute to extensive cracking and rutting.
  I am assured by the engineering department of the Western Isles council that, if assessed on mainland criteria,
  800
  over 50 per cent. of the island network would be classified as failed. In consequence, maintenance cycles have to be more regular on the islands than is the mainland norm. The problem, caused by inadequate peat foundations, is exacerbated by the roads being single-track, so large wheel loads in particular get concentrated in the same ruts.
  That is the historial background to the problem. But over the past decade, the increasing tempo of trade by fish farming, agriculture under the programme of the Industrial Development Board and fishing has led to increased heavy lorry traffic on the roads. It is estimated also that the introduction of roll-on/roll-off ferries has led to a further 37 per cent. increase in heavy vehicles on island roads. Finally, thanks in large part to better promotion of the islands by Caledonian MacBrayne and by the tourist authorities, regular travelling tourist traffic and traffic from the ordinary travelling public has also increased enormously in the past decade.
  There is no sign of a reduction in the trend. Indeed, if anything, it is expected to intensify with the construction of the Skye bridge with which the Minister will be familiar, and the hoped-for development of a vehicular ferry link across the sound of Harris. With a major multinational even now applying for planning permission to excavate an estimated 10 million tons of material annually from a new super quarry at Lingerbay, the heavy traffic pressure on the fragile and inadequate road network will continue unabated.
  The local authority is working hard to upgrade the spinal route. One must remember that the first problem facing the local authority after local government reorganisation in the early 1970s was to establish vehicular links to all the permanently inhabited islands in the Hebrides. With the completion of the Vatersay causeway, that ambition has been realised. Since 1983, the Western Isles council has been devoting the bulk of its transport capital consent to upgrading the islands' single track roads. But such is the poor nature of those roads and the high cost of bringing material on to the isles that to upgrade a mile of road costs approximately £500,000. At the present rate of progress, therefore, with the existing capital consent, it will take until the year 2025 just to upgrade the main spinal route.
  When he has studied the figures, and the case made by the islands council, I am sure that the Minister will agree this is simply unacceptable. It is a disgrace that a region of Scotland, considered sufficiently distinct and self-contained to merit its own separate local government, should look like entering the 21st century with its main north-south commercial road still single track in large parts. Surely it is a modest enough ambition for the spinal route to be fully double-tracked by the year 2000. My constituents do not ask for dual carriageways, they do not ask for motorways, they do not even ask to be latched on to the official trunk road network in Scotland. All they ask for is an end to the age of the passing place on the main public thoroughfare connecting all the outer islands.
  There are those, of course, who still have the temerity to argue that we ask for too much and who like to point out that expenditure per head is higher in the islands than the Scottish average. But, of course, that is necessarily so, because there are more miles of road per capita in the islands than the Scottish average. In any case, per capita comparisons are entirely the wrong way to look at the matter.

  801
  Roads are one of the basic services provided by Government. In this, they are like education, health and social security. It would be unacceptable to argue that people living in the Scottish islands should expect significantly lower quality schooling, much poorer medical care or less social security provision than people elsewhere in Scotland. The Government rightly accept that they have a duty to provide a similar quality of provision across Scotland in all these areas. So it should be with roads and communications, a responsibility of Government so basic that even Adam Smith acknowledged it.
  I therefore urge the Government to look hard at the case which the Western Isles council will be making this summer in its transport policy programme for 1991–95 and to adopt it as their target that the main spinal route through the Western Isles be upgraded to basic double-track standard by the year 2000—that is by the end of this century. That target is realistic, achievable, eminently reasonable and long overdue. I commend it to the Minister.
  9.1 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has raised the subject of roads in his constituency. I have a great affection for the whole of Scotland, but especially for the Western Isles. Their outstanding beauty is so striking that it reminds me of the words of the Canadian Boating song:
  "From the lone schieling of the misty Island
  Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas,
  Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland
  And we in dreams behold the Hebrides."
  For my part, as a Scots lowlander, I have many extremely happy memories of the Western Isles, which have some of the most magnificent scenery in the world, a scenery which more and more tourists are in the process of discovering. Indeed, many more tourists will go there once the Skye bridge is built in the years to come. All that will have implications for the employment prospects and for the way of life of the islanders.
  I have listened carefully to everything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I congratulate him on the way in which he put his arguments. I realise that people in the Western Isles are concerned with the down-to-earth practicalities of life, so I am glad to say that I essentially agree with the case that the hon. Gentleman advanced on behalf of his constituency. I am sympathetic to his cause, which is to put an end to passing places, as I was to the building of the Vatersay causeway. We shall study the photographs that he has provided, the points that he has made and, of course, the transport policy programme of the Western Islands council as soon as it has been submitted.
  Let me start by summarising the position on resources. With the exception of small amounts of capital expenditure which some authorities are able to finance from current revenue, capital expenditure which local authorities spend on roadworks must be covered by capital consents issued by the Secretary of State under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Of the £160 million capital consents issued under section 94 to Scottish regional and islands councils for expenditure on roads and
  802
  transport in 1991–92, £5 million was allocated to the Western Islands council. Several points are worth emphasising about that £5 million figure.
  First, on an expenditure per head of population basis, the Western Isles figure, £161, is more than five times higher than the average figure for Scotland as a whole, which is £31. Secondly, on the perhaps more appropriate comparison basis for a thinly populated rural area, the Western Isles allocation per kilometre of local road length, at £4,226, is also substantially higher than the Scotland figure of £3,311. Thirdly, the Western Isles' £5 million final allocation for 1991–92 was increased from the previous provisional figure of £4.8 million. That increase was made at a time when the resources available for capital allocations generally were severely limited. We were able to increase the allocation this year in this way, although four of the nine regions, and both the other islands councils, received no such increase. That is evidence of our concern about the position in the Western Isles and of our commitment to ensuring that resources are channelled where they are most needed.
  The statistics that I have just quoted show objectively that we accept many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and demonstrate our commitment to take action to overcome the particular problems in the islands. But the Scottish Office's practical concern has also been shown by the strenuous efforts that officials in the Scottish Office Environment Department have taken to apprise themselves of the particular conditions which apply in the Western Isles and the work which the Western Isles islands council is doing to meet the most pressing needs.
  Last August, the Scottish Office's director of roads visited the islands, as the guest of the islands council, to inspect the authority's road network at first hand. This followed on a tour of inspection the previous year by a senior member of the roads directorate staff. In October 1990, the head of the Scottish Office's transport and local roads divisions also visited the islands, again on a visit kindly arranged by the islands council. I must at this point express my warmest thanks to the council, first for making the three visits possible, and secondly for ensuring that all the officials concerned were able, during intensive programmes, to see the full range of the problems facing the authority and the work done to overcome them. I know that these senior officials were able to penetrate parts of the road network which they normally would be unlikely to reach. I should also like to thank Convener Donald Macaulay for his personal welcome to me last summer, which was greatly appreciated.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles that the Western Isles council faces particular difficulty in maintaining its roads. The main concerns are the proportion of single-track roads in the network, the high proportion of roads which are founded on peat, and the damage being caused to those roads as a result of the significantly increased volume of heavy goods vehicle traffic, and the weight of the vehicles using the roads.
  From this point of view, the considerable improvement over the past 10 years in the ferry services provided by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. from the mainland to the Outer Isles has been a mixed blessing. Substantial levels of investment in new linkspans and new larger vessels to provide roll-on/roll-off ferries has brought about a significant change in the traffic levels and weights using roads which, anywhere else in Scotland, would not be looked on as acceptable.

  803
  On all occasions when Scottish Office officials have visited the islands, they have been very impressed by the programme of maintenance and improvement planned and being carried out by the islands council engineering team. We recognise that a substantial part of the council's road system runs beside the coast or through inland lochs with long causeways. Those sections of road are prone to damage in the storm conditions which are common in the islands and thus impose an additional burden on maintenance resources. The high proportion of single-track roads results in the speed of traffic being reduced, in an increased risk of accidents, in higher vehicle operating costs, and in access difficulties for large and heavy vehicles.
  But the main difficulty, as I understand it, is that heavy vehicles which use roads floated on peat cause extensive cracking and rutting of the flexible road pavement. Such defects are expensive to repair, and the repairs need to be carried out very frequently. With the new roll-on/roll-off facilities at Castlebay, Lochboisdale, Lochmaddy and Tarbert as well as Stornoway, and with recent important commercial developments such as fish farming—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—generating additional traffic, the proportion of heavy goods vehicles using both the primary and secondary routes on the islands has increased markedly. Even allowing for the larger lorries having more axles, a 38-tonne lorry causes over 40 times more damage than an eight-tonner.
  The ideal solution to these peat-related problems would be to reconstruct the road network completely, particularly the main strategic roads. The peat foundation would be dug out and replaced with rockfill or other suitable material. Where that has been done, the resulting rebuilt roads require significantly less expenditure on repairs or improvement, as well as offer a much more acceptable ride for vehicles. When using roads in the Western Isles, one does not need to be an engineer to know whether the road is solidly based or floating on peat.
  In the long run, the council and the Scottish Office accept that reconstructing roads on a hard base is undoubtedly the value-for-money approach to road engineering on the islands. The difficulty, however, is that such wholesale rebuilding of such an extensive network of roads would be prohibitively expensive. It would be quite out of line with the level of resources available now or likely to be available in the foreseeable future. The work therefore cannot be carried out overnight, or even over a few years; it has to be a very long-term programme. That is because the depth of peat on which the roads are floating in some areas is very considerable, and substantial excavation or use of considerable volumes of imported material would be required. What is necessary in the short term, and what the islands council is doing with considerable success, is to target the resources available to priority areas.
  Hand in hand with carrying out major improvements such as rebuilding sections of road on a hard base, the council must maintain the other peat-based roads and ensure that the network condition overall is not allowed to deteriorate. Scottish Office officials were extremely impressed by the way in which the council has been programming, designing, constructing, maintaining and improving its road schemes. The council took a policy
  804
  decision in 1985 that it would devote resources available in four years out of every five single-mindedly to maintaining and improving its primary road network.
  In the fifth year, it has concentrated its resources on the top priority minor schemes. The effectiveness of a small operation with two or three engineers properly overseeing the work being done in detail has been very evident. I believe that the council has recently been able, for example, to procure 6 m two-track new road for about £0.5 million per mile and has completed at least 50 per cent. on Lewis and Harris and about 20 per cent. on the southern islands. That is a very competitive rate compared with elsewhere in Scotland, and it represents excellent value for money.
  Road engineers on the council recognise that, even now, with the increased traffic levels that I have already described and the further increases which improved services may bring, the flows on the islands roads are and will be extraordinarily low. For example, fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day use the main inter-island route. The council is using modern highway design standards with the fullest permitted deviations for reasons of environment and economy, and without any question of reducing road safety. The islands council has recently built several new single-carriageway improvements on roads with low traffic. The engineers take a pragmatic approach to the use of design standards and are prepared to lower the standards without significantly reducing safety, enforced by reasons of topography, property or economy. That can result in reducing the sheer size of earthworks to a more sympathetic scale.
  The Scottish Office roads directorate has congratulated the islands council on its approach, and considers that mainland authorities can learn much from that pragmatic approach to the design of low-traffic roads, including low cost, a good safety record and aesthetic appearance.
  Let me refer, however, to matters financial rather than technical. I was very pleased that the Scottish Office was able to find additional resources in 1989–90 and 1990–91 to enable the Western Isles council to build the Vatersay causeway. The full cost of that project—£3.7 million, including additional reconstruction and resurfacing work on a number of single-track roads on Vatersay—was covered by additional capital allocations in those two years. That ensured—we believe this to be extremely important—that the rest of the council's roads programme was not prejudiced. Moreover, 50 per cent. of the eligible costs of the new causeway were met by grant from the European regional development fund, and a further 25 per cent. from the Scottish Office. The new causeway, opened last November, is real evidence of the Scottish Office's commitment to the promotion of development in rural and island areas, and to the maintenance of populations.
  I know that, in the longer term, the council will want to consider whether it would be cost-effective to build causeways or bridges to the islands of Berneray, Eriskay and Scalpay. These possible projects, which would inevitably involve substantial expenditure, add to the pressure on resources available. The council must also consider investment in ferry services within the resources allocated to it. Inevitably, therefore, the council will have to take decisions on priorities in the light of the finance that is likely to be available.
  I have acknowledged the problems facing the islands council, the impressive work being done by the council's

  805
  staff to stretch the resources available to achieve maximum value for money, and the islanders' aspirations for the future.
  I recognise that, at the present rate of investment, it may take more than 30 years to complete the work required on the inter-island main route, but I must emphasise that there is no bottomless bag of resources from which roads and transport expenditure, however systematically and efficiently organised, can be funded. The Government's policies are designed to create the conditions necessary for sustained economic growth. This necessarily involves restraining public expenditure to assist in the fight against inflation. We must therefore look at priorities for public expenditure across all services and in all areas very closely indeed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State each year reaches a view on what proportion of the total resources available in the Scottish block can be devoted to different services. Roads and transport needs must be considered against other services such as education, social work, health and housing. Of the funds he decides to allocate to roads and transport, my right hon. Friend then has to determine how much should be issued to each authority. He is guided in this exercise by the transport policies and programmes documents drawn up by authorities, by their financial plans, and by such other information as my be available. We shall, in due course, study with great interest
  806
  the council's proposals. Information may also come from reports of officials' visits to the authorities or from additional information submitted by the councils themselves.
  It was because the Secretary of State had information from a variety of sources on the clear priority needs for investment in the Western Isles that he was able to agree to increase the Western Isles' final allocation for this year. The percentage increase was higher than for all but one other council in Scotland. That council was Tayside where resources were exceptionally required to replace the flood-damaged Caputh bridge.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the able way in which he has presented his case on behalf of his constituents. I promise him and the Western Isles council that we accept that there are particular problems in the Western Isles. On behalf of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, I give the undertaking that the needs of the Western Isles will be carefully, seriously and sympathetically considered against the claims of all other authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having drawn these matters to our attention tonight and for submitting additional evidence, which we shall study with the utmost care.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Nine o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Overseas Development Administration on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply he received on 25 April from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to privatise any activities of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have no proposals to privatise any activities of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Ethiopian Relief Organisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has given, or proposes to give, assistance directly to the Ethiopian Relief Organisation after the cancellation of the joint relief partnership scheme by the Ethiopian central Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The joint relief partnership—JRP—has not been cancelled. Latest reports indicate that the JRP continues to operate the southern line relief supply route satisfactorily. We are providing assistance through the southern line and in other ways. I have no plans at present to give assistance directly to the Ethiopian Relief Organisation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the relationship between the balance of payments cost of an increase in overseas aid and the domestic balance of taxation and net public spending.

  Mr. Mellor
  Overseas aid in the form of cash grants counts as a transfer debit in the invisible trade balance of the current account. An increase in such aid would therefore reduce the surplus on invisibles and so increase the current account deficit. It would count as public expenditure. To the extent to which it added to the planning total, it would need to be financed from general taxation.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing gross rates as a percentage of equivalised disposable income for each category and each year itemised in table R of the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends"; and if he will add the average for all households in each tenure type;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing gross rates as a percentage of equivalised disposable income for each category and each year itemised in table Q of the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends"; and if he will add the average for all households in each household type;

  (3) what is his estimate of the gross and net council tax payable as a percentage of household equivalised disposable incomes by decile groups as defined in the article on household income in the March issue of "Economic Trends", together with the corresponding figures for rates in 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not meaningful to compare unequivalised gross rates with equivalised values of income.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the numbers of households in each of the lowest two quintiles in table 3 appendix 1 of the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends", receiving a rate rebate of (a) 100 per cent. and (b) 50 to 99 per cent. and the numbers receiving combined housing benefit/rate relief in excess of rates.

  Mr. Maples
  The figures are as follows:

  1988 Quintile groups of equivalised disposable income

  Number of households

  Percentage of domestic rates

  Bottom

  2nd

  Rate rebates

  1. 100 per cent.

  68

  53

  2. 50 to 99 per cent.

  344

  197

  3. 0 to 49 per cent.

  1,041

  1,203

  1,453

  1,453

  Households where total of rate rebate and rent rebate/allowance is in excess of domestic rates

  601

  489

  Note: Care should be taken in the interpretation of these figures, which are subject to sampling error, and the accuracy of reporting by households, in the Family Expenditure Survey which is the source of the data. Rate rebates may not always relate to the same time period as the reported income.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  The 100 per cent. figures include any cases where reported rebates exceed the domestic rates.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table, further to the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends", showing the increase in real disposable incomes since 1979 of the top and bottom deciles of households and the increases in the percentage of real disposable incomes taken by gross rates in each case.
  459
  Mr. Mellor
  The analysis behind the article on household incomes has not been designed to give reliable estimates of increases in absolute income levels between two years. The remaining information is as follows.

  Gross rates as percentage of disposable income in: 1979 and 1988

  Decile group of households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  All households

  Per cent.

  Bottom

  Top

  1979

  9

  3

  4

  1988

  15

  3

  5

  Note: Rate rebates will significantly reduce the burden of gross rates for lower income households.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each column in each table in the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends" the average amount of tax relief in total and per recipient.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Decile groups of unadjusted disposable income

  1988 Number of households

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  6th

  7th

  8th

  9th

  Top

  All households

  Total rate rebate and rent rebate allowance, as a percentage of domestic rates:

  100 per cent, or more

  301

  392

  267

  126

  60

  34

  19

  14

  6

  2

  1,221

  50 to 99 per cent.

  107

  59

  42

  30

  18

  12

  12

  4

  2

  2

  288

  0 to 49 per cent.

  318

  276

  418

  570

  649

  680

  696

  708

  719

  722

  5,756

  Total

  726

  727

  727

  726

  727

  726

  727

  726

  727

  726

  7,265

  Note: Care should be taken in the interpretation of these figures, which are subject to sampling error, and the accuracy of reporting by households, in the Family Expenditure Survey which is the source of the data. Rate rebates may not always relate to the same time period as the reported income. Some high income households may contain low income benefit units entitled to rebates, for example lodgers.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Vote Bundle
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report the amount charged for the full Vote bundle in each Session of Parliament for 1980–81 to date in cash prices and at 1990–91 prices; and if he will state the amounts charged during the current Session, its estimated cost and method of calculation.

  Mr. Maples
  The cost of taking one copy of the Vote bundle throughout each Session of Parliament since 1980–81 is as follows:

  Session

  Prices charged

  Prices charged uplifted to 1991 prices

  £

  £

  1980–81

  1,757

  3,221

  1981–82

  2,113

  3,510

  1982–831

  1,509

  2,396

  1983–842

  3,039

  4,586

  1984–85

  2,738

  3,895

  1985–86

  2,885

  3,937

  1986–871

  1,569

  2,058

  1987–882

  4,664

  5,913

  1988–89

  4,128

  4,852

  1989–90

  4,304

  4,680

  1990–913

  3,800

  3,800

  460
  However, the average amount of some forms of tax relief—relief at source on mortgage interest under the MIRAS system and life assurance premiums—is given for quintile and decile groups of households for 1988 in tables 3 and 4 of appendix 1 of the article in March's "Economic Trends".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for each of the decile groups in table 2 of appendix 3 to the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends", the estimated gross amount of council tax payable compared to the gross rate, together with the corresponding tax rebate.

  Mr. Mellor
  Estimates of council tax are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the numbers of households in each decile of table 2, appendix 3 of the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends" that received rate rebates or housing benefit equal to (a) 100 per cent. and (b) 50–99 per cent. of rates.

  Mr. Maples
  The figures are as follows:

  1 6 month Session due to General Election.

  2 17 month Session.

  3 Estimated.

  Customers are currently charged on the basis of a page price which is set to recover the relatively fixed costs of maintaining a dedicated printing facility, plus a contribution towards central costs and HMSO's financial targets, from the pages produced, which vary with the level of parliamentary activity.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each quintile group of households in the family expenditure survey ranked by the gross amount of council tax payable the average (i) unadjusted disposable income, (ii) equivalised disposable income, (iii) number of households qualifying for relief and (iv) the amount of relief per qualifying household;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each quintile group within each household type in table 5, appendix 1 of the article on household incomes in the March issue of "Economic Trends", his estimate of the gross council tax to replace gross rates, together with his estimate of the average amount of rebate.

  Mr. Maples
  Estimates of council tax cannot be made from the data available.
  461
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average increase in the amount payable by(a) council tenants and (b) other householders under the council tax over rates in 1979–80 and 1989–90; and if he will provide corresponding figures for each region.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  £000s

  TV Advertising

  Press Advertising

  Radio

  Outdoor Posters

  Point-of sale etc.

  Total spend

  1991–92

  15,500

  13,500

  —

  —

  11,826

  110,826

  1990–91

  5,242

  4,226

  —

  —

  1,412

  10,880

  1989–90

  5,813

  4,842

  —

  —

  642

  11,297

  1988–89

  5,389

  4,745

  —

  1,063

  3,090

  14,287

  1987–88

  6,575

  4,029

  —

  1,705

  660

  12,969

  1986–87

  5,145

  7,706

  —

  2,104

  3,518

  18,473

  1985–86

  1,727

  6,197

  —

  1,847

  1,936

  11,707

  1984–85

  1,998

  6,021

  —

  1,728

  2,419

  12,166

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9,693

  1982–83

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8,479

  1981–82

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8,279

  1 estimated

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Inland Revenue on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Information relating to the financial years 1979–80 to 1985–86 inclusive is not readily available and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. The spend on advertising, omitting staff and accommodation-related costs, for the remaining years is as follows:

  £ thousand

  Televison

  Rado

  Newspaper

  Other promotional

  1986–87

  0

  0

  15

  300

  1987–88

  0

  0

  15

  350

  1988–89

  0

  0

  20

  250

  1989–90

  0

  0

  30

  400

  1990–911

  4,376

  0

  2,155

  692

  1991–922

  0

  0

  20

  300

  1 Forecast outturn

  2 Budget

  The figures for 1990–91 include expenditure of £6·95 million on an advertising campaign to increase public awareness of the new arrangements for non-taxpayers to register for payment of bank and building society interest without deduction of income tax.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Department for National Savings on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92 are as follows. No breakdown by advertising medium is available for the years 1981–82 to 1983–84 and no total figures prior to 1981.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has not used television, radio or newspaper advertising for promotional purposes. The information available on other promotional material is as follows:

  Estimate expenditure

  £

  1984–1985

  21,000

  1985–1986

  29,000

  1986–1987

  28,000

  1987–1988

  29,000

  1988–1989

  47,000

  1989–1990

  31,000

  1990–1991

  44,000

  1991–1992

  54,000

  The figures do not include recruitment advertising. The figures for 1979–are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  HMSO has not used television or radio advertising. Expenditure on advertising in newspapers and journals and on other promotional material for each financial year was:

  Year

  Advertising in Newspapers and Journal 1

  Other promotional material

  £000

  £000

  1983–84

  42

  151

  1984–85

  45

  125

  1985–86

  69

  191

  1986–87

  61

  160

  463

  Year

  Advertising in Newspapers and Journal1

  Other promotional material

  £000

  £000

  1987–88

  83

  172

  19882

  89

  142

  1989

  31,027

  563

  1990

  406

  658

  1 Details of expenditure on newspaper advertising as opposed to journal advertising are not available.

  2 HMSO changed its financial year from the fiscal to the calendar in 1988 (9 months).

  3 Includes expenditure on a major campaign to launch new health and safety posters.

  Figures for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The comparable budgeted figures for 1991 are £539,000 and £589,000 respectively.

  £ thousands

  Television advertising

  Press advertising

  Radio

  Outdoor posters

  Point-of sale etc.

  Total spend

  1991–92

  15,500

  13,500

  —

  —

  11,826

  110,826

  1990–91

  5,242

  4,226

  —

  —

  1,412

  10,880

  1989–90

  5,813

  4,842

  —

  —

  642

  11,297

  1988–89

  5,389

  4,745

  —

  1,063

  3,090

  14,287

  1987–88

  6,575

  4,029

  —

  1,705

  660

  12,969

  1986–87

  5,145

  7,706

  —

  2,104

  3,518

  18,473

  1985–86

  1,727

  6,197

  —

  1,847

  1,936

  11,707

  1984–85

  1,998

  6,021

  —

  1,728

  2,419

  12,166

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9,693

  1982–83

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8,479

  1981–82

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8,279

  1 Estimated

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to privatise any activities of the Department for National Savings.

  Mr. Maples
  None.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to privatise any activities of Customs and Excise.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In common with other Departments, Customs and Excise carries out a continuing programme of market testing reviews of its activities. Where market testing identifies areas where value for money could be improved by contracting out work to the private sector, the feasibility of doing so will be examined.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount paid in(a) petroleum revenue tax, (b) royalties and (c) corporation tax arising out of oil and gas operations in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each year since 1979; and what is his estimate of the total amount of each tax to be paid in fiscal year 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  The information required (in £ millions) is contained in the table:

  Fiscal Year

  1Petroleum Revenue Tax

  Royalties

  2Corporation Tax

  1979–80

  1,435

  628

  250

  1980–81

  2,410

  992

  341

  1981–82

  4,415

  1,396

  681

  464
  The greater part of the expenditure is incurred in publicising publications and HMSO would normally expect to recover the costs through sales.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Department for National Savings on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92 are as follows. No breakdown by advertising medium is available for the years 1981–82 to 1983–84 and no total figures prior to 1981.

  Fiscal Year

  1 Petroleum Revenue Tax

  Royalties

  2 Corporation Tax

  1982–83

  5,669

  1,632

  521

  1983–84

  6,017

  1,904

  877

  1984–85

  7,177

  2,426

  2,432

  1985–86

  6,375

  2,057

  2,916

  1986–87

  1,188

  919

  2,676

  1987–88

  2,296

  1,024

  1,298

  1988–89

  1,371

  602

  1,210

  1989–90

  1,050

  575

  768

  1990–91

  866

  606

  849

  1991–923

  0

  500

  900

  1 Including supplementary petroleum duty in 1981–82 and 1982–83.

  2 Before ACT set-off.

  3 Forecast.

  Premium Bonds
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the reinvestment of £50 prizes won under the premium bond scheme.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have decided that winners of £50 prizes should be permitted to reinvest them in additional bonds if they so wish. Amendments to the regulations to effect this change will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Civil Research and Development
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the comparative figures for expenditure on civil research and development, as a percentage of their gross
  465
  national product, of the United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden, for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: Separate data for civil R and D expenditure by industry in the United Kingdom were collected for the first time in 1989. Provisional figures indicate that total civil R and D expenditure from all sources in 1989 represented 1·7 per cent. of gross domestic product. Standard international comparisons of R and D expenditure are usually given in terms of gross domestic product and not gross national product.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) of 12 February,Official Report, columns 437–38, if he will list all local education authorities in England in rank order of central administration expenditure on education per secondary pupil per year, starting with the highest spending authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  Expenditure for central administration is collected only as a single figure for all education services. That figure is not allocated to individual sectors of the education service, so expenditure attributable to a single sector such as secondary schools is not available.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) of 12 February,Official Report, columns 437–38, if he will list all education authorities in England in rank order of total combined expenditure per secondary pupil per year on school meals, central administration, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  Mr. Fallon
  Expenditure figures for the central services identified in the question are collected only as single totals for all education services. The figures are not allocated to individual sectors of the education service, so expenditure attributable to a single sector such as secondary schools is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional(a) loan sanction and (b) grant has been granted to Doncaster local education authority for education purposes for (i) the current financial year (ii) the last financial year and (iii) for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Fallon
  Details of the annual capital guidelinesACGs—and the educational grants made to Doncaster for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are set out in the table. Grants and ACGs for 1992–93 have not yet been determined.

  £ thousands

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (a) Annual Capital Guidelines

  ACGs

  860·0

  375·0

  (b) Grants

  VA capital allocations1

  345·0

  145·0

  ESGs2

  1,272·0

  —

  466

  1990–91

  1991–92

  LEATGs3

  1,417·0

  —

  GEST4

  —

  2,715·0

  Travellers5

  58·1

  60·9

  Section 116

  17·8

  22·0

  Notes:

  1 The figures represent planned expenditure by the Governors of voluntary aided or special agreement schools. Grant is paid up to a maximum of 85 per cent on such expenditure.

  2 ESG—Education Support Grants.

  3 LEATGS—LEA Training Grants Scheme

  4 GEST—Grants in Education Support and Training. This incorporates the ESG and LEATGs schemes.

  5 The figures represent approved expenditure. Grant aid is paid at the rate of 75 per cent.

  6 Grant under Section 11 of the Local Government Act is administered by the Home Office. Grant is paid at the rate of 75 per cent. on approved salary costs. The figure for 1991–92 is a provisional estimate.

  Urban programme grant is allocated to local authorities for economic, environmental, social and housing projects. Doncaster received £2 million in each of 1990–91 and 1991–92. Detailed statistics are not available to isolate the education component from the total urban programme grant.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of moneys that his Department has allocated to Doncaster local education authority for the maintenance and repair of school buildings for the current financial year; and what was the amount for the last financial year.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government do not allocate to LEAs separately identified recurrent funds for repairs and maintenance: it is for each authority and, under local management, its schools, to determine what proportion of the total recurrent funds available to them to allocate for that purpose.

  As far as capital works on school buildings is concerned, Doncaster local education authority has been given an education annual capital guideline—ACG—of £375,000 for 1991–92 to contribute towards capital spending in schools. The authority is free to spend its overall capital resources as it chooses, and can supplement its annual capital guidelines from capital receipts and other sources of funding, including its revenue budget. The LEA also received an allocation of £145,000 for projects at voluntary aided—VA—and special agreement—SA—schools.

  For 1990–91 Doncaster received an ACG of £860,000—of which £780,000 was for schools, and an allocation for VA and SA schools of £345,000.

  Geography
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made concerning the unit costs of material, textbooks, samples, maps or other aids including films, videos or filmstrips, models, globes or other equipment required as capital and revenue expenditure in order to provide for the geography curriculum and programme of study specified in SI 1991, No. 678.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend had general regard to the resource implications of the attainment targets and programmes of study specified in the document attached to SI 1991, No. 678. However, it is
  467
  for each school to decide what, if any, additional equipment it requires to deliver the national curriculum. In 1991–92, grants will be available to support up to £15 million of expenditure by local education authorities on equipment for the national curriculum.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the amount of specialised space required by current school building regulations in respect of studies in geography consequent on the requirements of SI 1991, No. 678 in terms of room units or floor space, including storage space, per thousand pupils or similar ratio.

  Mr. Eggar
  The minimum teaching accommodation requirements set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 refer only to the overall area to be provided. The requirements do not specify space standards for particular subjects of the curriculum.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the relationship between the programme of study and attainment targets specified in his approved geography curriculum, as set out in SI 1991, No. 678, and the general certificate of secondary education in geography.

  Mr. Eggar
  Although GCSE courses in geography are currently unaffected, with effect from autumn 1994 all GCSE geography syllabuses will have to reflect the curriculum requirements outlined in SI 1991, No. 678.

  Personal Achievement Records
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects each child in local education authority-supported schools to have a record of personal achievement; and what guidance he is offering to local education authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  Regulations laid last summer require parents to be given reports on the achievements of all children in years 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 and sixth formers, and will extend progressively to cover all years by 1994. The accompanying circular 8/90, "Records of Achievement", offers guidance both on the legal framework and how it might be developed at schools' discretion. All secondary schools have in addition been encouraged to give all their school leavers a national record of achievement from this summer.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the numbers of places, total cost, and cost per place of places under the assisted places scheme at each school in Newcastle upon Tyne for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is given in the tables, but figures in respect of the academic years prior to 1988–89 are not readily available. The Church high school joined the assisted places scheme from the start of the 1989–90 academic year.
  468

  Table 1

  Numbers of assisted places in each academic year

  Academic year

  School name

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  La Sagesse Convent High School

  144

  139

  139

  Royal Grammar School

  290

  271

  254

  Dame Allan's Boys' School

  133

  121

  118

  Dame Allan's Girls' School

  125

  131

  134

  Central Newcastle High School

  1—

  117

  107

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Church High School

  1—

  5

  10

  1 Not available.

  Table 2

  Total cost in each academic year

  Academic year

  School name

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  La Sagesse Convent School

  249,155

  264,765

  269,981

  Royal Grammar School

  369,073

  361,831

  384,909

  Dame Allan's Boys' School

  171,979

  173,605

  179,676

  Dame Allan's Girls' School

  197,590

  217,790

  247,731

  Central Newcastle High School

  1—

  178,307

  193,348

  Newcastle upon Tyne Church High School

  1—

  10,017

  20,719

  1 Not available.

  Table 3

  Cost per place in each academic year

  Academic year

  School name

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  La Sagesse Convent School

  1,730

  1,905

  1,942

  Royal Grammar School

  1,273

  1,335

  1,515

  Dame Allan's Boys' School

  1,293

  1,435

  1,523

  Dame Allan's Girls' School

  1,581

  1,663

  1,849

  Central Newcastle High School

  1—

  1,524

  1,807

  Newcastle upon Tyne Church High School

  1—

  2,003

  2,072

  1 Not available.

  Note: The figures for academic year 1990–91 are the latest estimated costs. Final information will not be available until the schools submit their final claims.

  Access Courses
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on how many access courses there are in the United Kingdom; what percentage of men and women take part in these courses; and if he will give a breakdown of the percentage of men and women by region.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A survey published by the educational counselling and credit transfer information service listed 522 access courses in England in 1989. Based on information from the "Further Education Statistical Record", 34 per cent. of students enrolled on access courses in England at Novembver 1989 were men and 66 per cent. were women. Percentages by region are:
  469

  Per cent. Men

  Per cent. Women

  North

  34

  66

  Yorks/Humberside

  32

  68

  North West

  32

  68

  East Midlands

  47

  53

  West Midlands

  33

  67

  East Anglia

  44

  56

  Greater London

  36

  64

  Other South East

  24

  76

  South West

  34

  66

  Information about access courses in the rest of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales.

  Mathematics and Science
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science what progress has been made on the review of the attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics and science in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I am today publishing statutory proposals for new orders setting out the attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics and science in the national curriculum. Our purpose is to make the assessment of these subjects more manageable for teachers and others, and to make reports on pupils' achievement in them easier for parents to understand. The effect of our proposals is to reduce the number of attainment targets in each subject to five. Within the attainment targets the number of statements of attainment will also be reduced, by slightly more than half. Our proposals will not change in substance the content of

  Institution

  Course

  BED COURSES

  Two-year

  Sheffield City Polytechnic

  Primary and Secondary

  La Sainte Union CHE

  Primary

  Edge Hill CHE

  Primary

  Hatfield Polytechnic

  Primary

  Leeds Polytechnic

  Primary

  Thames Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Wolverhampton Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Gwent CHE

  Secondary

  Crewe and Alsager CHE

  Secondary

  Middlesex Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Four-year

  Derbyshire CHE

  Primary

  La Sainte Union CHE

  Primary

  Bath CHE

  Primary and Secondary

  Crewe and Alsager CHE

  Primary and Secondary

  Cheltenham and Gloucester CHE

  Primary and Secondary

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Middlesex Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Charlotte Mason College

  Secondary

  PGCE COURSES

  Two-year

  Bradford Community College

  Primary (P/T)

  Leeds University

  Secondary (P/T)

  Southampton University

  Secondary

  King's College, London

  Secondary (P/T)

  Oxford University

  Secondary (ATS)

  470
  the curriculum for these subjects. I have today asked the National Curriculum Council in England to carry out consultations on the proposals, and comments should be sent to the council by 19 July. My right hon. Friend will initiate consultations in Wales. A copy of the published proposals has been placed in the Library of the House.

  I intend that the new structure of attainment targets should be in place in time for the 1992–93 school year, and have decided that it would be right to consolidate their introduction with the first statutory assessments of 14-year-olds in these subjects, which will now take place in summer 1993. In preparation for those statutory assessments, I have invited the School Examinations and Assessment Council to co-ordinate a non-statutory pilot assessment of 14-year-olds against the revised attainment targets in 1992. The statutory assessment of seven-year-olds is already under way this year, and I think it right to continue with that assessment against the existing attainment targets in 1992, switching to the new structure in 1993.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the postgraduate certificate of education and B.Ed teacher education and training courses presently operating under temporary approval.

  Mr. Fallon
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The PGCE and B.Ed courses presently operating under temporary approval are listed in the table. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education—CATE—intends to complete its scrutiny of these courses and make its recommendations to the Secretary of State by the end of July.
  471

  Institution

  Course

  Bath CHE

  Secondary (P/T)

  Liverpool University

  Secondary (P/T)

  Exeter University

  Secondary (ATS)

  Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Primary and Secondary (ATS)

  West Sussex IHE

  Primary and Secondary (ATS)

  Leeds Polytechnic

  Primary (ATS)

  York University

  Secondary (ATS)

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  Primary and Secondary (ATS)

  Bristol Polytechnic

  Secondary (ATS)

  Thames Polytechnic

  Secondary (ATS)

  Bedford CHE

  Primary (ATS)

  Christchurch College

  Secondary (ATS)

  Hull University

  Secondary (ATS)

  Crewe and Alsager CHE

  Primary (ATS)

  Bath University

  Secondary (ATS)

  Reading University

  Secondary (P/T)

  Cheltenham and Gloucester CHE

  Primary (ATS)

  Liverpool IHE

  Secondary (P/T)

  Keele University

  Secondary (P/T)

  St. Martin's College, Lancaster

  Primary (ATS)

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  Primary (ATS)

  Leeds University

  Secondary (ATS)

  Nottingham University

  Secondary (P/T)

  Sheffield City Polytechnic

  Secondary

  Roehampton IHE

  Primary and Secondary (ATS)

  Polytechnic of the South West

  Primary (ATS)

  Birmingham University

  Secondary (P/T)

  Polytechnic of North London

  Primary (ATS)

  One-year

  St. Martin's College, Lancaster

  Secondary

  Bath CHE

  Primary

  Leicester University

  Secondary

  Nene College

  Primary

  Exeter University

  Secondary

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Primary

  University of Wales, College of Cardiff

  Secondary

  University of Cambridge

  Primary and Secondary

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  Primary

  Brighton Polytechnic

  Primary

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  Primary

  Warwick University

  Primary and Secondary

  University of Durham

  Secondary

  Polytechnic of the South West

  Primary

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  Secondary

  University College, Swansea

  Primary and Secondary

  Westminster College, Oxford

  Primary

  University of East Anglia

  Secondary

  Charlotte Mason College

  Primary

  University of Keele

  Secondary

  University of Sussex

  Primary

  La Sainte Union CHE

  Primary

  Newcastle University

  Secondary

  Southampton University

  Secondary

  Notes:

  1. P/T denotes a part-time course.

  2. ATS means that the course is offered within an articled teacher scheme.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in detail the procedures for the forthcoming appointment of a new holder of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, including the nature of the involvement of Ministers in the appointment.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 March 1991, c. 42]: Before proceeding with the choice of a permanent successor to the present senior chief inspector I wish to carry out a thorough internal review of the structure and role of Her Majesty's inspectorate. I see this review as a necessary consequence of my decision to remove further education and sixth-form colleges from local education control and of the decisions of a growing
  472
  number of maintained schools to opt out from local authority control. I will explore all possible options for an inspectorate capable of delivering an effective system of quality control based on inspection for the evolving pattern of educational provision. The outcome could well be a very different job description for the head of the inspectorate. I have asked therefore the Civil Service Commissioners to take no further action with the open competition they have been organising to identify a new senior chief inspector. In the meantime it is important that HM inspectorate should be under sound and strong leadership when the present SCI retires at the end of August. I am therefore appointing an internal candidate as

  473
  SCI who will be well able to carry out the functions of the post until the review is complete and a new appointment can be made following a public competition.

TRANSPORT

  Clapham Junction Railway Accident
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received a further progress report from British Rail on implementation of the recommendations of Sir Anthony Hidden's report on the Clapham junction railway accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Sir Bob Reid has submitted British Rail's third progress report to me, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library. BR has continued to make progress on these recommendations, and all of those for BR or the British Transport police are either complete or have actions in hand. Some of the recommendations require long-term development. I welcome the report, which demonstrates BR's commitment to maintaining a very high standard of safety. Safety improvements under way include changes in working methods, improved training, new safety management systems and investment in new equipment.

  Dry Cargo Ships
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has been given and what research has been carried out or commissioned by his Department on the safety implications for dry cargo ships of(a) fitting ships with structural monitoring systems, (b) the speed with which ships are loaded and (c) other technical and staffing considerations relating to safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has jointly funded with "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" the developments of the "black box" voyage data recorder. This equipment is presently being evaluated at sea. It embodies, among other things, features designed to monitor stress levels at critical locations of a vessel's structure. Stress levels may be monitored with this equipment during loading and unloading operations, and in addition recorded for analysis at a later date.

  Research commissioned by the Department into the "Technology and Manning for Safe Ship Operations" in 1986 formed the reference work for a strategic policy committee, under the Merchant Navy Training Board, to develop a modular structure of qualifications based on standards to perform separate shipboard functions. These new initiatives on training and future manning models are referred to in "British Shipping: Challenges and Opportunities", which suggests a target date for their implementation of September 1992.

  Explosives Train (Emergency Alert)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement in respect of an incident on the evening of 22 March when a train carrying explosives was involved in an emergency alert near Thirsk, Yorkshire.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that on 22 April British Rail's lineside equipment detected hot wheel bearings on a474
  train at Thirsk. The fire brigade was called as a precautionary measure. The incident was not reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate, but the inspectorate is making inquiries.

  British Rail Investment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, columns 348–49, how much of the £1·4 billion will be invested in (a) Scotland, (b) in new rolling stock, (c) on improvement of lines connecting the channel tunnel with Scotland and the north of England, (d) electrification of lines and (e) special measures for the protection of the environment both in Scotland and in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  Proposals for providing freight services north of London are currently being examined by British Rail as part of its £1·4 billion programme of investment to take advantage of the initial opening of the tunnel. Possible sites for a freight terminal in Strathclyde are being considered. No firm figures are therefore available for expenditure in Scotland. Spending of over £650 million is planned on new rolling stock for freight and inter-capital passenger services. A total of £21 million will be spent improving freight routes connecting the channel tunnel to Scotland and the north of England. On electrification, £43 million will be spent on the west London line and the line between Tonbridge and Redhill. Spending on environmental protection relating to work on existing lines cannot he separately identified.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. McLoughlin
  The readily available information about appointments for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible is given in "Public Bodies 1990" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  A40, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the precise nature of the work currently being undertaken on the central reservation of the A40 in the London borough of Ealing; when he expects it to be completed; what the final cost will be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The work currently under way on the A40 Western avenue in the London borough of Ealing entails the repair and replacement of central reserve safety fencing and to bring it up to the latest departmental standards. At the same time, existing emergency crossover points are being closed permanently on road safety grounds and the street lighting is being improved.

  Work is scheduled for completion by the middle of May at an estimated cost of £377,000.

  HGVs (Carbon Dioxide)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the amount of carbon dioxide which may be emitted from the existing heavy goods vehicle fleet during its remaining lifetime.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest available figure is 28,000 tonnes per annum for 1988 and relates to total carbon dioxide emissions from all road vehicles. No breakdown of this figure between vehicle types is available. The remaining life of the existing heavy goods vehicle fleet depends on varying factors and cannot be predicted with accuracy.

  Speed Limits
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received called for the lowering of the maximum speed limits on roads in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  I receive a substantial quantity of correspondence concerning national speed limits and their enforcement.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of yellow box junctions in accident prevention; and if he has any plans to extend their use to pedestrian crossings.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: Yellow box markings were introduced in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1975 primarily as a means of speeding up traffic flow at junctions. At signal-controlled junctions their introduction led to marked reductions in injury accidents, particularly involving pedestrians.

  There are no plans to extend their use to pedestrian crossings. At "zebra" crossings the yellow box would conflict with the zebra stripes. Yellow box markings used at "pelican" crossings would be likely to have little impact.

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has any intention of reviewing the criteria for qualification for a pelican crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: It is for individual local highway authorities to decide whether a particular crossing is needed in the light of criteria published by the Department. These are to be reviewed further with the local authority associations later this year.

  Organisation and appointment

  1991

  1992

  Salary

  Duration of appointment

  Imperial War Museum

  Members of Board of Trustees

  1

  —

  —

  7 years

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Member

  4

  2

  —

  3 years

  Commonwealth Institute

  (i) Director-General

  1

  —

  C£45,000

  5 years

  (ii) Chairman of Board of Governors

  1

  —

  —

  3 years

  (iii) Vice-Chairman

  1

  —

  —

  3 years

  Eurofreight Terminal (Scotland)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the siting of Scotland's Eurofreight rail terminal.

  Mr. Freeman
  The siting of channel tunnel freight terminals is a commercial matter for British Rail. I understand that it is currently discussing possible locations in Strathclyde with local authorities and private sector developers and hopes to make an announcement this summer.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals there are to promote safety zones for Kurds presently on the Iran-Iraq border.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are continuing our policy of establishing safe havens in northern Iraq. We will assist with the most appropriate measures to meet the humanitarian needs of all Iraqi refugees as quickly and effectively as possible. We hope that the United Nations will soon be in a position to take over the operation.

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps to safeguard minority interests and human rights in Bangladesh his Department has taken with reference to (1) the protection of tribal people in Chittagong hill tracts, (2) the protection of non-Muslim temples, churches and relics, (3) the exodus of Bengalese to India to escape harassment and (4) the Enemy Property Act.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Through our regular contacts with the Bangladesh Government, I know that they are well aware of the importance we attach to respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the individual appointments exluding 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. Lennox-Boyd
  Individual apopintments are scheduled to be made in 1991 and 1992 to the following bodies for which the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible:
  477

  Organisation and appointment

  1991

  1992

  Salary

  Duration of appointment

  (iv) Governor

  6

  3

  —

  3 years

  (v) Scottish Member

  —

  1

  —

  3 years

  Sightsavers

  Member of Executive Council

  —

  2

  —

  5 years

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  (i) Chairman

  —

  1

  —

  3 years

  (ii) Member of Council

  —

  11

  —

  3 years

  Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for Purchase of Wine

  Chairman

  —

  1

  —

  5 years

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Boards (2)

  (i) Chairman (1)

  1

  —

  —

  3 years

  (ii) Chairman (2)

  —

  1

  —

  3 years

  (iii) Member

  —

  6

  —

  3 years

  British Council

  Member of Boards

  1

  —

  —

  5 years

  Commonwealth Scholarship Fund

  Board Member

  —

  5

  —

  3 years

  Advisory Committee on Economic and Social Resources Overseas

  Committee Member

  1

  10

  —

  3 years

  Crown Agents

  Board Member

  1

  2

  £5,320

  3 years

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  (i) Chairman

  —

  1

  £11,900

  3 years

  (ii) Deputy Chairman

  1

  —

  £8,200

  3 years

  (iii) Board Member

  5

  2

  £4,450

  3 years

  Institute of Development Studies

  Governor

  —

  5

  —

  Indefinite

  Middle East
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the middle east.

  Mr. Hurd
  I visited Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from 1 to 4 May. In addition to meetings with those Governments, I also had a discussion with the Foreign Minister of Yemen in Cairo on 2 May.

  In Cairo I had useful talks withn President Mubarak, Foreign Minister Abdul Meguid and presidential adviser Osama Al Baz. We discussed regional issues, including the middle east peace process. Bilateral issues discussed included President Mubarak 's forthcoming state visit. We agreed that there are now no significant differences in the British and Egyptian approach to the main problems of the middle east.

  In Jordan I had discussions with King Hussein, the Crown Prince, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Jordan is keen to play a helpful role in Mr. Baker's peace initiative and to rebuild relations with the west and her Gulf neighbours. I made clear our continuing friendship for Jordan and our wish to see Jordan resume its rightful position in the Arab world.

  In Kuwait I saw the state of the country following liberation. I was shocked at the extent of the destruction by the Iraqis during their brutal occupation. Much remains to be done before Kuwait is functioning again as a prosperous society, and in this task of reconstruction Britain intends to take a full part. We discussed this co-operation in detail. My meetings with the Amir, the Crown Prince and the Foreign Minister covered a number of issues. I raised reports of human rights abuses following liberation and in particular the position of Palestinians in Kuwait. The Amir said that the Government would hold to their commitment to hold general elections in 1992. He
  478
  emphasised his concern at Iraq's failure to return a large number of Kuwaitis detained in Iraq and property removed from Kuwait during the occupation.

