Sitting of 23 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND VALUATION
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Allan Stewart, presented a Bill to abolish restrictions on the power of the Secretary of State to designate authorities under section 100 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; to amend the grounds upon which the Secretary of State may make a report under Schedule 3 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987; to make provision for the valuation of domestic properties in England, Scotland and Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 3 June and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

  Israel
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  9.35 am
  Mr. Michael Latham: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and constituency neighbour the Minister of State for replying to this brief debate on Israel-United Kingdom relations. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his most constructive interview on Israel Radio last week, of which I have read the text.
  I should like to say a little, first, about why I chose this subject. The United Kingdom has extremely close relations with Israel. The Balfour declaration of November 1917 first gave British support to a Jewish homeland. As the mandatory power between 1920 and 1948, we were directly responsible for the area then called Palestine. The countries that we now call Iraq and Jordan were effectively created by Winston Churchill after the Cairo conference of 1921. The Hashemite dynasties were placed on their respective thrones by him, largely to assuage the anger of the Emirs Feisal and Abdullah because Feisal was turfed off the throne of Syria by the French. The flag of the new nation—or, rather, of the reborn nation of Israel—was raised on 14 May 1948 as the British high commissioner left Palestine for the last time.
  There are many people alive today—some of them still in this House—who were physically present in those difficult and dangerous days. Britain and Israel will always be good friends, because our friendship was born out of the sufferings of the Jewish people and nurtured by the political and social institutions that we bequeathed to the state of Israel.
  Then there is the Jewish community in Britain. I am not a Jew and I have no Jewish family, constituency or business interests, but because I am closely connected by friendship with our Jewish community, I know the intense loyalty and affection that they feel for the Jewish state of Israel, while of course being among the most distinguished, valued, patriotic and hard-working of all the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.
  I came to this cause as an undergraduate at Cambridge—a Christian by conviction and practice and studying history. As a student, I read about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the pogroms in western Europe and Tsarist Russia and the ultimate abomination of the Nazi beasts. I knew in my heart then, 30 years ago, and I know it to this day, that there had to be an answer to the stake, the rack, the pogrom, the gas chamber and the crematorium. There could be no Christian theology that could ignore or excuse the stench of burning Jewish babies. There had to be a political response which showed that evil did not finally triumph at Auschwitz. There must be one place in the world where a Jew could feel entirely and unhesitatingly at home. That place is the Jewish state of Israel. Its rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of the crematoria, will always be an inspiring cause for me, and I make no apology for it.
  I am not blind to Israel's faults, but I am not blind to Britain's either. I love my own country and, although I am a Gentile, I love Israel as well. I count it an honour to receive filthy, anti-Semitic hate mail, as I often do, and as I certainly will after this speech. I know that the mild burden which I carry in receiving such muck is as nothing

  1049
  to that placed on the Jewish people by Christians for 2,000 years and carried week after week by Jewish Members of this House in their own postbags.
  I make these points because that is the background against which I want to deal with a number of specific issues. I welcome unreservedly the generous tributes paid by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to the courage of the Israeli people when they were facing ordeal by Scud missiles during the Gulf war. As the allies asked, Israel did not retaliate, but that put great strain on its political and social structure. Hon. Members should ask how we and our constituents would have felt if we had endured missile attacks night after night and made no military response.
  It was right that Ministers should show support for the Jewish state, and it was right that sales of British oil, suspended since the oil crisis of 1979, should be resumed. It is now appropriate to go further. United Kingdom trade with Israel has hovered around £1 billion for too long. We need a quantum leap in that important market. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet and Ethiopian Jews are pouring into Israel, and many more are likely to come over the next few years, and I want to see British firms being encouraged by the Government to make their contribution to housing those people. A strong trade mission to Israel, headed by a senior Minister, would be appropriate as soon as possible following the worthwhile visits by Ministers to Kuwait and other Gulf states.
  The Department of Trade and Industry should take a much more vigorous line over the Arab trade boycott, which is not recognised by Britain and which lacks international sanction. The boycott is wrong in principle and should have no place in a civilised world trading system. European legislataion should be drafted along the lines of United States laws to outlaw the boycott. The Department of Trade and Industry should tell British firms to ignore it rather than just to use their commercial judgment.
  I cannot understand why we still retain an arms embargo against Israel. It is nine years since its military operation in Lebanon. Yes, there are still some Israel military personnel in Lebanon and the South Lebanese Army of General Lahad is trained and armed by Israel. However, Lebanon has effectively been annexed by Syria, which has thousands of troops in that sad country. There are foreign troops all over the middle east in other people's countries—some by invitation, some not. Israel has no difficulty in obtaining weapons from the Americans, and it makes many of its own anyway.