  In Saudi Arabia my discussions with the King and his Minister of Foreign Affairs revealed a close identity of view. The Saudis remain concerned to support the middle east peace process and to keep up the pressure on the Iraqi Government to fulfill their commitments to the United Nations. I explained the background to our efforts to provide humanitarian help to Iraqi refugees and displaced persons and our view that Iraq could not be allowed to rejoin the family of nations while Saddam Hussein remained in power in Baghdad.

  In all four countries there was appreciation for Britain's continuing role in the middle east whether in pressing for a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions or in underpinning new arrangements for ensuring the security of the Gulf.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Replica Guns
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what restrictions exist on the sale of replica guns by mail order;

  (2) if he will introduce measures to curb the sale of replica guns;

  (3) what restrictions exist on the sale of replica guns through retail outlets.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Firearms Act 1982 the sale and possession of replica firearms which can be readily converted to fire live ammunition are subject to the same stringent controls as those imposed on real firearms under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1988. Where such a replica is
  479
  sold, whether by mail order or through a retail outlet, the purchaser must produce a firearm certificate as proof of authorisation to acquire the weapon concerned. The possession of any imitation firearm, whether readily convertible or not, with intent to commit an offence or resist arrest is an offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. We have no plans to control the sale of replica firearms that cannot be readily converted to fire live ammunition.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received criticising the easy availability of replica guns.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 7 March at column 269 since when he has written to the Home Office on this matter. No other such representations have recently been received.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there have been any recent changes in the level of offences involving the use of replica guns.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures for the last four years for which statistics are available are shown in the table:

  Year

  Number of offences

  1989

  235

  1988

  185

  1987

  201

  1986

  195

  Warwickshire Police
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comments he has received from Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary on the effect of the Government's proposed poll tax capping of Warwickshire county council on policing within the county.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary will report on the Warwickshire constabulary following his inspection of the force on 7 to 9 May. No specific comments have been received on the effect of the proposed cap.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chief constable of Warwickshire on the likely impact of the Government's proposed poll tax capping of Warwickshire county council.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 3 April his proposals for capping a number of local authorities, including Warwickshire.

  Crime Statistics
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish a table showing the level of recorded crimes in the categories(a) burglaries, (b) crimes of violence against the person and (c) property theft, including theft from vehicles, for each police authority in England in 1979, 1989 and 1990;
  480
  (2) if he will publish a table showing the level of recorded crimes in the categories (a) burglaries, (b) crimes of violence against the person and (c) property theft, including theft from vehicles, for each police authority in Wales in 1979, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on notifiable offences of violence against the person, burglary and theft and handling stolen goods by police force area is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". The information is given in table 32 of the issue for 1979 and table 2.5 for 1989. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Corresponding figures for 1990 have also been placed in the Library.

  Unexplained Deaths
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time between each notification of an unexplained death and the determination of cause of death by a coroner in each of the past two years, for(a) England and (b) Medway.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally. I understand that coroners endeavour to hold inquests as soon as practicable following the death, but sometimes delays are experienced because of the need to wait for witnesses or other evidence.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to abolish the visa requirement for Polish citizens wishing to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to abolish the visa requirement for Polish nationals.

  Parliamentary Nomination Forms (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his Department to be able to supply Doncaster metropolitan borough council with parliamentary candidates" nomination forms.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Nomination papers for candidates at parliamentary elections are not supplied by the Home Office. I understand that the acting returning officer in Doncaster obtains supplies from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Animals (Research)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the medical establishments to which he has given a licence to acquire animals which have not been bred specifically for the purpose of research.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is not our practice to give details of individual scientific procedure establishments.

  Life Imprisonment
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sentenced to life imprisonment were released (i) on parole and (ii) on life licence in the last 10 years; and how many in each category of those released have been convicted of a further homicide or serious violent offence.
  481
  Mr. John Patten
  A person sentenced to life imprisonment can be released from prison only on life licence.

  Number reconvicted of 'grave'2 offence by the end of 1988

  Number reconvicted of homicide

  Year of first release

  Number1 released

  Total

  Of which Homicide

  Serious violence

  1979

  74

  3

  2

  1

  1980

  48

  3

  1

  2

  1981

  82

  1

  —

  1

  1982

  107

  5

  1

  4

  1983

  104

  4

  3

  1

  1984

  68

  2

  —

  2

  1985

  69

  1

  —

  1

  1986

  48

  3

  —

  3

  1987

  58

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  70

  —

  —

  —

  1979–88

  728

  22

  7

  15

  1 Excluding those deported immediately on release.

  2 A 'grave' offence is an offence of homicide, serious wounding, rape, buggery, robbery, aggravated burglary and arson.

  The reconviction information was obtained via the offenders' index More information on the recalls and reconvictions of life licensees is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin "Reconvictions and recalls of life licensees and Mentally Disordered Offenders, England and Wales", the latest issue of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons sentenced to life imprisonment have been released from prison in the last 10 years having served (i) less and (ii) more than the minimum term, if any, recommended by the sentencing trial judge.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  During the last 10 years seven prisoners have been released on life licence at an earlier date than that recommended by the trial judge, including two who were terminally ill and released on humanitarian representing data users' interests, and four from grounds. In the same period six prisoners were released after they had served more than six months longer than the minimum period recommended by the trial judge.

  Nationality Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in establishing a direct line at the Liverpool nationality office for hon. Members' inquiries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Inquiries should continue to be pursued through the existing telephone numbers in Lunar house. However, hon. Members will shortly be advised of new arrangements for making inquiries on nationality matters when the transfer of work from Croydon to Liverpool is complete.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will describe the reasons for the Government's opposition to the European Commission's proposal for a data protection directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  As indicated in the answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on
  482
  The table gives figures for the number of persons first released on life licence for the years 1979–88 and how many of these were convicted of a "grave" offence since release, by the end of 1988.

  22 February 1991, at column 278, the Government wish to see all Community states ratify the European convention legislation. We are not yet convinced that provisions of the draft directive which go beyond the convention are necessary or desirable

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many replies to his consultation exercise in relation to the proposal European Commission for a data protection directive he has received; how many come from organisations representing data users and how many from organisations representing data subjects; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have received written comments on the draft directive from 56 organisations broadly organisations broadly representing data subjects' interests. Negotiations on the draft directive have begun in Brussels, and the Government are considering their position in the light of the comments they have received.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to propose amendments to the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  As indicated in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member on 18 October 1990 at column 893, legislation is unlikely before the European directive has been adopted.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for the spending by the office of the Data Protection Registrar on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Data Protection Registrar was first appointed in September 1984. I understand that no significant promotional expenditure was incurred in the financial year 1984–85. Expenditure in the years 1985–86 to 1990–91 and the estimate for 1991–92 on fees paid for promotion were as follows:
  483

  Advertising

  Exhibitions

  TV

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1985–86

  —

  —

  319,012

  —

  10,538

  1986–87

  —

  —

  156,912

  —

  22,143

  1987–88

  —

  —

  364,614

  —

  15,157

  1988–89

  —

  —

  448,603

  —

  11,383

  1989–90

  301,353

  —

  8,348

  —

  21,260

  1990–91

  198,380

  —

  2,125

  2,500

  21,101

  1991–92

  —

  —

  50,000

  2,500

  25,000

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to privatise any activities of the office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Data Protection Registrar is an independent authority appointed by the Crown to enforce the Data Protection Act 1984. I have no plans for changing his status. It is for the registrar to decide how best to carry out his specific statutory functions.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years and for the current year to date(a) the number of prison officers found guilty of offences at their place of work, (b) the prison and (c) the offence.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The tables give details of prison officers found guilty of offences in criminal proceedings and of officers found guilty of disciplinary offences as a result of internal disciplinary proceedings. Table A contains a full breakdown for the past 10 years by establishment and by offence. Table B contains only those offences which were dealt with centrally, either by virtue of their intrinsic seriousness or because the officer appealed against the governor's findings. The majority of disciplinary offences are dealt with locally and no central record is kept. In view of the wide range of disciplinary offences, it is not practicable to provide a breakdown by individual offence.

  Table A: Officers found guilty of criminal offences

  1981

  Brixton—Officer convicted of assault on inmate.

  1982

  Brixton—Officer convicted of assault on inmate.

  Table B: Officers found guilty of serious disciplinary offences (year of final disciplinary decision)

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Acklington

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Albany

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Aldington

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aylesbury

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bedford

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  2

  5

  2

  9

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Blundeston

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Brixton

  1

  4

  3

  4

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  4

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camp Hill

  —

  4

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Canterbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Castington

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Channings Wood

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chelmsford

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Coldingley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookham Wood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dartmoor

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Deerbolt

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  484

  Kingston—Officer convicted of theft of meat from prison.

  Ashford—Officer convicted of criminal deception (fraudulent expenses)

  1983

  Askham Grange—Officer convicted of false accounting.

  Blundeston—Officer convicted of theft and falsifying accounts—took money from staff fund for disabled.

  Oxford—Officer convicted of deception, attempted deception and forgery—submitted incorrect expenses claim.

  1984

  Swinfen Hall—Officer convicted of false accounting and obtaining money by deception—false mileage claim.

  1985

  Leicester—Officer convicted of deception (falsely claimed lodging allowance).

  Bedford—Officer convicted of stealing money from incoming letter to an inmate.

  1986

  Leicester—Officer convicted of stealing cream and peas from prison kitchen.

  Cardiff—Officer convicted of drugs offences involving an inmate.

  Wandsworth—Officer convicted of forgery: altered a medical certificate and then submitted it to the Department.

  1987

  Grendon—Officer convicted of conspiracy to supply a Schedule B drug to a prisoner.

  Liverpool—Officer convicted of possession of drugs with intent to supply to a prisoner.

  Ford—Officer convicted of four offences of corruption (bringing alcohol, tobacco and other items into the prison).

  Albany—Officer convicted of theft from officers' mess.

  1988

  Blundeston—Officer convicted of theft and false accounting as Treasurer of Officers' Club.

  1989

  Maidstone—Officer convicted of 2 counts of indecent assault on female member of staff.

  Lincoln—Officer convicted of theft of meat from prison.

  Coldingley—Officer convicted of theft of £1,000 from Officers' Club.

  485

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Feltham/Ashford

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Frankland

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Full Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Garth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Gartree

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glen Parva

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grendon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hatfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Highpoint

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Hindley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Holloway

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Hull

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Huntercombe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Latchmere

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicester

  1

  4

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lewes

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Lincoln

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Long Lartin

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Lowdham Grange

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Low Newton

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  New Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northeye

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Onley

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  1

  1

  —

  Pentonville

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  4

  1

  1

  —

  Portland

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Preston

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pucklechurch

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ranby

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reading

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Risley

  1

  2

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Rochester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Send

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Shepton Mallett

  —

  —

  1

  17

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  —

  1

  Stafford

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Stanford Hill

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stocken

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Stoke Heath

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Styal

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Swaleside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Thorn Cross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Thorp Arch

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Verne

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Wayland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wellingborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Werrington

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Whatton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Winchester

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Wymott

  -7

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  "Frances the Firefly"
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of "Frances the Firefly" were produced for his Department by the Central Office of Information; what was the cost of (i) the production and (ii) the distribution of "Frances the Firefly"; who offered advice on the content of "Frances the Firefly"; and whether he intends to produce a sequel.

  Mr. John Patten
  The "Frances the Firefly" package consists of a story book and a five-minute video intended to warn small children of the dangers of playing with matches. To date 900,000 copies of the story book have been distributed, 97 per cent. of which were in response to requests. A total of 374 copies of the video have been sold and there have been 1,089 loans of the video through the central film library.

  The production costs for the story book were £190,503 including the costs of development and reprints. The production costs of the video were £59,126 including £54,920 on development costs. The initial distribution costs of the video and story book were £14,728.

  Advice on the content of the video and publication was provided internally by the Home Office fire and emergency planning department and the Home Office public relations branch, by the Central Office of Information and from a sample of primary school teachers in the Greater London area; and the style of presentation was also discussed with child psychologists.

  It is intended to produce worksheets later this year to accompany the existing package. The character is capable of being used in future projects aimed at children, but no decision has yet been taken on a sequel.

  Vagrancy
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The Vagrancy Act 1824 has been much amended over the years and in its present form provides power to deal with a number of nuisances, including indecent exposure.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department ( 1 ) how many prosecutions and convictions under the Vagrancy Act 1824 occurred in 1989 and 1990; and what was the average cost of prosecution;

  (2) how many prosecutions and convictions under the Vagrancy Act 1824 occurred in 1989 and 1990 for young people under the age of 18 years; and what was the average cost of prosecution for this age group.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1990 is not yet available. Prosecutions and convictions for 1989 for all Vagrancy Act offences are shown in the table.

  Category

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  All ages

  3,482

  2,839

  Under 18

  247

  175

  Prosecution costs are not available by reference to offence.

  Missing People
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish a national database of missing persons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. My right hon. Friend plans to introduce a national index of missing persons on the new police national computer.

  Narayan Shankar
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a final decision on the future of Narayan Shankar (Ref. S680769), whose application for political asylum was made in August, 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The delay in dealing with applications for asylum is a result of the increase in the number of applications in the last two years. On 26 April my right hon. Friend announced a nearly fivefold increase in staff resources for asylum determination. Mr. Shankar's application is receiving attention and his representatives will be informed of the outcome as soon as possible.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time inspectors are currently in post at the Football Licensing Authority, how many more (i) full-time and (ii) part-time inspectors it is planned to appoint; what stage has been reached in the training of these inspectors; and what timescale is envisaged for the completion of all Football Licensing Authority inspectors' training.

  Mr. John Patten
  Eight full-time ground safety inspectors are already in post, and one further full-time appointment is expected to be made shortly. No further appointments, either part time or full time, are currently proposed. The initial teacher training programme for the inspectors began on 1 May and will take about one month to complete.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend the remit of the Football Licensing Authority to cover all sports grounds designated under the Safety of Sports Ground Act 1975 and all grounds requiring safety certificates or licences under parts III and IV of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sports Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The responsibilities of the Football Licensing Authority under the Football Spectators Act 1989 are limited to sports grounds at which designated football matches are played. We have no plans to extend the powers of the authority to other sports grounds.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the introduction of section 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Football Spectators Act 1989 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1991 (SI No. 1991/1071 (C 28)) was laid on 1 May, and will bring section 13 of the 1989 Act into force on 3 June 1991. Section 13 empowers
  489
  the Football Licensing Authority to keep under review the discharge by local authorities of their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to sports grounds at which designated football matches are played; and subject to consultation with regulatory authorities, to direct local authorities to include terms and conditions in safety certificates. Section 13 also empowers the authority's inspectors to enter and inspect relevant sports grounds and to examine safety certificates and related records, and enables the authority to require local authorities to furnish it with information relating to the discharge of the functions which the Football Licensing Authority is empowered to keep under review.

  Police Complaints Authority (Appointments)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new appointments have been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have recently appointed two further members to the Police Complaints Authority. Mrs. Linda Cawsey will join the authority on 13 May and Mr. Mark Chapman on 10 June. Mrs. Cawsey was until recently a senior manager with BP International Ltd. while Mr. Chapman was formerly Her Majesty's ambassador to Iceland.

  War Crimes
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what investigation he 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;

  (2) what investigation he 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;

  (3) what investigation he 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;

  (4) what investigation he 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;

  (5) what investigation he 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;

  (6) what investigation he 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.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]So far as the Government are aware, no allegations have been made—in the media, or to the Government, the police or anyone else—that persons resident in this country participated in any of these murders.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers' Visits
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the guidelines for Ministers using Government expenses to undertake official visits which promote prospective candidates for the constituency visited.

  The Prime Minister
  As under previous Administrations, Ministers do not normally use official resources, such as transport, in connection with party business, but there may be circumstances which makes this necessary, for example, security or when official and party engagements are consecutive.

EMPLOYMENT

  Race and Sex Discrimination
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of breaches of the legislation on race and sex discrimination have the Employment Service referred to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  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.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies there were in British companies in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of confirmed redundancies recorded in each of the years since 1987 is given in the table.

  Confirmed redundancies

  Year

  Number

  1987

  144,135

  1988

  107,930

  1989

  116,766

  1990

  124,777

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make on 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. Forth
  The readily available information about the appointments for which I am responsible, a number of which fall to be made in 1991 and 1992, is given in "Public Bodies 1990" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to privatise any activities of the British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. Forth
  Following the completion of the Government's review of support for tourism, the authority announced on 6 December 1989 the privatisation or contracting out of certain of its activities. The authority will keep under review further possibilities for privatisation.

  Training
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people on work-related Government training programmes are(a) men and (b) women on each programme; and what is the total percentage of (i) single women, (ii) married women and (iii) women with children on each programme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about the proportions of men and women on employment training and youth training is given in the following table. No information is available about the marital status of women or the number with children.

  Proportions of men and women joining employment training and youth training April—September 1990

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Men

  59

  66

  Women

  41

  34

  Source: ATVOS/TFS.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of men and women for each occupational group of Government employment training programmes.

  Mr. Jackson
  The most recent available information is given in the tables.

  Youth Training Scheme Training occupational classification by men and women in training at 31 March 1990

  Men

  Women

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Administration and Clerical

  32

  68

  Creative and Educational

  64

  36

  Health and Community Care

  7

  93

  Selling and Storage

  43

  57

  Scientific

  70

  30

  Catering and Food Preparation

  56

  44

  Agriculture and Fishing

  71

  29

  Transport Operations

  86

  14

  Civil Engineering and Mining

  97

  3

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  96

  4

  Mechanical Engineering and Metal Processing

  95

  5

  Motor Vehicle Repair

  97

  3

  Non Metal Processing

  76

  24

  Printing

  85

  15

  Textiles

  16

  84

  Other

  66

  34

  Source: Spectrum.
  492

  Employment Training Standard Occupational Classification by Men and Women leavers April-December 1990

  Men

  Women

  (Per cent.)

  (Per cent.)

  Corporate Managers and Administrators

  70

  30

  Managers/Proprietors in Agriculture and Services

  66

  34

  Professional Occupations

  53

  47

  Science and Engineering Associate Professions

  83

  17

  Health Associate Professions

  42

  58

  Legal, Business, Social Welfare and Other Associate Professions

  65

  35

  Literary, Artistic and Sports Professionals

  69

  31

  Clerical Occupations

  34

  66

  Secretarial Occupations

  35

  65

  Skilled Construction

  95

  5

  Skilled Engineering, Metal Machining Electrical and Electronic Trades

  96

  4

  Metal Forming and Fabrication Trades

  99

  1

  Vehicle Trades

  96

  4

  Textiles, Garments and Related Trades

  27

  73

  Printing, Woodworking, Food Preparation and Other Craft Occupations

  91

  9

  Protective Service Occupations

  91

  9

  Catering, Waiting Staff and Travel Attendants

  66

  34

  Health and Related Occupations

  26

  74

  Hair, Beauty and Other Personal Occupations

  18

  82

  Buyers and Sales Representatives

  77

  23

  Sales Assistants and Other Selling Occupations

  54

  46

  Industrial Plant Operators/Fitters

  87

  13

  Transport Operatives/Drivers

  96

  4

  Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing Occupations

  84

  16

  Other Elementary Occupations

  82

  18

  Source: ET National Follow Up Survey.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women-only training schemes there are in the United Kingdom which are Government-funded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the number of these programmes is not held centrally. Training and enterprise councils have discretion under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to operate single-sex training programmes.

  Continental Shelf (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each year from June 1979 to 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of accidents causing deaths or serious injuries on or near to offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf have in the past been published annually in the report "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom". Copies of the report for 1990 are now available in the Library of the House. The information for the calendar years from 1979 to 1990 is as follows:

  Fatalities

  Serious accidents

  1979

  10

  43

  1980

  4

  45

  1981

  6

  59

  1982

  14

  39

  493

  Fatalities

  Serious accidents

  1983

  10

  47

  1984

  13

  59

  1985

  8

  103

  1986

  3

  101

  1987

  6

  59

  1988

  1173

  285

  1989

  3

  85

  1990

  313

  87

  1167 relate to Piper Alpha.

  2 Includes 11 of the 61 Piper Alpha survivors.

  3 Includes six relating to Brent Spar helicopter accident.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those parts of the country in which employment training is to be available to people aged 18 to 24 years only; and whether he expects this restriction to be permanent.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The Government are committed to ensuring that employment training plays its proper part in meeting the Government's guarantee and aim for long-term unemployed people. The provision of employment training is now largely a matter for training and enterprise councils. Training and enterprise councils are obliged to ensure that priority is given to those unemployed people who fall within the guarantee and aim groups, including people aged 18 to 24 years. I am satisfied that adequate resources are available for employment training for it to continue to play its part in meeting the Government's guarantee and aim.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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 British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: These matters are the responsibility of the board of the British Tourist Authority and I am asking the chairman to write directly to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give separate figures for the spending by the British Tourist Authority on(a) TV advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in the following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  These matters are the responsibility of the board of the British Tourist Authority and I am asking the chairman to write directly to the hon. Gentleman.

HEALTH

  Salmonella
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report for each regional health authority area for each of the past five years the number of cases of food poisoning from salmonella per thousand of the population.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table. This information is not routinely published because the rates are not comparable either between regions or over years. There are a number of reasons for this. Specimens from residents of one region may well be examined in a laboratory in a neighbouring region. The catchment areas of laboratories are unknown and may indeed overlap. Levels of reporting between regions may vary. It is not known how much effect these factors will have on rates, or how the factors have changed over the years.

  Laboratory reports to CDSC of salmonellas in faeces (cases and excretors) in England, per thousand population in each Regional Health Authority

  RHA

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Northern

  0·17

  0·43

  0·32

  0·43

  0·67

  Yorkshire

  0·32

  0·43

  0·47

  0·83

  0·64

  Trent

  0·23

  0·28

  0·33

  0·51

  0·57

  East Anglian

  0·21

  0·32

  0·31

  0·38

  0·41

  North West Thames

  0·25

  0·28

  0·30

  0·36

  0·35

  North East Thames

  0·23

  0·26

  0·31

  0·39

  0·40

  South East Thames

  0·19

  0·26

  0·31

  0·39

  0·38

  South West Thames

  0·32

  0·40

  0·41

  0·52

  0·49

  Wessex

  0·23

  0·27

  0·35

  0·39

  0·52

  Oxford

  0·24

  0·28

  0·32

  0·49

  0·51

  South Western

  0·26

  0·30

  0·36

  0·50

  0·51

  West Midlands

  0·26

  0·29

  0·38

  0·50

  0·51

  Mersey

  0·16

  0·24

  0·20

  0·41

  0·41

  North Western

  0·27

  0·34

  0·51

  0·58

  0·56

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of expenditure on(a) the national health service, (b) the health and community health services current budget and (c) the family health service current budget, adjusted for changes in input unit costs, in each year since 1970–71.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives HCHS current, FHS current and total NHS expenditure adjusted for changes in input unit costs in each year since 1974–75. This information measures changes in total inputs at constant factor cost, but ignores the continuing success of national health service management in increasing the efficiency with which it uses resources.

  £ million adjusted to 1990–91 base

  Year

  HCHS current

  FHS current

  NHS total

  A

  B

  A

  B

  1974–75

  —

  12,594

  —.

  3,591

  18,045

  1975–76

  —

  12,807

  —

  3,712

  18,447

  1976–77

  —

  12,846

  —

  3,890

  18,617

  1977–78

  —

  13,235

  —

  4,054

  18,889

  1978–79

  —

  13,873

  —

  4,206

  19,606

  1979–80

  —

  13,736

  —

  4,178

  19,418

  1980–81

  —

  14,116

  —

  4,285

  19,966

  1981–82

  —

  14,403

  —

  4,464

  20,635

  1982–83

  —

  14,567

  —

  4,776

  21,107

  495

  Year

  HCHS current

  FHS current

  NHS total

  A

  B

  A

  B

  1983–84

  —

  14,587

  —

  4,882

  21,361

  1984–85

  —

  14,570

  —

  5,005

  21,650

  1985–86

  14,945

  14,598

  4,817

  5,023

  21,778

  1986–87

  15,032

  —

  4,924

  —

  22,048

  1987–88

  15,307

  —

  5,094

  —

  22,468

  1988–89

  15,364

  —

  5,252

  —

  22,678

  1989–90

  15,379

  —

  5,234

  —

  22,851

  1990–91

  16,110

  —

  5,300

  —

  23,718

  Because of transfers between programmes, consistent information for earlier years is not available. HCHS and FHS figures in column A are in line with those printed in the departmental report (CM15 13) as they have been adjusted to reflect the transfer to the HCHS of family health service administration, Disablement Services Authority and the family health services cash-limited spending. The figures in column B do not reflect these transfers and are therefore not comparable with those for later years. It is not possible to produce HCHS and FHS current expenditure estimates for years prior to 1985–86 on a basis consistent with the revised definition.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for the quantities of blood supplied by private companies and the national blood transfusion service respectively to the national health service in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No blood is supplied by private companies to the NHS. In 1989 the national blood transfusion service issued 1,758,951 units of whole blood to the NHS in England.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the pharmaceutical industry about the consequences for pharmaceutical research in the United Kingdom of proposals on the duration of patent protection; and if he will make a statement setting out the nature and origin of the problem.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations have been received from individual companies and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on the relationship between pharmaceutical research and patent life. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on 15 April at columns 32–33.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline the duties of the Medical Control Authority which supervises pharmaceutical and medical items; and if he will indicate whether there is any appeal system against items being classified as medical or drug treatments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines Control Agency of the Department of Health acts on behalf of Ministers for the protection of public health through the licensing and control of medicines under the Medicines Act 1968 and EC regulations and directives Items for 496
  which medicinal claims are made are licensable as medicines, though "instruments, apparatus and appliances" are expressly excluded from the Act's scope. In cases of doubt, the Medicines Control Agency expresses an opinion on a product's status, which a company may or may not accept. Ultimately, only the courts can provide an authoritative interpretation of the law if mutual agreement on status cannot be reached.

  Wheelchairs and Artificial Limbs
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Disablement Services Authority distributed to the health authorities to run the wheelchair and artificial limb service; and how much each health authority received.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For 1991–92, the Department made initial allocations of £110·5 million revenue to regional health authorities for purchasing former Disablement Services Authority activities; £4·4 million has also been allocated for committed capital schemes. The amounts distributed to each of the 14 regions were as follows:

  £ thousands

  Region

  Revenue

  Capital

  Northern

  7,335

  62

  Yorkshire

  8,439

  34

  Trent

  10,571

  1,130

  East Anglian

  4,485

  30

  North West Thames

  8,194

  130

  North East Thames

  9,350

  300

  South East Thames

  9,168

  145

  South West Thames

  7,033

  30

  Wessex

  6,591

  30

  Oxford

  5,002

  309

  South Western

  7,550

  990

  West Midlands

  11,644

  47

  Mersey

  5,620

  985

  South Western

  9,519

  205

  All Regions

  110,501

  4,427

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for a number of appointments which will fall to be made in 1991 and 1992. Details of each of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information is available in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Infant Formulae
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given to maternity units regarding offers from manufacturers of free samples or supplies of milk powder or other infant formula.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In July 1989, guidance (HC(89)21), a copy of which is available in the Library, was issued to all regional, district and special health authorities in England
  497
  and Wales instructing them neither to accept nor distribute free samples and to refuse to accept subsidised supplies of infant formulas. This was part of the Government's response to the World Health Organisation's programme to promote and protect breast-feeding. In addition, authorities were advised to ensure that acceptance of any gift or other commercial donation should not be seen to have influenced their purchasing choice.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give an estimate of the cost of treating smoking-related illness in England and Wales in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 4 July 1990 at column 594 and the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on II March 1991 at column 349.

  Thalassaemia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent he has funded ante-natal research since 1979; if he will give any convenient figures for research into thalassaemia; and what assessment he has made of the saving that consequent improved diagnostic work has made in hospital time and expense.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) on 12 March 1991 at columns 495–96 on the funding of ante-natal research.

  The main agency through which the Department supports biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that a number of research projects into thalassaemia are currently being undertaken by the MRC.

  There has been no assessment of the saving that consequent improved diagnostic work has made in hospital time and expense.

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the meeting held with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and members of a delegation about the proposed closure of St. Paul's eye hospital and the provision of eye care on Merseyside;

  (2) if he will list the representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of St. Paul's eye hospital and eye care on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are considering carefully the points raised at the meeting I had recently with the hon. Member. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be meeting a delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) before we come to a final decision.

  We have received representations from the Liverpool Central and Southern community health council, Canon Frayling, the Rector of Liverpool, and, in addition to the hon. Members already mentioned, the hon. Member for
  498
  Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Members who put their names to early-day motions 273 on 19 December 1990 and 773 on 30 April. Our attention has been drawn to a petition presented to the Prime Minister's office and we have received 10 letters addressed directly to Ministers.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the hospitals on Merseyside which have applied for trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 130 hospitals and other units have expressed interest in trust status from April 1992. The full list has been placed in the Library. The following 10 units are located within the Mersey Regional Health Authority's boundaries:

  Aintree Hospitals (Walton and Fazakerly)

  1Liverpool Community and Priority Services

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit

  Macclesfield Acute Services

  Macclesfield Community and Mental Health Services

  1Mersey Regional Ambulance Services

  Mersey Regional Centre for Radiotherapy and Oncology

  1Mersey Regional Centre for Neurosciences

  1St. Helens and Knowsley Community Unit

  1Southport Acute Unit.

  1 Formal applications already received.

  Note: Since the announcement in December the units in Macclesfield have decided to work to a slower timetable.

  Hospital Paediatric Pathologists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of specialist hospital paediatric pathologists in national health service hospitals in each year since 1985; and if he will express this as an average figure for each such hospital offering paediatric services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One of the national service objectives for 1990–91 was for all regions to have at least one paediatric pathologist post and to have conducted a review of the need for further posts to be established by 1992. All regions have met this objective, although one region has had difficulties in filling its vacant post.

  Air Pollution
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much his Department has spent on research into the effects of particulate levels in air on health for each of the last five years;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on research into the effects of sulphur dioxide levels in air on health for each of the last five years;

  (3) how much his Department has spent on research into the effects of ozone levels in air on health for each of the last five years;

  (4) how much has been spent by his Department on research into the effects of lead levels in air on health for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that research into air pollutants is included in the MRC's current research programme.
  499
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 14 November 1990 at columns 162–63. The Department of Health has set up an advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes. This group was established to consider what advice, if any, should be given by central Government about personal protection measures when levels of air pollution are high. An executive summary of its first report on ozone was published on 7 May and copies are available in the Library. Copies of the full report, published by HMSO, will be available later in the summer.

  The group is now considering the winter pollutants with particular regard to sulphur dioxide and plans to publish the report of its findings early next year. The advisory group will be considering particulates along with sulphur dioxide and the winter pollutants.

  The levels of lead in air in the United Kingdom, except for one or two specific industrial sites, are well within levels set by the EC and have reduced considerably over recent years due to Government action to reduce lead in petrol.

  NHS Employees (Letter)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost of sending all national health service employees the standard letter concerning national health service reforms dated March 1991 signed by Duncan Nichol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cost of printing and
  distributing Duncan Nichol's letter to health authorities
  was £127,000, a unit cost of 13p per letter. The cost of the exercise was met by the Department of Health. The Department maintains a budget for NHS communications, part of which is intended to keep NHS employees informed of developments in the health service and to enable them to participate more fully.

  A copy of the letter is available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will be retaining outside consultants to evaluate second-wave applicants for trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. Following a competitive tendering exercise the Department has appointed management consultants Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to assist with the financial evaluation of second-wave applicants for trust status.

  Abortion
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is yet in a position to publish the Government's response to the 10th report of the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, on its inquiry into the working of the conscience clause in the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have today published, as Command Paper 1538, their response to the 10th report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90. Copies are available from the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a statement on the status of local authority care home trusts.
  500
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 March at column 256.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  John F. Kennedy Park
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds will be allocated for the removal of graffiti at John F. Kennedy park, Bessbrook, County Armagh; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the removal of graffiti in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no proposals to remove graffiti. District councils are empowered under article 18 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 to remove graffiti from private property. Government Departments and statutory bodies are responsible for the removal of graffiti from their own properties.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Brooke
  The readily available information about the appointments for which I am responsible, a number of which will fall to be made in 1991 and 1992, is given in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library.

  Housing Executive (Rates Collection)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total value of rates collected by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from housing executive tenants annually in each of the last three years; and what is the actual or estimated total cost per annum of this rate collection.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been informed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that it is not possible to disaggregate the total value of rates collected as rent and rates are collated and collected as one amount. This also applies to the cost of rate collection.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Munny Ltd.
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the date of the last accounts filed at Companies house for Munny Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  The last accounts filed at Companies house for Munny Ltd. were for the period ending 31 March 1988, and these were received on 6 May 1989. The registrar is currently pursuing the company in respect of the 1989 and 1990 accounts and annual returns. The directors have been warned that continued failure to file may lead to prosecution.

  Chancery Group
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all the companies in the Chancery Group, the regulatory body each company is a member of, and the date of the last accounts of each company filed at Companies house.

  Mr. Redwood
  The registrar has confirmed that a company called Chancery Group plc was incorporated on 6 June 1990. The first accounts, for the period ending 31 March 1991, in which subsidiary companies would be listed are due be filed by 31 October 1991.

  Chancery plc is an authorised institution under the Banking Act 1987 and a member of the Securities and Futures Authority.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to expand the work of the Department of Trade and Industry on insolvency.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no such plans. The insolvency service recruits staff when necessary to meet its workload.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for increasing competition among insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following the recommendation of the insolvency review committee chaired by Sir Kenneth Cork, Government policy is to ensure that there are sufficient suitably experienced insolvency practitioners available to compete for insolvency appointments whilst at the same time enforcing acceptable standards of education and experience. This has been achieved by the introduction of licensing.

  Seven professional bodies, representing accountants, solicitors and specialists in insolvency, which are able to satisfy the Secretary of State that they regulate the practice of their members, have been authorised to license their members if they are fit and proper persons to act as insolvency practitioners. Any professional body that considers that it is able to satisfy the Secretary of State's requirements may apply for recognition.

  In addition, any person able to satisfy similar requirements but who is not a member of a recognised professional body may apply to the Secretary of State for authorisation. As at 31 December 1990, the professional bodies had licensed a total of 1,751 practitioners and the Secretary of State a further 138.

  In liquidations and bankruptcies, the creditors have the opportunity to vote on the selection and remuneration of the practitioner. An administrative receiver is appointed by a secured creditor, who fixed his remuneration, but he is required to hold a meeting of creditors and they may apply to the court if they object to his conduct or remuneration.

  Amoco
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received the recommendation on the Elf-Aquitaine takeover of Amoco's oil refining and allied downstream business interests in the United Kingdom from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; when he anticipates making a decision; and if he will make a statement.
  502
  Mr. Redwood
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission submitted its report on the acquisition by Societe Nationale Elf Aquitaine of certain assets of the Amoco Corporation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 March 1991. My right hon. Friend laid the report before the House and published it on Friday 3

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Export Credits Guarantee Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures of expenditure by ECGD on press and public relations, broken down where possible between press advertising and other promotional expenditure, are as follows:

  Total

  Press Advertising1

  Other

  £000

  £000

  £000

  1985–86

  541

  —

  —

  1986–87

  703

  —

  —

  1987–88

  747

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1,112

  710

  402

  1989–90

  1,271

  986

  285

  21990–91

  1,067

  692

  375

  1 Separate figures are not available before 1988–89. No expenditure has been incurred on TV and radio advertising.

  2 provisional

  For the years 1979–80 to 1984–85, the expenditure was recorded by the Central Office of Information as an allied service. The budget for 1991–92 has still to be finalised, and will depend on developments in the privatisation process.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals to prevent banks from liquidating viable firms in such a way as to pre-empt other creditors by early appointment of receivers.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]The Governor of the Bank of England has warned banks against precipitate action in winding up companies. It is more a matter for the bank than for the DTI.

WALES

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each health authority in Wales for each of the past five years, the number of cases of food poisoning from salmonella per thousand of the population.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of cases of food poisoning from salmonella for each district health authority in Wales is not available. However, data on the number of reports of salmonellas in Wales as a whole are given in the table.
  503

  Laboratory reports of salmonella!} from Wales to the communicable disease surveillance centre

  Year

  Total reports

  Rates per 1,000 population

  1985

  450

  0·16

  1986

  690

  0·24

  1987

  746

  0·26

  1988

  819

  0·29

  1989

  21,161

  20·40

  1990

  21,306

  20·45

  1 Laboratory reports of Salmonellas (excluding Typhi and Paratyphi) in Faeces…cases and Excreters in Wales.

  2 Provisional data and rates. (The 1990 rate is based on 1989 Mid Year Population estimate as the 1990 estimate is not yet available.)

  Council Tax
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of domestic residences in each of the property value bands of the proposed council tax in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of dwellings falling into band

  Property band

  Number

  A

  181,600

  B

  214,700

  C

  241,700

  D

  199,900

  E

  171,900

  F

  85,800

  G

  63,400

  Total

  1,159,000

  Baglan Moors Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the proposed starting date for the new district general hospital at Baglan Moors remains as set out in his letter of 13 September 1990 to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The projected start date of 1992–93 is currently under review by West Glamorgan health authority which is responsible for progressing the scheme.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Welsh Development Agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

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

  History
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to amend the statutory order for history in the national curriculum in Wales.
  504
  Mr. David Hunt
  Yesterday I published for consultation proposals to amend the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in History) (Wales) Order 1991.

  These, which relate to the programme of study for key stage 3, have been prepared following a review of the structure of unit 27 and its links with unit 18 which I recently asked Professor Rees Davies and the ex-chairman of the History Committee for Wales and other ex-members of the committee to undertake.

  My proposals will provide for an even more valuable and attractive introduction to 20th century history for pupils in key stage 3. They will also bring unit 27 closer in its objectives and scope to the other compulsory units in key stage 3.

  I am consulting the Curriculum Council for Wales and a wide range of educational interests on the proposals and I have asked for their responses by 10 June. I shall place a copy of my proposals in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Baby Food Products
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation requiring baby food products to bear labels stating their(a) meat content, (b) calorie content and (c) protein content; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission has issued a draft directive which lays down compositional and labelling requirements for cereal-based and other processed foods for infants and young children. The proposals set out minimum content levels for meat and certain other characteristic ingredients and require a statement of the available energy and protein content to appear on the label. Negotiations in Brussels are scheduled to commence early in June. The Commission also intends to introduce proposals shortly on quantitative ingredients declaration of foodstuffs.

  Sweeteners
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek information from Commissioner Bergemann about the nature of the representations he received from the Government of France on 14 April relating to his decision on 15 April to exclude snack foods from the directive on sweeteners.

  Mr. Maclean
  The next stage of the procedure will involve a detailed examination of all the considerations relevant to the revised proposals that the Commission will be bringing to Council following the first reading in the European Parliament.

  Animal Medicine Licence Fees
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to see representatives of the National Office of Animal Health about animal medicine licence fees.

  Mr. Maclean
  A meeting has been arranged for 21 May.

  Nephrops
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to establish a pressure stock licensing stock scheme for nephrops, or to ban twin-rig trawling for nephrops; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  These and other ideas for the future management of nephrops were discussed at a Sea Fish Industry Authority seminar on nephrops on 10 April. All parties involved are now reflecting on the views expressed.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of the North sea and Irish sea nephrops stock.

  Mr. Curry
  The advisory committee on fishery management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas has undertaken a thorough review of the various EC nephrops fisheries including those in the North and Irish seas and, in its latest report, recommended that each should be subject to its own specific total allowable catch, bearing in mind the fishing effort involved. We have asked the EC Commission to act on this advice and are now awaiting appropriate proposals.

  Sea Level (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has carried out of the risk to London from rising sea levels.

  Mr. Curry
  Sea level rise was one of the factors taken into account in the design of the Thames barrier and associated tidal defences which protect London from flooding. Current best estimates of global sea level rise by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fall within the range of possibilities considered in the barrier design. This Department sponsors research to monitor sea level trends and is also closely monitoring scientific evidence emerging from other sources.

  Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the invitation to organisations to participate in the 1991 surplus food scheme in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I announced to the House on 13 February that the surplus food scheme would be continued for a further year. Following that announcement, the press coverage that attended it and the individual invitations issued by my Department, we have been able to designate 774 organisations as potential participants in this year's scheme. There are approximately 3,800 tonnes of butter and 3,000 tonnes of beef available to be distributed to the most needy citizens.

  Once again I have designated more organisations than in previous years in order to ensure, as far as possible, the availability of food across the country. But as the quantities are limited, it must be understood that the assistance will, necessarily, be spread even more thinly as a result. The produce will be shared as fairly as possible on the basis of an amount proportional to the number of needy people it will reach. I am giving special priority in
  506
  allocating this food to organisations providing prepared meals and to those serving the homeless and destitute. In addition, in order to receive an allocation, the smallest organisations may have to co-operate this year to keep the processing and distribution costs to a minimum.

  I am placing a list of all the organisations I have designated in the Library of the House and officials will now be writing to all the organisations that applied.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the policy concerning recommended amounts of nutrients, as set out in the report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in 1979, paragraphs 13 to 16, remains Her Majesty's Government's policy; and if he will make it his policy to maintain it by ensuring that such recommended amounts are the minimum necessary to ensure that the majority of the population has adequate nutrition;

  (2) what consideration has been given by his Department to the use of dietary reference values as a means of providing information to the public about the daily intake of nutrients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1987, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy to which the Government look for expert advice on diet and nutrition has been engaged in a review of the recommended daily amounts—RDAs—for food energy and nutrients set in 1979. Until its conclusions are published the 1979 RDAs remain current. Its report is currently being finalised, and we hope that it will be ready for publication in May or June. Once the report is published I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list for each of his Department's offices covering the Doncaster area, the average length of time taken to process applications for each of the benefits administered by his Department; and what are the national averages;

  (2) what are the latest figures for the Doncaster area for the number of people claiming (a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) family credit; and what were the figures for the last 12 months.

  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.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund loan applications were refused by each of his Department's offices covering the Doncaster area in(a) 1990–91 and (b) the current year to date, due to perceived inability to repay.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the
  507
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for social fund loans from the York local office were refused on the grounds of inability to pay; and if he will show this figure as a percentage of all applications for loans from the York local office in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 to date;

  (2) if he will indicate the factors used by the York local office to determine high, medium and low priority groups and priority circumstances for community care grant applications (a) before 6 September 1990, (b) between 6 September and 21 October 1990 and (c) since 22 October 1990, and the reasons why the criteria were changed at these dates.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund 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.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit review boards have sat in each year since 1984; and what was the number of successful appellant reviews during each of these years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Data on review boards are not available for years prior to 1988–89. Based on information, which has not been validated, from 362 out of a total of 483 local authorities, the number of housing benefit cases submitted to a review board in 1988–89 was 2,213, of which 481 resulted in revised determinations. For 1989–90, on the basis of 320 returns, the figures were 2,336 and 530 respectively, but determinations in favour of the appellant are not separately recorded.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will place in the Library an amendment or an addendum to the housing benefits guidance manual to incorporate the provisions for a period in which persons who it is alleged have received an overpayment of housing benefit may make offers for repayment or appeals in respect of overpayment decisions prior to recovery action, as incorporated in the overpayment recovery guide for his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Departmental officials are currently working on a number of amendments to the housing benefits guidance manual. Among them will be enhanced guidance on overpayments which will reflect the overpayments recovery guide as regards the action to be taken prior to the commencement of a recovery. The amended guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Benefit Eligibility
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds were ineligible for benefits despite being unemployed in (1) 1989 and (2) 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Any unemployed 16 or 17-year-old who is seeking a youth training placement is eligible for income support if severe hardship would otherwise result.508
  Seventy-one per cent. of applications for severe hardship payments were successful in 1990 against 29 per cent unsuccessful. In 1989, the figures were 66 per cent. successful and 34 per cent. unsuccessful. Sixteen or 17-year-olds are not eligible for unemployment benefit because they are unable to satisfy the national insurance contribution conditions.

  Footnote: 19,280 applications for severe hardship payments were successful in 1990 against 7,767 unsuccessful. In 1989 there were 11,965 successful and 6,164 unsuccessful applications.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were claiming income support or supplementary benefit in respect of (i) residential care and (ii) nursing homes for each year since 1979 at each of the Newcastle upon Tyne benefit offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rent and Community Charge Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the marginal tax benefit withdrawal rate on additional gross income for a person paying standard rate income tax and national insurance and receiving both a rent rebate and community charge benefit as from April 1991; and what is the tax benefit withdrawal rate for each element.

  Mr. Jack
  The 1988 social security reforms and subsequent tax and national insurance changes eliminated the highest marginal deduction rates and it is now virtually impossible to find oneself worse off as a result of an increase in gross pay.

  Someone in work will normally have standard deduction rates of 25 per cent. for income tax and 9 per cent. for national insurance. The marginal deduction rate for such a person paying standard rate income tax, national insurance and receiving both a rent rebate and community charge benefit as from April 1991 is 87 per cent.

  The marginal deduction rate on total gross pay for each element is:

  Per cent.

  Tax

  25

  National insurance

  9

  Housing benefit

  43

  Community charge benefit

  10

  Community Care
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table indicating(a) the number of applications for community care grants received, (b) the number of community care grants paid, and (c) the cash value of community care grants paid by the York local office in each month in 1990 for each of elderly, mentally ill/handicapped, disabled/chronically sick, young persons leaving local authority care, persons who have misused drugs/alcohol, ex-offenders, persons without a settled way of life and families under exceptional pressure.
  509
  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the client groups requested, but details of the total number of community care grants received and paid and the cash value of those paid are in the Library.

DEFENCE

  NAAFI
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement in respect of the future of the NAAFI.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NAAFI fulfils an important support and welfare role for the services. The effects on NAAFI of changes in the structure of our armed forces are being studied.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the size of the armed forces, broken down by army, navy and air force and by civilian and military personnel in each of the member states of the European Community, United States of America, Sweden, Norway and the USSR.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of the size of the United Kingdom armed forces are shown in volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990"—Cm 1022–11. Information on the size of foreign armed forces is contained in "The Military Balance" published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, copies of which are held by the Library of the House.

  RAF Leeming (Noise)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of how many houses in the vicinity of Royal Air Force Leeming has statutory injurious affection compensation, or non-statutory equivalent compensation, has been paid on account of serious noise disturbance created by the deployment of Tornado aircraft to that air station.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence complies administratively with the provision of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The Act confers a right to injurious affection compensation—IAC—for depreciation in the value of dwellings and certain small business properties caused by the physical effects, for example, noise, of the bringing into use of new public works. Considerable works were undertaken at RAF Leeming to enable the deployment of Tornado aircraft to take place. To date, 374 IAC claims have been received and 40 of these have been settled.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses in the vicinity of Royal Air Force Leeming have been acquired with the agreement of their owners on account of serious noise disturbance created by the deployment of Tornado aircraft to that air station; and under what statutory or administrative provisions were such acquisitions carried out and payments made to the home owners concerned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence's policy, which is non-statutory, is limited to the areas around 510
  military airfields where we offer to purchase homes subject to average noise levels of 83DB(A) and above. This allows an opportunity for those most affected by noise to move away. At RAF Leeming 19 offers were made which resulted in the purchase of 12 homes.

  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the levels of pay for all ranks of the armed services stationed in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government agreed to implement in full, from 1 April, the recommendations made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The current rates of military salary for all ranks up to and including brigadier and equivalent are shown in tables 1, 2 and 3 of the 20th report of the review body—Cm 1414, January 1991. Pay levels for senior officers are recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. Following the Government's decision to stage the implementation of the TSRB award, salary levels for 1991–92 will be as follows:

  From 1 April 1991

  From 1 December 1991

  £

  £

  Major General

  52,100

  53,000

  Lieutenant General

  59,450

  60,000

  General

  82,800

  84,250

  Field Marshal

  102,950

  104,750

  Army ranks are shown; the pay rates apply equally to equivalent ranks in the other services.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the levels of pay for civilian armed services personnel stationed in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The expression "civilian armed services personnel" is a contradiction in terms.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. Chris Patten
  None.