  In the completely changed circumstances after the Gulf war and with the collapse of the Warsaw pact, I should have thought that our British arms companies would welcome access to the Israeli market. At present, we are leaving the way clear to the Americans to sell weapons to the Israelis and the Arabs. That does not help British business or diplomacy. The embargo policy has lost all meaning and should be changed at once.
  I have a few random thoughts on how we should proceed with the peace process, which is crucial to relations between Israel and the United Kingdom. Humility is called for from a Gentile living on the peaceful Rutland-Northamptonshire border. Members of my
  1050
  family are not threatened with stabbing every time they go shopping and I do not live 20 miles from a country that is still theoretically at war with mine. I know that everything that I shall advocate today is hotly disputed by- many Jewish people in Israel and virtually all the Arabs. There is no one solution and no single proposal that commands significant majority support in Israel, and we elected western politicians should remember that when we draft our paper scenarios for peace in the middle east. I shall give my beliefs, for what they are worth.
  First, no borders between Israel and its neighbours are sacrosanct except those with Egypt which have been settled by a formal peace treaty. The other borders are ceasefire lines and remain open to negotiation. Secondly, no useful or honourable purpose can be achieved by Israel remaining in permanent military occupation of the whole of the west bank and Gaza. The local Arabs do not want Israel there and there cannot be a lasting peace on that basis. Further Jewish settlements in disputed areas are unwise and put unnecessary pressure upon those seeking peace, but such settlements say nothing about the final status of those territories. Nor is it acceptable that such areas should be required to be Judenrein. The dreaded concept of "transfer" is unacceptable and monstrous, as is the concept that all Jews should be prevented from living in an area that has been sacred to them for thousands of years, but they may not always live there under an Israeli flag.
  If there are to be real and worthwhile negotiations on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, they will involve land for peace, but not necessarily all land. If both sides approach peace talks on the basis of non-negotiable maximalist demands, they will never get off the ground. The great powers cannot impose a settlement. They cannot resolve the internal political differences in the Israel democracy or among the Palestinians.
  In 1921, Churchill could put Arab emirs on the thrones of countries that he had created by the exercise of colonial authority. However, if the United States is not even prepared to depose Saddam Hussein by force after totally defeating his army, it is ludicrous to think that Secretary Baker or Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh can act like the Emperor Napoleon and Tsar Alexander at Tilsit in 1807 or like Sykes and Georges-Picot in 1916 and carve up the middle east between them.
  Any settlement must be accepted by all parties to the dispute, and they must be able to sell it to their people. It is pointless to go to a conference table saying that no part of the Golan Heights will ever be handed back to Syria and no new sovereignty will be allowed over the west bank and Gaza.
  Equally, it is useless to say that nothing else will do except that the Golan Heights should be returned unconditionally to Syria or that there can only be an independent Palestinian state comprising the whole of the west bank and Gaza, with east Jerusalem as its capital. Those are not negotiations: they are war cries. I have told distinguished Palestinians in the consulate general in Jerusalem—the people met by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and by Secretary Baker—that if all that they are prepared to demand is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on pre-determined borders, there is no point in having a peace conference, because

  1051
  they will already have spelt out their non-negotiable demands and the Israelis would not attend such a conference anyway.
  Also, I have told Jewish friends that, if all that they envisage is the status quo or an ultimate outcome of limited Arab autonomy, that would not be the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. No Arab leader could possibly accept that except as a temporary and transitional stage, as was proposed in the Camp David agreements over a decade ago.
  There must be a peace conference. Both sides need to compromise on the initial arrangements. The Palestinians should be encouraged to hold early internal elections, as proposed by Mr. Shamir in May 1989. The newly elected leaders should be recognised as the Palestinian part of a joint delegation with Jordan. Of course, most of them will be members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and some will be Hamas. They do not need to say that too loudly and, as Shimon Peres has said, it is best not to inquire too closely into their background once they are elected. There is no need to argue about their home address, whether it be Ramallah or Nablus road, Jerusalem, as long as it is not Tunis or Baghdad. Israel will not sit down with people who boast loudly that they take their orders from Yasser Arafat, who sided with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war. If the elected spokesmen of the Palestinians are prepared to control their public rhetoric, a joint delegation could be created which would be representative and realistic.
  There seems to have already been some movement on the conference. Israel would prefer no conference and bilateral negotiations with its Arab neighbours. Syria and the PLO want a United Nations conference with all five permanent members of the Security Council and the Arab states so that they can avoid direct negotiations with Israel. Neither proposal is realistic. The best answer is what Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister David Levy have been inching towards, which is a regional conference under joint American-Soviet auspices with a plenary session, separate working parties and perhaps a report-back session six months later.