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy Programmes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state the sources of separate expenditure on renewable energy programmes in or for Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department supports an extensive programme of research, development and demonstration
  511
  of sources of renewable energy where those sources show the potential for economic viability and are environmentally acceptable. For expenditure on that programme, by individual technology since 1979, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) gave him on 26 April at columns 613–16. In 1990–91 total expenditure was over £20 million. Expenditure is distributed throughout the United Kingdom. There is no specific allocation for Scotland.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the information he has on the number of combined heat and power schemes currently operational in(a) London and (b) each of the other European Community capital cities.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am not aware of a source for such detailed information. However, as my answer to the hon. Member on 22 February at columns 278–79 points out, the Office of Electricity Regulation is in the process of gathering information on combined heat and power—CHP—utilisation in the United Kingdom. My Department does not hold detailed information on the extent of combined heat and power utilisation in European Community capital cities.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the expenses included in the £12,439,000 gross
  expenditure on privatisation of the electricity supply industry in 1989–90, apart from the £12·1 million paid to outside organisations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The additional expenses are mainly those associated with the establishment of the successor companies to the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each relevant year his Department's total gross expenditure on the privatisation of(a) British Gas and (b) the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total gross external costs incurred by the Department of Energy in connection with the privatisation of British Gas and the electricity supply industry in England and Wales were as follows:

  £ million

  British Gas

  Electricity Supply Industry

  1985–86

  1·4

  —

  1986–87

  196·6

  —

  1987–88

  53·3

  0·8

  1988–89

  22·5

  5·5

  1989–90

  4·0

  12·4

  1990–911

  3·5

  303·1

  1 The figure for 1990–91 is the gross provision Voted by Parliament. The final outturn figure will be published in the Appropriation Account for 1990–91 later this year.

  Source: Department of Energy Annual Appropriation Accounts 1985–86 to 1989–90 and Supply Estimates 1991–92, Class V Energy.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the £4,024,000 residual expenses in 1989–90 from the sale of shares in British Gas.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The residual expenses in 1989–90 consisted of: £1,707,000 in connection with the gas bill 512
  voucher scheme; £2,303,500 in connection with the bonus share issue; and £13,500 in connection with the administration of the British Gas share offer companies.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of imports of natural gas into the United Kingdom, what proposals there are to increase this level; and what criteria he will adopt in considering these proposals.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1990, imports of natural gas from Norway accounted for 13·5 per cent. of total supplies. A small amount—less than 0·1 per cent. of total supplies—of liquefied natural gas was imported from Algeria. I am aware of a number of proposals that might increase this level. In considering any import proposals, the Government will weigh carefully the availability of competitive supplies from the United Kingdom continental shelf and the market opportunities open.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent it is the policy of his Department to contract work out to the private sector.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It has been the Government's policy since 1980 to transfer work from Government Departments to the private sector whenever this is commensurate with sound management and represents good value for money. My Department supports that policy.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses there are; how many council(a) houses and (b) flats have been sold since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  English local authorities owned some 2·4 million houses and 1·6 million flats in April 1990. About 1·1 million houses and 120,000 flats have been sold into owner-occupation between April 1979 and December 1990. Sales of flats picked up markedly in 1987 when higher discounts came into operation, and flats now represent a fifth of all sales.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for public sector home-building; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  In the first quarter of 1991, 2,000 new dwellings were completed by the public sector, mainly local authorities, in England. Housing associations are becoming the major providers of new subsidised rented housing and their output is forecast to increase by nearly half over the next three years. Full details of housebuilding by sector are published monthly by the Department in an information bulletin.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals which would enable local authorities to use accrued capital receipts to build more homes for rent.
  513
  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities are required to set aside part of their capital receipts that have accrued from the sale of assets to meet outstanding loan debt and other liabilities. The remainder they may spend in new capital investment. We have no plans to reconsider these underlying principles, although the application in practice is something we keep under review.

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in bringing the vacant public land register up to date.

  Mr. Yeo
  The measures announced yesterday in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) are designed to improve the information available from owners' registers.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which councils have the lowest rate of collection of the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  Collection of charges for 1990–91 continues, but the average collection rate of the 250 authorities for which we have information was already over 90 per cent. at the end of March. Only Islington and Lambeth had collected less than 70 per cent. and even they had achieved two thirds of their budgeted figure.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the community charge reduction scheme for 1991–92 announced in November; what was the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the further revised scheme in 1991–92; and what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the revised scheme in 1991–92 in the light of the Community Charge (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: When the community charge reduction scheme was announced in January 1991, the estimated cost of the scheme in 1991–92 was 1·7 billion. Following the £140 general reduction and the changes to the reduction scheme which followed the Budget, it is estimated that the cost of the scheme in 1991–92 will be just over £1·2 billion.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of the fund to cover local authorities' additional administrative expenses arising as a consequence of the Community Charge (General Reduction) Act; and what are the criteria by which it will be allocated to authorities.

  Mr. Key
  We have undertaken to meet all reasonable additional costs incurred as a result of the Community Charge (General Reduction) Act 1991 and the associated changes in the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to abolish the 20 per cent. payment of poll tax in the current year for people on low incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have not proposed any change for the remaining period of the community charge.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there is to be a special rebate for disabled people who have incurred alterations to their home which falls into band A; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Necessary alterations to the home of a disabled person will be disregarded in assessing the council tax band into which a property will fall. A disabled person's home which, without the alterations, would fall in band A will thus attract council tax at the lowest rate. Rebates of up to 100 per cent. will be available to help disabled people with low incomes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has of the number and proportion of properties in London which fall within each band of his proposed council tax.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The tables published on 23 April showing illustrative council tax bills included the estimated proportion of properties falling in each band in each local authority area.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out(a) the level of rate support grant assumed to be paid to Dacorum borough council for 1991–92 under the community charge and (b) the level of grant assumed in the indicative tables of council tax paid by his Department.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: With the community charge, the revenue support grant paid to Dacorum supports spending by both the borough and county council. Under our proposal for the council tax, grant will be paid directly to county councils. Any comparison of the level of grant paid to Dacorum would be misleading.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how local values are weighted by the national average of values to assess the council tax payroll in Grimsby and Humberside; what weighting factor he used; and what equation was used for incomes.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: Local values are not weighted by national average values, nor is an equation for income used, in estimating illustrative council tax bills.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing nationally and for each region the number of dwellings by tenure in each council tax band;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the council tax at the standard rate as a percentage of the quintile groups by equivalised disposable income for single adult retired, single adult non-retired, single adult with children and two or more adult retired households;

  (3) what is his estimate of the gross amount of council tax payable on local authority dwellings in metropolitan districts, London boroughs and non-metropolitan districts and the amount accounted for by rent rebates;

  (4) if he will publish a table showing nationally and regionally his estimate of the number of privately rented dwellings in each council tax band, the number in each case benefiting from rate relief, the amount of tax due and the amount relieved;
  515
  (5) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each council tax band shown in his illustrative tables the number and assumed average value nationally and regionally of leasehold dwellings together with his estimate of the current average leasehold value;

  (6) if he will publish a table showing for each council tax band shown in his illustrative tables the number and assumed average value nationally and regionally of (a) council and (b) other dwellings together with the assumed gross and net yields from the council tax in each case.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of domestic residences in each of the property value bands of the proposed council tax in England.

  Mr. Key
  The notes covering the tables of illustrative council tax bills published on 23 April show the number of homes in England, 18·9 million, and in table 1 the percentage of properties falling in each of the seven proposed bands.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of households in England and in each standard region are in leasehold dwellings; and how leasehold dwellings will be valued for the council tax;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby the number of leasehold dwellings, council dwellings and other rented dwellings in each council tax band and the basis on which they are to be valued.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested for Great Grimsby is not available. The Government are presently consulting on the method of allocating properties to different council tax bands.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby his estimate of the number and percentage of householders who actually paid rates in 1979 and 1988 together with the number expected to pay the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The number of domestic hereditaments liable for rates in Great Grimsby on 1 April 1979 and 1 April 1988 was 33,100 and 35,300 respectively. No information is available about the numbers or percentages of householders in Great Grimsby who actually paid rates, or about numbers expected to pay the council tax after taking account of rebates.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing his estimate of the percentage uplift on current market housing values implied in the council tax and similar tables for Great Grimsby, Mole Valley, Barrow in Furness, Westminster and Wandsworth; and if he will provide corresponding figures for each band.

  Mr. Key
  No uplift on current market housing values is implied in the council tax.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for(a) Great Grimsby, (b) Westminster, (c) Wandsworth and (d) Mole Valley, his estimate of the percentage of dwellings in each of the seven bands of the council tax.
  516
  Mr. Key
  The estimated percentage of homes in each band in each local authority area was shown in the table published on 23 April.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby his estimate of the average and quintile market values in 1989 of local authority dwellings, other dwelling and all dwellings: and if he will provide corresponding figures for valuations under the proposed council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the percentage rate of council tax on the value of properties from £10,000 to £500,000 in £10,000 steps on the basis of a standard rate of 4 per cent. on a property worth £73,000.

  Mr. Key
  If council tax were at a standard rate of 4 per cent, the percentage rate for all properties would be 4 per cent.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many residents in the city of Gloucester will benefit from reduced payments under his council tax proposals.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish tables listing(a) local authorities in order of percentage spending over standard spending assessment and (b) local authorities paying the highest illustrative bills; and if he will make a statement on the correlation between placings in the two tables and his assessment of the statistical relationship between the two factors;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby his estimate of the number of properties with a current market value of (i) less than £20,000, £20,000 to £30,000 and £30,000 to £40,000, (ii) £68,000 to £88,000 and (iii) over £160,000 together with his estimate of the numbers which will fall into each council tax band under his proposals;

  (3) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing nationally and for each standard region the estimated annual yield per council tax payer per band and the estimated annual yield from applying the same rate of tax in the standard band to all properties at current market values;

  (4) what proportion nationally and regionally of the council tax is payable by tax payers in the second lowest and the second highest bands; and what is the corresponding proportion of the market values of the dwellings to the total in each case;

  (5) if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby the numbers in each band qualifying for a 25 per cent. discount and the resultant increase in the amount of council tax payable by the other householders;

  (6) if he will publish a table showing the estimated total yield and the yield per band tax payer from the proposed council tax in each band at (i) the proposed percentage difference from the £68,000 to £88,000 standard, (ii) a percentage representing the difference between £73,000 and the mid-point of the five restricted bands and the minimum and maximum of, respectively, the bottom and top bands; and if he will add corresponding figures for each standard region;
  517
  (7) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) Great Grimsby, (b) Barrow in Furness, (c) Westminster, (d) Wandsworth and (e) Mole Valley, the amount of local authority expenditure per household and per adult and the corresponding amounts of poll tax and council tax, respectively;

  (8) if he will publish a table showing the median, average, upper and lower quartiles, and upper and lower deciles of the value of dwellings nationally and in each region, the average market value of dwellings within each tenth, the council tax in each of such tenths for standard spending for two or more adults, and the amount of council tax which would be payable in each case if the standard tax payable was calculated on the difference between the average value and the national median;

  (9) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing nationally and for each region the number of dwellings and average current market value in each of his seven council tax bands, their aggregate value in each case and the percentage of the value of all dwellings, the difference in each case between the average value per dwelling and the value for council tax purposes, and the difference between the average amount of tax payable under the proposed council tax and the amount which would be payable if the percentage in each case were adjusted to take account of the percentage difference between the average value and £73,000.

  (10) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each region, each metropolitan and other county, and the City of London the budget relative to standard spending assessment, the average band D council tax for two people, the proportion of homes in each band and their average value, and the corresponding average earnings of adult males in the year to April 1990;

  (11) if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the council districts in which the average value home is in bands A and G, the average value of homes and the council budgets relative to standard spending assessment, the standard amount of band D council tax, the proportion of homes in each tax band, and the overall gross and net yield from the tax as a percentage of the value of the homes;

  (12) if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for, respectively, the aggregate of the counties above and below the county with the median average earnings of full-time adult male workers, the yield per adult for the council tax at (i) the standard rate and (ii) the actual rate together with the respective average earnings per head for full-time adult male workers and the average value of dwellings per household;

  (13) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Barrow in Furness, Great Gritnsby, Westminster, Wandsworth and Elmbridge the amount of council tax payable on the median value in each band as a percentage of that value;

  (14) if he will publish a table showing the amount of council tax payable on the median value in each band as a percentage of that value and the corresponding figures for each region;

  (15) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each region, each metropolitan and other county, and the City of London, the estimated gross yield from the proposed council tax as a percentage of the capital value of the dwellings in each band and overall;

  (16) if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Elmbridge and Great Grimsby (i) the council
  518
  budget relative to the standard spending assessment, (ii) the amount of tax for two or more adults in properties in bands A and D together with the percentage of homes in each band and (iii) the average value of homes in bands A and G; and if he will set out the reasons for the difference.

  (17) further to paragraph 6 of his illustrative tables for the new council tax, whether he will publish in the Official Report for each of the council districts in which the average value home is in bands A or G gross and net expenditure per household, the gross and net central Government contribution per household, the composition of households in family expenditure terms, the allowance per household made for different categories of public expenditure including in particular housing, education and social security, together with any categories of expenditure where there are market differences in expenditure in A and G areas or uncertainty in forecasting.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what impact there would be on the assumed levels of council tax in Dacorum borough for each band in the published indicative tables if the property valuations concerned were all 10 per cent. higher, assuming there to be no charges elsewhere in England.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the average illustrative council tax bill for a house occupied by two or more adults and by a single adult, respectively, in each local authority area in England on the same basis as the illustrative figures which have been published by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Key
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to the answer I gave on 29 April 1991 to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter),Official Report, Volume 190, column 12.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the proposed council tax.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had so far to his consultative paper on local government taxation.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's council tax proposal has been widely welcomed by hon. Members and by those involved in local government. I look forward to receiving detailed responses to the consultation exercise now under way.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) further to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 13, if he will define a standard level of services and the level of provision that would sustain a local area covered by the definition; if he will explain how this can be held constant over different types of area; and if he will assess the consequences of variations on the relevance of the standard spending assessment calculations on the council tax;

  (2) what is the relationship between the levels of council tax set for a district and the standard spending assessments for that district.

  Mr. Key
  The nature of standard spending assessments is set out in section 2.2 of "The Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England)", approved by the House of Commons on 18 January 1990. Standard spending
  519
  assessments are calculated from data which are specific to each local authority and hence reflect differences between areas. Under the proposed council tax, if all authorities were to spend at the level of their standard assessment, the bills for each of the seven bands of property values would be the same in each area.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how and when the standard spending assessment is adjusted to take account of changes in the level of unemployment; and what is his estimate of the additional costs falling on Grimsby borough council in each category of spending covered by the standard spending assessment for each percentage point rise in unemployment in the Grimsby area.

  Mr. Key
  The level of unemployment is not a factor used in the calculation of standard spending assessments. There is no evidence that spending on the services provided by local authorities should rise in proportion to increases in the rate of unemployment. Local spending decisions are, in any case, a matter for Grimsby borough council in the light of its knowledge of local circumstances.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report for (a) Grimsby and (b) Cleethorpes, (i) the percentage by which spending is above the standard spending assessment and (ii) the proposed council tax for each band; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Tables showing illustrative council tax bills in each local authority area were published on 23 April. The tables included the assumed percentage spending relative to the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answers of 29 April,Official Report, column 13, if he will ensure that an increase in spending over the standard spending assessment does not fall disproportionately heavily on the council tax levied by poorer boroughs.

  Mr. Key
  Under our proposals for the council tax, spending above the standard spending assessment in every local authority will be met pound for pound by local domestic tax payers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for(a) Great Grimsby, (b) Barrow in Furness, (c) Westminster, (d) Wandsworth and (e) Mole Valley, the proportion of council expenditure financed out of revenue from rates in 1979–80 and 1989–90, the estimated proportion financed out of the poll tax in 1990–91 and his forecast under the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  It is not possible to produce comparable figures on an individual authority basis for the years requested.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many opencast development proposals have been refused by his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is available only from 1987–88 for opencast coal cases. Since then a total of 25 opencast 520
  coal appeals have been dismissed and 30 allowed. The equivalent figures for other minerals are 108 appeals dismissed and 66 allowed; and for non-minerals cases, 58,140 dismissed and 31,464 allowed.

  River Test
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on water quality of the River Test.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. The condition of the River Test is a matter for which the National Rivers Authority is primarily responsible. The Wallop brook, a tributary of the Test, is among a number of rivers for which the NRA has today announced proposals for tackling the problem of low flows.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 for expenditure on housing action trusts; and what were the sums budgeted for this purpose.

  Sir George Young
  Details of planned expenditure were given in the public expenditure White Papers. There was no expenditure on housing action trusts in 1989–90 or 1990–91, but tenants in North Hull have now voted by more than two to one for a trust.

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on progress in providing low-cost housing in shire districts.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given today to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the supply of rented housing and to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in bringing United Kingdom drinking water up to the standards of the 1980 EC directive.

  Mr. Trippier
  For the small number of standards which are not met at present, I am advised by the drinking water inspectorate that water companies are on schedule to remedy the position as quickly as possible, taking practicalities into account.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were registered as homeless during 1990–91.

  Sir George Young
  Statistics for the first quarter of 1991 are not yet available. In 1990 accommodation was found for 145,800 households accepted as homeless by English local authorities.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the European Environment Commissioner to discuss atmospheric pollution.
  521
  Mr. Trippier
  At the Council of Environment Ministers meeting in March, when the Council reached a common position on the draft directive on emissions from large diesel vehicles.

  Rented Properties
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional dwellings for rent he estimates will be provided during 1991–92 by private landlords.

  Sir George Young
  It is impossible to give an exact figure. We are, however, confident that the measures that we have introduced to encourage the private rented sector are having the desired effect and there is significant anecdotal evidence of increased activity in the market. In particular, business expansion scheme companies have so far raised over £700 million, sufficient to provide about 12,000 additional homes to rent.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to deal with the shortage of rented accommodation at affordable rents.

  Sir George Young
  We have substantially increased the public resources available through the Housing Corporation for the development of new subsidised housing by housing associations from £1·1 billion last year to over £2 billion by 1993–94. Together with their increased ability to draw in private investment, this will permit an increase in output by associations from 27,000 last year to around 40,000 by 1993–94. Deregulation of the private rented sector is also making more properties available to rent. Housing benefit is available up to reasonable market rents for people who cannot afford their full housing costs.

  South Yorkshire Rapid Light Transit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any additional funding will be made available to the district council of Barnsley to offset expenditure on the South Yorkshire rapid light transit railway.

  Mr. Portillo
  I recently met a delegation from the four South Yorkshire district authorities and the passenger transport authority to hear their concerns in relation to the financing costs of the supertram. Following a constructive discussion officials are now discussing possible options with the authorities.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations on the Housing Corporation's new proposals for the registration of housing co-operatives.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is not clear to which document the hon. Member is referring. If it is the Housing Corporation's draft strategy on housing co-operatives, my right hon. Friend has received two representations. If it is the corporation's new registration criteria for all housing associations, my right hon. Friend has received one representation.

  Local Authorities (Spending Controls)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will release all spending controls on local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have a duty to protect local taxpayers from unacceptably high bills, as well as to control the level of public expenditure. It is therefore essential to maintain both next year and in our new system effective arrangements to ensure proper restraint in local spending and taxation.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future structure of local government on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on 23 April,Official Report, column 901, in which I set out the Government's proposals for the structure of local government in England. We believe that the structure of two tiers outside London and the metropolitan county areas needs to be reviewed. We therefore propose to establish a new, independent local government commission to draw up recommendations for improving the structure of local government area by area, taking account of local views and the costs and benefits of the change. This commission would consult on its recommendations and submit them to me. Final decisions would rest with Parliament.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes in the inner area programme and urban regeneration funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  In February we issued annual programme guidance for the urban programme for 1992–93 which encourages greater targeting of resources on smaller areas; continued emphasis on economic projects; packaging of resources with other public and private sector funds; and partnerships with other key participants in inner city regeneration. The quality of programmes brought forward by authorities will be taken into account in distributing the final allocation of resources.

  London Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for each year since 1981 the total expenditure by the London Docklands development corporation on(a) the provision of new units of social housing and (b) housing improvement or refurbishment.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is provided in the following tables:

  (a) New social housing units

  £ million

  1981–82

  0

  1982–83

  0

  1983–84

  3·3

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  0

  523

  £ million

  1987–88

  0

  1988–89

  50·5

  1989–90

  43·7

  1990–91

  27·0

  TOTAL

  1124·5

  1 Not including contributions made in form of land sold at social housing use values.

  (b) Housing improvement or refurbishment

  £ million

  1981–82

  0

  1982–83

  0·4

  1983–84

  0·4

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0·2

  1986–87

  1–7

  1987–88

  2·3

  1988–89

  6·8

  1989–90

  2·8

  1990–91

  8·5

  TOTAL

  23·1

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many new jobs, not including transferred jobs, have been created as a result of the London docklands urban development area since 1981;

  (2) how many jobs attracted to the London docklands UDA since 1981 have been transferred from areas outside that UDA;

  (3) what was the number of people unemployed in the London docklands UDA for 1981 and 1991;

  (4) how many jobs have been attracted to the London docklands urban development area in total; and if he will break down these jobs to the board categories of the standard industrial classification;

  (5) how many people were employed in the London docklands UDA in 1981 and 1991;

  (6) how many jobs have been lost in the London docklands UDA since 1981; and if he will break down these jobs to the broad categories of the standard industrial classification;

  (7) what is his estimate of the percentage of the jobs attracted to the London docklands UDA that have been secured by residents of (a) London docklands UDA and (b) the London boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham.

  Mr. Key
  LDDC's 1990 employment survey showed 48,102 people in permanent employment, together with a further 4,982 employed on temporary construction. Of the total at least 41,421 jobs, or 78 per cent., had come into the LDDC area since 1981.

  Jobs by Standard Industrial Classifications were as follows:

  SIC

  Employees

  0 Agriculture, Fishing etc

  54

  1 Energy and Water Supply

  323

  2 Minerals, chemicals etc

  237

  3 Metal goods, vehicle industries

  798

  4 Other manufacturing

  7,968

  5 Construction

  5,805

  6 Distribution, hotels, catering

  6,076

  524

  SIC

  Employees

  7 Transport and communication

  2,959

  8 Banking, finance, business services

  9,824

  9 Other services

  4,594

  Not known

  2,783

  Total

  41,421

  Of these, an estimated 16,862 were in newly created businesses and 24,559 in companies that relocated from elsewhere. There are no comprehensive figures for the place of residence of those employed in the LDDC area, nor for the classification of jobs lost since 1981. The figures suggest that by 1990 some 15,000 jobs had been lost or moved away.

  An estimated 3,553 people were unemployed in 1981, compared to 3,744 in March 1991, while over the same period the population increased by about 60 per cent.

  By March the number of permanent jobs had increased to 53,000, together with jobs in construction. The total is more than double the figure for 1981, 27,213, and demonstrates the scale of economic and physical regeneration already achieved by the corporation.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will provide details for each financial year since 1981 of expenditure by the London Docklands development corporation on(a) public transport infrastructure and (b) road infrastructure;

  (2) what was the total expenditure of the London Docklands development corporation in the years 1981–91 on (a) staff salaries and related expenditure, (b) administration costs, (c) estates maintenance, (d) environmental improvements, (e) land acquisition, (f) land reclamation, (g) utilities, (h) roads, (i) industry support, (j) community support, (k) housing, (l) the docklands light railway and (m) promotions and publicity;

  (3) if he will supply for each financial year since 1981 figures for the income received by the London Docklands development corporation from the sale of land and property;

  (4) what was the total expenditure by the London Docklands development corporation in each financial year since 1981;

  (5) if he will calculate the total amount of public expenditure allocated to the London Docklands development corporation urban development area since 1981 including (a) grant in aid to the London Docklands development corporation, (b) expenditure by virtue of the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, (c) public expenditure on road and transport infrastructure schemes by central Government Departments and (d) all other expenditure by central Government Departments, broken down by category.

  Mr. Key
  The information available is provided in the table. Expenditure for the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone was £19·70 million up to 31 March 1990 in respect of rate revenue forgone.

  Information on capital cost allowances for individual enterprise zones and on public expenditure by central Government Departments is not available.
  525

  LDDC income and expenditure

  £ million

  1981–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total

  Expenditure

  Staff salaries etc.

  3

  4

  4

  5

  5

  6

  8

  9

  Administration

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  8

  Estates maintenance

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  6

  6

  7

  10

  10

  12

  12

  14

  14

  19

  21

  24

  136

  Environmental

  5

  6

  4

  5

  7

  7

  17

  9

  12

  72

  Land acquisition

  35

  17

  4

  5

  13

  23

  16

  30

  12

  155

  Land reclamation

  8

  10

  15

  15

  14

  15

  16

  15

  5

  113

  Utilities

  5

  6

  5

  6

  15

  18

  35

  32

  20

  142

  Roads

  6

  8

  4

  7

  16

  34

  55

  65

  149

  344

  Industry support community support

  2

  4

  5

  4

  4

  5

  9

  11

  21

  65

  Housing

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  67

  32

  147

  DLR

  —

  1

  16

  13

  6

  2

  8

  33

  79

  158

  Promotion and publicity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Gross expenditure

  72

  64

  65

  67

  89

  118

  220

  283

  357

  1,335

  Income

  Sales of land and property

  2

  —

  5

  13

  22

  41

  133

  32

  27

  275

  Grant in aid

  72

  63

  59

  54

  65

  83

  116

  256

  333

  1·101

  Other income

  1

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  3

  3

  18

  Total income

  75

  66

  66

  68

  89

  126

  250

  291

  363

  1,394

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people who have received training from new training schemes set up by the London Docklands development corporation have secured employment in new businesses in the London Docklands UDA.

  Mr. Key
  No comparative figures are available. LDDC and the training providers it supports are improving their reporting systems, but it is difficult to monitor in detail the eventual consequences of training for every individual trainee.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for each parcel of land currently in the ownership of the London Docklands development corporation details of(a) the date of acquisition, (b) from whom it was acquired, (c) the method of acquisition and (d) the price paid per acre.

  Mr. Key
  No. These are commercially confidential.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many units of residential accommodation have been completed in the London Docklands UDA since 1981; and, of these, how many have been built on land owned by the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  At March 1991, 15,220 new units had been completed, of which 8,367 were on land owned by LDDC.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for each financial year since 1981 the total amount of land in the ownership of the London Docklands development corporation at the end of each year;

  (2) if he will supply figures for each financial year since 1981 for the amount of land that has been sold by the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  This information is given in the table.
  526

  LDDC land disposals and holdings

  Disposed to developers in year

  Land holdings at end of financial year

  (acres)1

  (acres)2

  1981–82

  —

  657

  1982–83

  33

  755

  1983–84

  54

  1,128

  1984–85

  178

  1,082

  1985–86

  185

  1,379

  1986–87

  85

  1,441

  1987–88

  43

  1,394

  1988–89

  22

  1,375

  1989–90

  25

  1,442

  1990–91

  36

  1,448

  1 Includes plot by plot housing disposal.

  2 Includes water and land earmarked for environmental and roads use.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will supply details of the current use of each parcel of land in the ownership of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  The details requested are as follows:

  Acres

  Water

  401

  Public assets and environmental work

  483

  Available for disposal

  564

  TOTAL LAND HOLDING

  1,448

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those public transport infrastructure schemes funded to date by the London Docklands development corporation, giving the amount of London Docklands development corporation expenditure involved.

  Mr. Key
  The following list outlines the public infrastructure expenditure to 31 March 1991.
  527

  £ million

  Initial Docklands light railway construction

  40·0

  Docklands light railway Beckton extension

  122·7

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide the latest figures for the total number of private residential properties that have been built in the London docklands UDA that remain unsold or unoccupied.

  Mr. Key
  As at June 1990 1,422 units of all tenures were unsold or unoccupied, out of a total stock of approximately 14,000 new build units. No tenure breakdown is available.

  Taxpayers (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby his estimate of the number of taxpayers, the gross amount payable and the ratio of the standard tax to average incomes of householders in each of the proposed council tax bands.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby his estimate of the number of mobile homes, the basis on which they are to be valued, and the responsibility for payment in the case of mobile homes sited in a commercial caravan park.

  Mr. Key
  Information on the number of mobile homes in Great Grimsby is not available.

  Under the present local grant finance system mobile homes which are someone's sole or main residence are domestic property and their occupants are liable to the community charge.

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

  Sir George Young
  A table showing the reported number of right-to-buy sales for each English local authority between October 1980 and December 1991 was placed in the Library on 18 April 1991,Official Report, Volume 189, column 227.

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

  Sir George Young
  A table listing housing investment programme allocations for 1990–91 for each housing authority in England was placed in the Library on 21 528
  December 1989. A table showing proposals for gross capital expenditure on housing investment in 1990–91, submitted by authorities to the Department, has now been placed in the Library.

  Authorities' own proposals for housing capital expenditure are not directly comparable with each other, nor with the HIP allocation figure because the proposals may not have been prepared on a consistent basis as regards overall strategy for meeting needs, for the financing of works, or their costing or phasing. Moreover, the allocations do not represent a borrowing approval, which is conferred through each authority's all-service basic credit approval, and as such they take no account of the receipts available to individual authorities or the amount of those receipts they may choose to spend on housing.

  Ancient Murrelet
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will assist efforts to protect the ancient murrelet sea bird that has returned to Lundy island.

  Mr. Trippier
  As a natural visitor to Britain, the ancient murrelet is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is further protected from molestation and disturbance by bye-laws applying to the Lundy marine nature reserve.

  Free-running Snares
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to ensure that the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 regulating free-running snares are adhered to.

  Mr. Trippier
  Strict penalties of fines of up to £2,000 for each offence are already available to the courts to assist in enforcing the provisions regulating snares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There will be provision in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the level of fine to £5,000. Police forces are well aware of the legislation controlling wildlife and in many cases have appointed officers who take a special interest in this area.

  Floodlighting
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will list(a) public buildings and (b) parks and squares in London which are floodlit at night at Her Majesty's Government's expense;

  (2) what is the cost to Her Majesty's Government each year of flood-lighting in (a) public buildings and (b) parks and squares in London.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not held centrally.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for the financial year 1990–91 how much is still outstanding for collection in the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area in respect of the uniform business rate; and what percentage this represents of the total uniform business rate for the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area.
  529
  Mr. Key
  By 31 March 1991 Doncaster metropolitan borough council had collected £36·6 million in non-domestic rates, equivalent to 92 per cent. of its provisional contribution to the non-domestic rates pool. My Department does not yet have information about the amount of non-domestic rates collectable by the authority and therefore about the amount of rates outstanding.

  Severe Weather
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance the Government gave to Doncaster metropolitan borough council to meet additional expenditure incurred following the bad weather during this last winter.

  Mr. Key
  None. The council has not requested any assistance and we have no information to suggest that it incurred costs greater than those which it could be expected to meet as part of its normal responsibilities for coping with winter weather.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is being made by his Department for housing grants payable by the Housing Corporation in the financial year 1991–92; and what are the rates of grant.

  Mr. Yeo
  Provision for housing grants payable by the Housing Corporation is made in supply estimates. class VIII, vote I, section A. For 1991–92, net provision is £2,320,715,000.

  The rates of grant payable on capital projects will be published very shortly by Housing Corporation circular, and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Manpower Watch
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what objectives were set for the manpower watch for local government in 1979; what has been the actual and percentage fall in local government manpower since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The joint staffing watch, formerly joint manpower watch, was set up in 1975 as part of the 1974–75 rate support grant settlement. In describing the purpose of the new system, DOE circular 30/75 stated:"The new arrangements … are intended to reinforce the severe restriction on the rate of growth in current expenditure by establishing the means of identifying at regular intervals fluctuations in the total numbers employed by local authorities. The aim is to establish machinery through which all parties to the Rate Support Grant settlement can jointly satisfy themselves that any increases in employment are consistent with national policies and priorities."

  Staff costs form a large proportion of local authority expenditure and the Government still consider it necessary to maintain a close watch on local authority staffing levels.

  The fall in local government staffing from December 1979 to December 1990 has been 71,350 full-time equivalents, that is, 3·6 per cent.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to implement part II of the Environmental Protection Act.
  530
  Mr. Trippier
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the direct and indirect effect on local authority expenditure on services of each increase of 100,000 in unemployment; and what proportion of the increase in expenditure is borne by central Government.

  Mr. Key
  There is no evidence of a direct link between levels of unemployment and local authority expenditure. It is for each authority to decide its spending priorities across the range of its services according to the circumstances of its area. Central Government support, which this year amounts to about 85 per cent. of total standard spending, should enable all authorities to provide a standard level of service, taking into account their individual circumstances.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Nature Conservancy Council on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  There was no expenditure by the Nature Conservancy Council on items(a) to (c) during the period 1979–80 to 1990–91, nor does the Nature Conservancy Council for England plan any in 1991–92. Expenditure by the two bodies on (d) for the period 1989–90 to 1991–92 is in the table. Figures for previous years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  1989–90

  20,896

  1990–91

  4,972

  1991–92

  17,500

  1 Planned by Nature Conservancy Council for England.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Ordnance Survey on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on advertising expenditure prior to 1985–86 cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. Records since 1985–86 are not held in the detail requested. Information on full advertising expenditure is as follows:

  £(000)

  1985–86

  350·0

  1986–87

  402·5

  1987–88

  389·1

  1988–89

  313·1

  1989–90

  321·0

  1990–91

  345·0

  The advertising budget for 1991–92 is £348,900.

  Both television and radio advertising campaigns were used early in the period when approximately 50 per cent.

  531
  of the total expenditure was allocated to them. In recent years the full expenditure has been for advertising in the trade press and national and local newspapers. Expenditure on other promotional material is included in the figures given in my reply on 3 May 1991.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Countryside Commission on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  These figures cannot be supplied without disproportionate cost.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the privatisation of any activities of the Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to make any such proposals.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figure was added to the revenue support grant in respect of the exemption from rates of properties in enterprise zones for 1990–91 and 1991–92; and how the figure was calculated.

  Mr. Key
  No addition, as such, was required. The exemption of properties in enterprise zones results in a lower national total of non-domestic rate income, but the value of exemptions is not separately identified. For any total of external support distributed to local authorities in a year, any reduction in the size of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates is automatically offset by an increase in revenue support grant which is then distributed to authorities in accordance with their standard spending assessments.

  Travel Patterns
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress has been made in the study promised in "This Common Inheritance" of the relationship between development and travel patterns and ways of locating development to reduce travel distances and to increase transport choice;

  (2) when he will issue the planning guidance proposed in paragraph 6.35 of "This Common Inheritance".

  Sir George Young
  The Departments of Transport and the Environment have jointly commissioned this research. The contract was let to ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. with Transportation Planning Associates in mid-Febuary and will be completed by the end of May 1992. The project is still at an early stage.

  The environment White Paper proposes that the research should lead to planning policy guidance. The Departments would normally expect to publish the results of the research, usually within six months of receiving the final report. Depending on the findings and conclusions of the research, my Department would hope to have draft planning policy guidance for consultation by late 1992.

  Green House Demonstration Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the green house demonstration programme.

  Mr. Yeo
  The response of local authorities to the green house programme for energy efficiency in local authority housing has been very encouraging. In the first round 165 authorities submitted more than 350 bids. As announced on April 10, over 70 schemes, including a "flagship" of particular interest in each region, will be supported in 1991–92.

  Applications for support under the programme for 1992–93 will be invited shortly.

  Wath Recycling
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the particular noxious materials which continue to be held by Wath Recycling at Wath upon Dearne, Rotherham.

  Mr. Baldry
  Wath Recycling handles a range of materials in daily operations under the terms of its licence and subject to monitoring and inspection by the regulatory authorities. The particular waste from the USA now stored on the site contains a range of benzene compounds, such as xylenes.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the fire which took place at the Wath Recycling works on 29 April; what assessment he has made of the potential dangers as a result of that incident; and what was the actual distance of the fire from the nearest of those containers which hold the toxic waste of which he is aware.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The fire at the Wath Recycling works, Rotherham, on 29 April 1991 was associated with a furnace in which a vegetable fat was being burnt off from a mixture of the fat and a solid nickel-containing catalyst.

  The process is subject to control by HMIP for emissions to atmosphere and is a registered incineration works.

  Molten and burning fat escaped from the furnace. The fire was totally contained in the building and in the immediate vicinity of the furnace.

  Apart from the normal hazards associated with fire at the time of the incident no further potential dangers are anticipated.

  The distance from the building to the stored drummed waste, which had been imported from the USA in 1989, is approximately 18 yd. At no time was there a danger of those drums being involved in the incident.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mortgage repossessions there have been in(a) the city of York and (b) the county of North Yorkshire during each of the last 12 months for which records are available; and what were the annual figures for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Yeo
  Comprehensive information on mortgage repossessions in the city of York and the county of North Yorkshire, including properties surrendered without a court order, is not available.
  533
  The available figures for possession orders made by the courts covering York and the county of North Yorkshire, not all of which are executed, are as follows:

  Mortgage possession orders

  York

  County of North Yorkshire

  1987

  269

  475

  1988

  238

  393

  1989

  193

  401

  1990

  314

  623

  Global Warming
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate how many centimetres the sea level of the channel would rise given(a) a 1·5 deg. C rise in global average surface temperature and (b) a 4·5 deg. C rise in global average surface temperature.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimates of sea level rise due to global warming depend on how rapidly the warming takes place. In the scientific assessment report of the linter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the "business-as-usual" scenario gives temperatures of 1·5 and 4·5 deg. C above present at some time between 2090 and 2100 for the high and low sensitivity cases respectively. Corresponding average sea level rises are about 30 and 100 cm. At the channel coast vertical land movements would add about 30 cm to the relative sea level rise over the next century.

  Environmental and Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to issue a planning policy guidance to local authorities note regarding environmental and energy efficiency factors.

  Mr. Yeo
  Existing planning policy guidance notes already give advice on a range of environmental issues; and we intend to expand the PPG series to include guidance on planning and pollution and on renewable energy sources. My right hon. Friend will consider the need for guidance on energy efficiency in determining, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, the Government's response to recommendation 21 in the third report from the Energy Select Committee.

  Walkers
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about improved access to countryside for walkers.

  Mr. Trippier
  The best way of improving access to the countryside is through the existing, extensive rights of way network. This is why we endorsed in the environment White Paper the Countryside Commission's target of ensuring that the whole network is readily available for use by the year 2000.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue guidance to local authorities on the planning considerations associated with 534
  the water companies' investment to improve the quality of bathing and drinking waters and to construct new water treatment works; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today issued for public consultation a draft circular about the planning implications for local authorities, of substantial investment by the water industry to improve the quality of bathing and drinking waters. Comments have been invited from the local authority associations, the water companies and other representative bodies.

  The draft circular stresses the urgency of improving the quality of bathing and drinking waters, and emphasises local planning authorities' responsibility to work with the water industry to find suitable sites for sewage treatment works and to handle planning applications without delay.

  Property Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to a nine-band property tax as a means of financing local government.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: The Government considered many possibilities before proposing that the council tax should be based on the seven bands of property value announced on 23 April.

  National Environment Week
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the events connected with National Environment Week in which he will be participating.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was invited to launch National Environment Week on Wednesday 8 May, but was unable to do so: he has asked me to carry out the launch on his behalf. I shall be participating in an event associated with Mid Bedfordshire district council's contribution to National Environment Week on 21 May.

  Archaeological Remains
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require planning authorities in England to inform solicitors making their local searches if there are archaeological remains present on the land.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: No. Any archaeological remains which are scheduled as ancient monuments under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 arc registered as a local land charge and can be identified in local searches.

  Details of non-scheduled sites of known archaeological interest are registered on the sites and monuments record held by county councils—English Heritage for London—and can be consulted by anyone.

  Guidance has been issued to all planning authorities—DOE Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning—which emphasises the availability of the sites and monuments record and encourages both developers and planning authorities to consult it when considering potential development.

  Poll Tax Capping
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to an appeal against proposed poll tax capping by Warwickshire county council; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: We intend to lay a draft order setting out the final cap for Warwickshire and the other authorities which have challenged their proposed caps before the House as soon as possible. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 3 May by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), Official Report, column 336.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 May Official Report, column 401]: In announcing the publication of the long-term forecasts of demand for aggregates I should like to make it clear that the figures of 421 million tonnes per annum and 490 million tonnes per annum referred to in the second paragraph relate to the forecast in 2011 and not 2001 as stated.

  Authority

  20 per cent, of total personal community charge

  Personal community Water charge

  Amount payable

  As Percentage of full personal charge plus water charge

  £

  £

  £

  Berwickshire

  26·80

  30

  56·80

  34·6

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  29·60

  30

  59·60

  33·5

  Roxburgh

  29·00

  30

  59·00

  33·7

  Tweedale

  28·20

  30

  58·20

  34·0

  Clackmannan

  55·40

  15

  70·40

  24·1

  Falkirk

  41·60

  15

  56·60

  25·4

  Stirling

  54·40

  15

  69·40

  24·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  34·40

  32

  66·40

  32·5

  Nithsdale

  34·40

  32

  66·40

  32·5

  Stewartry

  30·60

  32

  62·60

  33·8

  Wigtown

  33·00

  32

  65·00

  33·0

  Dunfermline

  48·80

  21

  69·80

  26·3

  Kirkcaldy

  49·00

  21

  70·00

  26·3

  North East Fife

  50·80

  21

  71·80

  26·1

  Aberdeen City

  45·40

  39

  84·40

  31·7

  Banff and Buchan

  35·20

  39

  74·20

  34·5

  Gordon

  31·80

  39

  70·80

  35·8

  Kincardine and Deeside

  28·00

  39

  67·00

  37·4

  Moray

  30·40

  39

  69·40

  36·3

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  28·40

  35

  63·40

  35·8

  Caithness

  27·40

  35

  62·40

  36·3

  Inverness

  27·40

  35

  62·40

  36·3

  Lochaber

  33·40

  35

  68·40

  33·9

  Nairn

  28·00

  35

  63·00

  36·0

  Ross and Cromarty

  32·80

  35

  67·80

  34·1

  Skye and Lochalsh

  29·00

  35

  64·00

  35·6

  Sutherland

  29·80

  35

  64·80

  35·2

  East Lothian

  75·20

  26

  101·20

  25·2

  Edinburgh City

  83·60

  26

  109·60

  24·7

  Midlothian

  72·80

  26

  98·80

  25·3

  West Lothian

  68·60

  26

  94·60

  25·6

  Argyll and Bute

  47·60

  29

  76·60

  28·7

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  45·20

  29

  74·20

  29·1

  Clydebank

  54·60

  29

  83·60

  27·7

  Clydesdale

  48·40

  29

  77·40

  28·6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  42·20

  29

  71·20

  29·7

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  42·80

  29

  71·80

  29·5

  Cumminghame

  50·60

  29

  79·60

  28·2

  Dumbarton

  58·20

  29

  87·20

  27·2

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the maximum payment of community charge, including community water charge, payable by pensioners on the basic retirement pension in 1991–92 for each local authority area in Scotland and the average bill across Scotland; and if he will express each sum payable as a percentage of the total community charge in the area.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Single pensioners and some pensioner couples in receipt only of the basic state retirement pension—currently £52 per week plus £31·25 per week for a dependent partner—with no other source of income—for example, other state benefits—and savings of £3,000 or less, are entitled to the maximum community charge benefit of 80 per cent. of the personal community charge for the area. Some pensioner couples aged from 60 to 74 who are in receipt of only the basic state retirement pension for a couple, with no other income and savings of £3,000 or less, are entitled to benefit levels of 39p per year less than the maximum benefit. No benefit is awarded in respect of the personal community water charge or the standard community charge. The amount payable by a pensioner on maximum benefit by local authority area is shown in the table.
  537

  Authority

  20 per cent. of total personal community charge

  Personal community Water charge

  Amount payable

  As Percentage of full personal charge plus water charge

  £

  £

  £

  East Kilbride

  52·20

  29

  81·20

  28·0

  Eastwood

  38·40

  29

  67·40

  30·4

  Glasgow City

  53·20

  29

  82·20

  27·9

  Hamilton

  49·60

  29

  78·60

  28·4

  Inverclyde

  46·40

  29

  75·40

  28·9

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  44·80

  29

  73·80

  29·2

  Kyle and Carrick

  52·50

  29

  81·50

  28·0

  Monklands

  49·80

  29

  78·80

  28·3

  Motherwell

  40·40

  29

  74·40

  29·1

  Renfrew

  52·40

  29

  81·40

  28·0

  Strathkelvin

  50·00

  29

  79·00

  28·3

  Angus

  43·80

  26

  69·80

  28·5

  Dundee City

  53·80

  26

  78·80

  27·1

  Perth and Kinross

  45·40

  26

  71·40

  28·2

  Orkney

  00·40

  53

  53·40

  97·1

  Shetland

  00·19

  44·07

  44·26

  98·4

  Western Isles

  05·20

  51

  56·20

  73·0

  Scotland average

  50·60

  29

  79·60

  28·2

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the cost to date of the printing and issuing of poll tax collection books; and what was the cost of re-issuing new poll tax collection notices and books following the Budget changes in poll tax levels;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total cost to date of the publication and distribution of poll tax registration forms;

  (3) what is his estimate of the total cost of printing, and distributing (i) poll tax reminder forms and (ii) sheriff officer warrants;

  (4) what is his estimate of the cost of computer equipment for the administration of poll tax registers for each of the regions of Scotland;
  538
  (5) what is his estimate of the staffing costs of poll tax registration officers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Based on local authorities' own budget estimates, the cost of community charge registration in 1991–92 will be £18·6 million and the cost of collecting the charge will be £43 million. No further breakdown of these figures is held centrally.

  The Scottish Office Environment Department plans to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities the additional administrative costs which local authorities will face in issuing revised 1991–92 bills following the passage of the Community Charges (General Reductions) Act 1991.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how claims for personal discounts in respect of the council tax are to be checked by local authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a matter for consultation.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if estate agents will be used by the valuation office of the Inland Revenue to assign properties to bands during the initial banding process for the council tax;

  (2) what role the regional assessors will play in the initial banding of properties for the new council tax;

  (3) if he will list the private sector professionals to be used by the valuation office of the Inland Revenue in the initial banding of properties for the council tax, as referred to in paragraph 2.29 of the Government's consultation paper.

  Mr. Lang
  Consultations are continuing on the arrangements for valuing properties for the council tax and final decisions have still to be taken.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate for the proportion of householders who will appeal against the band they are assigned to during the initial valuation process for the Government's council tax.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to forecast the number of appeals which might be made as a result of the initial valuation process for the council tax. A banding system should lead to fewer appeals than any system, such as rates, which is based upon individual valuations, and will reduce the need for revaluations.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how local authorities will reassess liability for the council tax if someone moves into or out of a property during the course of the year.

  Mr. Lang
  While the Government see some attractions in an annual basis of liability, except in clearly defined circumstances such as the death of someone in the household, a final decision will be taken in light of consultation.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland will pay the council tax; and how many people in Scotland paid rates in the last year when they were levied.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of domestic properties which were potentially subject to rates in 1988–89 was 2·1 million. This figure includes, however, empty properties and other properties in respect of which no rates were payable. Under the council tax, the householder will be responsible for paying a single bill for each household and the number of people directly liable to pay the tax will, therefore, be equivalent to the number of households that there are when the tax is introduced, less adjustments for households for which no tax is payable. The personal element of the tax will ensure that about 90 per cent. of adults in Scotland will be taken into account by the new tax.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whethev there will be additional funding from central 540
  Government to fund the relief scheme referred to in paragraph 8.2 of the Government's consultation paper on the council tax.

  Mr. Lang
  This matter will be decided at a later date.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of domestic residences in each of the property value bands of the proposed council tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The table gives the estimates used for the calculation of illustrative council tax bills for Scotland.

  Property value band in relation to average capital value

  Upper properly value in band £

  Number of properties in Scotland (thousand)

  A. under 50 per cent.

  27,000

  428

  B. 50 to 65 per cent.

  35,000

  309

  C. 65 to 85 per cent.

  45,000

  426

  D. 85 to 110 percent.

  58,000

  310

  E. 110 to 150 per cent.

  80,000

  273

  F. 150 to 200 percent.

  106,000

  161

  G. over 200 per cent.

  over 106,000

  183

  Total all bands

  2,090

  Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the financial contribution made to each hospice in Strathclyde region in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Records of financial allocations to hospices by health boards are not held centrally.

  Dentists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were on the dental general practitioner capitation scheme within the Glasgow postal area from 1 October 1990 to 31 March 1991; and if he will give the number in each postal district within Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally. During the period 1 October 1990 to 31 March 1991, a total of 114,572 children in the Greater Glasgow health board area were registered with general dental practitioners under capitation arrangements.

  Testing (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the criteria for weighting compulsory tests against conflicting results of continuous assessment as they affect primary four and seven-year-old schoolchildren.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Guidance to teachers on this matter is given in the Scottish Office Education Department working paper No. 5 "The Framework for National Testing in 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Burglaries
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many burglaries there were in Paisley, North in each of the last three years; and what percentage those were of all reported crimes in the area.
  541
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Forestry Commission on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission has not spent any money on television or radio advertising. Its local offices have advertised open days and similar events in local newspapers, but information on the costs involved is not held centrally. The central expenditure by the commission on promotional material for each year from 1987 is given in the table, rounded to the nearest £10,000. Figures for previous years are no longer available.

  Year ended 31 March

  Expenditure £

  1987

  120,000

  1988

  160,000

  1989

  1310,000

  1990

  240,000

  1991

  220,000

  1992

  2260,000

  1 The expenditure in 1988–89 included promotional material produced in connection with the Forestry Commission's exhibit at the Glasgow Garden Festival.

  2 Budget.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Scottish Development Agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise, which succeeded the Scottish Development Agency on 1 April 1991, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions were held relevant to the production by his Department of a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry in 1989; and if he will place a copy of his proposed scheme in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government made no proposals for a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme in 1989.

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to introduce the care in the community programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]:I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 18 July 1990.
  542
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to pass the care in the community proposals into health board control.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: The Government's policy on responsibilities for community care remains as set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Museum of Flight
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to make it possible for one of the last Shackletons to become an exhibit at the National Museum of Scotland's museum of flight at East Fortune.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: It is for the board of trustees of the national museums of Scotland to decide on acquisitions for the museums within the terms of their own collection policies.

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures for 1990 showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in Scotland 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. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The information is as follows.

  Births

  Per cent.

  (a) Spontaneous delivery

  72·6

  (b) Instrumental delivery

  12·7

  (c) Caesarean section

  14·6

  (d) Other and unspecified delivery

  00·1

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The information is as follows.

  Births

  Per cent.

  (a) Induced labour

  21·0

  (b) Spontaneous onset of labour

  73·7

  (c) Elective Caesarean section

  05·3

  Pregnancy Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures for 1990 of the number of clinics in Scotland offering (i) IVF, GIFT and other procedures and (ii) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVF.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 22 October 1990.
  543
  The 1991 annual report of the interim licensing authority, to be published later this year, is expected to contain the latest available information about clinics offering these procedures.

  Dounreay
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the possible sites at which Nirex proposes to drill holes or use explosive charges for a seismic survey of Dounreay as part of the proposed preliminary trial;

  (2) what information he has on the total estimated cost of drilling 200 to 240 boreholes as envisaged by Nirex as part of the preliminary trial at Dounreay; what is the estimated cost incurred in carrying out a single borehole; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The technical and commercial details of the seismic survey are operational matters for the chairman of UK Nirex Ltd. and I have arranged for him to write to the hon. Lady with the information requested. I will also arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation he intends to hold concerning any decision to extend the number of boreholes after the preliminary trial in which Nirex proposes to drill 200 to 240 boreholes and use explosive charges for seismic survey of Dounreay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: None. UK Nirex Ltd. has planning permission to drill up to 6,000 shot-holes as part of its seismic survey. The eventual number and location of shot-holes are now for Nirex, subject to compliance with the conditions attached to my right hon. Friend's decision. These conditions require Nirex to consult the planning authority and the local authority environmental health department and to notify all occupiers of land within the survey area of the position of boreholes where explosives are to be used.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the comparative costings of Dounreay and Sellafield for the siting of an underground nuclear waste repository; if he will set out the reasons for upholding the Nirex appeal against Highland regional council's planning refusal for further test boring at Dounreay; and if he will now indicate the likely time scale involved for such test boring and an eventual decision on the siting of any proposed nuclear waste repository; and if he will make a statement.
  544
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: UK Nirex Ltd. estimates that the comparative costs at current prices are:

  £ billion

  Site

  Repository costs

  Transport costs1

  Dounreay

  2·4

  1·9

  Sellafield

  2·5

  0·75

  1 These figures include new transport infrastructure costs.

  The reasons for my right hon. Friend's decision to uphold the Nirex appeal are set out in his decision letter of 29 April, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  I understand from Nirex that the seismic tests will be carried out over the next 4 to 6 months. It hopes to be in a position at the end of 1991 to identify a preferred site, which will then be subject to more detailed investigations.

  Any resultant proposal to build a deep repository will be subject to a full public inquiry.

  Community Care, Fife
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from Fife health board on its discussions with Fife regional council on the appropriate financial arrangements for the development of community care in Fife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: I have asked health boards and local authority social work departments to submit planning agreements to me by 1 July 1991. These statements will indicate what agreements health boards and local authorities have reached on their respective responsibilities for obtaining community care; and what financial resources each will provide towards obtaining such care.

  Mentally Handicapped People (Health Services)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the policy adopted by his Department to ensure that funds released by the closure or contraction of hospitals for the mentally handicapped are wholly and speedily devoted to alternative forms of care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: On 7 March I announced a bridging finance scheme which is designed to do just that. The scheme makes £15 million available to health boards to meet the increased costs of maintaining hospital services while community support services are being developed.

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.

Broadleaved Woodlands: Management
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will supplement their policy of encouraging the planting of more broadleaved trees with measures to ensure proper management of such planting and hence the market value of the mature product.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in his statement in another place on 23rd July 1990, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced that woodland management grants are to be introduced from 1st April 1992 under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme. The new grants will encourage the proper management of broadleaved woodlands, which will have the effect of increasing the value of the timber eventually produced.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the enormous amount of neglected hardwoods in the country, is he confident that these grants will adequately encourage proper management and vermin control throughout the whole period of the growing of the hardwoods?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government recognise that neglected woodlands require sustained and systematic management. The management grants are intended to encourage private owners to bring neglected woodlands into a healthy and productive state. The management grants will be available at £10 per hectare per annum for conifers and £25 per hectare per annum for broadleaves under the standard grant and £35 per hectare per annum for all species under the special management grant. In addition there is a supplementary grant of £5 to £10 per hectare per annum for woodlands of less than 10 hectares, which will cover most neglected woodlands. This means that a total of up to £45 per hectare per annum could be available for the management of small neglected woodlands.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that lack of an adequate management grant was largely responsible for new planting falling short—by around 20,000 hectares—of the Government's target last year?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we cannot take a short-term view of forestry. Over the past 10 years we have seen a quarter of a million hectares of new planting in Great Britain. In relation to our land area, we have probably done more than almost any other country in the world to build up our
1082
forestry. It is certainly true that there has been a recent drop in planting; but this should not cause us to be pessimistic about future prospects for forestry. The pattern of planting is changing. There is more planting on better quality land and less in the hills. There are more community forests and there is more planting by farmers. We must allow time for planting to move strongly in these new directions.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the management of trees after planting is much more important than the planting? We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for raising the matter. The Forestry Commission has produced two very good advisory pamphlets. I should like to think that the Government will do something to make public the importance of the management of trees. If they do not, all we shall get in 120 years' time is firewood instead of first-class wood for use.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government, in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, are doing everything that is possible. Neglected woodlands require sustained and systematic management. The management grants will contribute to that end. I hope that many neglected woodlands will be put back into good heart.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would not the greater use of our native hardwoods reduce the demand for imported tropical hardwoods, the cutting down of which so badly affects the environment?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. There was an important benefit to the balance of payments of some £700 million in 1989. The timber processing industry employs around 10,000 people. That figure will rise by perhaps 50 per cent. in 10 years and will double in the early years of the next century.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, am I right to deduce from the noble Earl's answers that at long last we are to get away from the Forestry Commission's former policy of single species even age planting followed by clear felling which did so much environmental damage in so many upland parts of Britain?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: Yes, my Lords, so far as I understand it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be glad that the Minister has indicated a change of thinking by the part of the Government in regard to encouraging broadleaves. It has been stated that our deficit in hardwoods is very high—£2.2 billion last year. How much Forestry Commission land has been sold to date? Can he say what proportion of that land will be given over to hardwoods rather than to the production of wood for immediate consumption?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have the figures that the noble Lord asks for; I shall write to him.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cricket bat willow is classed as a

1083
hardwood? Is it not correct then that it should attract some form of grant? At the moment, that species does not.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have the answer to my noble friend's question. I shall certainly write to him. I assume that it would come under the woodland management grant scheme.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that non-British trees such as sycamore and beech will qualify for the grant at the broadleaved rate?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I understand it, sycamore and beech will come under the scheme, but, as I said in my previous reply to my noble friend Lord Radnor, I shall confirm that in writing to my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, who is responsible for the management of the woodlands that are being planted, I am glad to say, along so many motorways? Is it the Department of Transport? If so, will it take advice as to how the woodlands should be managed? The number of trees involved is important in some areas.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to community forests.
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Earl. I am talking about planting along the verges of motorways—not the adjoining land—which is now considerable.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I understand it, that planting does not come under the Forestry Commission. Again, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Lord Burton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is almost no market for hardwoods in Scotland, especially the north of Scotland, and that therefore the management grant will be even more important in the north if the Government want to encourage the growing of hardwoods?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I can take up the question asked by my noble friend Lady Nicol. She did not claim that the trees planted along the motorways were under the control of the Forestry Commission. She asked whether they were under the control of the Department of Transport and, if so, who was responsible for their management, and whether the Department of Transport, if it were the relevant authority, would take advice. Will the Minister answer the question?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall be completely honest. I do not know the answer
1084
to that question. I suspect that the trees do come under the Department of Transport, but I shall have to write on the matter.

Northern Ireland: Parcel Deliveries to Troops
2.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of arrangements made for troops in the Gulf, they will introduce an airmail parcel service for troops in Northern Ireland delivered at surface mail rates.
Lord Reay: My Lords, parcel deliveries for troops serving in Northern Ireland employ the normal civilian Royal Mail Parcelforce service. That provides a single service within the United Kingdom, including movement to and from Northern Ireland by sea container. There are no plans to introduce special delivery arrangements for servicemen in Northern Ireland.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear but disappointing Answer. Is he aware that, according to the British Forces Post Office, it often takes 14 days for parcels to be delivered to it? It then has to deliver them to the troops in Northern Ireland. Thus the delivery time can often be as much as 21 days. Does he agree that the soldiers in Northern Ireland have an isolated, dangerous and often demoralising task to perform and that we should provide them with every support possible? Does he also agree that the special efforts made in the more dramatic and visible circumstances of the Gulf should be made for the young soldiers serving in Northern Ireland?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the importance of maintaining an efficient postal system. Every effort is made to ensure that mail is delivered as quickly as possible. On average, parcels take some seven to ten days to be delivered to Northern Ireland, because all forces mail to a BFPO address is passed by the Royal Mail through the MoD postal depot in London. There the mail is sorted to every BFPO location around the world, including Northern Ireland. It is then included with the civil post parcel dispatches to Northern Ireland arranged by the Royal Mail Parcel Post. Once it arrives in Northern Ireland, it then re-enters the BFPO delivery system for the individual. We recognise that that is a roundabout route which causes delay, but we believe that it is essential for the additional security it achieves for our forces.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept that the Government are concerned, but why cannot something be done about the delay if it is 21 days? That seems unreasonable.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, the average is some seven to ten days because of the need for security and to give protection to our forces.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what would be the cost of a BFPO economy parcel service to Northern Ireland along the lines of the one that operated in the Gulf? What would be the improvement in speed given the necessary security requirements?
Lord Reay: My Lords, parcels were delivered to our forces in the Gulf by air during the conflict because the RAF was operating daily flights and accepting parcels on a fill-up basis; that is to say, when and to the extent that space permitted. There are no regular military flights to Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom which could transport parcels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, do the Government envisage a civil arrangement given the security problems? What would be the cost?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no figures to show what would be the cost of that service. The volume, which is some 60,000 kg a year, has not in the past been found sufficient to warrant setting up a special parcel delivery service.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best way to improve a service is to sack the person responsible for its unsatisfactory condition?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Earl has in mind. I have twice explained why the service unfortunately takes as long as it does.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how long it takes to carry out the security measures on this small amount of mail? It seems extraordinary that it should take on average from seven to ten days.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is because the mail has first to be transported to the MoD postal depot in this country. Then it has to join the civil parcel postal service to Northern Ireland and re-enter the military system in order to be delivered at the other end. That is why the delay occurs.
Lord On-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend explain in a little more detail how civilian baggage—not hand baggage but heavy baggage—can be examined quite quickly for all civilians travelling in and out of Northern Ireland, yet, when it concerns soldiers, the mail takes an extra seven days?
Lord Reay: Civilian parcels sent on the ordinary service do not have to enter the military system at either end. That is the reason for the difference in the time talc en. I have no further details to give, but I shall be happy to look into the matter if that is the wish of noble Lords.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, if the Government are unwilling to grapple with the problem, will they consider introducing, as they did for the Gulf, a special Christmas parcel service? Then at least at Christmas-time the soldiers serving in Northern Ireland will be able to receive their presents on time
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend.

The Recession: IMF Warnings
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they plan to respond to the IMF's warnings about the depth of the recession.
The Minster of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government will continue to pursue policies designed to establish the basis for a resumption of non-inflationary growth. Inflation is now falling and there are encouraging signs that activity will recover from around the middle of the year, as forecast in the Budget.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the research of the IMF seems to indicate that Britain has the lowest output of the seven leading nations? Because of that, unemployment is likely to increase according to the IMF. Therefore we could be in a serious situation. Ought not the Government to study the IMF report? Contributions to it were made by leading groups of economists in the country. Perhaps the Government should form a committee to examine how we are to get out of this extremely difficult situation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the figure quoted by the IMF is the same as that quoted in the Budget by the Government.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how we shall recognise when we have turned the corner to which the Chancellor referred?
Lord Hesketh: When GDP rises, my Lords.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Government have any views on the trend of inflation next year? They should bear in mind that in yesterday's press widely reported views of a number of experts were that inflation may start rising again next year after having fallen this year.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the Government and the whole country are more interested in anticipating falls than considering that there may be rises.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister explain what "non-inflationary growth" means?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, non-inflationary growth is the growth achieved without an excessive increase in inflation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that he is being unduly optimistic and perhaps even complacent? Did he read the report yesterday or did he receive the news in his post yesterday from building employers that the building trade was going through not a recession but a slump? It was stated that there would be a 100,000 fewer jobs in the industry by the end of the year. Did he hear the news today that Rolls-Royce is to lay off

1087
8,000 people rather than 4,000? Did he read the news over the weekend that 40,000 small businesses will collapse this year? Unemployment will be 2½million by the end of this year and 3 million by the end of next year. Under those circumstances, does not the noble Lord think that the Government are being complacent and therefore not taking the right action to get out of the recession?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks I am amazed that I am even considering staying in the country. I draw his attention to the surveys which he did not mention: the ABCC survey, the CBI publication on quarterly trends, the IOD survey of only yesterday and the 12 per cent. increase in the first quarter in private housing orders. Also he did not mention that after the fall in GDP, real GDP growth will be 22 per cent. higher than it was a decade ago. Neither did he mention that the real net income of a married man with two children is 37 per cent. higher than it was.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that reply was enormously interesting although I have no idea what connection it had with the question. But that is by the way. I congratulate the noble Lord. His answer to my noble friend Lady Phillips on what was non-inflationary growth, bearing in mind that it is the university examination season, would get him at least an A-minus. However, it is customary to write more than one sentence.
Were the newspapers right in reporting the IMF statement that the way to deal with our recession and the unemployment problem is to cut unemployment benefit? Did the noble Lord read that as I did? Have the Government any view as to whether the way out of the problem is to cut unemployment benefit? For example, is it the Government's view that the unemployed are responsible for their own unemployment?
Lord Hesketh: My. Lords, the only Government that I am aware of in this country who have taken directions from the IMF are the Government who preceded this one.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am right, then, that this Government have no intention of following the advice of the IMF on this matter. I should like the noble Lord to confirm that that is the case. I shall put it differently. Am I right in assuming that the Government will not follow the advice of the IMF on this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to repeat my previous answer. The only Government of whom I am aware who have taken direction from the IMF are the preceding Labour Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, there must be a yes or no from the Government to the question, will they accept the IMF advice. It is as simple as that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have given the answer twice. I believe that it was a perfectly adequate answer which reports the facts.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to take the matter seriously? What the IMF said has been supported by the Institute of Directors. Is it to be dismissed? The CBI and Mr. John Banham recently described the situation in this country of our economy going from bad to worse. The chambers of commerce expressed their alarm at the plunge in exports and the engineering employers say that the decline will continue for some time and as a consequence there will be considerable unemployment. The IMF, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, all these people have considerable knowledge. Could the Government at least consult them and be prepared to accept that there is a dangerous situation for our nation? We ought to get together to see whether we can ward off the disaster into which this Tory Government are leading us.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is being slightly selective. I draw his attention to the survey by the chambers of commerce of 24th April, the CBI information on quarterly trends of 30th April and the remarks of the Institute of Directors yesterday. They all said something rather different from what he suggested.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend think that questions in your Lordships' House are becoming rather long-winded?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it would be considered most inappropriate for a single Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and give an answer to that question.

South Africa: Sanctions
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their present policy towards sanctions against South Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our policy has not altered since my noble friend Lord Reay answered the Unstarred Question in the noble Lord's name on this subject on 18th February this year. The arms embargo and associated military sanctions should remain in force until South Africa adopts a democratic and non-racial constitution. All other sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible to encourage further reforms by President de Klerk and to help restore growth to the South African economy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the British Government have been urging the governments of the EC to remove the remaining sanctions imposed on South Africa? Is the Minister aware that just this morning I was informed from Cape Town that 260 political prisoners are on hunger strike because the South African Government have failed to carry out their promise in the Pretoria Minute of last year to release all political prisoners by

1089
30th April? In those circumstances do the Government still consider that this is the right time to remove more economic sanctions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted that action was taken by the European Community which decided in principle to lift the bans on the import of iron, steel and gold coins on 15th April. Over 900 political prisoners have been released in the past 12 months and more than 1,000 political exiles have returned home. As regards the noble Lord's final point, he is out of touch with everybody. Mr. Mandela said on 31st January that the process of political transformation would not inspire hope in black people unless something was done to improve their quality of life. The removal of sanctions would improve their quality of life.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the escalating violence in South Africa is ominous and depressing because it prejudices the possibility of a settlement which would lead immediately to the lifting of sanctions? In view of the recent visits to this country of Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk when they discussed the position with Ministers, will the noble Earl say what views the Government conveyed to them and what steps the Government believe should be taken in order to bring to an end this unhappy violence, which is causing concern not only in this country but throughout the world?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition refers to the important matter of violence. We deplore violence from whatever source it may come. We understand that over 600 people have died this year in the violence. That represents a tragic and unnecessary loss of human potential. I understand that the number of deaths is about the same as the figure for the same period last year. However, the anxiety associated with the violence is undoubtedly growing among a number of people in South Africa. That is why we continue to encourage negotiation. We were pleased that President de Klerk and Dr. Buthelezi met yesterday. We look forward to hearing the results of the discussions that are to take place this afternoon between President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. We note that the joint statement drawn up between President de Klerk and Dr. Buthelezi was a constructive one and that Dr. Buthelezi will be attending the conference called by President de Klerk on 24th and 25th May to discuss the violence.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the discussions which British officials have had with interested parties in South Africa, will my noble friend say why the British have consistently refused to include in discussions Mr. Mangope of Bophuthatswana, a totally independent, multiracial and democratic state? Three elections took place in that state in 1977. Are the British taking this stance because they recognise that country to be independent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to my noble friend's question. It is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government acknowledge the start that has been made to dismantling the evil of apartheid by keeping in close touch with Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela and giving both all the encouragement and help they can?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to respond to the noble Lord with a complete assurance that we are in contact with all the leaders in South Africa and that we are encouraging further discussion to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is estimated that more than 40 per cent. of the economically active blacks of South Africa are currently unemployed and that over 1,000 job seekers come on to the market every day? Surely economic growth is vital for South Africa today. Is it not the case that on his recent visit President de Klerk agreed that in three years' time there will be a black government in South Africa? Surely Her Majesty's Government should be congratulated on their brave moves in easing sanctions. Can the Minister give any indication of the easing of human sanctions, particularly as regards the Gleneagles Agreement, so enabling sporting relations with other countries to be normalised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to stress the necessity for removing economic sanctions: it is only through that means that one will be able to improve the South African economy. That will be to the benefit of everyone in South Africa. As regards sporting sanctions, we welcome the announcement made on 21st April regarding the integration of the cricket bodies in South Africa. We look forward to hearing further announcements regarding the integration of other sporting bodies, and we hope for an announcement that would lead to South Africa's full participation in world sport.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the number of political prisoners who have been released. Can he give the House any idea of the number of political prisoners who are still detained?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness with that information.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, is there any evidence that the ANC is re-arming?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. We have no evidence to that effect. If we had such evidence, we would deplore it as it would run counter to the ANC's undertaking as part of the Pretoria Minute of 6th August that it has suspended its armed struggle.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl is being either naive or misleading the House when he talks about the release of political prisoners. Is he not

1091
aware that the Pretoria Minute states specifically that all political prisoners will be released by 30th April? That is not the situation, and some of those prisoners are now on hunger strike. Mr. Mandela called specifically for the maintenance of sanctions—he has always done so—until there had been irreversible progress towards achieving a democratic society in South Africa. How can there be irreversible progress towards a democratic South Africa when only the whites have the vote, when the whole executive and parliamentary system is in the hands of the whites and when the land division remains at 87 per cent. for the one-fifth of the population that is composed of white people, while 13 per cent. is allocated for the three-quarters—

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I must interrupt the noble Lord as Question Time has lasted for more than 30 minutes. The noble Lord should have made his final question a good deal shorter.
After the short debate on improving relations with other member states of the European Community and before the short debate on engineering, my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on relief to cyclone victims in Bangladesh.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Howie of Troon. In the case of the first debate the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion. In the case of the second debate, apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the speech of the Minister who is to reply, speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I hope I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question. Is it not the case that 30 minutes for Question Time is a recommendation of the Procedure Committee and not a hard and fast rule? Is it really in the spirit of this House to interrupt a speaker when the 30 minutes is up and when the question he is asking is obviously going to be the final question? I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to express his views on whether this practice is to be the daily procedure of this House, or whether we shall continue to maintain a certain degree of give-and-take as we have done in the past.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I certainly do not wish to be in any way discourteous to
1092
the noble Lord. However, if the noble Lord had been a little quicker in putting his question it would have been possible for my noble friend to reply. It would also have been possible for the noble Lord who wished to speak from the Opposition Benches to put his question and for my noble friend to reply to it. However, knowing full well the wish of this House to adhere to the 30-minute maximum for Question Time, if inordinately long questions take us over the 30 minutes it is inevitable that we have to draw matters to a close.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not a specific answer to my question. Perhaps I may press the noble Lord a stage further. I have asked him whether he is going to make it a hard and fast rule that as soon as 30 minutes have passed he will close down questions irrespective of whether they have been answered.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the decision of this House was that it was undesirable that Question Time should exceed half an hour. The time for Question Time was extended to half an hour because it was felt on all sides of the House that if we were more generous and allowed half an hour rather than 20 minutes there was no reason whatever why every single noble Lord should not have an opportunity to speak provided he put his question briefly.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when the 20-minute rule was in operation it was very frequently waived, allowing up to half an hour. That was done at the discretion of the Leader of the House. I am asking whether that does not still apply now that Question Time has been extended to 30 minutes.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it does not apply. One of the reasons for extending the time to 30 minutes was that the rule which laid down that it was desirable that Questions should last for only 20 minutes was more often honoured in the breach than in the observance. It was therefore thought far more sensible to extend the time to 30 minutes in the belief that every noble Lord would co-operate and we would adhere to the 30 minutes.

Adelphi Estate Bill
3.11 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday 9th May.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC: Relations between Member States
3.12 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the case for improving relations with other member states of the European Community, particularly Germany; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Motion primarily to draw attention to the need to improve our relations with Germany. The time could hardly be more propitious because the Prime Minister, greatly to his credit, has changed the climate by establishing a warm relationship with the German Chancellor.
It is very much in our interests to improve relations. Germany is now our biggest export market. In 1990 Germany overtook the United States as the best outlet for British goods. The situation in East Germany gives our exporters a unique opportunity. Our banks ought to give British industrialists favourable credit terms to enable them to exploit that opportunity. If we can get in on the ground floor there it will be to our advantage in the next century. Moreover, the banks are less likely to acquire bad debts than they are in South America or in third world countries. The Wirtschaftswunder east of the Elbe may prove to be less spectacular than that in West Germany in the 1950s, but let no one doubt that it will come.
Germany is our most important partner in defence. The 70,000 troops we deployed in Germany and in Berlin nay now be being reduced by half but troops are still likely to be deployed west of the Rhine. For too long this country has continued to believe that our role is to police the world—in Korea, east of Suez, in Belize and now in the Gulf. We spend billions updating weapons that grow ever more expensive and trillions on updating a useless nuclear deterrent—useless because under no circumstances that one can possibly foresee would it ever be used. We need Germany to help us turn NATO into an organisation which shares that defence burden. No other nation in the European Community would be willing to help us in that way.
Germany is the key to the development of the Community. Germany is beginning to see that the development of the EC is much more complicated than Monsieur Delors imagines. The mass unemployment and collapse of the East German economy after the establishment of the deutschmark on a parity with the East German mark has made the German Government, as well as the Bundesbank, think again about the speed at which the European Community can move towards a common currency. Surely the Prime Minister was right to say that whether or not it is sensible to use the same money we can surely all agree on the need for sound money. We do not want to crow over Germany's difficulties. On the contrary, we need to sit down with the Germans and examine the lessons to be learnt in establishing common economic institutions, the lessons which Germany is now learning in its relations with what used to be East Germany.
There is something else that we can learn from Germany. Germany has the best industrial relations in Europe; we have the worst. That problem will not go away. Lord Bullock's report could not have appeared at a worse time—the late 1970s—when militant and irresponsible trade unionism was rampant. Its recommendations could not have been implemented then. But the German model of one industry, one union, 17 unions in all, with a collective bargaining system developed and set in law, which makes prolonged disharmony illegal, mocks our crude confrontational policies. No doubt such corporatist solutions are out of date in the view of the Government today, but is it inconceivable that the leaders of the biggest trade unions in this country might confer with their colleagues in Germany and learn how the German system works?
If we move closer to Germany it will be important not to try to drive a wedge between Germany and France. We must recognise that owing to our contempt for the Continent for 25 years after the war Germany will for many years regard France as her premier ally. She will do so because the French, recognising their own self-interest, forged a genuine economic alliance with Germany. However, Germany is a federal republic and we may therefore be able to persuade the Germans that too tightly-knit a bureaucracy in Brussels is to nobody's advantage. Some latitude must be allowed for regional and national differences as there is in the Bundesrepublik. Our aim should be to convert the Franco-German tandem into a three-horse troika as the driving force in the Community.
There is another reason why relations with Germany need to be closer. We are closer to America than any of our European colleagues, so much so that they have often pictured Britain as outside the Community and looking in. Mrs. Thatcher when she was Prime Minister on several occasions spoke for the Community, for example over Star Wars. Her close rapport with President Reagan won some concessions to the Community view. However, she gave the impression of speaking on her own, whereas the present Prime Minister has won golden opinions in the Community by consulting with his European colleagues first. He did so in creating the safe havens for the Kurds. He has done so again in bringing Community pressure to bear on the United Nations to police northern Iraq.
Instead of British initiatives being regarded with suspicion, they are now regarded as European initiatives. We saw that the other day when the Community declined to follow the lead of the President of the United States in lowering interest rates. I do not think that anyone should doubt the need for Britain! and the Community to keep the Atlantic alliance in being, and we are best placed to attack the most virulent forms of anti-Americanism on the Continent and to proclaim the benefits of NATO. But, by working in concert with his colleagues, the Prime Minister can eradicate the image of Britain acting on its own outside the Community, always at odds with our partners.
What is it that impedes better relations? There are many in my generation, and perhaps especially in this House, who find great difficulty in believing that Germany has changed its character. They are still haunted by the spectre of the power that provoked five wars between 1864 and 1939. None of us can forget the Holocaust of 45 years ago and some people still want to punish Germany for it. We all of us, I hope, recall how well-meaning people between the wars, indignant at the folly of the Versailles settlement, wanted to revise it; how that policy of appeasement after Hitler took power was disastrously continued; and how Britain undermined French foreign policy and rotted the French will to resist. Those are the memories that very understandably alarm people. They certainly alarmed Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Ridley. Many people are determined, as they would say, not to be fooled again.
But in diplomacy, as in war, it never pays to fight the same battle over again. It is inconceivable that Germany or any other European power will start a war in Europe again. Of course there are isolated Germans who may talk of revising the Polish frontier or who smash Jewish gravestones, but I cannot think of a single reputable observer who does not agree that the sense of shame about the Holocaust and about the calamity of the Second World War permeates German society.
In fact, the Germans' distrust of themselves is so marked that Germany began by being almost neutral in the Gulf war. The leader of the Social Democrat Party said, "Don't those foreigners understand that you can't offer brandy chocolates to a former alcoholic who is on the waggon?" But very soon other voices began to be heard in Germany. The editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Herr Joachim Fest, criticised his countrymen for sitting in moral judgment upon the Western countries when those countries had guaranteed Germany the benefits of international order. The German Chancellor rallied his nation and Germany made a large monetary contribution to the allied forces, of which we received no less than £277 million.
Japan, notably, gave less. Germany made that contribution at a time when it was paying large sums of money to the Soviet Union to enable the Soviet Union to withdraw and rehouse its large army in East Germany. At the same time, Germany was giving large credits to East European countries to enable them to rebuild their shattered economies—all of that while Germany itself is faced with the desperately serious problem of mass unemployment and a derelict country in East Germany.
Nor is Germany backward in honouring obligations to Israel and in the third world. Everyone knows of the good work done by the young people of this country in VSO, but how many people know of the voluntary service that young Germans do in Africa, particularly in the leper colonies? No country in Europe, ourselves included, is in better standing with the international community.
What can we do to convince Germany of our good intentions? Let me suggest one move, though I suspect
1096
that it may find no warm welcome in the Foreign Office. Sooner or later the seats on the Security Council in the United Nations will come under scrutiny and Germany will have a prior claim among European countries to be given a seat. I can well imagine the Foreign Office's response: "Any change is quite impossible. We certainly could not cede our seat and, if Germany is admitted to the Security Council, why not Japan, Nigeria, Brazil, India and countless others who have good claims?".
Such a response would be negative and unimaginative. Not everyone may warm to Herr Genscher's manner, but should we not consider his overtures more carefully than we have at present? Those overtures suggest that we should consult our EC colleagues on all major issues in the Security Council, or, if that is too great a burden, we should consult at least Germany, so that we can reach agreement on any matter that comes to the Security Council. Britain would then speak for Germany and the other EC countries as well as herself; better still, if the seat which is now ours could rotate on a three-year cycle between the two countries. It is by a gesture such as that, which costs us virtually nothing and would earn us an enormous dividend, that we could improve relations with Germany.
In 1945 I became head of the German section of the political division in the Control Commission. I tried to supervise and encourage the rebirth of political parties. It was then that I met Dr. Adenauer and Herr Schumacher. I well remember the situation that arose when the British military government sacked Adenauer as the mayor of Cologne and put him under house arrest. I was sent to release him and to explain to him a little later that the ban had been lifted and that we wished him well. I am not at all sure that I convinced him, but there was no doubt in my mind what he was and where his heart lay.
I remember Adenauer asking me what I thought was the greatest mistake that this country had ever made in its relations with Germany. I hesitated and suggested that perhaps, discretion being the better part of valour, he might answer that question himself. "I shall tell you", he said. "It was in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna when you so foolishly put Prussia on the Rhine to protect you against future French aggression". That was characteristic of the man who was not merely a German but a European and always had the interests of Europe as a whole at heart, even though he was perhaps not much of a friend to this country. He was a scion of the great humanistic culture of the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement and his heart lay not just in Germany but in Europe.
That was characteristic of the new Germany that came to birth, but it is not from sentimental or nostalgic reasons that I argue for closer relations with Germany today. It is for reasons of the deepest self-interest—the only reputable motive in foreign policy. We missed the European bus in the 1950s and in the 1960s the conductor, President de Gaulle, stopped us getting on it. We have never recovered from that false start and it looked until very recently

1097
that we would have to take a seat in the rear of the bus. But now we have a chance to drive it. I ask the Government what they are doing to bring that about.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, I find it necessary immediately to say how happy I am to participate in this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He has made penetrating submissions and not wasted time. He raised many questions that can help us. Nevertheless we should be under no illusion that the pressures of the moment in either Germany or the Soviet Union will alter the consequences of unification. They will not. In our relationship with Germany we should be friends but not fools. We should be competitors and co-venturers. It is preposterous in any case to imagine that we can halt the Germans.
But we can exercise power through influence. Avenues are available. First, our voice in the Community should be used to tie Germany ever more fully into Community approaches. We should avoid isolating the Germans. Secondly, we should recognise our joint interest with France and urge the French to do the same. The best bargaining approach to Germany is a common one from France and Britain. France is likely to be more receptive than usual. The efforts made by the French in the 1980s to build an exclusive relationship with Germany by a series of bilateral arrangements were largely undermined by the events of 1990. The French are still smarting. Unfortunately the British Government appear to wish to do exactly the wrong thing and tread the same path as the French in the 1980s by applying to become Germany's most favoured friend. That is in return for vague promises. Frankly, neither France nor Britain alone can rely on their individual strengths to an extent which would allow them to veto any German single-mindedness. Acting together, the same is not true.
The aim must be that in return for co-operation with Germany, either at Community or other levels, we should expect a more substantial invitation to share i n the profits of expansion and indeed those available in the domestic German economy. What do I mean by co-operation? Let me give one practical example. We currently pay lip service to the American line on something which they call dual purpose technology transfer—I repeat, dual purpose technology transfer. That appears to mean that, when the Americans designate a particular form of new technology as having a purpose which although designed for civilian use may also have military application, the export of that technology is restricted or prevented. I am afraid that that is a smokescreen for American self-interest.
We should oppose those restrictions for two reasons: first, the restrictions harm our own exporters; secondly, to further a strategic purpose. The Germans at best are lukewarm to the regime imposed by the Americans. Our opposition to the restrictions would be viewed as something in the nature of a concession to Germany—a concession inviting a reward. That
1098
does not mean that we should not be vigilant about non-civilian use of technology but our vigilance could more profitably shift from prevention to verification. We can insist on proof of civilian use just as we now insist on the verification process in disarmament negotiations.
Ultimately, the only way that we can guarantee our profitable participation in the expansion eastwards is to influence the Germans as economic equals. While diplomatic accord with the French is one way forward, it is no excuse for inaction in strengthening and expanding our own industrial, financial and economic base. If the Government need to lead by intervention, so be it. I have spoken on these matters in other contexts. Suffice it to say that the present government have offered rhetoric rather than ability in this task. It is time that they went.
I conclude by saying that Germany's obvious eminence has required constructive co-operation on our part. We should be friendly but the friendship should begin and end with self-interest. Our interest is self-interest.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Annan for giving us the chance to debate this interesting and topical Motion. The Motion speaks of the case for improving relations with other member states. I took that to mean our informal relations rather than formal ones, but no matter. The wording rather assumes that it is a matter of 11 against one—or one against 11 if that is preferred—which, I suggest in all deference to my noble friend, is a misreading of the situation.
We are of course Europeans and always have been, just as the Swiss, Swedes, Poles and other non-members of the EC are and always have been Europeans. But we are not and never can be Continentals. Our geography has formed our history and our history has formed our culture, thought processes and loyalties. The French, among others, will never cease to resent the fact of the special relationship (which still exists, though it may have diminished) between Britain and the United States or the fact that, by and large, we feel closer to the Australians and the New Zealanders than we do to them. Frankly, that is just too bad. It is something that the French, among whom I number many friends, will simply have to put up with.
Leaving aside our island status, it is a great mistake to suppose that there exists an identity of ambition together with a striving for even greater homogeneity among the Continental member states. To date, the Latin countries have acquiesced in almost every directive spewed out by the Commission, for unsentimental but perfectly respectable considerations of commercial advantage and, above all, the consideration of ever rising standards of living. Those directives which they do not like they quietly ignore. The Germans have acquiesced in order to attain total respectability. The Belgians have done so as a means of subsuming their communal tensions—it is not too strong to refer to them as communal hatreds—within a greater whole.

1099
However, this acquiescence will not last for ever. Before long the people of those countries will become restive about the constant stream of interference and standardising of laws and regulations. I do not talk today about the common currency, the Uruguay round or those regulations which are absolutely necessary to achieve the famous level playing field in 21 months' time—vitally important though all those matters are. I refer to the petty interferences and efforts at standardisation and harmonisation which are not genuinely vital for a free movement of goods and services. My recipe for good relations between the peoples of the Community is to stop paying mere lip service to the idea of maximum national diversity within the European Community and to adopt a positive policy of live and let live.
It was, after all, that great German who has now become a naturalised Englishman and a great European in the true sense, as well as in the more restricted sense used by Euro-enthusiasts, who over 16 years ago publicly deplored what he described as "obsessive harmonization" which he predicted would stir up resentment and ill will between the peoples of the EC. I speak of course of Professor Ralf Dahrendorf. I make no apology for referring to his wise words yet again in your Lordships' House.
How extraordinary it was yesterday to hear calls from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, for common European speed limits. There are no common speed limits in the United States, Australia or Canada. One can only suppose that those people who call for such limits want the ancient nation states of Europe to have less freedom of independent action than the states of America and Australia or the provinces of Canada.
What business have people of one country to regulate the drinking water of people in another country hundreds of miles away? For example, what right have the Greeks to dictate to us the composition of our custard tarts and the temperature at which they should be stored? In fairness to the average Greek, he has not the slightest interest in the composition or storage temperature of our custard tarts, any more than the average Briton cares about the composition of the taramasalata eaten solely within Greece. Nevertheless, it must appear to the average person that he has been interfered with by individuals of other countries rather than by impersonal bureaucrats. That inevitably stirs up resentment against other nations.
I always enjoy the articles of Carole Tongue, Labour MEP, although I frequently disagree with them. However, even she—an enthusiast for greater European integration—wrote in the House Magazine of 6th May of the necessity,
"of ensuring that harmonisation respects national differences and concerns. This is very important politically. If the European Community does not show great sensitivity and flexibility on this issue, it could lose the support of many European citizens"—
to which one can only say, "Hear, hear".
However, we must beware the snare and delusion of remedying what is an undoubted democratic deficit by conferring more power upon the European Parliament. Apart from the fact that the composition
1100
of that parliament unfairly favours some countries at the expense of others, few people who stand for public office nowadays anywhere in the world believe in allowing the citizen to do his own thing. Quite sincerely, they believe that the gentleman in the legislature knows best.
One has only to look at the ratio of restrictive laws and regulations to permissive laws and regulations produced by this Parliament over the past 12 years—the ratio must be about 100:1—to understand the point that I make. It would be no more acceptable for bullfighting to be banned in Spain as a result of Belgian and British MEPs conspiring together, for shooting seasons or liquor licensing laws to be drastically altered in Portugal as a result of a casting vote of a German MEP or for 14 year-olds in Italy to be forbidden to ride mopeds as a result of a deal between Danish and Dutch MEPs than it would be if those activities were banned outright by the Commission.
I deplore the TGV line being driven from Valence to Aix-en-Provence and on to Nice across one of the most beautiful regions of Provence. But essentially it is none of my business; it is the business of the French themselves. Similarly a Frenchman may deplore the M.3 extension being driven across the chalk downs to the east of Winchester. But I am sure that the average Frenchman too realises that it is essentially none of his business; it is the business of the British alone.
The only solution is this. When the Treaty of Rome is renegotiated, as it surely will be soon, it must ensure that every country's right to be the sole regulator of its strictly internal affairs is spelt out in black and white.
Perhaps I may now refer to Germany. Unlike my noble friend Lord Annan who has been deeply involved at very high levels, I do not know the country well. My first visit was with a Cambridge friend in the spring of 1952. It was almost seven years after VE Day, at the start of a long zig-zag journey by rail to southern Yugoslavia, which was just starting to open its borders to the outside world. None of the devastation resulting from the Blitz and the VI and V2 attacks upon London had prepared us for what we saw in Germany. The centre of Mannheim, where we spent the first night, once a thriving industrial city, was totally flattened over an area of more than a square mile. Our hotel was a hole in the ground in the middle of that wasteland leading to an ingeniously converted air raid shelter—simple but adequate.
No one who saw the contrast between Germany then and the Germany of 15 or 20 years later can fail to respect the resourcefulness and hard work which made that transformation possible, aided though it may have been by a minimal defence burden. But it must be said that respect is not the same as trust or affection. It has always struck me as curious that, while some people who suffered badly under the Nazi occupation still dislike Germany and the Germans, others who suffered equally badly do not. Into the first category one can put the Dutch and the Czechs; into the second one can put the French, the Belgians and the Yugoslavs. Indeed the Yugoslavs were remarkably friendly with the Germans even in early 1952, perhaps

1101
because over 500 years they had become used to brutality and massacre and the Germans were merely par for the course.
Strangely, although Britain suffered less from the last war as a result of having fended off a Germany invasion, the British seem to ally themselves with the Dutch and the Czechs rather than the French and the Belgians—at least if one goes by children's comic strips and the tabloid newspapers. Mistrust of alleged latent Germany militarism can permeate even the higher reaches of government, as we saw in the latter part of 1990.
Yet intelligent British travellers to Germany in the 19th century, at least up until 1870, never considered the Germans to be inherently warlike or militarist, notwithstanding Frederick the Great, Marshal Blucher and a tradition of supplying mercenaries to all and sundry. Nor as a matter of fact did they appear particularly interested in physical fitness. "Strength through joy" was an unknown concept at that time. According to those observant travellers, the Germans much preferred sitting comfortably listening to opera or chamber music, munching innumerable cream cakes in the intervals. Their energies were concentrated on commercial success, possibly as a result of not having an overseas empire from which they could derive heap raw materials and to which they could sell their manufactured products without any great exertions.
One particularly perceptive English traveller reported a sea voyage that he took to Panama at about the turn of the century. On the ship there were 12 commercial travelers—10 German and two English. The Germans had taken the trouble to learn not only correct Spanish but also various South American Spanish dialects and one or two Indian languages. When confronted with a foreigner, the British commercial travellers merely shouted loudly in English. One can imagine who secured the orders. Alas, how little things appear to have changed.
We are right to oppose the CAP. It is unusual that a socially conscious country such as Germany should back a policy which impoverishes many people for the benefit Of many already well-to-do part-time Bavarian farmers. We are also right to worry about German commercial competition. However, we are probably wrong to worry about German military ambitions. Either Germany's present-day pacifism is a front to disguise such ambitions or the 75 years from 1870 were a n aberration and the Germans have now reverted to type. We should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that if we had not had to pay for the defence of Germany we too could have rebuilt our cities much faster?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I mentioned the fact that the Germans have not had to contribute a great deal towards their defence. The noble Baroness will see that tomorrow in Hansard.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has a happy knack of promoting debates which are both timely and controversial. His recent debate on education was a good example. Today's debate is equally timely given the critical stage that we are approaching this year in our relations with our Community partners. Nobody will contest that there is a strong case to which priority should be given for improving our relations with our partners, in particular Germany, given its past history and present dominance. It is only common sense to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is an expert on Germany. We should be well advised to heed what he says, although I do not agree with some of his proposals.
I turn to the suggestion of reforming the composition of the Security Council. I wish to remind your Lordships of a conversation between the late Lord Stewart of Fulham and President Gromyko that I overheard some years ago. Lord Stewart suggested similar reforms to which Gromyko responded in a weary fashion, "If you knew how difficult it was to get agreement on the present arrangements you would not start suggesting modifications". That is the right attitude to take at the moment. The time for reforming the United Nations is when the results of the Gulf war have produced in the organisation a more effective and strong-minded group.
We should seek to improve our relations not only with the European Community but with as many countries as possible. We should not forget old and tried political and commercial friends. Last year your Lordships had a short debate on the future of the Commonwealth. There was general agreement that our historic links should be maintained, although in most cases Europe would be given priority.
I wish to comment on our relations with the Community. There are long-standing difficulties with Spain and the Republic of Ireland about Gibraltar and Ulster respectively. They are well known and no immediate solutions can confidently be foreseen. However, the news in today's newspapers suggests that movement may be made in both directions. We must therefore have patience and recognise that such difficulties will colour the attitude of Spain, Ireland and this country in respect of the Community.
Secondly, I wish to emphasise that our relations with the Community, concentrated in the two inter-governmental conferences now in the process of negotiation, are reaching a critical stage. It was originally agreed that the negotiations should be confidential. Needless to say, there have been copious leaks. With some success the Prime Minister has set the tone for our participation, and clearly the atmosphere has improved. One hopes that it will not be spoilt by Ministers and ex-Ministers taking insufficient care over comments about our Community partners, in which case the press will no doubt react.
There are well-defined obstacles ahead in the inter-governmental negotiations. I need not remind your Lordships of them. It would be wrong at this time to press our Ministers for a detailed report and to