  The question whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the European Community should be represented by observers is a relatively peripheral matter on which concessions could be made by Israel. Of course, Israel is unhappy with the United Nations because of the notorious "Zionism is racism" resolution. That should be scrapped at once. Also, it is doubtful about the European Community, which it regards as pro-Arab since the Venice declaration. Those are not matters of great substance. They are not like Kissinger's "three lousy hills".
  The main thing is for discussions to get under way. It is perfectly possible for Israel and Syria to make peace, given proper agreements on security and electronic listening devices on a totally demilitarised and United Nations-supervised Golan. I cannot see that this is a sensible time for new Israeli settlements, called Brukhim and Kanaf, to be established on the Golan by Mr. Ariel Sharon. It is possible for progress to be made in separate discussions about the west bank and Gaza, provided they include a Jordanian-Palestinian deputation and neither side persists with maximalist demands.
  I would not pretend to any great optimism, and the behaviour of the PLO in the Gulf war made matters harder. An announced immediate end to the intifada and a release of more detainees could represent joint
  1052
  confidence-building measures on both sides. Public renunciation of all acts of violence by the PLO and a freeze of further settlement activity on the west bank would be other useful steps.
  Many people may have been led to believe that peace between Israel and the Arabs was just around the corner once the Gulf war ended, but specialists on the issue know that, like the 400-year-old Irish question, it is one of the most complex and divisive problems in the world. Perhaps it is a problem without a solution—only with an outcome, as happened on the battlefield in 1948, 1967 and 1973—but I hope and pray that that is not so. "Blessed are the peacemakers," and never more than when trying to make peace in the holy land itself.
  9.50 am
  Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on his success in the ballot and on his speech, which, as ever, was balanced. He speaks with much knowledge, sensitivity and sincerity on these issues. When he leaves the House at the next election, his contributions on the middle east will be missed by many of us.
  I should like to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in improving, on a personal level, relations between Britain and Israel. The Foreign Secretary has developed a warm personal rapport with the Foreign Secretary of Israel, and the visit that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recently paid to Israel was a great success. When Ministers visit the middle east, it is rather like their having to dance on eggs. My right hon. and learned Friend managed his visit with much skill.
  I welcomed the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State gave yesterday that
  "The PLO certainly discredited itself by its conduct during the Gulf war"
  and that—this is a slight change in Government thinking—
  "We are not pressurising the Israelis to sit down at the same table with the PLO."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 926.]
  That is implicit recognition that attitudes in the middle east were changed by Yasser Arafat's decision last August to embrace Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. In so doing, he knocked the ground from under those who were seeking to get discussions going between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
  There is no doubt that there is a great reservoir of good will in Israel for the United Kingdom. I had the privilege to be in Israel in 1986 when the then Prime Minister made the first official visit to Israel by a British Prime Minister. The spontaneous outburst of enthusiasm and welcome that she received showed how warm relations were between the two countries. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will soon visit Israel. I hope also that, at some stage, a member of the royal family will do so, because unfortunately, ever since the creation of the state of Israel, members of the royal family have visited her neighbours but never Israel.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, I pay tribute to the self-restraint and statesmanship shown by the people of Israel during the Gulf war. I do not believe that any other democracy,

  1053
  seeing its people being killed and attacked by missiles from the sky, would have been as willing to show the same self-restraint.
  We all welcome the tremendous influx of emigrants from the Soviet Union to Israel. Sometimes we in the west do not understand that many people are emigrating to Israel£200,000 a year, and about 400,000 in 1990–91. That is the equivalent of 5 million people migrating to the United Kingdom. I recall the unholy row about passports being offered to enable 55,000 heads of households in Hong Kong to come to the United Kingdom in four, five or six years' time. In Israel, 400,000 people are being assimilated within a short period.
  That is placing tremendous strains on the Israeli economy, which must provide jobs and housing and teach the immigrants new languages. That involves a huge cost. I hope that we in the west, who have fought so hard to secure basic human rights for the people of the Soviet Union, will be willing to help with the cost of resettlement.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that many Soviet Jews are seeking to enter Israel because they were not free to practise their religion and culture? That is a legacy of anti-semitism, which has done so much to destroy relationships.
  Mr. Marshall: I agree with my hon. Friend—on this matter we can describe ourselves as hon. Friends. I look forward to the day when, on other issues, the hon. Gentleman will be an hon. Friend.