1103
attempt to extract from them statements that would make the task of our negotiators more difficult. However, we should be deceiving ourselves if we believed that the Prime Minister's statements have solved the problems ahead. Nor do we have a clear idea of how the Opposition plans to deal with the problems that will arise.
Among the Europeans, ambitious individuals and countries are advocating positions that are clearly unwelcome and disadvantageous to us. Particularly dangerous to our interests would be an attempt to steamroller the next council in June before the two conferences have explored the necessary compromises. We should resist any attempt to do so. Good relations between the members cannot be achieved if attempts are made to impose one-sided concessions.
One of the welcome aspects of the intergovernmental conferences is that decisions are being sought by representatives of sovereign states answerable to national parliaments. The Commission and the European Parliament are observers at the conferences and are not in the driving seat. Constant harking back to the intentions of the founding fathers is not the answer to the way ahead. The founding fathers played their part but today the world is very different. It is not now necessary for Members of this House to anticipate and to discuss the intergovernmental negotiations. We must wait until the obstacles to satisfactory agreement have been identified. Decisions can then be taken about whether we can agree to an amended treaty. That will not be easy; it must be acceptable to Parliament and to the country as a whole. It will dictate our future relations with the Community members.
In the meantime we must keep on good terms with our partners. We must also ensure that the United States is given a defence role which is to its own advantage and that of Europe. As regards their defence during the past 50 years, the members of the Community owe a debt to the United States and to this country.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed us is an acknowledged expert on international affairs, as is, in a rather different sense, the noble Lord who speaks next. He is speaking from the Labour Benches today. He may be independent but he has paid us the compliment of sitting on the Labour Benches. I do not claim to be an expert on international affairs but I have one or two qualifications which may persuade the House to allow me to speak on Anglo-German relations.
I was Minister for the British zone of Germany from 1947 to 1948. I was responsible for 26,000 members of the Control Commission. I believe that, by that time, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who spoke so brilliantly, may have returned to academic life, so I was never responsible for him. However, I was connected early on with Anglo-German affairs. I was
1104
the first chairman of the Anglo-German Association which was formed later. I have always been a strong, although somewhat taciturn, supporter of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, described meeting Dr. Adenauer. I shall describe another meeting in 1950. I got to know him quite well when I was Minister for Germany but in 1950, when I was Minister for Civil Aviation, I paid him a courtesy call. The Adenauer/Schuman plan for coal and steel, which was the forerunner of the European Community, was just coming forward at that time. Greatly overestimating my significance, Adenauer begged me to persuade the Prime Minister, Clem Attlee, and Ernest Bevin to join the plan. History would have been very different had I had the slightest influence. I tried to explain to Dr. Adenauer that he should not rely on me but he insisted on sending me back with that message. Of course, I got nowhere.
I have said before that I admire Lord Attlee more than any other British statesman this century. I have described him as an ethical giant. However, I must say that, if he had a weakness, it was his attitude towards Germany. Some time after 1950 when I was chairman of the Anglo-German Association I tried to persuade him to become a patron. He hated to cause pain to anyone towards whom he was well disposed. However, he finally brought himself to tell me that he had never cared for the Germans. In order to be fair he said, "Vi and I once had a German maid. We became very fond of her. But she was an exception". I am afraid that that was his attitude towards Germany.
Today we are facing a new phase in British policy towards Germany. The first phase was the Potsdam phase of combining with the so-called allies—United States, France and Soviet Union—to hold down Germany indefinitely. In those days Germany was thought of as a united Germany to be held down by the four powers. In 1947 I sat, as a timid acolyte, beside Mr. Bevin throughout the Council of Foreign Ministers, with Mr. Molotov a yard or two away. After a time the Council of Foreign Ministers was getting nowhere and General Marshall and M. Bidault decided that there was no point in continuing. Ernest Bevin had to go along with that but he was reluctant to give up the idea of a united Europe. However, in the end he accepted the position and, in my estimation, did more than any other man to bring about the Atlantic pact.
An Atlantic pact, with Germany eventually playing a strong military part, had seemed inconceivable a little while earlier. Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, an old friend of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was then head of the German section. He summed up the matter in a memorandum at that time by saying, "You cannot hold down Germany with one hand and hold back Russia with the other". Therefore, the policy of holding down Germany indefinitely had to be abandoned. That was the end of the first phase. There is no doubt that that was the policy at that time.
Soon after I became the Minister for the British zone I commented to a high Foreign Office official that the pension plans being arranged for the Control Commission seemed to imply that we should occupy

1105
Germany for at least 25 years. He replied very solemnly, "I would be very sorry if I did not think that that v' as the plan". One can remember how quickly that plan was scrapped as a result of Russian sabotage. It was not a deliberate, well-intentioned move on our part although there were many well-intentioned people about. The Russians destroyed the Potsdam plan.
In the summer of 1947 I went out to Germany in a well-meaning way to preach a version of Christianity. I found many half-starved children in the streets of Dusseldorf and I tried to encourage them to be proud of being German. That got me into quite a lot of trouble. That was not our policy at all. I was asked by Foreign Office officials, who were no doubt carrying out government policy most correctly, whether I minded having a public relations officer with me when I went back to Germany so that my indiscretions could be explained away. I said that I had no objection but that I should continue to say what I thought until eventually I got kicked upstairs. However, that is a long story. In the meantime, that policy was destroyed by Russian aggression.
The plan underlying the second phase was to take Western Germany into a partnership based on the idea that Germany was weak and that Russia was not only very strong but also very frightening. On those assumptions, the Atlantic pact was formed. Forty years later the situation has changed again and we are entering a new phase. Germany is stronger than it has ever been. As regards Russia, I doubt whether even the experts like the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, would care to say confidently that Russia is permanently weakened. She certainly seems to have lost permanent control of her satellites but who can say whether she is permanently weakened and less dangerous? At present the situation is very obscure.
My plea—and I am putting in a slightly cruder way the more refined analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Annan—is that the old, half-sarcastic, phrase, "Don't let's be beastly to the Germans" should be supplanted by a new slogan: "Don't let's be frightened of the Germans". That is the message which I wish to offer to the House today.
Even those in the ranks of Tuscany must agree that the present Prime Minister has made a very good start in his altitude towards Germany. I am sure that, when he is supplanted by leaders of other political persuasions, the same enlightened policy will be pursued, perhaps even more strongly. I am confident that British policy towards Germany will go forward on the right lines. However, I wish to emphasise that we should not be frightened of the Germans. That advice is based on long experience of where fear may lead us. Fear led us astray after the First World War. We held down the Germans until Hitler appeared on the scene and we held them down again after the next war until the Russians sabotaged that. Let us not make the same mistake again.
4.9 p.m
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I believe we owe the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a double debt for both the theme and the timing of this
1106
debate. With the Gulf war behind us, and decisive discussions on a common European foreign policy urged upon us by Brussels ahead of us, this is a fitting moment at which to pause and reflect on relationships with our continental neighbours and especially the new united Germany.
The Gulf war and its aftermath has been a watershed in relations between Britain and Europe. There is no doubt that at the outset both the collective voice of the Europe of Brussels and the gut reaction of individual European countries have differed greatly from this country's instinctive as well as considered response. It seemed as if the various European nations behaved according to traditional stereotype: the Dutch, stout and solid; France, prone to vacillate at first, co-operative at the end, yet always stylishly unpredictable; our Mediterranean neighbours—Spain, Italy and Greece—probably largely because of their intricate ties with the Islamic world, yearning throughout for even the faintest signal from Baghdad to justify face-saving accommodation. And Germany: how did Germany behave? Hesitant, uncertain, embarrassed, one might even say sheepish and then turning more than half circle to munificent support and positive action.
The German attitude bears examination and deserves compassionate understanding. Deeply involved with the troubled East German economy and the delicate last stages of unification with several hundred thousand Soviet troops still on the national soil, a sudden switch of priorities to a new crisis flash point proved immensely difficult. Moreover, any form of military intervention beyond the territorial limits set by the NATO alliance presented a real psychological as well as political and, indeed, constitutional problem.
The younger generation of Germans is overwhelmingly pacific, if not pacifist, and staunchly anti-interventionist. I think it was Madame de Stael who once said that the Germans are a nation like any other but only more so. It is a fact that when Germans embrace a cause they do so with a thoroughness, skill and dedication that makes them stand out. When they embraced a militarist ideology, when they extolled the state above the individual, they went to enormous extremes.
There has, of course, also been an important libertarian strain in Germany history from the Age of Enlightenment to the present, but it has only intermittently been allowed to surface and prevail. Yet in this last phase of German history for almost half a century the Germans have proved capable of building a truly civil society, a smoothly functioning parliamentary system, a free and yet socially responsible market economy which makes them the pride of Europe and, indeed, the whole civilised world. The pragmatic humanism of men like Adenauer and Heuss, Erhard and Schiller, Brandt, Schmidt, and indeed Weiszaecker and Kohl, have made the new Germany responsible partners of both the Western military alliance and the European Community.
The Gulf crisis has been a traumatic experience for the German nation. It has proved to the Germans that they can no longer plead total absorption by their own

1107
problems. They must face up to their responsibilities as a European and world power. In a crisis such as that provoked by Saddam Hussein one cannot simply buy oneself out of responsibility. The German public was shocked when it was revealed how much German industry had contributed to Iraq's war machine, not only quantitatively but, in the field of chemical weapons,horribile dictu, qualitatively as well. The debate in Germany continues and I believe that this is likely to be the last international crisis when Germany will still behave like a political dwarf and economic giant.
What lessons are we to draw from our neighbour's performance in the gravest international political crisis since the Second World War? The advocates of accelerated political union and a common European foreign policy point to the need for Europe keeping always in step, acting as a block, speaking with one voice and presenting an independent persona. The opponents of European integration have little difficulty in pillorying the indecision, dissonance and, at times, even callousness of certain European attitudes and interventions. I believe that the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes.
A greater involvement of Britain in the European council is desirable; indeed it has paid off. The Prime Minister's intervention on the Kurds, in the question of reparations and possible war crime trials as a result of transgressions in Iraq, has won extensive European support. Britain's resolve to work from the heart of Europe, reasoning her case from within rather than sulking on the margins, is and has been acknowledged to be the right policy. It is indeed the right policy for all European countries for there is no doubt that there is not sufficient harmony among Europeans on a whole range of issues—the Middle East, East-West and North-South. There is no sufficient harmony that would justify a degree of institutionalisation where, by a simple count of heads, national governments would greatly restrict or even abandon their right to independent foreign policies. That may happen one day in the future—I hope it will—but not yet. We must not forget that it is quite probable that before the turn of the century a European Community may include Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland, possibly Switzerland; not to mention some of the newly emergent democracies in East Central and Eastern Europe.
But for this country relations with Germany, government to government and people to people, are of paramount importance. The time for 19th century power politics, an outmoded inter-European balance of power, is over. Closer ties with Germany does not mean isolating France; nor does the undoubted and profound Franco-German partnership necessarily threaten Great Britain. This is the age of pluralism in every sphere. Consortial thinking in industry and trade, multinational projects in social, educational and scientific realms is the order of the day. Germany will be the leading power in developing, indeed, nursing back to economic health, the countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea. We should be involved with Germany as partners. This will not only give us
1108
fresh opportunities but in a way relieve the Germans to be free to spread their wings and share the burden in helping other areas of Europe and the third world.
Our political systems have a growing affinity and stand to gain by closer co-operation. The British Labour Party, since its conversion to Europe, can further strengthen its ties with German Social Democracy. My neighbours on these Benches—the Liberal Democrats—will find much common ground with Germany's FDP and the party opposite may well owe its probable acceptance into the fold of a European conservative bloc in Strasbourg to the good offices of the German CDU.
When Helmut Kohl quoted the words of Thomas Mann, that the great ambition of his nation should not be to create a German Europe but a European Germany, he was reflecting the mood of the vast majority of his people. There are no certainties in history and there are always dormant demons in the subsoil of a nation's—any nation's—history but they are best banished by comprehension and goodwill among neighbours. I submit that a growing friendship between this country and the Germany of today and tomorrow should lie at the heart of our European policy.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for allowing us to participate in this timely and interesting debate. I thank him also for the admirable way in which he introduced it and for his survey of Anglo-Saxon attitudes to Germany, which are schizoid and sometimes self-contradictory. On the one hand, some of us claim to be terrified of being dominated by a Germany which is an aggressive economic and, as we say under our breath, potential military power. On the other hand, the Gulf War occurs and we express contempt for the Germans' pacific behaviour. I should prefer to live with a Germany that adopts the attitude to the Gulf that it did than one with the attitude expressed by those who fear its dominance.
In this debate I should like to examine an aspect of our self-interest which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, rightly said should be the basis of foreign policy. It is also Europe's self-interest and can best, and probably only, be achieved through European policies; that is, through developing European Community policies, economic and political, towards the states of central Europe. In order to do that, it is essential that this country should develop the strongest and most intimate political and economic relations with our colleagues in the Community.
It is inevitable that during the months since the autumn our attention has been diverted from these matters by the dramatic and tragic events which have occurred in the Gulf. But it remains the fact that today and for the next 10 or 20 years the future of Central Europe must be a major preoccupation in Europe and a major responsibility of the European Community. It is only by achieving the incorporation of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary within the economic and political systems of Western democratic societies,

1109
and the establishment in those countries of political democracy and free economies, that the peace and stability of Europe can be made more secure. Such a condition is a prerequisite of that security and stability. I suggest that one of the conditions for achieving that is that those countries can realistically look forward to joining the Community. Thus they can be protected from chaos in Russia and from the kind of trouble that we are witnessing in Yugoslavia.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of the task. It is equally hard to exaggerate the difficulty of achieving it. The task of extending democracies and building democratic societies comes after 40 years of communist government and atomisation of society. By that I mean the destruction of all civil institutions. A civil society is one in which the interests of groups and individuals are articulated by groups and individuals independent of government. Such a state of affairs must be the ultimate enemy of a communist society. War has to be conducted in such a society in order to destroy all movements, bodies and individuals who might promote individual or group autonomy.
Therefore in discussing the crisis in Central Europe it is far easier to talk about the economic crisis, which is quantifiable, which can be described in figures and which can be measured, than to talk about the political structures which have to be built in this kind of social desert. Institutions have to be established in societies where all needs and requirements have found no adequate means of identification, representation or articulation.
Let us consider the case of Poland. A distinguished Pole told me that the Poles have no particular respect for their political institutions for the simple reason that they have no reason to have any respect for them. One can only conclude from that that for Poland and the other countries the democratic movement rests on exceedingly fragile foundations. Therefore, Poland requires the maximum economic and political support from us in the West. Poland needs to have an objective, a goal and a destination to work towards.
The results of the Polish election demonstrate that fact. Forty per cent. of the electorate did not vote and the 60 per cent. who did gave victory to Walesa and defeat to Mazowiecki. Twenty-five per cent. of the voters voted for an extremely dubious and previously unknown figure. How do we interpret that? I interpret it as recognition by the Polish people that communism had failed and that Western democracy was better and brought wealth. They voted for what they believed would be democracy because it brought freedom and wealth.
In the result, freedom brought with it a sharp drop in the standard of living, a sharp rise from zero to well over one million unemployed and therefore a sharp disappointment. The danger is obvious. Disillusion with the delayed arrival of the economic rewards promised by democracy may encourage people to turn to some other solution, whether it be nationalism or a charismatic leader, to solve their problems. It is in warding off that outcome that the role of this country,
1110
and still more of the EC, is so crucial. It must be said that we in this country can do rather more than we have.
Perhaps I may give two small examples. The Polish debt is 45 billion dollars, of which 70 per cent. is owed to governments. The question at issue is the degree of forgiveness that should be granted. If you ask bankers they will tut-tut and say that forgiveness is a bad thing.
Nonetheless, I believe that they wanted retrospective legislation to get them out of the difficulty caused by various recent swaps with local authorities which they had entered into. How much is forgiven seems a political question. The object is to give democracy a fair wind and to speed up the rewards which free enterprise can offer. Therefore generosity is the wise course in our own self-interest. A cut of 50 per cent. in the debt has been agreed. That should be increased as advocated by the United States and, I believe, also by the French.
Perhaps I may give a much smaller example; namely, the question of visas. Unlike the rest of the countries in the EC and our treatment of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, we still insist that Poles apply for visas before coming here. The cost of a visa is one month's salary. If you do not get it you do not get your money back. You have to pay to apply. A far higher proportion of Poles are refused visas than Hungarians or Czechs. The visa processing work clogs up the embassy. It causes the maximum of It does this country's reputation nothing but harm. I believe that no one in the Foreign Office in his heart of hearts supports that policy. It bears the stamp of the Home Office and of all its heavy-handed tactlessness. If you should not take bankers' advice about politics nor should you let your foreign affairs be run by the Home Office.
I say this because the argument I am putting forward is that the development of democracy in the Central European countries is of crucial importance to the future of Europe as a whole. It is so because the chief beneficiaries of success, apart from the countries themselves, will be the members of the EC. In the event of failure, the chief losers, apart from the countries themselves, will be the members of the EC. It is the EC which has responsibility for co-ordinating aid to Central Europe. It is the prospect of joining the EC which provides for those three countries the main objective, goal and destination to which they look forward. It provides the magnet which is pulling them towards democracy and economic reform. If those countries are disappointed in that ambition or if they thought they were likely to be disappointed, it would be a grave setback to the measures they are taking.
It is my view that it is through the EC that the security needs of the Central European countries will be met. At the moment, with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, these countries belong to no military or political alliance. They feel a strong sense of insecurity and isolation. Of recent months the USSR has been trying to persuade them to make a series of bilateral defensive pacts with the USSR, which is in neither their interests nor ours. Therefore, I believe that the security problem is one which we should take very seriously. If these propositions are true, then the

1111
development of a coherent Community policy which deals with economics, politics and security has to be pursued. In the development of that policy I believe that this country must be at the heart of policy-making and of its execution.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for enabling us to have this debate on our relations with the Community, and with a united Germany in particular, and also for his masterly speech. We have had a most interesting discussion, and all noble Lords who have participated have made knowledgeable speeches. I much enjoyed the relevant reflections of my noble friend Lord Longford.
We are all conscious that Britain's relationship with the Community, both before and after we became a member, has been fraught with doubts and difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that we had missed the European bus, and I agree with him that there is a very strong case for saying that we should have been in at the start negotiating the Treaty of Rome with the Six; but, for reasons which we know, that opportunity was missed and we lost important advantages as a result.
We have been a member of the Community for nearly 20 years and by now it is unthinkable that we should contemplate a divorce, although there are many in this country who prefer sleeping in different bedrooms. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher is one of those, but with the advent of Mr. Major one senses an increasing warmth in the matrimonial home. His speech in Bonn, when he said that,
"Britain would work at the very heart of Europe,"
was an indication of that. It was warmly welcomed on the one hand and regarded with suspicion on the other. Mr. Major has also warned that the pace of economic and political union should not be rushed. I think that most of us take the view that that is sensible. It was also the view of the Select Committee which produced a valuable report on the subject and of noble Lords who took part in the debate on it a few weeks ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, also referred to our share of the defence expenditure since the war. As he knows, there have been significant developments in that field over the past few months, upon which we should much value the noble Earl's comments when he winds up the debate. The House is aware of the draft treaty which was presented in mid-April to the Intergovernmental Conference on European Political Union, which was rejected by the Government. The draft proposed an independent Community defence policy by 1996. That would involve a very substantial switch in British Government policy. It would involve turning the Western European Union into the defence arm of the new European union. The draft was to have gone to the EC summit next month, but because of what has been described as a deepening split inside the Community over whether it should assume responsibility for defence policy, we are informed that the meeting has now been deferred until next October.
1112
Incidentally, that is also the month in which the Community is to decide on a European political union treaty, including a common foreign and security policy.
Therefore, it seems clear that there is a serious rift between the Community and NATO on those basic issues. I shall be glad to know whether the noble Earl agrees with me on that. It has been reported that the United States Administration have expressed concern. Mr. James Baker, the Secretary of State, has asked the Community for assurances that,
"nothing would be decided that would weaken NATO or call into question the military structure of the Alliance".
These are matters of considerable importance to us and to the Community. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about the Government's attitude to these policy developments.
We know that the French and German Governments are anxious that greater powers on defence and foreign affairs should be given to the European Community. To what extent does the Government support or oppose that? We all remember the arguments which took place within the Community during the Gulf war. There certainly appeared to be some lack of understanding and co-ordination both on military and diplomatic strategy throughout those weeks. The result of that was that Members in both Houses were questioning whether it might not be too soon to contemplate political union and defence union. I recall noble Lords in this House making that very point during the debates we had on the Gulf war. Matters have improved since then, but we must learn from these experiences as we proceed, because it is vital that the Community should build on a sound foundation of mutual trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, stressed the need to take positive steps to improve relations with Germany. I am sure that he is right, although the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, saw obstacles to at least one of his suggestions. I noted that Herr Hans-Dietrich Genscher has said that we need a decision-making executive body as an institution of pan-European security and co-operation. He is of course looking to the future, and we must be encouraged by that.
As I have said, relations have improved since the Gulf war ended, and the Community has responded constructively to certain initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government, namely to the safe havens proposal and the recommendation for a United Nations police force. On this side, we have given the former our strong support, and we support the latter in principle, although we should like to know more about it; for example, how a police force would differ from the UN forces which are already in the Gulf and which have operated in other parts of the world as well.
Taking all that into account, I must ask the noble Earl whether I am right in assuming that the Government's objective is to secure new agreements and initiatives in other areas of foreign policy.
As I have indicated before, the immediate task is to get the balance right between the Community and

1113
NATO How does the Minister reconcile the review of NATO policies in which the United States is involved on the one hand and the draft treaty which commits the Community to an independent defence policy on the other hand? The majority of Community governments support the latter, but for over 40 years Europe in defence has rested upon the axis of the WEU, the EC and NATO. We are on the threshold of a new era and there is need for wisdom and sound judgment on all sides if we are to fashion balanced policies
Speeches have been made which reveal the apprehensions which still exist and which have been referred to by a number of noble Lords. Mrs. Thatcher has spoken of,
"the dangers of Germany dominating Europe".
Chancellor Kohl responded by saying,
"We do rot want to dominate anyone. We know that Europe can only come about if we all show respect for each other".
We know that the Prime Minister's comparative moderation has encouraged Community leaders. I have read articles by the Prime Minister, by my right honourable friend Mr. Neil Kinnock and by the German Foreign Minister in The House Magazine of 15th April with great interest. Mr. Major said:
"We and the Germans agree that nothing should be done to underniine the Atlantic Alliance or the essential role played by the United States in the defence of Europe".
Furthermore, both he and Mr. Kinnock believe in developing the relationship between Germany and Britain. My right honourable friend rightly pointed out that
"After a terrible war we successfully turned our relationship from that of deadly enemies to close and enduring friends".
The cementing of that friendship is essential if we are to have a permanent peace in Europe.
The German Minister of Foreign Affairs also appeared to be optimistic. He said:
"We will advocate that the European Community remain open to tie democracies of Central and Eastern Europe".
He goes on to argue that,
"anyone wishing to keep them out would be abusing the Community's name—it being a 'European' and not a 'West European' Community; and they would be detracting from the Treaties of Rome".
Such an expansion of the European Community would take a little time but his objective is one which I think we should support. In the meantime, we should give careful thought to the effect of the proposed Community defence policy on the new democracies and on neutral countries which are preparing their application for membership of the Community. We on this side welcome Austria's application and also those from Sweden and other EFTA countries. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the proposal to establish a European economic area is proceeding. I know that there are complications, especially on fisheries, but I hope that these can in due course be resolved.
With regard to the East European countries which are showing a keen interest in EC membership, perhaps the noble Earl will tell us how the proposed accession of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia as full members is progressing. That would be a very significant development. I agree with the wise remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about Poland and the other East European countries.
1114
We are fortunate to have the report of the Select Committee on European Agreements with these three countries which has just been published. I am the first to mention this in the debate. Noble Lords will agree when they read it that it is an impressive document. The central conclusion of the committee is that the rebuilding of the three economies of those countries will be,
"an enormous and daunting task".
It goes on to say that,
"it is difficult to over-estimate the problems which face the three countries in converting themselves into free democracies".
Any agreement with the Community depends on the success of political reform and the maintenance of democracy. The committee concluded that, if that assumption fails, the agreement fails—a most serious development. There are other conditions, but I think we shall need a separate debate on the report if we are to do it justice. One further point is that the provision of financial support to the three countries is essential and is likely to remain so until the end of the decade.
Time does not allow me to deal with other matters such as the social charter, which we support, and also the huge task of reconstruction and modernisation which faces Eastern Europe as a whole. A short debate like this reminds us that the problems facing us and our partners and allies are vast and complex. Our primary task is to help create a stable and democratic Europe. We must not let ourselves be diverted from that aim because success here means peace, whereas failure could mean disaster.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for tabling this Motion. We have had a useful discussion which has revealed the close linkage that exists between bilateral and multilateral relations.
An increasing number of questions of international importance now have a substantial multilateral dimension. The fight against drugs and terrorism and the challenges of the environment are but the most recent examples. In the modern world the vitality of a bilateral relationship is often expressed through co-operation in multilateral fora rather than through traditional bilateral exchanges. This is the case with Britain and the other member states of the European Community and is a natural and welcome development. Thus I will not dwell on the bilateral element of the Motion, except for our relations with Germany which have been highlighted. I merely say that Britain not only instinctively looks to strengthen its bilateral relations with all our Community partners but also with all countries that share our common values of democracy, freedom and justice. I shall focus what I have to say on Britain's relationship with, and role in, the European Community. I shall set out some guiding principles.
First, the Community is central to British policy making. The 1992 internal market programme, for example, shows more than any other development in the history of the Community the ever closer integration of member states' economies. Britain's

1115
prosperity and the welfare of its people are inextricably bound up with the successful completion of the single market.
Secondly, Britain is a committed member of the Community. We abide by the treaty obligations we have freely entered into. Our commitment to the respect of Community law is shown by the fact that the UK has implemented more items of single market legislation than any other member state except Denmark. But implementation is not the end of the story. To have a fair and free market, enforcement is essential. That is why we regularly urge all member states to improve their records and have tabled proposals on improving implementation and enforcement within the Community at the political union IGC.
Thirdly, we are playing a constructive role in discussions on the future development of the Community. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the foreword to the Government's latest White Paper on developments in the European Community,
"it is in our national self-interest to help build and shape the future Europe—and to do so with enthusiasm".
We agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said. Nobody, we believe, can seriously contemplate a United Kingdom in any real sense outside Europe. The shape and structure of Europe is in a process of remarkable development, and the future is a challenging one. The British Government are determined to play an active role in this process. Our commitment to, and constructive participation in, the Community does not however mean that we adopt an uncritical approach to proposals within the Community. On the contrary, we shall continue to fight our corner ferociously where essential UK interests are at stake. We must not forget that Britain is the second largest of only four net contributors to the Community budget. That concentrates the mind. If more countries were net contributors that would be beneficial in preparing and adhering to sensible economic and budgetary proposals. It is essential that we examine thoroughly every proposal for Community action. Our record in amending those proposals which are inimical to UK interests is a good one.
Our Community membership and our ability to present a united front with our Community partners bring us advantages on the world stage. Our combined weight gives the Community a negotiating power which no member state would possess in its own right. And as the EC gains in stature, the UK's position and influence in the Community will be an increasingly important factor for bilateral relations with both our Community partners and non-EC countries.
An important element of this is Britain's strong support for the process of European political co-operation. Indeed, it was the United Kingdom which first suggested putting this process on a legal basis, now enshrined in the Single European Act. For example, recently my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have put our ideas for safe havens and for a UN police force in
1116
Iraq to our European partners. We received their immediate and full support. That gave us a powerful basis on which to launch our ideas at the UN with success. We applaud the German role in helping the Kurds. Like the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, we welcome the generous German contribution to our costs in the Gulf war.
The Prime Minister said in Bonn in March that he wanted Britain to be,
"at the heart of Europe, working with our partners in building the future".
That will involve constant dialogue with our partners. We will continue to be in the heart of that dialogue as we have been, for example, over the single market and negotiations on the Community's inter-governmental conferences on economic and monetary union and political union. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, these are the focus of discussion in the Community.
An important aim in the conference on political union has been to encourage the Community to take a close look at its processes and procedures—a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, majored. I agree with the noble Lord that we must try to improve the way it works and increase its efficiency. The Community should act only where it needs to, and in those areas it should operate effectively. Financial accountability and a greater appreciation of the financial implications of policy initiatives, together with closer scrutiny of Community activities, are therefore important. The hand of the European Court of Justice should be strengthened to ensure compliance with its judgments.
These are reforms aimed at improving and strengthening the existing structure of the Community. We consider it important to maintain the institutional balance envisaged by the Community's founders; that is, the balance between the respective roles of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. That balance has served the Community and its member states well and should, we think, remain the basis for closer co-operation in the future.
On economic and monetary union, the UK has made it clear that we cannot commit ourselves to move to a single currency without a separate decision at the appropriate time by the UK Government and Parliament. Subject to that reserve we are negotiating actively and constructively at the conference. It is no secret that we are sceptical about the claimed benefits of a single currency and very conscious of the costs—particularly of a premature move to a single currency regime. That is why we have laid great emphasis on the need for the Community to satisfy itself that member states' economies have converged satisfactorily before the Community moves between the stages of EMU.
We believe that it is important to adopt an evolutionary approach that works with the grain of free and open markets in a way designed to ensure lasting benefits. We should seek to build first on those areas on which we can agree. One example of this philosophy are our proposals for a hard ecu which are designed with these objectives in mind. Many of our

1117
views are now accepted by our partners. They are also coming to recognise that no member state can be forced to accept a single currency against its will. We remain confident that the negotiations in Brussels will ultimately find a treaty language which respects this position.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, talked of the Franco-German alliance. He wanted a British-Franco-German tripartite alliance. The noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, said that we ought to be closer to France. We believe that within the EC, bilateral relations with countries are very important. But we are not seeking to make permanent alliances within the Community. The Community will not thrive on exclusive relationships. Thus we constantly seek common ground with different member states on different issues. The tactics of negotiations in the EC are essential—all the more so where qualified majority voting applies.
Having dealt generally with our bilateral relations in the Community, I shall deal with the Community's hopes 'or the future, with special reference, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, to Eastern Europe. The Government strongly welcome the expansion of the Community's relations with Central and Eastern Europe. The EC has trade and co-operation agreements with all countries except Albania and gives generous assistance to support economic and political reform programmes. First, steps were taken to allow them easier access to the Community markets. Secondly, the PHARE programme will spend some£600 million this year on technical assistance in the priority sectors of agriculture, training, the environment and economic restructuring. Thirdly, the EC is willing to provide generous loans in support of IMF programmes to help mitigate the worsening economic climate in which those countries must implement their reforms.
But perhaps the most important single step is the negotiation of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Association agreements were originally a British idea, enthusiastically adopted by our EC partners. Over their 10 year life they will provide for free trade with the Community. They will facilitate a political dialogue on all major current issues and, in the longer term, through co-operation in such spheres as standards, Customs procedures, industrial restructuring, the environment, statistics, company law and many others, will draw Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia closer still to the Community. If, in the end, they decide to apply to join, they can fulfil all the obligations which membership imposes. That will surely bring closer the European ideal of the Community's founding fathers. It was the policies of the Western world that encouraged the lights to be lit again in Eastern Europe. Those countries must not be denied the opportunity to join the Community in the future.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, calls our attention particularly to the case for improving relations with Germany. I am happy to be able to assure tile noble Lord that this is a case well understood by Her Majesty's Government. Our relations with Germany are in an excellent state and
1118
we are working hard to improve them yet further. On 11th March my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and a number of colleagues visited Bonn for a very successful meeting with Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues.
Our personal relationships are fully in tune with the close working relationship we enjoy with Germany on a range of issues both inside and outside the European Community. Germany is our ally, our partner and our friend. That is why last year we welcomed Germany's unification in peace and freedom. We were proud to play the central role that we did in resolving the external aspects of unification through the 2+4 process. We worked too for the speedy integration of the new Lênder of Germany into the European Community.
Completing the economic integration of the former German Democratic Republic will take time and is not without its difficulties. But the united Germany remains a strong economic power. German industry, like that of Britain, will be looking to take advantage of the benefits of the single market programme. Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, we believe that it is up to the United Kingdom, in common with other members of the European Community, to rise to the challenge that German economic success poses. But that is not to say that it is a threat. I am not one of those who wish that our friends were poor, our allies weaker, or our partners less reliable.
I wish to turn now to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. He referred to the CFSP. Britain is committed to strengthening the role and identity of the European Community on the international scene. As part of that process we fully support the aim of working towards a common foreign and security policy. To promote that aim the UK tabled at an early stage of the inter-governmental conference a draft treaty text on CFSP. That marked a significant step forward from Title 3 of the Single European Act which sets out the existing rules for European political co-operation.
The draft treaty incorporated two principles which we believe to be fundamental if Europe's role is to be strengthened. The first is that the procedures for defining and implementing the CFSP should be flexible, pragmatic and based on consensus. Introducing mechanisms such as majority voting would weaken Europe's voice and lead to acrimony and disunity. The second principle is that we should distinguish between the security and defence dimension of the Twelve and make sure that any European defence dimension does not weaken but reinforces NATO in which we already have a tried and tested common defence policy. Your Lordships will recall a recent debate on the future of NATO during which I set out the Government's position carefully. It is right that Europe should assume greater responsibility for its own defence. But the way forward is to develop the European defence identity through the Western European Union, establishing a role for it as a bridge between NATO and the Twelve. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we

1119
cannot ignore the very constructive and helpful role that America has played and which we wish it to continue to play in the security and peace of Europe.
We have articulated these ideas extensively in the debate on the CFSP. They do not go as far as some partners would wish but all have welcomed them as a constructive contribution to the debate. We regard them as the only realistic way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also raised the question of the EC and EFTA. The Community is currently pursuing negotiations with EFTA to establish a European economic area. This will extend the single market to the EFTA countries. We hope to conclude the negotiations in the summer, with the EEA entering into force in January 1993 at the same time as the single market. The United Kingdom strongly supports the EEA and is working hard for a successful outcome. The EEA will bring economic benefits to the UK, the other Community countries and EFTA, and will facilitate future accession to the Community by those EFTA countries which wish to join.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked how the Foreign Office might react to his proposal that Germany should join the UN Security Council. The noble Lord suggested that we should consult our Community partners over the UN Security Council business. I can assure him that we made considerable efforts to brief the EC non-council members in New York. He mentioned the fact that Britain is a member of the UN Security Council. He made no mention of the fact that France is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. When there is an agreed position of the Twelve we reflect that in our dealings in the Security Council as indeed does France. I am afraid that the noble Lord's suggestion of rotating membership of the UN Security Council is simply not provided for by the UN Charter. When one considers the UN Charter, I am sure the noble Lord, like the rest of your Lordships, took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said when he reminded the House of the difficulties of reopening the UN Charter.
The noble Lord also mentioned the timing of the inter-governmental conferences. We hope that both conferences will be able to conclude by the end of the year, that is, by the time of the December European Council. That should allow member states to ratify the results by the end of 1992. It is the timetable to which we are working. That said, these are complicated negotiations among 12 nation states, each with their own interests to pursue. We do not underestimate the magnitude of the task.
In conclusion, Britain can and must exert a powerful influence on the Community. We have done so in the past. We are doing so now. The Government will continue to do so in the future.
5 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having expounded at such length the Government's policy. As a result, I am considerably better informed, although I cannot say that I am any
1120
the wiser. That is not the Minister's fault. I want also to thank certain noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Bonham-Carter, and, notably, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who have a great deal more experience of foreign policy affairs than I have. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as usual, made an extraordinarily informed and interesting speech.
I was sorry about one thing only—that the ranks of Tuscany were notably absent. I had hoped that someone like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would be inveighing against Europe in general and Germany in particular. But neither did they come to cheer. From time to time we are reminded of the difficulties. I have not dwelt on the negative aspects of Europe; I wanted to concentrate on the positive. But we often face great cultural difficulties in our dealings with Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the cultural problems we face. One of the greatest difficulties is that we were not at any time conquered by Napoleon. As a result, we do not have a Napoleonic code of law; we have our own common law. That is one of the greatest obstacles we face in understanding why our colleagues in Europe think and behave differently, especially in matters relating to personal freedom. It remains for me to say again how grateful I am to noble Lords for having taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Bangladesh: Relief for Cyclone Victims
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Bangladesh made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The Statement is as follows:
"The cyclone which struck Bangladesh on the night of 29th to 30th April was one of the most serious disasters in the region's history. Eye witness accounts have underlined the scale of the tragedy. The whole House shares in our grief and sympathy for the Bangladeshi people.
"Precise assessments have been hindered by the severe damage to communications caused by the cyclone and by continuing bad weather. Neither international donors nor the Bangladesh Government waited for information before starting relief operations. On 30th April we authorised our High Commissioner in Dhaka to spend up to£250,000 on immediate relief needs. This formed part of the£2.5 million initial contribution announced in the House on 2nd May by my honourable friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. On 3rd May I announced a further£2 million, bringing our total support for immediate disaster relief to£4.5 million.
"A major relief effort is now well under way. Fifteen bilateral donors have offered assistance as well as some international organisations. The British response is one of the first and largest. The

1121
physical difficulties involved are massive. Severe damage extends over an area the size of that part of England, south of a line drawn between London and Bristol. Much of it still remains under water. Up to 15 million people may have been affected.
"The port of Chittagong and its equipment has been severely damaged. Rough seas continue to limit access to the islands, which are hardest hit.
"The international relief effort must be co-ordinated and duplication avoided wherever possible. At the request of the Government of Bangladesh the UNDP is acting as co-ordinator of the relief programmes of the international donor community. To assist in this task we are meeting the costs of two UN disaster relief staff.
"British experience with previous disasters in Bangladesh, like the major floods of 1987 and 1988, is that non-governmental organisations, working with the support of the Government of Bangladesh, can operate very effectively providing relief. In the immediate aftermath of the cyclone the priority has been to move stocks of food, clothing, medicines and shelter already in the country to the disaster zone, and to ensure adequate supplies of clean drinking water.
"Of the £3.3 million of bilateral assistance announced last week, some £2.5 million is already being, spent through a number of British NGOs and international agencies on food, shelter, clothing and medicines. A further £50,000 has been allocated for urgent medical supplies and water purification tablets, recommended by our medical adviser based in Dhaka. Staff from our irrigation project have already gone to assist local and British NGCs, who, together with UNICEF, are working to secure cleaner water in the affected areas. Our aid vehicles have also been made available to transport urgently needed supplies.
"We have established an emergency office in Chittagong that is providing on the spot assessments. This will promote co-ordination with other agencies and government officials. It is staffed by a highly experienced British aid official who undertook similar work during the 1988 floods.
"Some honourable Members have asked why we have not sent boats and helicopters. Our High Commissioner in Dhaka is in constant touch with the Bangladesh authorities and other donors. He advises us daily on the most effective uses to which our money can be put, taking into account what is being provided by others. We have just heard that large numbers of boats, including at least 100 collapsible boats provided by Japan following the 1988 foods, are available in Bangladesh. There are also 100 RNLI boats donated by Britain in 1988 being used by the Bangladesh Red Crescent. The High Commissioner does not recommend provision of further boats from the UK. Six Bangladesh navy ships are engaged in getting supplies to off-shore islands. Relief goods are also being transported to Chittagong by rail.
"Helicopters clearly have an important part to play as long as large areas remain inaccessible to surface transport. In the first instance this need can
1122
most effectively be met by countries within the region. India and Pakistan have already provided some helicopters, and I hope that other neighbouring countries may do likewise.
"We are playing a full part in addressing Bangladesh's immediate relief needs as they become known. The co-ordination machinery is in place in Dhaka to try to ensure that all efforts are used to maximum effect and with the minimum duplication. I met the High Commissioner of Bangladesh in London yesterday to discuss priorities.
"I am pleased to announce that we are making available a further £2 million. That brings our total contribution to £6.5 million. The £2 million will cover requests from NGOs for further priority relief supplies and the cost of sending the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, "Fort Grange", equipped with medical facilities and disaster relief stores and two Sea King helicopters to assist with relief operations.
"In the longer term, we have to accept that it will never be possible to protect Bangladesh totally against floods and cyclones. But certain things can be done to mitigate the effects of such natural disasters. The international community is already helping Bangladesh to develop its flood action plan, which includes further measures for cyclone protection. Other rehabilitation and reconstruction needs will be considered once the immediate relief requirements have been met."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for having repeated the Statement. I am afraid that the situation described must represent one of the most sombre pronouncements that the noble Earl has ever made. The tragedy which has once again hit that country has shaken the world and immense numbers of defenceless people are suffering.
We are pleased that the Government have increased the amount of aid that they have pledged from a lower sum to the £6.5 million which the noble Earl mentioned. Britain was the first to contribute and, as he said, is the largest contributor; a fact that we appreciate. We wish to ask a few questions about the effectiveness of the aid we are giving and whether the noble Earl believes that it is relevant to the needs of the Bangladeshi people, both in the short and the long term.
Can the Minister tell me the latest estimates for emergency aid requested by the Bangladeshi Government? Can he indicate the level of international aid pledged to date, or at least the figure pledged by the EC countries? Further, the very nature of the disaster means that a vast amount of land is still under water with pockets of people stranded without assistance. There is an obvious need for boats and helicopters. I am still a little anxious about the number of boats available. Although the noble Earl made clear that already there is a large number of boats, he produced no figures on how many have been given to assist in the emergency operations. He says that the High Commissioner does not recommend the provision of further boats from the United Kingdom. I should be grateful if he could explain what that means.

1123
Clearly helicopters have an important part to play. The noble Earl said that India and Pakistan have provided helicopters, but my information is that only six helicopters are operating in the area. Will the noble Earl be good enough to say how many helicopters are operating? The need for them is immense while the flood waters still exist.
I should particularly like to know about the movement of supplies. I found out today that UNICEF is supplying £5 million—30 tonnes—of medical supplies, vaccines, ORS and cold boxes from Copenhagen. I know that supplies are being moved from Chittagong. Can the noble Earl tell us the state of the railways and whether he feels that such supplies are getting through? If not, the need for more boats and helicopters is imperative.
Can the noble Earl outline the form which British emergency aid to Bangladesh will take during the next weeks? He will agree that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries on earth and least able to cope with such a disaster. I know that the ODA provides what I consider must be the most useful form of aid—Bailey bridges—which can be used both now and at the beginning of any future disasters that may occur. Can the Minister say whether we shall be providing this kind of aid because Bailey bridges are part of the aid project?
I have two questions on the longer term. First, I believe that not long ago the EC carried out a study on cyclone protection in Bangladesh. I should be interested to know what recommendations were made and whether any have been taken up and put into effect.
Although my last question is not directly related to the Statement today, nevertheless it is highly relevant. A concert is being organised this weekend by Mr. Jeffrey Archer which has been highly publicised. In a rather unprecedented way, the Government are contributing a large sum of money to it. I do not argue the rights or wrongs of that, but since the Government are contributing to it, in aid of the Kurdish people, perhaps they will be able to influence the transfer of some of the funds to this new and utterly tragic disaster which has hit the Bangladeshi people. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could respond to the points I have made.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness and thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. None of us can adequately express our horror at this gigantic disaster—gigantic in scale both in the geographical area devastated and the number of people involved. No words can describe it and therefore only by deeds can we express our sorrow at events. I congratulate the noble Earl's right honourable friend on the speed and appropriateness of the aid which has already been delivered.
I wish to know more about the flood action programme to which the Statement refers. There are two aspects to the disaster. First, there are the short-term remedies which can be supplied, to which I shall return. Secondly, in the long run clearly there
1124
must be a programme to prevent such disasters—if not wholly, it is important at least to mitigate their consequences. For that Bangladesh will require international assistance. Any information that the Minister can give the House on the flood action programme will be welcome.
I was interested in the comment on the adequacy of the supply of boats. I can only hope that it is correct. Like the noble Baroness, I feel from the depths of my ignorance that probably what is most needed is helicopters. I was informed that there are currently nine in Bangladesh. Perhaps the Minister will let us know how many there are. We have supplied two, but are those additional or included in the nine? Perhaps we should try to increase the number of helicopters, sending them out now so that they can be used when the weather improves.
The historic links which bind this country to Bangladesh are such that it is quite right that the country should take the lead in supplying aid. I understand that we have so far given?6.5 million, which is more than most countries, as is right and proper. We should bear in mind that we are still only spending 0.3 per cent. of our GDP on this kind of aid and the target is 0.7 per cent. Quite a number of countries are closer to that target than we are. Therefore, we can and should afford to continue the generous policy on which we are set. I look forward to hearing the noble Earl's answers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, gave to the Statement. I wish to join them again in conveying our sincere condolences to Bangladesh and our horror at what has happened.
I wish first to deal with the point on boats raised by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I said when reading out the Statement that there were 100 RNLI boats, but the Statement which the Front Benches opposite received refers to 10 RNLI boats. The latter is the correct figure. The figure I gave was wrong and I apologise sincerely to the House for making such an error.
We believe that there are enough boats in the area. We must not forget that Bangladesh is a low lying country and therefore has a lot of boats of its own. However, some boats are in the wrong place. It is a matter of getting the available boats to the area where they are needed. It is wrong for us in Whitehall to second-guess what is happening on the spot when our advice from our High Commissioner on the spot is that British aid can best be used elsewhere. It would be wrong in the immediate circumstances of the aftermath of the disaster to overrule the High Commissioner. I believe our aid is being used effectively.
That brings me to the point about helicopters. I understand that Bangladesh has about four helicopters of its own. India has supplied three helicopters and Pakistan has supplied two. That makes the total of nine that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to. I also mentioned the two helicopters that were on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship. We hope that other countries in the region will be able to contribute

1125
helicopters. I am sure everyone would agree that it is much quicker to bring a helicopter from a neighbouring country to the disaster zone than try to bring in helicopters from further away.
The noble Baroness asked about the contributions of other states. I hope I may write to her on that point. I have many figures, but they seem to be changing by the hoar. Therefore whatever I say now will quickly be out of date. The latest figures I have apply to the situation yesterday. At that stage the EC had committed 10 million ecu—that is about £6.968 million—and about 15 countries have contributed either money or relief supplies. Saudi Arabia has promised sums for longer term rehabilitation aid.
As regards whether supplies are getting through, we understand that the railway to Chittagong is open. We can consider constructing Bailey bridges. However, our first priority in aid is food, clothing, medicines and shelter. I should say a few words about the flood action plan to which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred. There are two types of flood action plan. There is the plan financed by the EC which is due to be completed later this year. The present indications are that it would recommend a series of structural solutions. Clearly a consultant's further assessment will be particularly valuable in the light of recent events. In addition, we are carrying out four flood action plan assessments. One is to assess the flood control and drainage options in order to reduce and manage flooding in the north-west region. The second consists of a review of existing flood control projects in relation to agricultural, economic, social and environmental impacts to provide guidelines for regional studies. The aim of the third plan is to recommend operation and maintenance procedures for flood action plan projects including the fullest participation by beneficiary and disadvantaged groups. The fourth plan consists of a fisheries study to identify ways of minimising negative impacts of flood action plan protection on flood plain fisheries and fishing communities.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify the number of aircraft that have been sent from this country to help the situation in Bangladesh? I understood him to say there were two aircraft on a ship, but are there any others? Is he satisfied that the total number of aircraft, both fixed wing and helicopters, that we are providing, is adequate? In view of the great efficiency with which the RAF operates in these situations, will my noble friend consider—unless he can say that a fairly substantial number of aircraft have been sent—giving an under -taking that the Government will consider sending more aircraft?
In assessing the total amount of aid which we can give in this case as compared with the other demands upon us from the other disaster areas of the world, will my noble friend bear in mind two factors: first, that we have a long historical connection with Bangladesh—as far as I recall, we do not have such a connection with any of the other disaster areas in the world today—and, secondly, that whereas in the other disaster
1126
areas of the world a good deal of the trouble has been caused by the mismanagement, oppression and misconduct of governments, in the case of Bangladesh the Bangladeshi Government are wholly innocent of any contributory factor to the disaster? This is a straight case of a natural disaster affecting a wholly innocent government and people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the point my noble friend made about Britain's historical connections with Bangladesh and the natural characteristics of the disaster. Low lying countries such as Bangladesh are threatened by significant rises in sea level. Although the western world has had something to do with the rises in sea level, this has been a natural disaster of huge proportions.
As regards my noble friend's question about aircraft, we have not sent any fixed wing aircraft to Bangladesh. The main priority is the movement of goods in that country by road, rail and boat. Our High Commission has recommended that we should not send fixed wing aircraft to Bangladesh.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, how many helicopters are there?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe I answered that point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. There are nine in Bangladesh at the moment. We shall contribute a further two helicopters when the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship reaches Bangladesh.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the scale of this disaster is largely due to the poverty of the people who have been stricken? The people in the coastal areas, and particularly on the silt islands which have suffered most, went to those areas to seek relief from their poverty. In moving from the interior to the coastal lands, they became particularly vulnerable to such disasters. In view of that fact will the Minister not address himself to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that our general aid programme today has fallen from more than 0.5 per cent. of GNP to 0.3 per cent. of GNP during the past decade?
Further, will the Minister address himself to the matter of shelters on the coastal lands? I understand that the people who survived this horrible disaster were those who managed to get into shelters. However, I also understand that about 5,000 of these shelters are required to protect people in an area where there are bound to be a series—according to all the climatic forecasts—of tidal floods and rises in sea level. I understand that the shelters cost about£40,000 each to build. Will the British Government and their EC partners co-operate in ensuring that after this disaster has receded an immediate building programme will be started to construct more shelters which could save tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives in the years ahead?
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Earl refer to the internal provision of foodstuffs and to the necessary safeguards for the people who are now stricken by this disaster. Is it not the case that there is a great deal of food in other areas of Bangladesh and

1127
that the main challenge as regards food supplies is to find the machines which can transfer food from the interior to the stricken islands? Does that not reinforce the need to use as many helicopters as possible—whole fleets of helicopters—simply to prevent the people on the coastline from starving?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord began by asking what were the causes of the terrible tragedy. I repeat that we shall never be able to protect Bangladesh totally from floods and cyclones. However, certain things can be done, and were done by the Bangladesh authorities on this occasion, in relation to early warning and the movement of people to shelter. Clearly those actions were inadequate and all concerned will want to consider how to improve matters in the future. It is fair to say that some people did not move out of the cyclone's path, despite being encouraged to do so by the Bangladesh Government, because they were unwilling to do so. That is an example of the tremendous pressure on land and crops.
Regarding aid, Bangladesh is currently our third largest bilateral aid programme, receiving about £50 million annually. In addition, the share of aid to Bangladesh from multilateral institutions attributable to the UK amounted to £28.8 million in 1988, which is the last year for which a figure is available.
On the question of shelters, the noble Lord raised an important point. That matter will be looked into by the donors once the Community study is complete, which I said would be towards the end of the year.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said about Bangladesh, having been the only Member of this House in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group which visited Bangladesh last November. As my noble friend said, Bangladesh suffers from overpopulation and a terrible propensity to natural disasters. When we were there in November Bangladesh was in the middle of a coup—or a change of government, whichever way one wants to put it. There was an indefinite curfew. We had armed sentries outside our bedroom doors at night. All of the various aid agencies left our hotel while we were there. The other members of our party heard shots and troop movements at night. I did not—my room faced the swimming pool and I slept soundly. I should especially like to emphasise the charm and friendliness of the people despite all that activity.
We visited many aid projects—villages, agricultural projects, a fish farm and a tea plantation. We visited some in helicopters—probably some of the six—and some by road. They were definitely basic agricultural roads, and there were not many. We also flew to Chittagong and in a helicopter flew over the area which is now devastated. Even when it was not devastated we seemed to be flying over sea, with water all around.
I even had a chance to hold some of the babies in the hill villages. They were sweet. Travelling out to
1128
Bangladesh my suitcase was weighed down with pounds of wrapped boiled sweets, which I gave to as many children as I could. The smiles on their faces at the small, unaccustomed luxury were heart-tugging. I cannot bear to think of their terrible deprivation now as they face death from famine and disease.
Everyone wants aid from us. Everyone thinks that because we can purchase not only the necessities of life such as bread and clean water but also the luxuries like boiled sweets we are unimaginably rich. Sadly, we are not a bottomless pit. We cannot give all that we should like to everyone. However, the Bangladeshis have a special call on us. Their ties with the British Empire and the Commonwealth are very strong. What is sometimes rare, they all like us. They are all grateful for anything we can do. I thank my noble friend very much for what he has said.
I should also like to say that I have met the High Commissioner, Mr. Colin Imray. I believe that anything that he recommends will be right because he has a very good grasp of the situation, as does his wife. I thank my noble friend for what he has said.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it has been most helpful that my noble friend has been able to recount her visit at first hand. It only serves to underline the disaster. It is all the more poignant as a result of her visit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the recent chapter of international disasters is beginning to show certain basic similarities and that there are lessons to be learnt? Is it not the case that the appropriateness of aid in the first instance depends on information, namely, reconnaissance in the area in which the disaster has taken place; secondly, that its effectiveness is directly proportional in the early days to the speed with which it is delivered; and thirdly, that in those early days it is air and not water or land transport which is most effective, and since landing facilities are not normally available it is helicopters and not fixed wing aircraft which are appropriate? Have we not seen television film of refugees being bombed, sometimes fatally, with food from fixed wing aircraft? Have we not recently seen television film of packages of food—rice or bread—being dropped into contaminated water from fixed wing aircraft?
Does it not follow that for the future we should be prepared to supply helicopter transportation to areas of natural disaster immediately on call? Is there not a role for the military in both reconnaissance and transport which should be reviewed by NATO when considering its future role in out-of-area operations? I hope that the Government will consider again the ground they considered five years ago and the building of treaty relationships with countries likely to be affected so that unarmed troops equipped with appropriate reconnaissance and transport equipment can be taken, like a fire brigade, from the secure and wealthy part of the world in which we live to the impoverished and endangered parts of the world we are speaking of?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are certainly similarities in the results of some of the

1129
tragedies that we have witnessed, although the tragedies have been caused by a variety of events. The current disaster is very much a natural one.
My noble friend has underlined two important points One is that in order for aid to be used to maxim, urn effect the speed with which it is delivered is important. I do not necessarily agree with him that the means that he proposed for delivering aid is the right one. It very much depends on the circumstances. Boats are the important means of communication and of delivering aid in this particular case.
In relation to his second point, reconnaissance of the area affected is very important so that targets can be pinpointed and the aid can be provided as quickly as possible.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl did not answer two of the questions which I put to him. First, does he consider that this disaster, together with the threats to the Kurds and to the even larger number of Africans (27 million), has jerked the Government out of I heir complacency with their aid programme so as to increase the miserable 0.3 per cent. of GNP which they are at present providing in order that the poverty which is the basic cause of this disaster can be tackled and we can play our part in it, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said? Secondly, does he agree that the major challenge in Bangladesh today is to move food from one part of the country to another? Is not the most efficient way of doing that with helicopters? Despite what he has said, is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to provide many more helicopters to move the food from one part of the country to another where people are today dying from starvation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are not complacent about our aid programme. I did not answer the question which the noble Lord put to me earlier because he deliberately sought to widen the debate. In view of earlier proceedings in your Lordships' House I wanted to give as many other noble Lords as possible a chance to speak.
I have already answered questions about helicopters. We are taking the advice of the High Commissioner in the area. The noble Lord does not seem to realise that it is a logistic exercise to get a helicopter from here to places like Bangladesh. He will recall how long it took to get helicopters and other logistic equipment to the Gulf not so long ago.

Engineering
5.40 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon rose to call attention to the status of qualified engineers and of engineering; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to see the assembly of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak on this Motion and am particularly glad that two noble Lords have chosen to make their maiden speeches on this subject today.
I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am too vainglorious if I start by saying that the development
1130
of civilisation since its beginnings has been greatly dependent on the inventiveness, imagination and foresight of engineers. The ancient civilisations of the Middle East depended on feats of irrigation and flood control and a programme of public works of a magnitude sometimes rising to grandiosity. Some years ago a colleague of mine, the late Sir Harold Harding, an eminent tunneller, reminded us that six out of the seven wonders of the ancient world were all the work of structural engineers. When we talk of the ancient wonders, we do not normally think of them as engineering works, but that is what they were.
The physical environment in which we live today is no less the work of engineers. If you look around, virtually everything you see is the work of engineers, with perhaps a certain amount of help from architects and farmers. The infrastructure in which we live and on which we depend is largely the work of engineers. The quality of civilisation is measured by the achievements of its artists, philosophers and men of affairs, but let us not forget that, were it not for engineers, those men and women would still be scratching their ideas on the walls of caves. Yet, for all that, the engineer and his profession are not awarded the status in our society commensurate with the contribution that they make to it.
Can anything be done to remedy that state of affairs? Much of the remedy lies in the hands of the engineers themselves. For a start, they could blow their own trumpet a bit more loudly than they generally do. I hope that I help to do that today. The engineering employers could pay their employees more, thus encouraging clever people into the profession. The industry could do that for itself, but the Government could help. This is not a party matter as governments of all political persuasions have neglected engineering. The Government have a role to play.
That lack of recognition was observed several years ago by the Finniston committee of inquiry into the engineering profession which, as noble Lords will remember, reported to Parliament just over 11 years ago. The committee commissioned a survey among the general public to discover public attitudes to engineers and engineering. The findings of the survey were somewhat miserable. It discovered that nearly one-fifth of respondents expressed complete ignorance about what engineers did. About two-thirds perceived an engineer as someone doing manual work, probably with machinery. Only 13 per cent. associated the title with design or research work at a professional level. When given a definition of a professional engineer, half the sample then perceived the title as denoting someone senior, but only a minority, and then only when prompted, thought that a professional engineer would require a university degree. The committee also noted a misleading and somewhat irritating national tendency to regard engineering as a subordinate branch of science. In that respect noble Lords will have noted that the so-called Science Museum is packed full of engineering and has little science in it.
Most of Finniston's inquiry was aimed at manufacturing industry and not at construction, which is my own line of country. He stressed the

1131
crucial part that manufacturing still plays in the British economy, although a smaller part than it once played. The committee said:
"Engineers were involved in each stage of the manufacturing process, from the technical appraisal of world market opportunities and the translation of those appraisals to the design of products and systems to exploit the opportunities through to the development, manufacture, sale, delivery and service of the products".
That continuous interplay provided the basis of what Finniston called "the engineering dimension". The committee proposed that a statutory engineering authority should be set up, with government funding, aimed at promoting the engineering dimension and correcting the misleading, and often plain wrong, perception of engineering held by the general public, the media, the education establishment and, it goes without saying, Whitehall.
That sensible proposal was not taken up by the Government. Instead, they set up the Engineering Council, a non-statutory body without much in the way of public funding apart from a modest £3 million start-up grant covering its first three years and possibly as much again for a variety of specific purposes since then. In all fairness to the Engineering Council, it tries to blow the engineers' trumpet as well as it can, although sometimes with an uncertain sound. Some industrial concerns, notably British Gas, have joined in too.
Although the Government have given the Engineering Council a certain amount of support and offered support in the form of ministerial encouragement, they could have done more overtly to encourage the profession. Let us compare its treatment with that of another profession, a glamorous, new one which has reached stardom in the past 15 or so years and has obtained the approval and support of Downing Street; namely, design.
Design is a concept of which engineers are well aware. It is right at the centre of the engineering dimension, but, as the structural engineer Ted Happold pointed out in a recent lecture, engineering design is a technological idea as distinct from a visual style or fashion. The newly fashionable design profession is overwhelmingly concerned with style, although it is fair to say not entirely. Nothing infuriates an engineer more than to be told that someone has designed a train when what he has done is chosen the upholstery, had speedlines painted along the outside of the carriages or done a nose job on the 125, as Sir Peter Parker immortally put it. He might be even more irked to learn that the Government not only entertain leading designers to parties at No. 10 but also fund the Design Council to the tune of £6 million a year, so I am told. That is about as much in the last year as the Engineering Council has received since its inception eight or more years ago.
The reason for all that lies deep in the two-culture society which older Members of the House will remember was described by C.P. Snow, later Lord Snow, a generation ago. In one of its dual capacities, design sits happily among the arts and is therefore respectable and enjoys space in the intellectual parts of
1132
the better Sunday newspapers. In its engineering capacity it does not. I believe that polite circles do not realise that engineering design exists.
That blind spot is a feature of British intellectual life. It amused Ted Happold, whom I mentioned a moment ago, to quip that everybody knew Whistler's mother but not too many knew that his father came over from America to learn about railway engineering from George Stephenson. As a matter of fact, Whistler's uncle came over at the same time and both of them went back to engineer the Baltimore-Ohio railway. Happold was making a joke, but to engineers at any rate it is a slightly sour joke.
The same blind spot applies when we turn to the accreditation—I have mentioned this in the House before—of a new building to a designer. It is a fact of modern architectural design that a good deal of it is of a highly engineered nature. Going back in time a little, it is widely thought that Paxton designed the Crystal Palace. But the real hero was Charles Fox, who made it and in fact designed it. Paxton conceived it and deserves the credit for that, but the real hero was an engineer. Noble Lords will recall that the architect Utzon, faced with the difficulties and impracticabilities of realising his scheme for the Sydney Opera House, was encouraged to flee and the design was completed by Ove Arup. So when we talk about the Sydney Opera House, we should say that it is Ove Arup's Sydney Opera House with a little help at an early stage from Utzon.
There is much more I can say along that line and I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I have some time left in which to say it. Let us turn to some of the more notable buildings of the present day: the Pompidou Centre in Paris, Lloyd's in the City, the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, the new terminal at Stansted which was opened a fortnight or so ago and the proposed new international extension at Waterloo Station, which some of us had the opportunity to see a week or so ago—although that is not quite true because we saw a hole in the ground where the station eventually will be, but we saw pictures of the station. All those structures, which are eminently interesting and highly notable, are works of architecture which would have been impossible without high grade engineering. The juncture of architectural style and design with engineering design is what makes such buildings realisable.
It is an area in which the engineer should be given equal recognition and status with the architect. The engineer should demand it. However, he does not have the opportunity to do so because, as noble Lords will recall, when the copyright Act went through Parliament in 1988, it was proposed that the copyright of a building should be held by the architect and a new right—the moral right to be recognised publicly—was also to be held by the architect. Eventually the Government were persuaded that the engineer should have a place as well. But they were not sufficiently straightforward merely to put into the Act the words "engineer" and "engineering structure". What they did was curious. They changed the word "architect" to "author", to include engineer. They also defined "building" so as to include a "fixed structure". That

1133
was a parliamentary draftsman's way of confusing a fairly straightforward issue. It is true that a building is a structure. But there are a great many structures which are not buildings—the most obvious is a tunnel or a lock gate. That kind of clarity is readily observed by engineers but apparently is hidden from parliamentary draftsmen.
I end by asking the Minister to do two things only. One is to help improve the status of the engineer and engineering. I suggest that he re-reads the Finniston Report and reconsiders the Government's response to it to see how well the Engineering Council meets the propositions laid down by the Finniston committee. One last thing I ask the Minister to do is to insist that his colleagues in government and the Civil Service should read a book called Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. If he is worried about the title, I can tell him that there is not much Zen in it—in fact there is no Zen in it—but there is a good deal which explains the attitude of the engineer and even more important what engineering is all about. That book should be compulsory reading in Whitehall. I know that the Minister has read it but I am quite sure that not too many of his colleagues have done so. I sincerely hope that they will.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Lane of Horsell: My Lords, as a new Member of your Lordships' House I am very conscious of the privilege and of the opportunities provided. I hope that I may be forgiven if, at the moment of embarking on my maiden speech, I am more conscious of feelings of apprehension than of privilege. I am particularly pleased to speak on such a vital subject as the status of engineers and engineering. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for introducing the debate.
I am not an engineer and crave the indulgence of those who have professional expertise in the subject. I am a chartered accountant. I have been in practice for some 40 years throughout which time I have been well aware of the skills and abilities of the qualified enginee r and of engineering. Since in many ways they are synonymous with manufacturing industry, I suppose that engineering has provided a substantial part of my fee income, albeit indirectly, for the whole of that period. I am therefore conscious of the need to maintain and enhance the status of engineers in Britain.
It is unfortunate that as part of our strange, historical, anti-industrial culture, the engineering skills held in such high honour in countries such as France. Germany and Japan do not receive equal esteem in Britain. That state of affairs has arisen despite the good intentions of government, employers and trades unions and the fact that engineering is a vital component of manufacturing industry. Fifty per cent. of British engineering graduates enter the manufacturing sector. Thus, in theory, when manufacturing flourishes, so do engineers. In recent years there has been a sustained growth in manufacturing in Britain in output and exports. Yet I do not believe that in themselves those great
1134
achievements have been reflected in the enhanced status of qualified engineers. Acknowledgment of their importance within industry is essential if their status is to be improved. Equally vital is an acknowledgment of the importance of the engineer within society in general. As a professional but an outside observer, that aspect is of particular interest to me.
As in so many elements of life, everything begins at school. The traditional anti-science basis of much education in Britain has done little for engineering. I hope very much that the new national curriculum, whereby all pupils in maintained schools must study science, mathematics and technology during their entire time at school, will not only ensure that those who wish to pursue a scientific career have a better grounding but also that those who take up non-scientific careers will have a basic understanding of scientific disciplines. In the very long term this should of course promote a greater appreciation of engineers and of the value of science and engineering throughout society.
I have been given some statistics which show that the number of engineering graduates produced by our higher education system is growing fast. It is projected to rise by a third to 28,000 in 1993-94. From a broader spectrum of qualifications in 1986, the percentage of the age group of young people with higher education qualifications in engineering was greater than in either the USA or Germany. That is at least impressive, if only to correct the common impression that we always lag behind our partners in these fields. One can detect a number of initiatives that should provide new and growing opportunities for young people—girls and boys—to embark on careers in science and engineering.
I have little doubt that the standard of our qualified engineers is comparable to that of any of our European partners. But it is not enough simply to provide growing opportunities for the education and training of engineers, vital though such opportunities are. What is necessary, and necessary now, is an across-the-board recognition of the importance of the engineer within our companies.
Starting salaries for engineering graduates in industry tend to be low. Senior salaries at the end of a career also tend to be low. I suspect that there is a general perception that engineering is not a route to the top in industry. Too many science and engineering graduates tend to swap career paths into what they see as easier and faster routes to the top through the disciplines of accountancy, law and merchant banking.
As I said, we need to develop a recognition of the importance of the engineer across the board and on the board. Other leading industrial countries appear to have more engineers at company board level than we do. Clearly British companies need to recognise more fully the importance of engineers. Engineers must learn to apply their skills in a company-wide context. Major innovations have undoubtedly been made in that field and in training generally. The skills revolution is undoubtedly taking place. How best can we secure standards and ensure that those standards

1135
are met in increasing numbers? It is in the world of education that the foundation has to be laid. The status of engineers has never been more important. Enhancement of that qualification and status should flourish as industry, in the centre of our national and economic life, also flourishes.
I thank your Lordships for listening to me so courteously. I am glad to have had the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a matter of great interest to me.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, on behalf of the House I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, on his excellent maiden speech. He is clearly a man who is well-informed on matters involving manufacturing industry. He spoke with great sympathy of the problem of engineers even though he happens to be an accountant. We look forward to contributions that he will no doubt make on this and other subjects in the future. I understand that he is a member of the MCC. Perhaps the best way that I can put it is to say that he has made a splendid first innings and I wish his batting average well in the future.
I too welcome the opportunity in the debate to air an issue which many people regard as being at the root of the so-called British disease. It is the attitude of our society towards manufacturing industry, and, bound up with that, the esteem in which engineers and engineering is held by the educated and influential classes. It is a moot point whether, by winning the Battle of Waterloo, we lost a more important battle: that is, to obtain an education system capable of providing people with the right skills and attitudes for a modern society whose wealth and quality of life is based on a sound manufacturing industry. France's Ecoles Polytechniques were set up primarily to provide military and civil engineers well grounded in mathematics and science to maintain the French empire. They were educated men who had a high status in their society. The Continental engineers from present day polytechnics and from Technische Hochschule are their direct descendants. They enjoy the same privileged reputation.
However, as a result of Waterloo, the Napoleonic influence unfortunately did not cross the Channel. By comparison the British engineers who helped to create the Industrial Revolution in this country—brilliant and ingenious though they were—were men without formal education in science and mathematics. They were not university men. The brilliant Essay on Technology and the Academics by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, describes well the resistance of the English universities to the penetration of science. Some of those men were illiterate.
In spite of the changes that have occurred in our education system, the fact remains that engineers in Britain are regarded in some circles as tradesmen or craftsmen rather than professionals alongside lawyers, doctors—and perhaps I should add accountants. Engineering is still seen as a dull, dirty occupation requiring brawn rather than brain. I wonder how
1136
Wittgenstein, who was trained as an aeronautical engineer, would have regarded that. The depressing fact is that many able young people in the process of choosing careers also have that view and opt for some apparently more glamorous and rewarding career. The idea therefore becomes self-fulfilling.
As a proportion of the population Britain produces fewer engineers than competitor nations. The figure is about two-thirds of graduates at first degree level compared with Germany, and one-half compared with Japan. No doubt the poor performance of manufacturing industry cannot be blamed entirely on the lack of qualified engineers in this country. Obviously poor marketing and bad management must play a part. However, good product design, high quality, high productivity and low cost are factors in which technology plays a key part, and so should properly trained engineers. Improvement in the UK's manufacturing output will not be achieved without the right quality and quantity of engineers.
Paradoxically a recent ACOST report on education and employment states that many of our graduates in industry complain of being bored and not stretched. They feel entirely under-utilised. Frequently they are required to carry out undemanding tasks which could and should be done by technicians and craftsmen. Clearly there is a management problem here. The lack of an infrastructure of trained technicians is perhaps an even greater scandal given the unemployment of youths in the 16 to 18 year-old bracket.
The ACOST report concerns itself with the education of scientists and technologists and the fall in graduate numbers in both categories. It draws attention to the fact that science and technology courses are seen as dull, crammed with facts, lacking excitement and delivered in formal lectures with little opportunity to develop other talents such as communication skills. There seems to be more than a little germ of truth in those accusations. The changes that the report recommends should be considered seriously by all in education.
Part of the problem in engineering and technology is that many teachers have little contact with industry, with small knowledge of the problem solving that goes on in industry and the excitement that that can generate. The interchange of staff between education and industry can help, though difficult logistical problems are involved.
It appears from the report that television, radio and the press are the most influential factors in determining the attitudes of the young towards careers. Unfortunately, they have more influence than parents or teachers. If we are to change the attitudes of the young we must enlist the support of these powerful and persuasive influences. The suggestion of soap operas involving the day-to-day exploits of engineers has been ridiculed. However, I can see no problem in occasionally introducing practitioners in order to show that they eat, drink, procreate and generally misbehave like everyone else and to destroy the present-day dull stereotype.
More importantly we engineers need a champion on the box. We need an enthusiast such as David Bellamy or David Attenborough, or a robust

1137
iconoclast such as John Harvey-Jones. We do not need more programmes such as "Tomorrow's World" or "Horizon", where the audience is presented with scientific marvels or wonder products which create a gap between the viewer and the subject. The viewer needs to become intimately involved in understanding the kinds of problem faced in engineering. They are not merely the technical problems of stresses, strains and structures but the overall problems involved in, for example, building a bridge or developing a new aircraft. There are problems such as the limitation imposed by materials, the legal and social requirements and the ways of dealing with pollution effects. In the human dimension there is also the effect of public reaction. Youth often holds technology responsible for the damage done to the environment. While that may appear to be unfair to industrialists and technologists since the public as customer demanded the goods, it is only by better and different technology that we can bring about improvements.
In devising a solution the well-rounded engineer must be alive to all those factors. In some degree they may be incompatible. There are no perfect solutions; compromises must be made. The situation is more akin to that which confronts his or her professional colleagues in the law and in medicine than that of the pure scientist, whose problems are generally more clearly defined. For an engineer satisfaction and excitement is achieved by obtaining an effective and economic solution to a problem. If the sense of excitement and worth can be passed down we shall be a long way down the road towards recruiting young men and women to a great profession that can and must influence the quality of life for us all.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Amwell: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak for the first time in your Lordships' Chamber. I ask for the indulgence of the House for the few words that I have to say.
I am of course greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for initiating this important debate. It seems to be a truism that when two or more engineers are gathered together sooner rather than later the discussion will turn to bemoaning their low status in this country. The debate gives us an official opportunity to do so and as a practising chartered civil engineer I wish to take advantage of it. Most of my comments will be based on my experience in civil engineering but they hold true in most other aspects of engineering.
It is always a slightly unnerving experience for a qualified British engineer to go to other countries in Europe or in the third world and to find that he is treated as someone rather special just because he is an engineer. That is an experience that he never has at home. What therefore is this abstract thing called status? The Oxford dictionary presents a problem for it contains two definitions which appear in the context of today's debate to be mutually contradictory. The first is "relative importance" and the second is "social position".
If relative importance was the criterion the status of qualified engineers and engineering would be of the
1138
highest because without them modern civilisation as we know it today would not be possible. Perhaps I may take this Chamber as an example—I should be speaking much louder because there would be no amplification, no television and no electric light. We should to all intents and purposes be back in the 17th century. Every development since then necessary for a modern civilisation has been and continues to be provided by engineers. One has only to look at the situation in Kuwait, or worse still in Iraq, to see what deprivation is brought about by a complete breakdown in the engineering infrastructure.
Therefore, as regards the criterion of relative importance, most if not all other professions would bow to engineering. This is of course what happens in other more successful nations such as Germany and Japan but it does not happen here.
On the other hand, social position is what every engineer believes he lacks relative to most of his fellow professionals. That definition is the crux of today's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has identified the British perception of an engineer as an artisan who comes to mend the tap, the car or the telly. The preface "qualified" or "chartered" engineer does not change the image.
Yet the chartered engineer, like most professionals today, must be a graduate and undertake a lengthy post-graduate training in order to achieve chartered status. The average period to become a chartered civil engineer, including obtaining a degree, is nine years. That is indeed longer than is the case in most other professions. What reward can an engineer expect from society for all this hard work? Certainly no social position and in financial terms a very bleak outlook indeed.
On graduating his salary may be close to or even slightly above that of other graduates. But we need to look further into the future to obtain a better perspective. Seven years after graduation a graduate in the financial sector can expect to be earning 60 per cent. above the average of all graduates of his age; a lawyer 20 per cent more; an accountant 15 per cent. more. However, a civil engineer will be earning 4 per cent. less than the average graduate. That is a position beaten only by teachers and social workers.
Does any of this matter? Does it matter that one relatively privileged professional group lacks status compared to other professionals? Yes, I am certain that it does. Ours is a country that lives and exports on the quality of its engineering products. Those products are brought into being by the design skills of professional engineers. Without adequate numbers of those engineers the ability in this country to create properly designed, well engineered, competitively priced products will progressively diminish. I do not believe that anyone would disagree that we have seen that ability diminish during the past 20 years; some would say during the past century.
But the number and quality of youngsters hoping to become qualified engineers is in decline relative to the number of graduates in other areas. In 1988 engineering firms outside the construction sector took in 20 per cent. of all graduates but reported a shortfall in their requirements of a further 20 per cent. The

1139
construction sector took in just 8 per cent. but reported a shortfall of a staggering 24 per cent. Graduates either were not available or could not be persuaded to come into engineering. According to the laws of supply and demand such a shortfall should produce an increase in the number of engineering students. However, I understand that while it is rising slightly, it is not rising fast enough to meet the shortfall in demand. Teachers and parents seem to continue to believe that engineering is poorly paid and of low overall reward.
The result is a failure to attract post A-level students on to engineering courses and, on graduation, there is a loss of the cream of engineering graduates from their natural home in engineering into other professions. There is no doubt that part of the problem can and should be laid at the door of the engineering profession for failing to promote more widely the value of what it does. Also, it is part of a wider malaise in Britain that seems to me deliberately to undervalue the work done by those who make things.
I have no instant solutions as to how that balance may be redressed. However, solutions must be found if we are to avoid slipping further behind the rest of Europe in our engineering base and if we are to remain an economic force in Europe in the 21st century. I thank your Lordships for listening to me on this difficult occasion but fortunately I am speaking on a subject in which I have a close personal interest.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the whole House to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, on his maiden speech. I must confess that I had not had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord before today but I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Lord's speech demonstrates very clearly his knowledge and experience of these matters. Also, it was a good trailer for the many contributions which I hope that the noble Lord will make in the future. It is a tradition of our Cross-Benches that they represent a considerable degree of expertise in all sorts of different subjects. The noble Lord is a very welcome addition to that great range of knowledge.
It is the practice in your Lordships' House that a maiden speaker should be congratulated only by the speaker immediately following him. However, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I express a few words of appreciation for the maiden speech of my noble friend and kinsman Lord Lane of Horsell. I am delighted to have my noble friend alongside me if only because I am married to his daughter. I look forward to my noble friend's contributions in the future.
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for raising this important matter. I must start by declaring an interest as a director of a company involved in engineering and also as president of METCOM which is a group of trade associations within this sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and indeed those noble Lords who spoke after him have referred
1140
to the importance of engineering which is, I suppose, self-evident. After all engineering represents nigh on 10 per cent. of our gross domestic product and plays an absolutely crucial role in many of our national activities as I discovered, if I did not appreciate it already, when I served as Minister for Defence Procurement in the Ministry of Defence. Imagine defence procurement without engineering!
That percentage of GDP—about 10 per cent—is historically rather low. In earlier times it was much higher. I suspect that some of the decline from those historically high levels of engineering activity as a proportion of the whole was inevitable and perhaps not altogether a bad thing. Nevertheless, I believe we should now be thinking of ways to inject new life into the sector. That is why I welcome today's debate.
Clearly, training will play a critical role. I warmly endorse all the recent training initiatives which the Government have taken. Governments do not have a magic wand and, less still, unlimited funds. I believe that the industry, teaching and training establishments and, indeed, engineers and potential engineers must try to do more.
First, I believe that the industry itself can help to raise the status of its qualified engineers, no doubt by paying them more, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and my noble friend Lord Lane said, but equally importantly, by seeking to fill middle and senior level managerial posts from the ranks of those with relevant qualifications. If the term "relevant qualifications" is to include engineering qualifications, then engineering training should include some instruction in management skills. Increasingly, I hope that it will.
One way the Government could help in a process to which I know they attach importance would be by the creation of, for example, a Queen's Award for engineering excellence. There are already several important Queen's Awards which are much sought after and highly prized. A new award in this sphere would be a source of encouragement and inspiration. I believe that there is already a Queen's Award for technological achievement which is not quite the same. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is nodding her head. She will know what I am talking about because I believe I am right in saying that when she was Lord Lieutenant of London she would have presented many such awards.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the role of the universities and polytechnics. The enormous degree of freedom which they enjoy in spending the large sums of public money placed at their disposal has not served the taxpayer very well. While more and more of our young people enter those establishments—and rightly so—fewer and fewer are emerging with the qualifications which our nation so badly needs. Should not more of the funding provided for the purposes of higher education be earmarked from the start for courses in the disciplines which we all so badly need? Why is it so improper for universities to say to potential undergraduates, "You may come here to read an engineering subject but not, for example,

1141
the history of sociology"? Nobody admires sociological historians more than I do, but as a nation we do not need as many of them as we do engineers.
I shall put that another way. Would it not be possible to say to universities and polytechnics that they should ensure that perhaps 10 per cent of their graduates have studied subjects of direct relevance to manufacturing industry which, after all, creates at least the same percentage of our national wealth and sometimes a much greater percentage of university funding?
I recognise that academic freedom is an article of faith which we in this House especially hold dear. However, surely we are entitled to ask the defenders of the present system within academia what steps they propose to take to ensure that their institutions begin to serve the country perhaps rather better than has been the case recently. Mere calls for more money will not do.
Finally, I turn to engineers and potential engineers. I hope that our young people will not be easily seduced by the apparent easy wealth to be derived from, say, a career in front of a video screen which, as recent history has shown, is not always all that it is cracked up to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, engineers should blow their own trumpets rather more, and here the professional bodies have a role to play.
The long term future of our economy depends crucially on the health of our manufacturing industry within which engineering plays a vital part. Of course the Government can help but in the end, as Charles I said before his execution:
"Put not your trust in princes for in them there is no salvation".
No! The key to progress in this matter lies within the industry itself and within the educational and training establishments. It depends upon the enthusiasm and dedication of those who can restore Great Britain to its rightful place as a major world producer.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am glad that this debate has involved participation by a number of noble Lords who are not engineers. It is very much up to us to do our best to cure the inferiority complex that I detect in some of my engineering friends. I hope to do that by referring to one engineer in particular.
The debate is timely. Within the past few weeks Gordon Eddie, a distinguished engineer, died. He worked in the Torry research station as an engineer. Much of the development in regard to fishing trawlers and freezing was brought about through his efforts. He happened to be a member of my team in the Falklands. I there discovered what one may call the cultural background of an engineer.
Gordon Eddie had a capacity to understand issues which the rest of us did not naturally understand. Matters arose on which we needed his kind of mind. At an early stage he said that it was time he went to examine the freezer which was on one of the islands in the Falklands. He had to swim to reach it. When he arrived he found that it was about to blow up. His help in that incident was a benefit we had not foreseen.
1142
He was of value also when we examined the airfield and considered the possibility of its taking long-range aircraft. If that had been possible, the Falklands war might have been avoided. His understanding of the LCN—the bearing quality of the runway—was fundamental. That cultural background—the engineer's background and understanding—is of great value to the community today.
It is difficult to say to what that background is due. I believe the engineer needs to he much more bold, proud and confident of his abilities. He deals in practicalities. As one engineer explained to me, he deals in three dimensions. He must plan. Finally, he is essentially concerned with making the project work. No scientist could work successfully without the engineer putting into effect his work.
I hope noble Lords, and particularly those who are engineers, will not feel at a disadvantage alongside those who work in the City. Their community value is much greater to the public at large. Therefore I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howie on introducing this important debate.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for introducing the debate this evening. I am a chartered civil engineer and proud to be one even if it means that from time to time I dirty my hands in carrying out my work; that is not important.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, referred to the fact that few people know what an engineer is. Several speakers drew attention to the common misunderstanding that they repair washing machines and motor cars. Even members of my family appear to be under that misconception. It is part of our problem that anyone in this country may call themselves an engineer. Somehow or other the honourable appellation of mechanic is no longer fashionable. We do not see mechanics in garages any more; it is engineers who come to fix our cars. I do not know why that is. There is nothing wrong with being a mechanic. In Victorian days the mechanics' institutes were very much the educators of a large number of our technological population.
Be that as it may, it must be borne in mind that in many continental countries the term "engineer" is reserved for what we in this country call a professional or a qualified engineer in the terms of the Motion before us. It is a strange fact that architects have reserved their appellation in a way that engineers have not. I do not know how that came about, but one must qualify as an architect before one may use that description.
Much has been said about the relative remuneration of engineers and that of other professional people. Perhaps we should bear in mind that in only recent history engineers tended to be drawn from a class that was already well endowed with social status; they entered engineering—certainly in the branch of civil engineering that I entered—as a way of exerting a useful and constructive influence on the life of the country. As such, when one became an entrant into a

1143
firm of consulting engineers one did not expect to be paid. One's parents tended to pay for one's two-year or so apprenticeship.
A rueful story is told in our profession of one gentleman who, after two-and-a-half years, approached the boss and asked whether he could have a salary. He was told that the boss man deprecated the mercenary attitude creeping into young engineers; whereupon the young man fled without a salary for yet another few months. I was brought up in the aftermath of that era. Engineers were not supposed to be paid very much. We were told that we had job satisfaction and that that was as much as anyone could reasonably expect. The realities of buying groceries were not considered.
Engineers are much to blame for the situation in which they find themselves. One of the problems is that engineering is far too interesting, despite the gloomy picture that may be painted by some people of the apparently boring nature of what we do. I have a vivid memory of conducting some experiments on a working model of a dam. A small boy whom I had brought to see it stood with his mouth open in awe and said, "Do they pay you as well?" I had to assure him that in fact they did.
We in our profession do not help ourselves. We are too interested in what we do and we are content, to some extent, to take a subordinate role in the affairs of industry in return for a quiet life and the opportunity to do the things we really find interesting. That is not the way in which one progresses in this world. However, it certainly is an interesting occupation. Colleagues of mine have done fascinating things such as exploring the Antarctic or mapping rivers in Africa that had never been explored. That is fine, but one becomes hooked on that and expects to spend the rest of one's life doing such things and not progressing further.
We are not helped by our education. I took a three-year engineering course. There is much to learn in engineering. We must learn a lot of technology. At no time was it even hinted that we might find ourselves administering large enterprises. Someone else did that. Our job was to be good technicians and to ease the work in progress. We had no training whatever in any part of business administration. We were left to pick that up for ourselves as our careers proceeded. Therefore, when we got older we merely visited on our subordinates the injustices that had earlier been visited on us. That is no basis on which to be in a position to administer any sizeable organisation, but it is one in which so many of us find ourselves.
My son is a mining engineer. He has had the wit and support to spend two years taking a Master's degree in business administration. He had reached a ceiling in engineering. He is a very good engineer but he needed more. He now has that additional qualification and he is going way ahead—and good luck to him. It is people who have a combination of knowing how things work mechanically and knowing how industry should work who ought to be able to play a major part in making the industries of this country more efficient. We rely too much on
1144
administrators being in a totally detached occupation where it is considered almost to be wrong to know how you make the product that is being manufactured. That situation must end for the benefit of the whole community. Perhaps we can look forward to engineers receiving a longer and more broadly-based education in order that they may carry out these tasks in the future.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I hope that the House will not mind that my name is not on the list of speakers, but at least one speaker has dropped out and there is some time available. I wish to add my support to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am not an engineer, but I admire engineers in their occupation and what they bring to the various parts of British industry. I wish to mention two matters, one from the past and the other from the recent past. My only connection with engineering is that my wife is a great, great grand-daughter of I. K. Brunel. I am reminded of the versatility of engineers at the beginning of the last century. His father, Sir Marc Brunel, has his portrait in the Committee corridor of this House. He started by making a tunnel under the Thames at Rotherhithe through which trains are still running.
The versatility of British engineers at that time was really impressive. I was on the committee which brought the "Great Britain" back from the Falkland Islands in the summer of 1970. When she arrived off Avonmouth they wanted a descendant of I. K. to be there. Because of that, immediately after the election, instead of doing what I should have done and at once taking over a department, I and my wife went, with the Prime Minister's agreement, to greet the great ship as she came into Avonmouth.
Engineers in this country did have great panache. I wish that could be revived. I was reminded on that journey that I was travelling along a railway which had been laid out by I. K. I travelled through Box Tunnel, which had been built by him; I saw the Clifton bridge, which had been designed by him, and then I saw one of his great ships. His versatility was incredible. The part played by the engineers of the 1840s was mentioned by Lord Clarke in his television programme "Civilisation". I. K. was described by him as a romantic imperialist. I hope that we shall see the days of British engineers coming back into the media and into the romantic sphere as well as the hard professional side of their lives.
I now come to more modern times and to my late friend Sir Monty Finniston. After a very long and successful career in business, in which he ended up as the head of British Steel, he gave his time in semi-retirement to championing the profession and status of engineers in this country. He made an impressive start in a way which I hope will continue. What has been said in this debate in forwarding the role of engineers in our society I hope will continue to be supported by Parliament. I too am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, caused this debate to take place. I join with those who wish that engineers may be allowed not only to gain their training and

1145
advance in their profession but also to play a role which will become more and more important in British life.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon for bringing this extremely important matter before your Lordships. I congratulate the two maiden speakers. Both of them are very distinguished: one is an accountant, the other a chartered engineer. They put more or less the same point of view although from slightly different angles. I was particularly glad to see my noble friend Lord Shackleton back in his place and speaking with the firm voice we are accustomed to. He encouraged engineers, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who spoke after him, to blow their own trumpet more vigorously. They should not be the shy flowers that they sometimes are.
There is no need to stress the importance of the subject. All noble Lords will be aware of it. The future of British industry and, to a certain extent, the future of our body politic, depends on having a strong manufacturing industry and within it a strong engineering component. Whether we speak about engineers or engineering—the people or the activity—I believe that all noble Lords are in agreement that both are of supreme importance if we are to prosper as a community.
As regards engineers, the status and skills required are part of the overall problem of the balance of rewards in society. Those rewards can be measured in both monetary terms and in the degree of esteem accorded to engineers. We have to think about them. As regards engineering activity, there is no doubt, as my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon said, that we would not have had any major achievements behind us or, we hope, in front of us, were it not for the engineering industry.
It is slightly sad for those of us who believe in increasing employment to see that, despite rapidly increasing unemployment, there is still a shortage of skilled engineers in industry. The CBI estimates that a quarter of manufacturing companies are short of graduate engineers. There are still pockets of craft shortages. The fall in engineering employment throughout the United Kingdom between 1978 and 1990, as reported by the Engineering Industry Training Board, is shown by the figures. Total engineering employment fell by about 36 per cent.; craft jobs' employment by 44 per cent.; electrical engineering employment by 44 per cent.; electronic engineering employment by 11 per cent.; instrument engineering employment by 26 per cent.; and machine tool engineering employment by 59 per cent. That is not a very happy story for our engineering industry.
However, there has clearly been a shift in the pattern of employment. Certainly, over the past few years, engineering in its broadest sense has employed more graduates than it did 10 years ago. We have to accept that the level of expertise and skill in the engineering industry is increasing, as it should as technology engineering becomes more sophisticated.
1146
The first question that I put to your Lordships is: what is our record in producing qualified engineers? How does it compare with other countries? If it compares unfavourably, why is that so? The noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, devoted much of his speech to that matter, as did other noble Lords.
The Japanese output of graduate engineers is two and a half times higher per head of population than the British output. For engineering graduates in mechanical engineering it is 3:1 in their favour; in chemical engineering, 5:1; and in production engineering it is 9:1. The ratio of applications for engineering places in universities is 4.7:1 in Japan's favour. The same is true of craft and technician levels. We are well behind the rest of Europe, but the Japanese figures show that if we are to catch up with their performance in productivity we have to produce more qualified engineers.
There may be disputes about the figures, as there always are, and about how many graduate engineers are produced. The Government will quote figures from the Employment Gazette, no doubt saying that we are doing very well, which will be challenged by the Engineering Council which disagrees and says that we are doing badly. But the summary I would suggest is that we have not had a bad record over the past few years in doctorates, although our record is not so good in masters degrees and first degrees. During the same period France has doubled—and is planning to double again—the number of qualified engineers coming out of universities. So even if our record is better than it was, it is still not good enough for the future.
Time moves on, and we cannot just talk about quantity. We have to consider quality as well. Whereas in the past, whatever the figures may be, we could argue that the main source of concern in the United Kingdom was the low numbers of university-trained engineers—and to some extent I would argue that it still is—the future concern in comparison with Europe must be as much with the quality of engineers coming out of our universities and polytechnics as with the quantity. It must also be directed towards retraining those who take their degrees but who need further training later in their careers. That applies to every profession. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, will recognise that that is as true in engineering as it is in accountancy.
That brings me neatly to my noble friend's Motion about the status of engineers, which a number of noble Lords have discussed. What is the underlying problem? It would be idle to pretend that the problem is new; it has dogged the United Kingdom ever since the great days of the last century, described by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when engineers enjoyed a very high status.
The Finniston Report, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, included a survey, from which my noble friend Lord Howie quoted, showing that 13 per cent. only of the public associated the word "engineer" with design or research work at a professional level. There are fears that young people are being put off even before they get to secondary

1147
school. Manufacturers have recently taken part in a scheme to bring primary school children into factories and workshops, and there has been another scheme to reach secondary school teachers. Those are very new schemes but they should really have been in operation for a long time. Engineering and manufacturing has not sold itself well to young people. They are not persuaded that it is a good and satisfactory career. Engineering is believed to be dirty, ugly and unglamorous, with low salaries and low status. That is the perception that young people have about engineering as a career.
Even when young people go to university and study engineering they still apparently have a low motivation. As some noble Lords have remarked, they tend to go into the City of London to become analysts rather than into industry. A recent survey showed that 5,000 only out of 14,000 engineering graduates intended to go into engineering. That may be due to pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, said in his maiden speech, there is no doubt that engineers lag behind other professions in pay. For example, 63 per cent.of chartered engineers earned less than£25,000 in 1988-89. That is not a very substantial amount for a qualified engineer. It is possible to earn much more as a junior foreign exchange dealer in the City.
Therefore, given that there is an underlying problem and given that the engineering sector and the Engineering Council have not sold themselves, one must ask what are the answers? Are there any answers?
There is one point on which I would take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The Government have a much greater responsibility than he implied. I am not suggesting that he said the Government had no responsibility, but I would argue that they have a major responsibility. We must start with Finniston. As my noble friend Lord Howie said, Finniston made a series of detailed recommendations for a new qualification structure, and for an engineering authority to oversee a national policy for standards and quality. Not much of that has been implemented. There are those who would argue that that is too engineer-dominated, but I think we should look at it again.
There is also bias against mathematics and science in schools. It may be that the new national curriculum will help to correct that, but many people who are much more qualified than I am criticise the bottleneck of A-levels which forces people to specialise away from those disciplines. I include in those critics the Engineering Council and the Secondary Heads Association.
As many nobles Lords have pointed out, we should be prepared to raise the status of engineers by promoting them to senior management positions. There is no reason why engineers should not become managers, administrators and directors in the same way as others do. That happens in German and Japanese companies, which do not seem to suffer. Possibly one should argue for higher pay. I should also argue for encouraging more women to come into engineering, which is still seen very much as a male
1148
bastion. The number of women on engineering degree courses rose from 7 per cent. in 1984 to nearly 12 per cent. in 1989, partly as a result of the women in science and engineering campaign of the Engineering Council. There are many opportunities which the Government must seize.
Those are some of the answers. Nevertheless, we have to come back to what Government can do to help. I should like to quote something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, the chairman of Rolls-Royce, when he was chairman of the Engineering Council. He said:
"Normal market forces will not work to make up the severe shortfall and provide the skills base needed by modern industry and commerce".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. It is wrong to expect normal market forces simply to provide what we are all hoping and expecting to happen. Market forces must be helped by government. That is the main message that I would give to your Lordships from this Dispatch Box.
There are several ways in which government can help. We in the Labour Party have proposed the setting up of technology trusts which would improve the technological level of small and medium size engineering firms. We should like to see the application of new generations of automation in small and medium size firms which would raise the skills level of those employed and also the productivity inside firms. In our view there is a long way to go. Government must take the lead in upgrading, automating and linking those islands of automation together geographically.
We must also take much more seriously the idea of an Open University for engineers. The Open University, as the House will remember, was one of the great inventions of the Government of 1964-70. We can now use technology of all sorts—for example, satellite technology. We can deliver through that technology to the workplace the methods of updating skills as well as full courses up to degree level so that every firm in the country becomes part of a great university. That is happening in the United States. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has started a form of general university education in firms in the state of Massachusetts and outside. It is also being started in Stanford by Stanford Research in California and in Texas. There is no reason at all why we should not learn from those examples. Those are successful models. They form groups of companies associated with a university or research institute. We can base them on colleges of further education, if that is appropriate for us. We should be using all these methods to encourage engineering to become a much more respectable, much more developed and much more technologically sophisticated in perception career for people.
I do not wish to take up too much time. I wish to reiterate and re-endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said. Although I disagree with him on a number of matters, particularly the role of government, I do believe that government, the engineering industry and engineers themselves, must think imaginatively if we are to address seriously the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Howie. A

1149
healthy engineering industry—mechanical or electronic—lies at the heart of any policy to improve national productivity across the whole economy. We should do well to remember that. Engineering is still far too frequently identified in the public mind with metal bashing. We must do something to correct that. The engineering of tomorrow will be in automated systems; robots, data processing and sophisticated material such as that. It is that image that has to be promoted and promoted actively. It is only the Government who have the capability to do it. We must think long term. The Government cannot collectively wash their hands of the subject. On the day when Rolls-Royce has announced 3,000 job losses it is a message that I believe the Minister would do well to heed.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are doubly blessed today by the debate brought to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. We are doubly blessed because it is a subject of great interest as well as of import: doubly blessed because we have had the pleasure—I believe for all of us—of two superb maiden speeches.
We have had the pleasure of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, with a professional career outside engineering, viewing with enthusiasm and sympathy what he sees as some of the problems. I enjoyed his speech greatly. I very much hope that it will be only a short time before he returns to contribute further to debates in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, rightly reminded us all that had it not been for the contribution of the engineers we should be in need of some form of prescriptive medicine to maintain our voice boxes. Then there is electric light that allows the Minister to read from his brief at the Dispatch Box. More to the point, he pointed out that the cure for the black clouds over Kuwait will above all be engineering solutions. I look forward to further contributions from the noble Lord.
I feel I should declare a humble interest as an honorary fellow of the Society of Engineers. But I declare a life-long enthusiasm for British engineering ability. I also declare an interest through the hero of my boyhood and adult life, I. K. Brunel.
It may be an unfortunate comparison, but when the great tunnel was dug under the Thames both father and son gave a huge banquet in the tunnel to celebrate its construction. I wonder whether in 1993 a great banquet will be given under the Channel in order to celebrate an equally stupendous achievement of engineering. It is worth remembering that when R. J. Mitchell was chief designer at Supermarine before the war the position was considered of sufficient importance for him to have a chauffeur driven Rolls-Royce to come to work in every day. I wonder how many chief designers in 1991 are driven to work in that way?
Individuals have to make choices whether to study to higher education entry level, which subjects to take, whether to enter the higher education system at all and which course to follow. Having made those choices
1150
they will make decisions about employment and whether to stay with the profession of their choice. In order to make wise decisions they must understand the implications of those choices, together with maintaining the interest and enthusiasm for their subject. There is no doubt that many people outside of the engineering profession are still uncertain about the nature and range of work involved in engineering, together with career prospects, potential rewards and status.
Raising the status of engineers is primarily a matter for the engineering profession itself. Employers need to provide factual information on what the work of the well qualified engineer demands. They need to provide career progression, both in technical and managerial roles, and recognise this with appropriate pay differentials throughout the career that follows. They must ensure that skills are used to greatest advantage, with divisions between engineers and technicians. Anecdotal evidence of qualified engineers mis-employed as technicians does no service to recruitment to the profession. Employers need to demonstrate that engineering compares well with other career options.
There is a cultural change needed covering the spectrum from home to company. Government and the engineering profession are pursuing a course to see this come about. I shall give an example of a very recent co-operative activity that develops this theme. The Department of Education, the DTI, the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Fellowship of Engineering provided financial support for a pilot series of three BBC programmes on Science and Technology, "The New Explorers". The aim of these programmes, broadcast in February 1991, was to present science and technology research and the strategies that lie behind it to a wider audience.
Another example of seeking to bring about this cultural change is the "Women into Science and Engineering" campaign which is designed to encourage more girls and women to consider careers in science and engineering. This point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
There is considerable evidence that the structure of teaching and learning embodied in the GCSE balanced science approach is motivating more young people to see themselves as scientists. This, combined with the requirement that all young people should study science and technology within the national curriculum to the age of 16, augurs well for attracting people into the engineering profession.
The status of the engineer is, I freely admit, partly dictated by salary levels. The Engineering Council's 1989 survey shows that increases in engineering salaries were at a rate above the retail prices index. In contrast to this, figures from the Engineers' and Managers' Association report, An Engineering Vacuum, of February 1990 indicate that the salaries do not always compare favourably with other professions. The evidence may be incomplete, and salary levels are not of course uniform across employers. But if employers truly now recognise that engineering