  I visited the Soviet Union three years ago and met several refuseniks. I was appalled by the stories that they told. It was impossible to teach or learn hebrew without running the risk of imprisonment. The intolerance and persecution that they suffered was out of this world. It was an eye-opener for someone who had not seen religious intolerance, except perhaps occasionally in Glasgow, to realise that it was so rife in the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Gladstone once said that if he solved the Irish question the Irish would change the question. I hope that that will not be true of the middle east. Peace in the middle east will be achieved by a series of building blocks. The first building block in the 1970s was Camp David. I hope that in the 1990s the next building block will be in Gaza and that we shall eliminate the Arab boycott. I hope that the Euroepan Community, which is based on free, unfettered and non-discriminatory trade, will legislate against the Arab boycott. If we are not to achieve success on a European scale, I hope that the United Kingdom will follow the lead of the five other European Community countries that have legislated against the boycott.
  I hope that we shall recognise that peace will be achieved not by a major international conference, with 16 Arab states reading prepared speeches, but, as at Camp David, by a series of bilateral accords. We must recognise that the most likely place for the next building block is Gaza, and that if it is to become an independent state it will need a huge influx of capital. I hope that those who are willing to make speeches and lecture the state of Israel about the need to make concessions will recognise that that capital will have to come from the western and Arab countries, because no other countries can provide hope for the people living in Gaza.
  9.59 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on having chosen this subject for debate. I shall go further and say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton brings to such debates an unusual balance which, I am afraid, is often lacking when we discuss this subject. I agree with the basic proposition that on this issue more than on any other we hear an unbalanced view and an excess of emotion. Therefore, I think that he brings to these debates a very distinguished point of view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is to leave this place at the end of this Parliament. As he said in his speech, he is a near parliamentary neighbour of mine. I should like to say that I regret his decision; he will be a loss to his constituency and to the House. He will also be a loss to the state of Israel, because he urges the cause of Israel in a way that the House finds profoundly persuasive.
  My hon. Friend began his speech by reminding the House of the very close connection between the United Kingdom and the state of Israel. He was right to do so. That connection is based on history and on common values. We are a friend of the state of Israel. We are also a friend of most of the Arab states and, I should like to think, of all the Arab peoples and—in so far as there is a distinction—of the Palestinian people. One of the characteristics of friendship is the right to speak with candour: if friends cannot make criticisms of friends, who can? It is important that we discuss these issues, and we are entitled to make criticisms of our friends without those criticisms being in any way misunderstood.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke of the close relationship between the two Governments. I am glad to say that that relationship has improved substantially since the latter part of last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Israel in October last year and has thereafter maintained close contact with Mr. Levy, the Israeli Foreign Secretary. I had the pleasure of visiting Israel about two weeks ago and of receiving in London Mr. Netanyahu, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Prime Minister Shamir in April of this year. We have a close relationship with Israel as we have with the Arab states and with the Palestinian people.
  My hon. Friend said that the state of Israel and the peoples of Israel behaved with great courage and forebearance during the Gulf war. He was right because they did. They were subjected to an unprovoked and brutal attack by a tyrant but did not strike back. Nobody doubted their right to strike back—of course, they would have been entitled to do so; any sovereign state would be entitled to do that—but it was not in their interests or those of the wider world. The wider world is grateful to them for the restraint that they showed.
  My hon. Friend referred to the importance of trading relations between our two countries improving still further, and again he was right to do so. Expressed both ways, the trade is about £1 billion and we should like to see that expanded. My hon. Friend knows that there is to be a substantial trade delegation to Israel in June—I think that about 30 business men are planning to go. I very much

  1055
  hope—I echo a point made by my hon. Friend—that it will be possible for the Minister for Trade to go to Israel this year.
  My hon. Friend also spoke about the boycott and the arms embargo. I regard the boycott as a thoroughly undesirable policy. My hon. Friend may know that there was a meeting on 11 May in Luxembourg between the European Community and the countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council. I, in common with other representatives of the European Community countries, impressed on the GCC representatives the great importance of relaxing the boycott. My hon. Friend was wholly right about the desirability of that. The only point on which I do not agree with my hon. Friend is the desirability of legislation on that issue, because I believe that it would be so unenforceable as to make the attempt undesirable.
  My hon. Friend referred to the arms embargo, but I am not able to help him on this issue. He will know that the arms embargo was imposed on the state of Israel in 1982 as a consequence of the invasion of the Lebanon. The troops of Israel are still in the Lebanon and we wish to see all foreign troops leave. That means especially the armies of Syria and those of Israel: they must go as soon as possible. While they are still there, it would not be sensible for the arms embargo to be relaxed.
  I shall now deal with my hon. Friend's main point about the peace process.
  Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. and learned Friend fails to mention one important matter. Does he accept that Israeli is the only true democracy in that part of the world?