1151
skills in industry need to be enhanced, it is for employers to consider the relative importance of those salary levels.
There are many UK bodies and institutions active in working to enhance the image of technology and science. Notable among them is the Engineering Council. The Engineering Council has as one of its objectives to promote the status and practice of engineering generally with a view to improving competitiveness. It was set up in 1981 following Sir Monty Finniston's committee of inquiry into the engineering profession. The form that this body took was a result of the industry's own preferences. The Government also supported it with initial pump-priming of some£3 million over three years as grant in aid.
On a personal note, the death of Sir Monty Finniston in the early part of this year was a sad loss to the United Kingdom and to the engineering profession in particular. It was his drive and enthusiasm which ensured that the committee of inquiry that was set up in December 1977 under his chairmanship published its report entitled Engineering Our Future in January 1980. Indeed that title is perhaps a fitting tribute to the man himself, who had done so much for engineering and engineers.
The Engineering Council enjoys the continuing support and co-operation of the engineering profession, and it is now self-supporting as an institution. Even so, with about 50 separate engineering institutions in the UK, there is still considerable opportunity for joint activities under the auspices of the council. This is necessary in order to avoid a fragmented approach to meeting the profession's needs.
The Engineering Council has a range of continuing activities. It maintains and develops the register for chartered engineers, incorporated engineers and engineering technicians. It operates through education and training initiatives to ensure industry's needs are met. It runs schemes, seminars and conferences to promote the career image of the engineering profession. The Government provide specific financial assistance for some of this important work; for example, the neighbourhood engineers scheme. The neighbourhood engineers scheme aims to secure closer links between engineers and secondary schools to improve the understanding of the role of engineers by school children, their parents and teachers. The scheme does this by attaching four or five local engineers to every secondary school in the country. It is amazing how the arrival of a young female engineer in a school can change perceptions.
Government support, both past and present, reflects the importance we attach to the engineering profession. It is vital to the UK economy and particularly to manufacturing industry.
Sufficient numbers of engineers are required if British business is to hold its own in what is an increasingly competitive international market oriented world. Engineers must be well educated and technically skilled. They must maintain their skills throughout their careers even though the subject is
1152
increasingly complex and changes are happening all the time. The Government's policy is to ensure that education and training remain relevant to the needs of the economy and that all those involved—government, employers, training providers and individuals—should play their part in developing the skill of the nation.
Perhaps a most recent pertinent example here is the tax concessions to individuals who are financing their own training towards a recognised qualification. This issue was raised by both the Engineering Council and the Engineering Employers Federation, among others, and has been acted upon. Indeed, my department's objectives, revised and publicised last week to take us into the 1990s, include listening to the concerns of business and ensuring that they are taken into account in the development of government policies, including education and training.
The DTI's objectives also include encouraging the spread of technical skills and closer links between business and the science base. We are already active on several fronts in this area. One example of a very successful partnership between academia and industry is the teaching company scheme, where DTI is the major sponsor. This scheme encourages young, able graduates to apply and develop their skills in industry under academic supervision and gives them an early opportunity to influence company growth and technology transfer. It is reassuring to note that out of more than 380 current teaching company programmes, 82 per cent. are in manufacturing industry. Fifty-five per cent. are in small and medium sized enterprises which can provide an excellent first training ground for the young engineer who wants to make a success of an industrial career.
Universities, polytechnics and colleges are autonomous in academic matters, but employers, professional institutions and grant awarding bodies can influence degree content. In responding to such expressions of demand, institutions will be given an incentive to recruit additional students in the more expensive engineering subjects by the shift from the flat rate to differentiated tuition fees from Autumn 1991, which I hope will go some way to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
In response to industry's need for more broader based engineers, the Department of Trade and Industry is supporting the Engineering Council's integrated engineering degree programme to develop multidisciplined engineering degree courses. Stimulation of innovation is another of the department's objectives. Innovation is a major source of competitiveness and engineers have a crucial role to play in this important area. In this context manufacturing industry and the construction industry need qualified, flexible professional engineers. They are needed to implement a company's advanced manufacturing technology strategy, to push forward its programme of product innovation and improvements and to contribute a technical perspective to a company's successful business plans. Some engineers will develop wider business skills. We would encourage companies to invest in such people, to develop these skills and to consider them on merit for

1153
senior positions, a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Crook and Lord Trefgarne. The message of the DTI's "Managing into the 90s" campaign is this: there has to be a broader spectrum and business must be made accessible to engineers for the further advancement of their careers.
Many of the world's most competitive companies are now breaking down the artificial barriers between company departments and functions, order processing and production, purchasing and design, design and manufacture and despatch and service. Engineers and engineering have a vital role to play here and can be a key to a company developing and implementing a competitive strategy based on integrating its separate departments into project teams.
Many of the world's most successful manufacturing countries have more engineers at board level than we do. As part of encouraging UK companies to look at their competitors, we want more of them to examine that issue to see what lessons we can learn. But it must not and cannot happen by government decree. British engineers must earn their right to a position at the boardroom table just as they do elsewhere. Boards must recognise the importance of engineering and engineers must recognise the importance of setting their engineering skills within a business context.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the status of engineers. At one point he seemed to indicate that we might have been better off in terms of the academic recognition that would have been applied to engineers had Napoleon crossed the Channel. That would be something for the House as a whole to decide rather than the DTI spokesman from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to the difference of recognition accorded to architects and structural engineers. That is something which needs to be faced by the professions and not by the Government. He recommended that the Government should read Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance. I can assure him that I have read it and will ensure that it has a wider distribution.
The only issue on which I disagreed with the noble Lord was when he said that design had received too much attention. This is one area in which I believe British engineering has not achieved success. Some of its products would have had far greater commercial success had they been better designed and had they included a greater proportion of what the consumer wanted as against the technical capability involved. That applies especially to consumer durables.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made a good point Chen he referred to the presentation of the engineering profession. He said that if there were a David Bellamy of engineering, engineering status would benefit. I am sure that that is true. I fear that I can be of no help in providing a constructive answer as to who that individual should be.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne proposed an extension of the Queen's Award scheme and suggested the possibility of a Queen's Award for engineering excellence. I thank him for his suggestion and will take it back to the department. He also referred to the
1154
desire to influence academic institutions to grant a higher percentage of degrees relevant to engineering. I believe that I answered that point earlier.
Evidence was given of the need to combine business skills with engineering skills. There is little dissension in the House on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reasonably said that figures could be bandied about. At this hour I fear that that would not be of advantage to the debate. In fairness to the noble Lord, he did very little bandying about of figures and so I too shall desist from doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. drew our attention to his interesting experience in the Falklands and the ability of an engineer to have lateral and interesting thoughts regardless of where in the world he is put down. I am sure that we know that to be true, but perhaps we need to be reminded of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, referred to misunderstandings. He said that engineers are often seen as no more than the men who come around to fix the washing machine. That is not a state of affairs that any part of the House would wish to encourage. Far from it—we wish people to desist from that misguided belief.
We have had a constructive debate, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the subject.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was pleased by the Minister's reply. He said that he disagreed with me on one matter, and, to tell the truth, I was surprised about that. He was right. I was not talking about the necessity for style but about the over-importance attributed to stylists in our society. We probably agree about that point.
The debate has been interesting and was enlivened by two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Lane, is, in my experience, a peculiarity, in the sense that he is a chartered accountant who not only understands engineers but speaks nicely about them. I gathered from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that what the noble Lord, Lord Lane, has done is to come here to join the family business.
The other maiden speaker was the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. He spoke as the third chartered civil engineer in the House. We are all sitting here beaming at one another. That restores the status quo of a few years ago. The other two members of the profession were the late Lord Hinton and the late Professor Lord Baker, whom older Members will remember. The two maiden speeches were delightful and I hope that we shall hear much more from the noble Lords.
I was especially glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, intervened, although unfortunately he has left the Chamber. He admitted that he was related by marriage to the late Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who also seems to be a hero of the Minister. I am beginning to wonder about my touch, because the last time I spoke in a debate in the House I spoke about Ironbridge and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said

1155
that he was descended from Abraham Darby. I do not know who will rise to claim acquaintance with whom the next time I speak. I shall have to be careful.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminisced and mentioned the versatility of I.K. Brunel. I recall that, when he was building the Great Western Railway, he was sitting at his desk one day when one of his young men rushed in in a flurry to say that a bridge which had just been finished had fallen down. "Thank God", said Brunel, "I was just about to build 20 more like it".
I was greatly taken also by a comment which was not made in the debate. It was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as she passed me on leaving the Chamber. She chided me for not mentioning the Women's Engineering Society. I am happy to say that two noble Lords mentioned women in engineering. They are important. What is interesting is that at long last the idea is getting about that engineering at the professional level is a genteel profession and one which ladies can undertake just as readily as gentlemen. We hope that the number of women engineers will increase. When I was an engineering student there was only one lady engineer in our class, and she led a busy life one way or another.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned one or two points which attracted my attention. One related to what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said when he talked about people's perception of engineering. The British are often accused, especially by designers, of being visually illiterate. That may well be true and no doubt it is a bad thing. However, much more important is that the British are technologically illiterate; that is not merely bad, it is catastrophic.
My noble friend Lord Williams drew our attention to the position of the engineer in France. That is a cultural matter which relates to what I said earlier about the two cultures. The French system naturally assumes that engineers will take a leading role and rise to the top of society. They have a tendency to become presidents. I admit that the French definition of an engineer is not as close and tight as ours, but engineers are greatly respected in France. In Britain, no such respect is given to them.
Before closing the debate, I wish to take up the points which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, made about the narrowness of engineering education. He mentioned his own. The problem with both his and that of others—I do not single him out here—is that he was educated in the wrong country. Had he been educated in Scotland, he would have taken the higher leaving certificate instead of three tight A-levels. He would then have gone on to a four-year engineering degree which, even in the 1940s when I took it, included management. Mind you, he would have had to go to Glasgow University or what is now the University of Strathclyde to do it, but it would have done him nothing but good.
I am grateful to everyone who spoke in this extremely interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill
7.32 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In advance I wish to thank all noble Lords who have agreed to speak and I look forward with great pleasure to hearing the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, who is patron of ASH—Action on Smoking and Health. His speech in your Lordships' House in June 1984 on the report, "Health or Smoking?" was memorable and widely quoted in the media.
At this stage I should declare an interest in the subject of the Bill. I am a founder member of PAT—Parents Against Tobacco—the organisation sponsoring the Bill. It was introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Warley East, Mr. Andrew Faulds. Its purpose is to strengthen existing legislation on the sale of tobacco products to children.
It is already an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the 1937 Act in Scotland for retailers to sell cigarettes to children who are apparently under 16 years of age. It is reasonable to ask, "Why is further legislation necessary?" It is because the present laws are ineffective. They are being flouted to what I would call a farcical degree, were the subject not so serious. Children under 16 have no difficulty at all in buying cigarettes. Even 10 year-olds can walk into shops and come out with packets of cigarettes. Recent surveys carried out after a year of extensive publicity about illegal cigarette sales show little, if any, improvement on figures compiled a year earlier. Then 50 per cent. of shopkeepers were shown to be breaking the law.
At this stage it may be interesting if I report that in October last year West Yorkshire County Council carried out a major survey in which children visited 97 premises and attempted to buy cigarettes. Overall, 41 per cent. of shops sold cigarettes to them. In one particular part of the county 14 out of 16 tobacconists—that is, 87 per cent. of the shops visited—sold cigarettes to children clearly under 16 years of age. Also, at the end of last year trading standards officers in Kingston upon Thames visited 28 shops with a 13 year-old girl who attempted to buy cigarettes. Fifteen out of the 28 shops—over 50 per cent—sold them to her.
It is clear that the present law is not working because it is not being enforced. In 1988 there were only 29 prosecutions for this offence in the whole of the United Kingdom. That was despite the fact that the tobacco industry admits to at least£70 million of illegal cigarette sales to under age children. There have been more prosecutions during 1990, largely stimulated by the Parents Against Tobacco campaign. In some areas prosecutions have been brought for the first time ever.
This may be encouraging, but the present scale of fines is so low that they are no real deterrent to the unscrupulous shopkeeper. On average, fines are below £100. For example, recently magistrates in

1157
Humberside fined two retailers £50 each. Fines of that level are insufficient. The gravity of the offence is not apparent when the penalty is only a small fine.
I hardly need to describe in detail the health risks in smoking. I have spoken to your Lordships on that subject on a number of occasions. The risks are very well known, but they cannot be over-emphasised. Cigarette smoking is much the biggest preventable cause of death in the UK. In 1987, 40,187 people died from lung cancer. Approximately 90 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer and bronchitis are directly caused by smoking. At least 110,000 people die prematurely each year from smoking-related diseases. Numerically, the majority die from coronary heart disease. At least 25 per cent. of those who die from that condition, which is our biggest killer, do so as a result of smoking. The younger the victim of the coronary heart attack, the more likely it is that smoking is a contributory cause to the death.
Most people acquire the habit of smoking early in life. Over 300,000 children between the ages of 11 and 15 are regular smokers: 23 per cent. of all girls and 17 per cent. of all boys aged 15 smoke. Until recently, cigarette smoking was falling in the United Kingdom, largely because older adults had become convinced of its health hazards. However, to replace those who give up smoking, the tobacco industry needs to recruit a new generation of smokers. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. It is as addictive as heroin and other hard drugs. Even though it may not appear to do so much harm when taken, the long-term effects are just as drastic.
The habit of smoking is easily established and extremely difficult to break. The young are particularly vulnerable: 75 per cent. of adult smokers became addicted before they were 18. Children who smoke are likely to become adults who smoke. Boys who smoke now will become fathers who smoke. In turn, their children will be at risk through passive smoking. There is a clear connection between the number of cigarettes smoked in the home and the incidence of respiratory diseases in the children who live in that home.
Women who are heavy smokers—those who smoke 20 or more a day—are twice as likely to have miscarriages as are non-smokers. Children born of mothers who smoke during pregnancy are on average 8 ounces—half a pound—lighter than those born to non-smokers. Smoking has a direct effect on perinatal mortality. The risk to infants increases by 20 per cent. for those whose mothers smoke fewer than 20 cigarettes a day and by 35 per cent. for those whose mothers smoke more than 20 a day. Children whose parents smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves. A vicious circle is formed and it is only by breaking that circle that we have a chance of preventing unnecessary deaths and promoting healthier lives. That is what this Bill aims to do.
I shall now describe briefly the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 aim to introduce higher levels of fines and improve the wording of current legislation. The maximum fine available at present is£400. However, as I said earlier, the fines levied by the courts are much lower. This Bill would raise the fines to level 4 which
1158
provides for a maximum of £1,000. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill now proceeding through your Lordships' House, the level 4 maximum will rise to £2,500.
This scale of penalty will allow magistrates to impose fines which will reflect the severity of the offence and provide a real deterrent to irresponsible retailers. Clauses 1 and 2 also amend the primary legislation to clarify the offence and to make prosecution easier. At present the offence includes a subjective element. The offence is committed where a retailer sells cigarettes to a child who is apparently under the age of 16. That provision has caused problems and confusion and has deterred many local authorities from bringing prosecutions because of the need to produce children in court to show how old they appeared to be. Under this Bill the offence will no longer be the sale of cigarettes to children who are apparently under the age of 16, but absolutely to those who are under the age of 16. The production of a birth certificate in court should suffice to satisfy magistrates about the customer's age.
However, the honest and responsible retailer will he protected by the introduction of a defence where previously none existed. Retailers who can show that they have taken,
"reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence"
to prevent sales to children under 16 can use that as a defence in any proceedings.
The Bill also plugs a potential loophole in the law. Children now have easy access to vending machines in places such as cinema foyers, amusement arcades and other such places. The vending machine trade estimates that 20 per cent. of machines are in places accessible to the under-16s. Under this Bill it will be possible to take action if a vending machine has been used just once by anyone under the age of 16. At present the law only covers a situation where a vending machine "is being used extensively". However, that is difficult to prove. Under the Bill if evidence laid before a court shows that anyone under the age of 16 has used the machine, magistrates can order the removal of the machine, or its control, so that use by under-16s cannot recur.
Clause 3 deals with an especially unpleasant practice. There are unscrupulous traders who make a higher profit from children who smoke by breaking open packs of cigarettes and selling them singly. This is done because children often cannot afford the price of a whole packet of cigarettes. However, the sale of single cigarettes in effect hooks children onto the habit of smoking. When they are older and can afford them they buy whole packets of cigarettes.
Clause 3 will make it illegal for retailers to sell cigarettes except in the original pack of 10 or more. This will cause retailers to stop and think seriously before they break open packs of cigarettes as they will be committing an offence by that action alone, quite apart from the sale of a cigarette to a child. This clause will attract a lower level of fine (level 3 rather than level 4) as traders can be prosecuted both under the primary clause—that is, the sale of cigarettes to

1159
under-16s—and under this new clause dealing with the breaking open of packs and the sale of cigarettes singly.
Clause 4 will require notices to be prominently displayed at the point of sale stating that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 16. Those notices will also have to be displayed on vending machines. Thus the law on cigarette sales will quite properly be advertised where it matters, as is currently done with alcohol in public houses and off-licences.
Clause 5 deals with another aspect of inadequate enforcement. Earlier I stated that children are able to buy cigarettes with' ease because the law at present is not being enforced. Clauses 5 and 6 will provide a remedy for that because they will require one tier of local government at least once every 12 months to consider the extent to which it is appropriate for it to carry out a full programme of enforcement action in its area. This action would include investigations into retailer behaviour, following up complaints, bringing prosecutions and taking any other steps that might be necessary to reduce the incidence of illegal sales.
All local authorities, except in Scotland, have powers to enforce the existing legislation. Those powers will not be affected by the Bill. The new provision will ensure that at county council level, or its equivalent, a regular review of the supply of cigarettes to children under 16 will be undertaken. Where a problem appears to exist the local authority is given a clear indication of how to proceed.
Local authorities and trade associations have made clear their support for this more active approach to enforcement. Many local councils support the Parents Against Tobacco campaign and have welcomed the prospect of a broadly framed duty, as required in this clause.
The public themselves have made clear their support for firm action. In response to a MORI opinion poll, 95 per cent. of the public replied that the law in this area should be strictly enforced. Therefore this legislation is not being foisted on an unwilling populace.
Clause 6 applies the Bill to Scotland where somewhat different arrangements prevail with regard to prosecution. The effect of the Bill should be the same in Scotland with the local authority laying any evidence it has before the procurator fiscal who can then decide to prosecute rather than going ahead with the prosecution itself, as in England.
This Bill will prevent children under 16 from being able to buy cigarettes. That will give them a chance to grow up to be healthy and perhaps to be a lot wealthier than they would be as smokers supporting a cigarette habit. There is also evidence that drug and alcohol problems are much more common among smokers. Therefore, those evils might also be alleviated by this Bill. No one should believe, of course, that this measure alone will stop smoking in childhood, but it seeks to deal with the supply side of the problem more effectively than any previous legislation.
This Bill was extensively considered in another place. There were four days in Committee and the
1160
Report and Third Reading stages lasted three-and-a-half hours. I feel that the original Bill has been weakened during its passage through another place in that a clause which made tobacco product advertising outside retail outlets illegal was dropped. However, the tobacco industry has voluntarily agreed to cut that advertising by 50 per cent. and to remove billboard advertising of tobacco products from within sight of school premises and playing fields. We shall have to watch carefully to see whether that agreement is properly carried out.
At present I do not have any definite amendments planned to the Bill. However, I welcome any which strengthen the effect of the Bill and I shall vigorously oppose any which further weaken the effect of this modest but I hope useful Bill. It is to this country's credit that for over half a century we have had legislation to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children, but it is to our discredit that we have failed to make that legislation work in practice. By introducing many practical improvements this Bill creates the framework for regular review of trade practices and a blitz on illegal sales whenever and wherever necessary. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Rea.)
7.50 p.m.
The Duke of Gloucester: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on this subject—as delighted as I was when I was invited to be President of Parents Against Tobacco. I have been trying to help ASH for some years in its struggles, but I am constantly haunted by the futility of persuading and helping lots of adults to give up smoking yet knowing that thousands and thousands of schoolchildren are following inexorably the same path. It is like watching an escalator taking people to a disaster. The cycle repeats and repeats.
The children start smoking as a lark or a dare, or for whatever reason, and become addicted. They try to give up later. Either they succeed with great suffering or they fail and endure the consequences, which may include being one of the 300 people who every 24 hours die prematurely as a result of smoking tobacco.
Parents Against Tobacco as a campaign concentrates on this one area of children starting to smoke and has approached it on a broad front. The Bill is an important part of that campaign. However, it is PAT's intention to bring the debate we are having here today to every community and, if possible, into every household.
For too long the tobacco industry's greatest ally has been the British sense of inhibition. Personal habits are not something that we discuss easily, and talk of addiction and dependency does not come up easily in most people's houses. It becomes a taboo subject. It is the sort of thing that one would expect to discuss only in a doctor's surgery or in a science lesson. The consequence is that perhaps the single most important decision, at least as regards health, that we as human beings make is usually made by

1161
teenagers who are totally unprepared to approach it rationally. I am referring to the question, "Would you like to smoke?".
PAT, together with others, has done its surveys as to why the answer is so often, "Yes". The first reason is that it seems grown up. It is inevitable that, if there is adult disapproval, to children the banned activity immediately appears the thing to do. There is perhaps that sense of sophistication which waving a cigarette about appears to give. For girls, the majority believe that smoking makes one thin and therefore attractive. For boys, it makes them seem sporty, manly and independent. Of course they read the health warning, but what does it mean? That they might get a headache one day? Smoking, they know, only kills old people. So what? Heroin they are frightened of because they know that it kills young people, but tobacco only kills the old. The concept of addiction is not understood. The assumption is that if for any reason they do not like smoking they can just walk away from it.
The scientists show us that the earlier one starts smoking the more destructive it is and the more addictive. We live in a consumer society and very often to young people consumption is something that they cannot afford. But they think that they can afford smoking, particularly if they buy the cigarettes one at a time. As we have seen, a clause in the Bill is intended to prevent shops selling them one at a time. I have been told that, if one smokes four cigarettes, that is probably enough to produce addiction.
Starting to smoke cigarettes often leads to other drugs. I do not suggest that all smokers become drug addicts, but if one turns it round the other way there are very few drug addicts who are not already smokers. Smoking is the first corrupting step of putting a chemical into one's lungs where it does not belong. If our lungs had nerves and felt the pain, very few people would smoke.
We live in a society which is increasingly health conscious. Our expectations are changing. Retirement used to be thought of as a restful period of brief duration described as "declining years". As we progress—medically, socially, even gastronomically—retirement will be seen as a period of freedom for people fit in mind and body to carry out their ambitions. Tobacco has no part in that scenario and today's deliberations will direct a spotlight on that murky business where the power of the tobacco industry is recruiting its replacement victims through the many small shops, run most frequently by decent people who can only follow the practice that is normal Our attitude as parents protecting our children from that norm also plays a role because it is a matter which must be discussed as publicly as possible to establish what is right.
This Bill is both practical and reasonable in its demand that our children should be protected from access to a product that can only stunt and diminish their lives, however much they may imagine the contrary.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, it is both a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, and his quite outstanding speech. We all know of the tremendous work which he has carried out on behalf of Parents Against Tobacco and many other organisations which are campaigning against smoking. The pity of it is that there is not a much fuller House to hear what the noble Duke had to say. It is to be hoped that his speech will be very widely read, because it is one of the most important speeches for a long time.
The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his extremely clear exposition of an important Bill. This is not a Bill to ban smoking. Some speeches in the other place suggested that it was that kind of Bill. It is not that kind of Bill.
We can all recount stories of smoking in our childhood. At the age of eight or nine I managed to cadge a cigarette. I took two puffs, I could not exhale and so I swallowed the smoke. I was violently sick. I have not smoked since. My mother, who ended her life prematurely as a result of smoking, caught me. All she said was, "Serve you damn well right. You won't do it again". If it had been alcohol it would have been a very different matter. I would have been chastised to within an inch of my life.
We are not here to discuss the merits or demerits of smoking and drinking. However, I suggest to your Lordships that smoking, particularly by children, can do irreparable harm. I am not a doctor but all my family have for many years taken an interest in matters connected with health. Various parts of the children's body are growing, including the sinus and other parts of the breathing apparatus. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if they smoke, they may damage that part of their body and also their throat. That is particularly so because they do not always pick up the right kind of cigarette. They may well smoke a cheap brand of cigarette which is particularly damaging.
One may ask, what about glue sniffing and alcohol and other things which very young children often get up to? It may well be that there have been as many, if not more, deaths, particularly recently, as a result of glue sniffing as there have been as a result of smoking, but there is one point about smoking, whether it concerns children or anyone else, which must be made. One can drink alcohol or sniff glue or whatever else without directly harming other people. Smoking, particularly if it involves children smoking among other children, damages not only the person concerned but the other people around. For that reason alone, the Bill is vital.
As in all legislation, there are problems of enforcement. There are defences written into the Bill. The village shop is a problem. Those who live in villages know that, particularly at weekends, the shop becomes crowded and a lot of kids go in to buy sweets, newspapers and cigarettes. The proprietor of the shop might not be there. Schoolchildren might serve and, under pressure, they might perhaps not notice that they are selling cigarettes to a kid of seven or eight years old. There is a defence in the Bill about that, but, equally, it is the proprietor's responsibility to make

1163
sure that anyone whom he employs and who is selling cigarettes, no matter what their age, knows the consequences of behaving illegally.
Clause 4, which refers to vending machines, is perhaps the only problem clause. I would almost go so far as to say that vending machines should be abolished. Perhaps that is going rather far, but they are a nuisance. People vandalise them, they do not work and, if children cannot get what they want out of them, they will kick them or otherwise damage them. In my view—I do not think that I am alone in this—vending machines could be abolished. That would prevent many problems.
It has been said that if a child smokes once he may not do it again. I recalled a personal instance of that earlier, but I do not advocate a similar course of action. We already have problems with pollution from, among other things, motor cars. We do not want pollution through cigarettes. There is no doubt that children are healthier today. One must perhaps ask oneself why children smoke. Perhaps they do so as a dare; because little Johnny smokes, little Tim should smoke as well to keep up with the lads. We all want to show initiative and to keep up with the lads in the right things, but not with smoking.
The Bill, particularly Clause 4, which deals with vending machines, needs tidying up. Clause 4 is the only provision that may be difficult to enforce. However, everyone who is interested in children's health will wish the Bill well.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, for 17 years I represented the constituency of Bristol, South in the other place. I had the honour to do so until the majority of my local Labour Party management committee decided that I was not a fit and proper person to continue as its public representative. Fortunately, however, I found another niche in Parliament in your Lordships' House.
Bristol, South had a high concentration of tobacco workers, in both cigar and cigarette factories, so I took a keen interest in the industry and did what I could as a constituency member to make sure that my constituents were treated fairly. I never attempted to deny the medical evidence which linked the smoking of tobacco with various diseases and conditions. Recognising some people would continue to smoke, I directed my efforts to trying to persuade them to adopt less harmful methods of smoking such as using filter cigarettes and cigarettes with a reduced tar content. The tar and nicotine tables which should appear in tobacconists are a result of a schedule which I moved in Committee to the smoking Bill introduced by the late Sir Gerald Nabarro when he attempted to get the Bill through the House.
My reason for speaking on the Bill tonight is very specific. A few days ago in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney asked a Question about the role of a baby in an Inspector Morse episode and whether all the conditions relating to the use of children in stage and television performances had been
1164
fulfilled. Although the House gained a certain amount of amusement from the Question, it also took seriously the point made by my noble friend.
I should like to explain what I find objectionable about the campaign that has been run. We have been given evidence of the breaking of the law by retailers. That evidence has been compiled by people who have taken under-age children round and told them to go into shops to see whether they can buy cigarettes. In other words, the adults conducting the campaign have incited young children to go in to see whether an offence is committed. That is not right. It is not the proper way for responsible people to collect evidence. It is not right when council officers do it. However worthy the cause, it cannot be right to employ illegal methods in order to collect evidence.
I noticed that my noble friend Lord Rea said that one offence involving a vending machine could close the machine down. It needs only one of the zealous officials that he mentioned to take a 13 year-old round for a few days and you could virtually close down the lot. That point should be considered in Committee.
I do not wish to dwell on the problems in my former constituency. The number of tobacco workers there is dwindling fast. That is a reflection of the substantial reduction in the number of people who smoke. In addition to the workers, there are a large number of pensioners who receive a pension from Wills, or, as it now is, Imperial Tobacco.
People who conduct campaigns do not always think through to the end of their efforts. Perhaps I may take the question of defence. A number of people have pressed for years for substantial cuts in defence. Only this morning I heard on the radio that a study by Bristol polytechnic has predicted that, with the anticipated cuts in defence expenditure in the coming years, 45,000 highly skilled jobs will be lost in the Bristol, Cheltenham, Gloucester and Yeovil areas. I do not believe that the people who have pressed all that time for a reduction in defence expenditure have given serious consideration to what those highly skilled people will do if they lose their work. I was the unsuccessful Labour candidate in south Gloucestershire in the 1964 and 1966 general elections. The question of possible defence cuts came up constantly. There was a great deal of sloppy talk about diversification which we still hear today. If it was possible to diversify so easily, surely the firms concerned would already have done so.
I only make that point because today we sometimes seem to be run by pressure groups and minorities. The majority does not belong to pressure groups and minorities. But I sometimes wish that the zealots would think a little further than the direct end of their campaigns, realise that society is interdependent and give some thought to those other problems which are constantly being created and are with us all the time.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his clear introduction to the Bill in your Lordships' House. It is good to have the noble Duke the Duke of Gloucester with us to speak on the subject. I give full support to the Bill. I hope

1165
that most Members of your Lordships' House will do the same, remembering that this evening we are speaking about children.
As many noble Lords will have noticed, my noble kinsman my husband—not my noble kinsman my cousin (who does not smoke)—smokes far too many cigars. But a few years ago I had some success with him when he used to smoke cigarettes and developed a cough. I said to him, "Give it up for three weeks and see what happens". His cough disappeared. When he started smoking again his cough returned. Once again he gave up cigarettes and has not smoked a cigarette since then. Perhaps one day the same will happen with cigars. What a blessed relief that would be to me.
There is plenty of evidence that smoking tobacco can damage one's health. But to many young people and children that outcome seems a long way off. As a child during the war one of my great discomforts was that so many people smoked. I have always detested the habit, which creates so much pollution in clear air. The smell is awful and the smoke is hurtful to the eyes. For a long time non-smokers have been at risk from passive smoking. It is encouraging that now more places are smoking-free. It has always been a relief to me that people cannot smoke in your Lordships' Chamber.
I have observed that young people who smoke are more inclined to become involved in alcohol and drug abuse. This Bill will help to close loopholes in the current legislation on the sale of tobacco to the under-16s. It is important that the legislation is taken seriously. The laws must be enforced so that children are not put at risk.
Last night a noble Baroness in this House told me that she had been sitting in a non-smoking compartment of a train when some young children entered. They noticed that it was a non-smoking compartment and went out. Some years ago I interviewed a young person in a youth custody establishment—now called a young offenders institution—and asked the boy how old he was. He said that he was 15. I noticed that he had very stained fingers. I asked him, "Do you smoke much?" and he replied, "Yes, but I am trying to cut down". I returned to your Lordships' House the following week and spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then a Minister at the Home Office. I told him that in the young offenders institution all the young people from the age of 15 to 21 were allowed to buy tobacco. I was pleased that he was able to put the matter right and I hope that that is still the case.
I am pleased that the Bill states clearly that there will be notices displaying warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines. The notice will state that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. I hope that such a notice will also be displayed in any of Her Majesty's penal establishments where there are young people under the age of 16 and tobacco is sold.
It is very worrying that so many young girls smoke. This legislation should help parents who do not smoke but whose children smoke, feeling that it is important to keep up with their peers. Many parents like me—I am a non-smoker but have a smoking partner—often
1166
feel that they have been losing the battle, with no strong legislation to back them up. For many years medical evidence has shown how many illnesses are related to smoking. I lost my father when he was 51. He died from a coronary heart attack. He was a heavy smoker.
Clause 3 deals with the sale of unpackaged cigarettes. Selling children single cigarettes seems an ideal way to introduce them at a low cost to a habit which may kill them in the end. I am told that it is a practice often found in poor areas. In medical terms the people in social class 5 are those most at risk from smoking related diseases. They are most liable to perinatal problems and to the birth of small babies when they are smoking mothers.
Many people will have worked very hard to bring the Bill to its present stage. I can imagine how much discussion there has been on the issue of advertising. I have been involved with the debate on alcohol advertising, which is another problem and lures children into dangerous habits. I should like to congratulate all those who have an interest in protecting children from the dangerous habit of smoking. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a speedy and safe passage through this House so that it can become law as soon as possible.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the clear way in which he introduced the Bill. I hope that he will be willing to consider amendments, although I have none planned. I thought that his noble friend Lord Cocks made some very valid points about Clause 4 and the problems of vending machines.
Preventing people from polluting the environment is very difficult. The mass action that is necessary depends on unreliable political processes. Laws often control the wrong things at far too great a cost. For example, a non-smoker living or working with a smoker may double his or her chances of contracting lung cancer. Our regulations still ignore this ubiquitous and lethal form of pollution while wasting millions of pounds controlling pollutants of far less consequence.
There is no doubt that the most effective strategy in reducing the costs to health of smoking would be to stamp out the epidemic at its source; namely, in childhood. For that reason I support the Bill.
Why do people continue to smoke when they know the risks? Smokers will not stop smoking while it gives them certain benefits. The campaigners for the elimination of cigarette smoking have not realised that people would lose those benefits. Tobacco has significant effects on behaviour and psychological state. Research has shown that cigarette smokers and other tobacco users find that tobacco makes it easier to cope with over-stimulation, such as city noise and overcrowding. The nicotine in cigarette smoke is a stimulus barrier—a substance that makes it easier for a person to function in an over-stimulating environment.
I think it right that we stress and repeat the problems of smoking. The most serious risks are those

1167
of increased rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The tars of tobacco contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, which could possibly cause between 40 and 80 per cent. of all internal human cancers. Those substances can cause mutations in the DNA blueprint material of dividing cells which can result in cancer and lead to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques.
Another hazardous chemical contained in cigarette smoke is acetaldehyde which is also found in smog and in the bloodstream of heavy drinkers. That toxic chemical is known as a cross-linker because it makes undesirable chemical bonds via free radical reactions between molecules in the body such as proteins and nucleic acids. Examples of cross-linked proteins are wrinkled, inelastic skin and inelastic, hardened arteries. Emphysema is caused to a substantial extent by cross-linking of lung tissues. Nicotine also has risks, causing blood vessels to constrict, thus increasing blood pressure and causing an increase in blood fats such as cholesterol. Cigarette smoke also contains heavy metals, in particular lead, radioactive polonium and arsenic which poison certain enzyme reactions in the body; and carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides which destroy the ability of the blood to carry oxygen and can form cancer-causing substances.
Even the most heavy adult smokers, though unwilling to give up themselves, recognise the hazard that smoking presents for their children. I hope that the Bill will also help parents actively to discourage their children from taking up smoking.
The follow-up report of the Royal College of Physicians, Health or Smoking, published in 1983, recommended that there should be strengthened legislation concerning the sale of cigarettes to children. A survey in 1982 had shown that 76 per cent. of children from Cumbria and Tyne and Wear admitted that they obtained their cigarettes from shops. At long last we have additional legislation to reinforce the law relating to the sale of cigarettes. I hope that it will be accompanied by wider national action to discourage smoking, as has been the case in other parts of the world. Most hope for the future lies with non-smoking children. The report of the Royal College of Physicians recommended the drawing up of a comprehensive government tobacco control policy including the banning of all forms of promotion. I hope that the current growing disfavour seen in public attitudes towards smoking will encourage such a policy and bring about a dramatic fall in smoking prevalence in this country.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall take a different line from that taken by the previous two speakers. Let me say straight away that I am not against tightening up the law relating to the sale of tobacco to young people. I am quite prepared to accept that enforcement should be ensured. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I believe that there may be other motives in promoting the Bill. The
1168
proposed provisions, including the swingeing penalties for tobacco retailers, indicate that the Bill is more than it seems: it is yet another turn of the ratchet towards complete prohibition of smoking both in public and private.
We have reached a stage in this country where a considerable proportion of the population who smoke is being hounded and harassed often by self-appointed groups with puritanical zeal. Their successes to date have been significant, in particular in the monopoly public services where the unaccountable bureaucrats force their views on passengers and employees alike, regardless of public opinion or the normal individual rights one expects in a democratic society. Any excuse, however spurious, will do to initiate, not segregation of smokers on buses, but a complete ban, which does not restrict no-smoking to downstairs but upstairs too. That is quite unjustified. Smokers are entitled to as much consideration as anyone else. It is a great pity that the monopolies use their power to deny smokers that right.
How many of those who are anti-smoking have other obnoxious habits? I do not suggest what they are tonight. But how many of them think nothing of drinking intoxicating liquor and then driving their cars, thus putting their own and other people's lives at risk? There are people—I have met them at cocktail parties—who criticise, often with venom, others who smoke, but I notice that they have one or two glasses of whisky and then drive. People should think about their own dangerous and obnoxious habits before they try to deny other people their habits.
As my noble friend said, the penalty for selling tobacco to young people would increase under the Bill to £2,500. If a packet is split and the sale goes ahead, the penalty could be £3,500, if I am not mistaken. The penalty for selling intoxicating liquor to under-age youngsters remains at £1,000. Yet we read of cases where youngsters have bought themselves intoxicating liquor, got drunk, stolen cars and gone on to kill themselves and other innocent people. One wonders under those circumstances whether we have our priorities right. I might add that people do not batter their wives—or perhaps I should say spouses—and children, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has told us, because they have had a cigarette.
Lord Ennals: Smokers beat their wives.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is something very new. I have never heard it yet alleged against smokers that a fellow who has had a cigarette goes home and batters his wife. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench now proposes that it is so. I shall expect to receive proof of that from him in the morning's post.
But people often do this if they have had a skinful of drink. Perhaps drink will be the next target for legislation. Perhaps after that it will be cars. After all, it is alleged that the fumes from cars—which contain all the substances that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has illustrated that tobacco smoke contains—cause considerable damage to the environment, to trees, lakes, fish and the ozone layer, and cause global

1169
warming and so on. There is no suggestion yet that smokers damage the world environment—at least I hope not. Perhaps my noble friend will suggest that too.
Lord Ennals: Yes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I look forward to his speech with great interest. I have not heard yet that smokers cause our forests to wither, our fish to die and our climate to change, with dire consequences for millions of people throughout the world.
How many members of ASH or PAT think of such effects when they get into their cars to attend yet another meeting or function to plan their next move against the smoker? In their single-minded pursuit of the smoker, their task helped by lashings of public money, those people often forget that there are products that they and their children may use which may be equally as harmful to themselves, their fellows and the environment. I assure my noble friend that I shall not divide the House tonight. I shall support the Bill although I wish to table amendments at a later stage.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there were certain elements of wisdom in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as I shall try to demonstrate. I acknowledge immediately that I have several objectionable habits but do not propose to list them here and now. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, deserves the thanks and congratulations of your Lordships' House for bringing forward this modest yet important Bill. I say "modest" because I do not believe that the Bill will achieve a great deal. The enforcement of many of its provisions rests with local authorities and my experience is that at the moment they are not capable of enforcing a great deal, not because they lack the will but because they lack the means. However, the Bill is important because it directs our attention to the most important aspect of smoking. I am a doctor and a former smoker—a relapsed former smoker who smokes again from time to time. I acknowledge that smoking is dangerous to health, damaging to the environment, causes fires, makes our houses untidy, burns our clothes, furniture and carpets and should be discouraged.
I was more than 18 years old when I started smoking. Therefore I speak from personal experience and there are lessons to be drawn from that. As a doctor, I was known to be deeply involved in health education. Whenever I lit a cigarette someone would say, "Oh doctor, I see that you smoke, doesn't it matter?". I had to say that it mattered a great deal but that it just did not matter to me. That was not a tenable position to hold and therefore I decided to stop smoking. I did not smoke for 10 years. I relate that experience merely to illustrate a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Cigarette smoking is an addiction the same as any other. I say to noble Lords who have stopped smoking that they are not cured even though they may believe that they are. The desire to smoke in certain circumstances always returns.
1170
That is a fact that the non-smokers who pursue smokers with Cromwellian zeal sometimes fail to recognise.
Not having smoked for 10 years, I said to my wife, "I'll have a cigar after dinner. I am sure that it will not do me any harm". I smoked a cigar and said, "That was beautiful. It will not do me any harm so I shall smoke a cigar every evening after dinner". Before the week was over I was also smoking a cigar before dinner, after lunch and before lunch.
Smoking is a dangerous addiction. I accept that there is a causal relationship with many diseases and not merely a statistical relationship. Perhaps I may illustrate the difference for those who are not Members of this House. I am told that if one goes to the strip clubs in Soho one will find the front rows occupied exclusively by elderly gentlemen with bald heads. That is a statistical relationship. A causal relationship would mean that observing naked women at short range makes one's hair fall out. That is manifestly untrue. Therefore I say that there is a distinct causal relationship and that it is necessary for many reasons to reduce the amount of smoking.
Success will not come as a result of pursuing the addicts and punishing them. It will come as a result of people never starting to smoke. We must begin with the children. Perhaps I may outline a sad fact that I learnt some years ago when I was medical officer to one of Her Majesty's Royal ordnance factories. I conducted some research into the number of people applying to the factory for shop-floor jobs—it was at a time when such jobs in industry were available. We discovered that nine out of 10 applicants were established smokers. At the same time a colleague was carrying out research in universities. He discovered that only one in 10 entrants had ever smoked. I know that the figures have changed a little and that the figures given by Parents Against Tobacco relate to age groups and not to social groups. However, I believe that we have never got the message across to the more deprived social groups in our community whereas we have got it across to the more intelligent groups, the perhaps better educated classes. That is an important issue that we must consider but we shall not achieve success by compulsion.
I return to the interesting and amusing speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, because there is a lesson to be learnt. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is influential in such matters. He is a humane and kind person and not one to adopt a punitive attitude in respect of such issues. I hope that he understands that the way to get rid of smoking is by persuasion and ensuring that young people never smoke. Anything we can do to that end will be most welcome. The Bill goes a small way towards achieving that.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. He had to wrestle with the problems of many of his constituents who worked in the tobacco factories. I am reminded of a distinguished professor of medicine, now a Member of your Lordships' House, who addressed workers at Wills tobacco factory in Bristol. I was not present but I saw the address on video. At that time the professor was interested in particular in the problem of high blood

1171
cholesterol levels caused as a result of eating eggs and so forth. At the end of his lecture on tobacco-related diseases he bravely agreed to take questions. A lady employee said, "I was fascinated by your lecture and wish to ask one question. Do you believe that we should feel guilty about working in a cigarette factory?". He answered, "No one can divorce himself or herself from the end product of his work. But in so far as it is established that there is a causal relationship between cigarette smoking and certain diseases there must be an element of guilt. But", he went on to say, "that is nothing compared with the guilt of those who sell eggs!". It depends where one stands on the matter, because different arguments can be put forward.
As a doctor I say that it is important that the issue is tackled in the more understanding way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It understands that tobacco addicts have a real problem that requires sympathy and understanding but does not require punishment. A more enlightened attitude of that kind will be more helpful to children. None of my grandchildren smokes and, although one is only a baby, I believe that none will ever smoke. That will not be as a result of my doing but I hope that it will be as a result of the understanding of a serious problem. If we are to solve it we must ensure that people never start to smoke. If we believe that we can solve the problem by prohibiting people from smoking we are mistaken.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rea upon his admirable presentation of a modest Bill. I congratulate, too, Andrew Faulds, who introduced the Bill in another place. My noble friend sensed that he was given a tougher time by his noble friends on his right and left and I am grateful to him for sponsoring the Bill. I am also especially grateful to His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I remember the last speech he made, which was very moving and convincing. He has done the same again today.
No one seems to doubt the danger of smoking to human life and health. There is much evidence not only of the dangers to human life and health but also of the linkage with such things as drugs to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred. A recent survey showed that children who smoke are more likely to take drugs ranging from cannabis to heroin than are non-smoking children. It is even more likely that they will be offered hard drugs, according to a Health Education Authority survey. Children are more likely to smoke if their parents are smokers. Therefore, that is a very important issue to look at.
Recently I saw a television programme—other noble Lords may have seen it too—about the death of a runaway. It was very moving. Two caring, distraught parents referred to their child's slide into vice and eventual death. The programme had been on for some time when the mother said, "By now she was smoking. There seemed to be nothing we could do about it". The mother and father—two caring parents—were smoking throughout the interview.
1172
Parents who smoke are much more likely to have children who smoke. Therefore in this debate we are not talking only about children, although the Bill is about children. The issue concerns us all.
I shall now part company with my two noble friends Lord Cocks and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I believe that my noble friend Lord Cocks used the word "zealot". I have looked in the dictionary and a zealot is a fanatic. Probably none of us would wish to be labelled a fanatic but many of us are enthusiasts. If we know that smoking is the largest single cause of premature death, what sort of people are we if we do not campaign to improve the situation? If we believe that the threat posed by destruction of the environment is a threat to life on earth, what sort of people are we if we do not campaign to try to improve the situation? If we know that in the world there is famine which is killing literally millions of people, what sort of people are we if we do not campaign to help under-developed countries to support themselves?
I should like to thank the group Parents Against Tobacco. I declare an interest which is not pecuniary, but I am the patron of an organisation called Quit, which was the National Society for Non Smokers. I was not one of its founder members because it was founded 65 years ago, when I was only three years old. It is interesting that at that time there was an organisation called the Clean Air Society. Those societies aim to help people who are addicted. It is pointless to punish addicts. There may be noble Lords in this House who are addicted and Quit is ready to offer its services to help people who are addicted.
I know that addiction is terrible because for years I was addicted to tobacco. It took a great effort of will and much hardship to overcome that addiction. People trying to conquer addictions always have a hard time. However, we should support those who are trying to conquer addictions. We should create a society in which it is not easy to become addicted and in which it is easier to be rid of the addiction once addicted. That is what this Bill is about.
The Bill attempts to ensure that the minimum number of children become addicted. There is no doubt that one is more likely to become addicted to cigarette smoking if one starts smoking young. All the evidence shows that most people who continue to smoke later in life were smoking by the age of 18.
A report published on 3rd May showed the discouraging result that the number of secondary school children who consider themselves to be regular smokers appears to be rising once more after years of anti-tobacco campaigning. The schools health education unit at Exeter University carried out a study which indicates an increase to more than one in six in the proportion of 14 and 15 year-old boys who had smoked in the previous week.
How had those children had access to cigarettes? It may be that in some cases parents had unwisely handed out cigarettes or had left them lying about and the child had stolen one. However, it is more likely that the children had done what the Bill is designed to discourage. They probably went into a tobacconist shop and the tobacconist did not question them about

1173
their age or, if the children were questioned, they told a lie. Nevertheless they were able to obtain the cigarettes.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, put the matter very well when he said that youngsters believe they look big if they are smoking. To a boy, it is like wearing a stetson hat and girls believe they look sophisticated, rather like Marilyn Monroe. There is a sexual image about smoking.
If there is no question that cigarette smoking by children leads to addiction in later life, then we must do everything we can by use of the law to see that they do not have access to something to which it is illegal to have access. It has been illegal since 1935. I congratulate my noble friend on this Bill. Its aim is to ensure that the law is applied and I shall support it in every way. I shall support amendments which seek to strengthen it and oppose amendments which seek to weaken it.
At the same time, let us recognise that we are touching on the tip of an iceberg with this Bill. As His Royal Highness said, we are facing a tremendous challenge. The best way to deal with that challenge is not by scorning people but by helping them. Part of that help is to ensure that they understand the facts.
I should like to say to my two noble friends who have raised questions about this that we must expect enthusiasts to campaign. I have been a campaigner all my life. That is what brought me into the Labour Party. I have campaigned for the social justice which I have seen in my party and I have done that together with my noble friends. I do not know why they believe that it is wrong or unpleasant to campaign for noble causes. I believe that it is a noble cause to try to see that youngsters are fitter and that they become fitter parents.
As time goes by, we learn more about this. We see the effects upon babies of young pregnant mothers smoking during their pregnancy and the effect that it is likely to have on their young children. I shall support my noble friend Lord Rea in every way I can. I say to those who believe that there is something wrong about campaigning that much hard work has been carried out in preparing for this Bill. Many people across the country are giving a great deal of their time to help those who are suffering from all sorts of addict ions. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is a marvellous example of a campaigner and a helper against drug addiction. I look upon cigarette smoking as being a form of drug use and addiction.
I believe that we need to join hands in helping those affected by the Bill; that is, not only the children but also the tobacconists. They must recognise the law and, if they break the law, then they must be prosecuted.
8.50 p.m
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have had a lively debate which was by no means unanimous in tone. Some hares wet e started which I do not intend to pursue, but it was entertaining to watch them run. I see my task as one of setting out the Government's position on the Bill, which I shall do at fairly full length.
1174
I start by thanking the noble Lord, my all-but namesake, Lord Rea, for introducing this Second Reading debate today. All noble Lords who take an interest in the health of the children of this country will be in agreement about the importance of protecting them from the dangers of smoking. The Government are very concerned about children under 16 taking up the smoking habit and the fact that they can often buy cigarettes without difficulty. The Government are convinced that the overwhelming majority of people, particularly parents, want to see an effective Bill on the statute book and therefore fully support this very useful Bill in its present form.
Selling cigarettes to children under 16 has been an offence since 1904. The current legislation is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and, in Scotland, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, both as amended by the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986. But the Government accept that the present law has not been particularly effective. The measures in the Bill concentrate on preventing the supply of cigarettes to children under 16 in a number of ways.
Clauses 1 and 2 will toughen the present law by amending Section 7 of the 1933 Act in England and Wales, and Section 18 of the 1937 Act in Scotland, in several respects. At present it is an offence to sell cigarettes to a person who is "apparently" under the age of 16. That has proved to be too imprecise and difficult to enforce. Under Clauses 1 and 2 the offence will be committed where the person is actually under 16. The Government recognise, however, that even the most conscientious retailer may occasionally be deceived by children who look older than their years. Clauses 1 and 2 also ensure, therefore, that retailers who can show that they took all reasonable precautions should have a defence against criminal charges. Basically, however, the Bill will shift the onus of demonstrating that a sale to a person under the age of 16 has been made unwittingly from the prosecuting authority to the shopkeeper.
Clauses 1 and 2 also increase the penalties for selling tobacco to children under 16. The new maximum fine will be increased from level 3 on the standard scale of penalties—currently £400—to level 4 which is at present —1,000 but will rise to £2,500 when the Criminal Justice Bill comes into force. That will be a warning to those retailers who continue to disregard the law that they risk a much heavier penalty if they are caught. The genuine and honest retailer who does not sell tobacco to children has obviously nothing to fear from that change.
The first two clauses in the Bill also tighten the law on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines to children under 16. The purpose of the amendment to the existing law is to prevent vending machines becoming an alternative source of supply for the under 16s. The Bill will make it easier for the courts to make an order to prevent the machine being used by children or, if necessary, to remove the machine from the premises where it is kept. At present, the courts have to be satisfied that a vending machine is being used extensively by children under 16. Under the Bill courts will be able to take action if they are satisfied

1175
that the machine has been used by any one person under 16. The maximum fine for failure to comply with such an order will be increased from level 3 to level 4 on the standard scale.
I now turn to Clause 3 of the Bill. This clause prohibits the sale of unpackaged cigarettes. Noble Lords may be asking why this clause is necessary as it is already an offence to sell cigarettes to children whether loosely or in packets. The Government accept that this clause partly duplicates the present law. However, the Bill's sponsors have been particularly concerned about the practice of children initially buying cigarettes in ones or twos and thereby getting into the smoking habit.
We recognise that there is a strongly held view that some retailers contrive to believe that there is nothing unlawful about selling single cigarettes to children, or, where they do understand that it is unlawful, believe that they can get away with it. We therefore accept the argument for having a specific provision on the face of the Bill to prohibit the sale of single cigarettes.
The clause will limit the rights of adults in a very small way in that they will no longer be able to buy cigarettes singly. However, I can assure noble Lords that nothing in this clause prevents retailers from continuing to sell cigars either singly or in packs of less than 10 to adults. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will be pleased to hear that.
Clause 4 requires the publication of warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines to the effect that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. Clause 4 was substantially amended and enhanced during discussion in another place. The clause as it now stands requires a warning notice to be placed in retail premises and on vending machines to remind staff and customers of the law. The Government have always supported action along those lines and the clause will ensure that nobody who sells tobacco can claim ignorance of the law.
The nature of the warning notice will be laid down in regulations. That will allow flexibility to introduce changes if loopholes or problems become apparent. But I can assure the House that the intention is to require a sign of the type and size originally envisaged by the Bill's supporters. All interested parties will, of course, be consulted on the draft regulations; and we will seek the active involvement and co-operation of the tobacco industry and the retail trade in implementing this measure.
In addition to the new regulation-making power, the original proposal for a sign in shops has been extended to vending machines, and a number of other minor drafting changes have been made in another place to clarify what is required. I hope that this House will agree that that is a sensible way to proceed.
Clauses 5 and 6 are at the heart of the Bill and deal with the responsibilities of local authorities. Local authorities in England and Wales already have powers under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to ensure that the law in this area is being observed by retailers and to prosecute those who sell tobacco to young children. The purpose of Clause 5 is to require local authorities to consider at least once a year to
1176
what extent it is appropriate for them to carry out an enforcement programme designed to eradicate the practice of selling cigarettes to those under 16 years. This programme of action relates to offences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the new offences under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which, as I have already said, are designed to strengthen the law in this field. Much time was spent framing Clause 5 in debate in another place. In the format in which we see it before us today the legislation will, I believe, achieve the overall effect of raising the profile of this offence and ensure that it is taken seriously both by offenders and prosecutors.
The comprehensive approach we have adopted springs from the concern that local authorities may not have been taking their responsibilities under the 1933 Act seriously enough for a variety of reasons including, in some cases, the belief that such powers to act did not exist. What Clause 5 does is to re-emphasise those areas where local authorities have powers to take action in this field. It prompts them into considering exactly what they might and should be doing to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children. In combination with the other clauses of the Bill Clause 5 will stimulate local authorities into action.
As noble Lords will have noted, district councils in the shire counties were not on the list of those authorities to whom Clause 5 applies. However, that does not mean that they will not wish to take action, nor that they will be unable to do so. District councils have powers under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to prosecute for such offences.
The Government's determination to see that Clause 5 produces results is reflected in our commitment to back it up with a circular to local authorities, prepared jointly by those departments with an interest in this field, explaining exactly what local authorities' powers are to take action on these offences. It will remind them of their responsibilities in this field and the importance which the Government attach to taking action against offenders. It is hoped that, with the assistance of those already engaged in these activities, the circular will provide examples of best practice. These will serve to explain to local authorities the various ways in which the problem can be tackled. Local authority annual reports will be the vehicle for conveying information to the public on local action in this area.
I turn now to Clause 6 which deals in much the same way with the position in Scotland but reflects the different prosecution arrangements which apply there. It honours the commitment given by the Government when the matter was in Committee in another place. The Government amendment on enforcement action by local authorities in Scotland, introduced at Report stage in another place, was welcomed by the Bill's sponsors.
As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, all criminal offences in Scotland are dealt with by the Procurator Fiscal and to require local authorities in Scotland, in the exercise of their enforcement role under this Bill, to bring prosecutions in respect of offences would cut across these existing arrangements in an unacceptable way. That does not mean, however, that under the

1177
new duty which we propose under Clause 6, local authorities in Scotland would be unable to report offences to the Procurator Fiscal. The position would be the same as that which already applies in respect of other legislation enforced by local authorities in Scotland—for example, the law relating to consumer protection—and which operates quite satisfactorily without a specific reference to prosecutions or to the Procurator Fiscal.
As in England, the Scottish Office will be issuing a circular to local authorities and other relevant interests about the implications of the new measures, including the updating of the Code of Practice on the Publication of Annual Reports and Finance Statements by Local Authorities in Scotland to reflect the provision of the Bill.
Finally, I turn to Clause 8 to explain how the Bill is intended to apply to Northern Ireland. Successive Governments have taken the view that during direct rule legislation for Northern Ireland on matters such as this should generally be effected by separate Order in Council, with the force of primary legislation. That is what will happen in this case.
We believe that this Bill is a useful measure designed to protect children by cracking down on those irresponsible retailers who disregard the law by selling them cigarettes and so play a part in introducing them to a pernicious and addictive habit, the disadvantages of which we have only come fully to appreciate in our own time and which they may spend much of the rest of their lives attempting to shake off. I am sure that noble Lords will want to give the Bill a Second Reading and ensure that it is on the statute book as soon as possible.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what I believe has been one of the most lively debates that we have had for some time. I particularly appreciated the contribution of His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, who made a very wise, realistic and penetrating analysis of the problem. I wish to emphasise a point made by my noble friend Lord Ennals. This Bill is not just about children, but about all of us. The problem may start with children but the damage is done later in life.
I do not have time to reply to every speaker, especially as some have already been answered by speakers who followed them. It is incumbent on me to make some response to my noble friends sitting on my left and on my right who added a great deal of life to the whole evening. My noble friend Lord Cocks doubted whether it was legal, certainly not decent, to ask children of 13 years of age to go into a shop to buy cigarettes when they are being watched by an adult. I am informed that that practice is not illegal. It would only be so if a police officer set up someone to act as an agent provocateur.Trading standards officers often have to incite tradesmen to commit offences in order to be able to find out whether they have breached the law.
1178
My noble friend asked about diversifying the activities of the tobacco industry. As he well knows, it is already diversifying. The British American Tobacco company already has probably more money in other activities than in the manufacture of cigarettes. However, the tobacco industry will continue to make cigarettes as long as it can make a profit. It will continue to make profits as long as there is a market. The market will continue as long as people continue to become addicted to the habit. That is one reason why this Bill is absolutely necessary.
My noble friend on my left launched into what I feel was almost a tirade of paranoid fancy. It was very amusing. He was almost into overdrive when he spoke about being hounded with puritanical zeal by self-appointed groups, helped by lashings of public money. The lashings of public money which the anti-smoking campaigners—that is a nicer description than puritan—have is very tiny indeed compared with that available to the tobacco industry. I believe it is about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the money available to the tobacco industry.
I was extremely grateful to hear my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, express such a constructive view of the Bill. That gives me hope that we shall have a fairly swift passage of the Bill through this House. It only remains for me to thank all speakers yet again for their extremely interesting and valuable contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Broadcasting (Restrictions on Holding of Licences) Order 1991
9.6 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord begins the next business, I am sure that we are all aware that he has been sitting through the previous debate and that he also made a long speech in reply. If he requires a couple of minutes in which to have a drink of water, or something stronger, I shall be quite happy.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind and thoughtful suggestion. I expected this moment and I am quite happy to continue. I suggest that I do so if she has no objection.
The order sets out supplementary ownership rules in accordance with the powers vested in the Secretary of State under Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. Noble Lords may recall from our debates on the Broadcasting Bill that, given the rapid pace of change in the broadcasting industry, we decided that it would be sensible to provide the necessary framework of control of media concentrations and cross-media ownership partly in the Act itself and partly through subordinate legislation, subject to affirmative resolution. In this way we could readily adapt the ownership

1179
controls in future to changing circumstances. The present order therefore completes the detailed pattern of ownership controls by building on and refining the broad framework contained in the Broadcasting Act itself.
In summarising the broad content of the order I shall begin with Channel 3. When the Government first announced their decisions on the ownership of Channel 3 licences on 19th May 1989, the then Home Secretary indicated that it would be permissible for one person or company to own two Channel 3 licences as long as these were not both large or adjacent to one another. Those initial proposals were based on the assumption—which has recently been confirmed by the ITC—that the ITC would retain the existing ITV map in terms of the number and geographical shape of the Channel 3 regions. Our thinking in making this general provision for one person to hold two Channel 3 licences was that such an arrangement could facilitate useful economies of scale without threatening regional identity.
We remain particularly anxious to avoid circumstances in which one owner could hold licences covering an unacceptably large part of the country. That is why we subsequently decided to move from our initial designation of six of the 15 areas as large—which therefore could not be owned in conjunction with another large area by the same person or company—and have increased this in the order to nine of the 15 areas. We consider that this should prevent combinations of ownership which could have given an unhealthy dominance to a single company.
The order also prevents a Channel 3 licence bidder from winning licences for two adjacent Channel 3 regions. However, that restriction will be lifted once the Channel 3 licences have been granted at the end of this year or at the beginning of 1992. From then on there will be no specific restriction on co-ownership of adjacent areas acquired through takeover as long as they are not both large areas, but takeovers of all kinds will be subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the new Broadcasting Act. This makes clear that no takeover can take place before the end of 1993 without the prior approval of the ITC. It is entirely a matter for the ITC to decide whether or not to consent to a takeover during that moratorium period. In practice we believe that the ITC will normally give their approval only in circumstances where one of the licensees is in serious financial difficulties, or where both licensees favour a planned merger. It is most unlikely to look favourably on a hostile takeover.
We have decided not to impose a ban on contiguous ownership for the full 10-year period of the licence, as we earlier envisaged, because it seemed to us—and indeed to the ITC—that in practice such a rule would be unhelpfully rigid. It could, for example, prevent combinations of ownership which offered the greatest scope for economies of scale and were thus particularly attractive in commercial terms. In our view it would not be practicable to rule out for all time the possibility of contiguous mergers, particularly given the uncertainties of the broadcasting environment in the 1990s. Under some circumstances
1180
co-ownership of adjacent areas might be in the best interests of all concerned. For example, an area might become non-viable in its own right but sustainable if owned by a contiguous licensee who could provide sensible economies of scale. The Government do not therefore believe that it would be right to put a permanent block on such co-ownership. However, we have accepted that initially it is right to provide smaller companies with the safeguard that they cannot be the subject of a takeover bid by a neighbour before they have had the chance to establish themselves. Even if a small licence area were taken over by a contiguous neighbour after 1993, the new owners would be fully bound to continue to honour the licence conditions and to provide the separate regional programming service which had been a feature of the original company's bid. However, ownership of two or more large areas, that is to say, nine out of the 15 areas whether or not contiguous, would remain prohibited indefinitely.
These provisions are in line with the spirit of the undertakings given by the Government during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. Our underlying policy objectives have always been that a separate regional identity should be preserved for each licence area and that the important regional programming obligations should be fully discharged.
However, I should emphasise that the fact that we have made co-ownership possible in some circumstances does not necessarily mean that all or any of the smaller licence areas will be co-owned by companies holding larger regions. Even if some of them are, the provisions of the Broadcasting Act require that the full regional commitments must be met for each region. We are satisfied that our rules for co-ownership as set out in this order offer a flexibility of approach, yet are sufficient to protect smaller regions from loss of identity. The chairman of the ITC has also indicated that he considers the commission will have no difficulty in ensuring that where licence areas are co-owned the licensee provides distinctive local programming for each region. Our aim in all our deliberations on this matter has been to ensure that the separate identity of each region is preserved.
As noble Lords may recall, the new Broadcasting Act itself contains substantial safeguards for regional identity. These make it unnecessary to look to the supplementary ownership rules to provide further protection. The Act, for example, stipulates that each regional Channel 3 licensee must give a sufficient amount of time to a range of regional programmes of particular interest to those living in the area. It also requires that a suitable proportion of these regional programmes should be made in the region. It therefore follows that even if one owner held the licences of two contiguous areas he would not be able to treat them as a single jumbo region and transmit identical programmes to both areas. That point is reinforced by the fact that the ITC has recently indicated that it would expect 80 per cent. of regional programmes to be made in each region to comply with the Act's provisions.
All in all the arrangements set out in the order, read alongside the provisions of the new Act, represent a

1181
combination of measures well able, in our view, to guarantee the continuance of the distinctive regional identity of each area while still allowing an essential flexibility of approach.
I turn briefly to the other provisions of the order, beginning with the measures designed to regulate the number of Channel 3 licences in which any one person may have an interest. The order provides that once a person has the maximum ownership allowed in two regional Channel 3 licences—that is a controlling interest in both unless they are large and contiguous, in which case a controlling interest in one and up to but not including a controlling interest in the other—he may then have up to a 20 per cent. holding in a third regional Channel 3 licence and thereafter a maximum of 5 per cent. shareholding in further such licences. Similar rules apply in relation to national Channel 3 licences and Channel 5 licences.
The draft order also provides that national newspaper owners may not have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a local radio licence and that neither national nor local newspaper proprietors may have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a Channel 3, Channel 5 or domestic satellite licence. I should make it clear that there is currently no domestic satellite licensee in existence. BSkyB is operating on domestic satellite frequencies under the terms of the transitional arrangements in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and is subject to the ownership requirements in the Broadcasting Act 1981 which do not contain any specific numeric restrictions on newspaper investment. These arrangements will come to an end on 1st January 1993, but the ITC has already indicated that by that date BskyB's contract to provide a domestic satellite service will have been terminated.
During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, there was much debate in this House and in another place as to whether a restriction on newspaper investment should apply also to non-domestic satellite services. Our view, now—as then—is that it should not. Domestic satellite services, in relation to which the 20 per cent. rule will apply, are allocated by international agreement and only a limited number are available to any one. country. The United Kingdom at present disposes of only five such services. Non-domestic satellite operators, on the other hand, face virtually open-ended scope for competition from a variety of different channels, in different hands, being transmitted from satellites such as Astra which use telecommunications rather than broadcasting frequencies.
Because of the opportunities to set up new competitive non-domestic satellite services, we see no reason to limit newspaper investment in them. BSkyB has no monopoly in this area, and it is inconceivable that any single operator could ever acquire such a monopoly. The same cannot however be said for a domestic satellite service licensee who could easily control all of the United Kingdom's DBS channels, as was the case with the former BSB.
If, despite these considerations, we were to go along with the demands of those who would wish to restrict newspaper investment in non-domestic satellite services, that would mean that News International
1182
would be required to divest its shareholding in BSkyB from the current level of 48 per cent. to 20 per cent. This presupposes that it could find a ready buyer for the remaining shareholding. It is by no means apparent that someone else would be prepared to take on the extensive financial commitment which the current shareholders of BSkyB have already undertaken. It could very possibly mean, therefore, that the BSkyB enterprise would fail, resulting in a reduction of services available to viewers, and particularly to those who have acquired "squarials" or dish aerials with which to receive these services. Furthermore, this would jeopardise the 1,000 or so jobs which BSkyB has already created in this country. We cannot believe that this would be a remotely sensible outcome; and I cannot see whose interests would thereby be served.
My noble friend Lord Stockton advanced an argument during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill—and he may be intending to do so again this evening—that ownership restrictions should apply to BSkyB if it achieves a certain number of viewers. But this, it seems to me, would be to penalise success. What would we be saying? It would be that if the channel continues to lose money, we do not care who owns it, but if it were to become successful, then it could not continue with its current ownership structure. What incentive would there be in such circumstances for the current owners to continue with the enterprise?
The order covers two other areas. It provides that public telecommunications operators like BT will not be permitted to have a controlling interest in Channel 3 or 5 licences nor in national radio or domestic satellite licences. I think it is generally accepted that BT, with its dominant position in the telecommunications market, should not also have the ability to provide these services. Finally, the order regulates the ownership of radio stations through a points scheme. All stations, with their associated channels, will be awarded points on the basis of their audience reach. No one may own stations which correspond to more than 15 per cent. of the total number of points in the system, subject to the overriding limit of 20 such channels contained in the Broadcasting Act itself.
The provisions in the order represent a sensible and practicable framework for regulatory control over the services for which the ITC and Radio Authority will have responsibility. They were approved in another place on 24th April. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Reay.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for outlining the main effects of the order. Last year the Broadcasting Bill occupied a great deal of time in both Houses of Parliament. It was then a bad Bill and it is now a bad Act. Noble Lords will recall that when it came to this House many amendments, mainly government amendments, were passed. More than 1,000 amendments were brought forward while the Bill was passing through this House. The reason why there were so many government amendments is that Ministers realised, and were forced to realise, just how seriously flawed their initial

1183
concept of the Bill was. The established view is that the Bill was rather better by the time it was enacted and had been through this House than it was at the beginning.
Perhaps I shall be forgiven for digressing for a moment to say that a blot on the Bill was firmly installed in this House. I refer to the ridiculous, unnecessary, clumsy and unhealthy additions on impartiality, a subject that was already covered in the Bill. I can understand why the Government accepted the provision but I think that it was quite crazy. If there had been a vote there is no doubt that those who put forward those rather silly ideas would have been defeated and they would not now be part of legislation.
The Act remains flawed for the reasons that were debated last year both here and in another place. Now we are discussing an order to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s on part of the Act. The Minister has explained the order so clearly that I do not think it is necessary to go over the ground again. That would be most tedious. However, I should like to comment on one or two of the points arising from the order.
The first concerns the Channel 3 ownership rules and the dangers of concentration of ownership and threats to regional identity and production. Secondly, there is the whole issue of cross-media ownership; that is, Sky Broadcasting. Many of us who may not normally be of a suspicious turn of mind found that the timing of that takeover was miraculously apt for News International. It occurred after the Bill had passed through Parliament. If it had taken place during the passage of the Bill, there would certainly have been, if not a different outcome, a great deal more fuss and opposition to it.
During the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill on 11 th July 1990 (Hansard co1.302), the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the Government accepted that no one should be allowed to own two regional Channel 3 franchises which are contiguous, where both were large, and they proposed to implement those supplementary rules in subordinate legislation at the same time as implementing the "no contiguity" and "no two large regional Channel 3 franchise" rules. However, under the order the contiguity rule will apply only during the bidding process for Channel 3 licences. We have now been informed, but had already read, that after the bidding that rule will not apply. To compensate for the loss of that rule, the number of areas defined as large has been increased from the Government's originally suggested six to nine. Nothing of that nature was discussed during the Bill's passage. Neither House had a chance to discuss questions which are of great importance: contiguity and the change in the number and size of areas of the franchises.
The Government's argument, as we have heard, is that the contiguity rule might be counterproductive as it could prevent combinations of ownership which could offer scope for sensible economies of scale. It was precisely the dangers inherent in companies imposing economies of scale to the detriment of quality and regional identity to which we objected in
1184
Committee. Objections came from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, whose experience in the field is well known, from myself and from other noble Lords throughout the House.
Your Lordships will recall that in Committee I supported the amendment to limit ownership to one licence per person. I said:
"Owning more than one licence completely dilutes the concept of Channel 3 as a regionally based system, with each company having its roots in its own region".—[Official Report,11/7/90; col. 299.]
That concept could be severely undermined by the company which, after the auction round, obtained a non-controlling interest in a second franchise, followed by a 20 per cent. interest in a third company and a 5 per cent. interest in a fourth.
Will the Minister tell us why the Government have reneged on the original version of their contiguity rule and what action they plan to take if their "penny-farthing system", as it is known, of ownership threatens the regional identity of smaller licensed areas? At the moment there is a great danger that, apart from news and current affairs programmes, the regional ingredient could be tiny.
The rules on cross-media ownership—the second area upon which I wish to comment—contained in the order are flawed by the Government's original failure to include British Sky Broadcasting under the provisions. In Committee I moved an amendment to include non-domestic satellite services within the cross-media rules laid down under the Act. I said:
"In a genuine democracy it cannot be right for the same individual to own both a substantial number of national newspapers and national televisions channels which can influence the same people"—
they are at least beamed at them. I quoted paragraph 6.48 on page 31 of the White Paper, and said:
"clear rules will also be needed which impose limits on concentration of ownership and on excessive cross-media ownership, in order to keep the market open for newcomers and to prevent any tendency towards editorial uniformity or domination by a few groups".—[Official Report,11/7/90; col. 306.]
Cross-media ownership makes it impossible to carry that out. It is known that the Independent Television Commission wanted the Government to consider more carefully whether Mr. Murdoch's News International should be required to reduce its 50 per cent. holding in British Sky Broadcasting to 20 per cent. in line with non-EC and cross-media ownership rules for terrestrial and domestic satellite television. The Minister has acknowledged that. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to inform the House why the ITC's original advice was ignored.
Figures published this week show that clearly BSkyB is winning a 26 per cent. share of viewing in those homes with both satellite and terrestrial television. This proportion will inevitably increase as more homes acquire satellite television. Yet with non-domestic satellite television that is not possible; it is not subject even to the lightest of regulatory touches. Regional production does not enter into it at all. We are not convinced of the safeguards for regional production and feel that they are likely to be far less than the great promises that were made.
The Labour Party's position is clear. It is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be

1185
asked to report on all aspects of media and cross-media ownership. The next Labour Government will consult the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and will legislate on the basis of its proposals well before the new Channel 3 regional and national licences become due for renewal. We shall insist that licences are bid for again in open competition, with more stringent quality and stricter regional programme commitments.
I conclude by referring to radio. Will the Minister advise the House on how many companies the Government expect will acquire a maximum of 20 local radio stations? We on our side suspect that this is the pattern that will develop with costs and programming being shared. If that happens, we are afraid that the local identity of many radio stations will be lost.
We remain opposed to the philosophy of this legislation and the order which is part of it. However, another place has voted for it and so, reluctantly and sadly, I shall not divide the House.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the order and for explaining its implications and the arguments in favour of its provisions. I find myself in broad agreement with what has been said by the noble Baroness in her response. In particular, I agree that the whole question of cross-media ownership and ownership in general should be put before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for its consideration.
The debate on which we are engaged is a postscript to those long discussions we have had ever since the White Paper was published. It is also indeed an obsequy to the whole Bill since we shall not vote on it. All we are doing is to express either our appreciation or our disappointment at the order before your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords will remember that the premise and the promise which the White Paper offered was that the new broadcasting system would afford greater variety and would operate with a lighter touch in connection with the regulation of broadcasting. In fact as a result of the Broadcasting Bill we shall obtain lower standards, and there is not the slightest chance that a lighter touch in regulation will come about.
On the contrary, a whole battery of regulatory bodies, the like of which we have not seen before, has been created, including the expensive, bureaucratic, unnecessary and censorious Broadcasting Standards Council for which there is no justification. This battery of regulation which is the visible symbol of the lighter touch will cost, according to Liz Forgan, no less than£21 million a year. It must be said that a proliferation of competing and overlapping agencies is a formula for extravagant maladministration. The Government have presented us at the end of these years of discussion with the Broadcasting Bill, of which this order is the culmination.
Meanwhile I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Reay, devote three sentences to radio—at least I calculated that he devoted three sentences to that
1186
subject. Is that an indication of the importance which the Government attach to radio? If that is the case, it is a sad commentary on their values. As a first response to what he said, I believe the proposals which the Government have set out for radio will result in the control of local radio being handed over to large units and the disappearance of community radio, as has happened in France.
I now turn, as the noble Baroness did, to the central element of the Bill, which is the Government's interpretation of the contiguity rule. I repeat that both in this Chamber and in another place our discussions concentrated on the important contribution which Channel 3 could make to regional television. The response to that concern by the then Minister in another place and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in this Chamber was to give a clear undertaking that the contiguity rule would be maintained. Now today we have before us an order which is nothing other than a reversal of that undertaking. What the Government have provided is a way round the contiguity rule after three years. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is a situation which we have not been able to debate before. I ask myself and your Lordships whether we would have passed the Bill unamended if these rules had been in front of us at the time. I cannot believe that we would have done so.
But if the arrangements for ensuring the diversity of ownership of television seem to us inadequate, those which apply to radio are far worse, and the prospects of concentration of ownership are far greater where the allocation is left almost entirely to the market and to the tender mercies of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The proposal that one company should be allowed to own up to 20 local stations will mean that the prospect of a wide diversity of ownership in radio will be sharply reduced. The ownership of 20 stations will, I suspect, become the pattern. Viable local radio stations will be snapped up and community radio—which is a totally different matter—will have small chance of survival.
Let us take the example of Radio Borders which has just won the Sony award for the best local radio station of the year. It is run on a shoestring from premises which have in effect been provided by the local authority. It has a 68 per cent. audience penetration and because of its success it will be vulnerable to takeover. That is characteristic.
Finally, I come to the question, which we cannot avoid, of BSkyB. First, there is a small matter which I should like to raise with the noble Lord, and I shall be interested in his response. As the noble Baroness pointed out, within 48 hours of the Bill having received Royal Assent the deal between Sky and BSB was put together—a very effective way of cocking a snook at Parliament. On 20th December the IBA agreed that BSB's licence to broadcast would not be revoked until an alternative use of Marco Polo had been found.
As communicated to consumers by the media, it was suggested that there would be no material change to the BSB service for another two years. That was not the reality. BSB's licence could be terminated at any time up to the end of 1992. Furthermore, Sky wrote to

1187
the retail trade requesting that BSB equipment should be put back on sale. That equipment, if sold after 20th December, would not be covered by Sky's offer to exchange reception free of charge. As one retailer remarked, "It is like persuading someone to buy a television without telling them that it is likely to blow up within six months".
I feel that consumers should have better protection than they have received and it is the Government's duty to provide that protection. That is deeply and profoundly unsatisfactory behaviour by an organisation which sought and received substantial broadcasting concessions from the Government in the Broadcasting Act. I hope that the Minister will respond to that query, which is an important one.
In the order another opportunity has been missed to deal with the anomaly of BSkyB. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it was an opportunity to make Mr. Murdoch reduce his holding in the whole operation.
In the course of the debate on the order in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said (at col. 1149 of Commons Hansard for 24th April):
"We were, however, anxious to avoid circumstances in which licences covering an unacceptably large part of the country were held in common ownership".
Later in the debate, in the same column, he said:
"Simply to have dropped the contiguity rule while retaining six large areas would, however, have left the way open for combinations of ownership which could give an unhealthy dominance to a single company".
In opening this debate the noble Lord used much the same language.
I understand the Under-Secretary and the noble Lord to have been speaking about the undesirability not of monopolies—that is not the word that has been used—but of undue concentrations of ownership. We on these Benches agree that undue concentrations of ownership, be they in television, radio or newspapers, are highly undesirable. That, I understood, was what lay behind the series of stipulations in the Act and in the order. We may not think that they go far enough but they are aimed at preventing concentrations of ownership which could give undue dominance. The fact that non-domestic satellite services have, in the words of the Under-Secretary, "developed under different rules" does not alter the fact that undue concentration of ownership in the media, both in television and in the press, is undesirable. It does not reduce the undesirability of the prospect of undue dominance, except apparently in the view of Her Majesty's Government.
When we come to BSkyB and what is unquestionably a concentration of ownership, the prospect of undue dominance apparently ceases to matter. When he answers the debate, the noble Lord must address the question of whether the principle of a concentration of ownership is more important than the fact that a system grew up under slightly different rules. That response makes no sense and it can be made to make sense only if Mr. Murdoch is treated as
1188
a special case and a special friend who has received special treatment. That is what has happened, and it is little short of a scandal.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, perhaps I may direct your Lordships' attention to Part IV, Article 15(1) and 15(3) of the order. When we last addressed the subject of cross-media ownership I spoke, perhaps at too great length and certainly not to the pleasure of a number of Members of your Lordships' House. Indeed, when I was faced with the combined forces of my noble friends Lord Whitelaw, Lord St. John of Fawsley, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Beloff and Lord Colwyn—who alone is in his place tonight—to say nothing of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I began to wonder whether I had got the wrong end of the aerial. However, the presence in their ranks of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, reassured me that, even if I was not on the side of the big battalions, I was and remain on the side of the angels.
I should resist the temptation to say, "I told you so", but I have seldom been able to resist temptation, particularly when it is also a case of succumbing to both justice and personal satisfaction. It is quite clear that, even as we debated the issue on Report, a deal was being done to remove the only licensed domestic satellite operator from the control of the law. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Minister, was as much in the dark over that deal, or double deal, as your Lordships' House, but, when the announcement of the merger of Sky and BSB was disclosed before the ink on the Royal Assent to the Bill was dry, I could not help wondering whether the remarks of the noble Lords whom I mentioned should have been couched in quite such generous terms.
When someone from my office inquired this afternoon of the licensing department of the ITC why it was that News International, (de facto,if not de jure) with a 48 per cent. holding in BSkyB, falls outside the scope of Part IV of the order, the reply, which may be of interest to noble and learned Lords, was that the Act refers to licences and BSB—the domestic satellite service—only had a contract with the IBA at the time. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to shed some legal light on that murky distinction when he replies.
This time I do not intend to run the risk of being accused by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw or any spokesperson for News International of being the front for a witch-hunt on Sky. I reiterate what I said in earlier debates: I am second to none in my admiration for Mr. Murdoch and his achievements as an entrepreneur and businessman. However, admiration for achievement and success in the past does not bring with it automatic and uncritical support for the present nor unqualified support for the future.
I do not believe that the position of Mr. Murdoch as a major cross-media owner, whatever the legal niceties of shareholdings or the location of his multifarious enterprises, is in the long-term interests of the British press, British broadcasting or the British people. I do not blame Mr. Murdoch for setting out to achieve such a position of pre-eminence in the mass

1189
media. Nor do I criticise him for his success in going so far in achieving that ambition. Given the same opportunity, every businessman would seize it. But I criticise the Government for wilfully failing to recognise the national interest and neglecting their responsibility to protect that interest. I know that those are strong sentiments, but I feel strongly and I feel equally strongly that it is my duty to express my feelings.
We should also spare some consideration for the many independent producers who were looking to 10 or so satellite channels as outlets for their creative talents as an alternative to the BBC and Channel 4. These providers employ quite as many people as BSkyB. I quite understand that, with eventually only five BSkyB channels and the difficulties facing that company (still running at a loss of £6 million a week), commercial considerations must be paramount. But where is the diversity of 108 channels so much vaunted by noble, Lords during the Committee stage of the Bill?
Nowhere has the need for stricter sanction over non-domestic satellites been more apparent than in the conduct of BSB and Sky following their merger. I can understand the need to rationalise the number of loss-making channels. However, the lack of cross-media control over Astra services and their non-domestic controllers has restricted the weapons available to the IBA and ITC in responding to BSB's breach of contract. It may also have contributed to a cynical attitude taken by BSkyB toward consumers, retailers and manufacturers, an attitude that falls well short of the conduct that we should expect as the price of being granted such a valuable piece of legislative exemption.
There are two points of which the House should be aware. First, retailers, including those under contract to BSB, only found out about the merger from the 9 o'clock news. The first communication that they received from BSB or Sky came six days (five retailing days) later. Secondly, while the media were announcing shortly before last Christmas that BSkyB and the IBA had agreed to a two-year maintenance of Marco Polo services, there were other developments that were not mentioned. On the same day, retailers who shortly after the merger were told to withdraw BSB reception equipment from sale—rightly, following the announcement that BSB channels would be transferred to Astra—were told by BSkyB to put them back in their shop windows. Not only that—no sales made after that date, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, would be subject to the exchange offer available to other BSB subscribers. The public PR did not mention that two years was the most than. BSB system owners could expect. The ITC can revoke the BSB's Marco Polo rights by giving three months' notice at any time from next month.
The conduct of BSkyB has fallen short. Near redundant equipment should only have been put back on sale if it could be exchanged like other BSB systems when Marco Polo services ceased. In any event, the request to resume sales, which has a strong flavour of BSkyB lawyers seeking to impose pressure on retailers to clear their stockrooms, should not have been made
1190
since it has exposed them to substantial loss of goodwill from customers. It is scarcely surprising that most retailers have refused to fleece the customer as would have been wished and have kept BSB systems in their boxes.
I hope that we shall now accept that we are paying the price for granting such special concessions. It is with that one great reservation that I welcome to an extent the provisions of this order, as I did the broad thrust of the Bill.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I understand that the issue with regard to the retailers and what is now BSkyB is a matter of legal proceedings and should not be discussed as it is sub judice. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, took a somewhat apocalyptic view with regard to safeguards for the retailers. They ought to know that the protection under the sale of goods law is more than enough protection for consumers. If a retailer sells goods that are not fit for the purpose, they have perfectly good recourse against him. That is why the retailers are keeping the goods in boxes. It is not because of any instructions from interested parties.
The first argument against the order took us on a long trip down memory lane, escorted charmingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It was based on the claim that the law should be consistent with regard to non-domestic satellite broadcasting. Since newspaper cross-ownership of Channel 3 ITV companies—strangely called terrestrial ITV companies—is limited to 20 per cent., it should similarly be limited to 20 per cent. for satellite channels. It is often referred to as the level playing field argument. I do not consider it a good argument.
There is a substantial difference between Channel 3 licences and satellite licences. Channel 3 licences were once described by the late Lord Thomson of Fleet as a licence to print money. That is because those who hold the ITV franchise are able to gain immediate access to the totality of the viewing audience, using scarce terrestrial channels.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I apologise for interrupting. I speak from recollection. I believe that there is nothing in the Act which gives the freedom which the noble Lord has been advocating to any other non-domestic satellite. The only exception is News International.
Lord Morris: My Lords, so far as I understand, there is no other non-domestic satellite.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, there could be in the future. Usually Acts of Parliament lay down certain rules taking into account what may happen. But the Government have not done that. The exception is a personal exception.
Lord Morris: My Lords, with respect, that argument is wrong. If another operator decided to set up a satellite broadcasting system beamed into this country in competition with the present providers, it would be monstrous to suggest that any government would have a different rule for the new entrant from that for the old entrant. I would argue against that

1191
very strongly. There is an apparent difference between the treatment of the terrestrial services—the ITV licensees and the non-domestic satellite licensees. With respect, that is a completely different issue.
As my noble friend Lord Stockton rightly said, the new satellite channels may with merit be described as a licence to lose money. These new channels must build their audience in a manner akin to the Chinese water torture; namely, drip by drip, customer by customer. They enjoy no immediate access to the viewing audience but must build up their networks one household at a time. That is no level playing field for competition between the new channels and the ITV channels. It cannot be right to impose the same ownership rules on the two types of broadcasting. The only way that satellite services will build themselves up is through the patient investment by those who believe that one day they may profit from such investment. Frankly, there are not yet many who have been willing to place such bets.
The real power in broadcasting does not lie with Mr. Murdoch but with the BBC. Measured by revenue, the BBC is the largest medium enterprise in Europe. It enjoys monopoly access to the licence fee. It has half of all the terrestrial television broadcasting spectrum at its disposal and it has the lion's share of radio frequencies. It employs 27,000 people.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I was unaware that this order affects the BBC.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am simply comparing the position with regard to the soi-disant monopoly of the BBC and the so-called monopoly of one satellite broadcasting provider.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how many newspapers the BBC owns?
Lord Morris: My Lords, if one calls the Radio Times a newspaper, it owns one. I would not call it that. The BBC is one of the largest publishers of consumer magazines in Britain, but that is a narrow argument.
The other major theme related to the question of monopoly. If Mr. Murdoch has a monopoly it is of a curious character. His satellite services have reached only 10 per cent. of the population and face vigorous competition from ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC in addition to competition on the same satellite from others who are riding on his coat tails. The merger of Sky and BSB has not changed the situation. Indeed, the merger was necessary because the main satellite contenders were bearing losses on an unbearable scale.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am prepared to see the validity of the argument that holding 10 per cent. of a total market cannot be construed as a monopoly. However, if British Rail had 10 per cent. of the transport market it would still have a monopoly of the railway market.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I ought to deliver the noble Earl a copy of the competition law and the Fair Trading Act. He will find that the standards imposed
1192
on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and on the Office of Fair Trading bear no relation to his understanding of the law on this matter. Indeed, the noble Earl's interest—apparently it is a devotion—to the conspiracy theory is charmingly naive and totally fanciful.
Neither BSB courted Sky—they would not speak to each other—nor did Sky court BSB. The merger was the result of a highly intelligent, independent analyst who made it plain severally and not jointly that it was in the national interest. That was the initiative and the nonsensical conspiracy theory is a figment of politicians' imaginations.
We must be careful when throwing around terms such as "monopoly" without being certain of the facts. All responsible economists—and I am certainly not one—will agree that the relevant market is a broadcasting market. There is no such thing as a monopoly of the satellite market which is just a part of the broader television market.
As regards television, I cannot see anything malign about Mr. Murdoch's works. On the contrary, the spectre of a malevolent media mogul—noble Lords will ignore the alliteration—manipulating public opinion ignores all the evidence of Sky's behaviour and the safeguards in the Broadcasting Act itself. Recently, Sky has demonstrated only too clearly the excellence of its news coverage. I considered that its reporting of the Gulf conflict was exceptionally good. We have been down this road before and it is too late tonight to further the argument. I support the order with enthusiasm.
10 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am reluctant to elongate the debate but I must take a few minutes to welcome the order. This is the eighth occasion on which the efforts of Mr. Rupert Murdoch to establish a satellite broadcasting network have been debated in your Lordships' House and in the other place. I wish to comment briefly on the order in support of News International.
There are those who say that some noble Lords are out of touch with the realities of the broadcasting industry. However, the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Stockton put the lie to any such allegation. It is clear to me that the noble Baroness and her noble friends are fully in tune with the practices of the broadcasting industry. When in the real world of broadcasting there is nothing fresh to offer the viewer or the listener it is time to schedule the repeat of a programme from the past.
Having nothing new to say about the new Broadcasting Act, satellite television generally or Mr. Murdoch in particular, the noble Baroness and other speakers have offered us a re-run of their previous arguments. The passage of time has not been kind to those arguments. Throughout the protracted debates about the rights and wrongs of allowing Mr. Murdoch to invest in satellite television, one important point

1193
has remained stubbornly obscure. Are there any alternative suggestions? Do noble Lords have any new ideas?
We keep hearing how awful it is that Mr. Murdoch is allowed to invest his money in establishing Sky Television. However, we have not been offered any alternative proposition. If Mr. Murdoch is deemed not to be a fit and proper person to risk his money in that venture, who should take his place?
If satellite television is cut off from its main source of finance and management expertise, there will be no further investment in satellite services. The viewer will have less choice. There will be fewer jobs in broadcasting. Attractive new programme services such as "Sky News" will perish. The development of subscription television will be halted and the UK will be left behind in the broader European development of innovative television services. Those results will be achieved by following the advice given by some noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the point about a monopoly in cross-media ownership is that it is a combination of newspapers and satellite television. Mr. Murdoch could divest himself of his newspaper interests and still retain his television interests.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I believe that the order is specific in that it deals with a non-terrestrial service coming from outside this country.
The order before us this evening is good. It recognises that satellite television is a high risk business. It makes it possible for brave entrepreneurs to risk their fortunes to establish the business. I support the order.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have been asked questions which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked why the Government have changed their original approach on contiguity. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary announced on 13th June 1989 that it would be possible for one person to own two regional Channel 3 licence areas provided that they were not both large or contiguous.
Our underlying policy objective was to ensure that separate regional identity was preserved and that regional programming obligations should be fully discharged while allowing for sensible economies of scale. I explained that in my speech. During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, regional requirements were considerably enhanced. Since the Bill received Royal Assent, the ITC announced that it would expect 80 per cent. of all regional programmes to be made in the respective licence area. On that basis, my right honourable friend concluded that the contiguity rule was unnecessary in order to preserve separate regional identity. However, upon considering the representations which he received on his announcement on 4th December, my right honourable friend concluded that it would be in the best interests of regional identity if ownership of contiguous licence areas were prevented during the bidding stage but permitted thereafter, albeit for the first two years at the discretion of the ITC.
1194
The noble Baroness asked me how many companies will acquire 20 radio stations. That is a matter to be determined by the market and not by the Government. I should not wish to offer a view on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me about the radio ownership rules. I did not intend to give the impression that we underrate the importance of radio. I was merely trying to save the time of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I should not have been so considerate.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the point scheme in the order will encourage large holdings of radio stations. On the contrary, the rule that no one can own stations whose total points value exceeds 15 per cent. of the number of points in the system as a whole will ensure that dominant radio groups cannot develop.
The noble Lord also asked a question with regard to BSB's equipment. I am given to understand that the suggestion that BSB equipment be put back on sale following the merger was subsequently overtaken by the later undertaking by BSkyB that any equipment acquired by 20th December 1990 would be replaced. By then it was clear that the former BSB contract was to be terminated by the ITC. We do not believe that anyone would have acquired a squarial after that date in ignorance of that fact.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, I am informed that BSkyB were attempting to persuade retailers to restock with BSB equipment after 20th December. That is the issue.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said. By that time it was clear that the former contract was to be terminated and everyone should have been aware of that fact.
The noble Lord made play with what he considered to be an inconsistency in our policy towards concentration of ownership. There is a substantial difference between co-ownership of, on the one hand, two large Channel 3 areas which in their respective areas would be the dominant independent television broadcaster for many years to come, and on the other, News International's cross-holding interest, particularly in connection with its shareholding in BSkyB, which is certainly not a dominant independent television broadcaster.
News International holds a 45 per cent. shareholding in five Astra channels. There are already 32 Astra channels available and the potential for many more. That is quite different from the situation in which two independent terrestrial channels—ITV and Channel 4—are available.
That takes me on to one more point raised by the noble Baroness—that the Act contains a personal exception for News International. That is not so. There are other non-domestic satellite licensees already in existence; for example, W. H. Smith. All benefit in exactly the same way from the ownership provisions in the Act and the order and are subject to the same restrictions. I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  LITHUANIA: SOVIET OCCUPATION OF BUILDINGS
  LITHUANIA: SOVIET OCCUPATION OF BUILDINGS
  PRISON OFFICERS: AGE DATA
  PRISON OFFICERS: AGE DATA
  IMPORTED WILD BIRDS: MORTALITY STATISTICS
  IMPORTED WILD BIRDS: MORTALITY STATISTICS
  SURPLUS FOOD SCHEME
  SURPLUS FOOD SCHEME
  RICHMOND PARK: TRAFFIC CONGESTION
  RICHMOND PARK: TRAFFIC CONGESTION
  INDEPENDENT ADVICE AND LAW CENTRES: FUNDING
  INDEPENDENT ADVICE AND LAW CENTRES: FUNDING
  SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH: TRAINING PLACES
  SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH: TRAINING PLACES