  Mr. Hogg: I certainly accept that within the stale of Israel as historically defined Israel is a true and pure democracy.
  I shall now deal with the question of the peace process. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton began by saying that one should approach this issue in a state of humility. He was right to say that, not least because, as far as the state of Israel is concerned, it is not a mere dispute; it is about the security and sovereignty of its land. It is idle for us to pretend that there is not, or has not been, a threat to the safety and the security of Israel. We need to remind ourselves constantly that one of the duties of the international community, reflected in resolutions 242 and 338, is to ensure the security of the state of Israel. That is a duty on all of us and is part of the equation. The other part of the equation is the duty, also reflected in resolutions 242 and 338, to ensure that the Palestinian peoples have a right to self-determination and have political rights. That balance must be struck.
  I found the concept of building blocks, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, very persuasive. There is merit in that approach to the problem. Indeed, it is an approach that I see reflected in many of the Baker proposals as I understand them. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton advocated a pragmatic, step-by-step approach which calls for the ultimate settlement to reflect the purposes of resolutions 242 and 338. I find that approach and those principles wholly persuasive.
  My hon. Friend was also right to make the important point that a settlement cannot be imposed upon the state of Israel by the great powers because the state of Israel is
  1056
  a democracy as far as its historically defined frontiers are concerned. Israel, as historically defined, is a pure democracy and we cannot impose upon it a solution that the peoples of Israel believe would imperil its very existence. What we can and should do is to try to persuade the peoples of Israel and their Government of the need to make a number of important changes.
  My hon. Friend was also right to say that any settlement must involve a recognition of the principle of land for peace. He was also right to say that it would be highly dangerous for the parties to adopt maximalist positions and to refuse to depart from them. A number of steps could be taken by way of confidence-building measures and my hon. Friend mentioned some of them. He suggested, for example, that there should be an end to the intifada and that the detainees held by Israel should be released.
  I entirely agree with that approach. We should try to find measures that could be taken which would enhance the confidence of people on both sides. My hon. Friend has given two examples and there are many others. One example is the cessation of the construction of new settlements, which my hon. Friend mentioned. They are not a help to the peace process. Other examples are an end to the boycott and to the state of belligerency, a willingness to ensure that all the higher educational establishments in Israel and in the occupied territories are open, and a recognition that people should not be obstructed when they wish to go to work. All would be worth the doing and would enhance confidence.
  My hon. Friend said time and again that we must be careful not to make those things pre-conference conditions. Let us not hedge the process of talks with too many difficulties. It will be difficult enough to get the parties to sit down at the table without creating too many pre-conference conditions.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the United Nations and the role of the European Community. In abstract terms, there is every reason why the United Nations should play a prominent part in the discussions that we hope will take place, not least because, if a settlement is ultimately negotiated, one or more of the parties will, I suspect, wish to see that settlement underpinned in some way by the Security Council. However, the question is not whether it is intrinsically justified, but whether it is desirable to make the presence of the United Nations a pre-condition to the negotiations taking place. I have many reservations. It is a good thing for the United Nations to be present, and I hope that the state of Israel will not make the presence of the United Nations in an observer capacity a barrier to the commencement of the regional conference.
  The same point applies to the European Community. As my hon. Friend said with such force, the United Kingdom has a long-standing relationship with the middle east, as have many other countries in the European Community, such as France. In years to come, it is certain that we in the European Community will be asked to play a part in the economic revival of the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said just that. It would be foolish to make the presence of the European Community, which has an important role to play, a barrier to discussion. I hope that the state of Israel will show flexibility on that point.
  My hon. Friend also dealt with the question of the Palestinians, and he approached the matter with real good

  1057
  sense. We are not saying to the state of Israel that it must sit down with the Palestine Liberation Organisation at the conference table. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South drew attention to it this morning. We are saying two things: first, that the PLO is a factor in the area and has a role to play; and, secondly, that those who purport to represent the Palestinians at the conference table must be able to speak with authority and must carry conviction among their own people. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said. Let us not look too closely at the addresses of anybody.
  My hon. Friend ended in a persuasive way when he said that, with his long experience in politics, he thought that the issue was one of the most difficult that any diplomat or politician has had to encounter. He recognises the possibility that there is no solution, only an outcome. However, like him, I hope otherwise. If we do not see peace between the parties there, we face the prospect of war. Peace will require a great effort of will and a willingness by all to compromise. The first step to that process is to get the people to sit down at a table, and that will not happen unless the parties are prepared not to impose too many pre-conference conditions. When the parties sit down at the table, the process of negotiation will open up a variety of questions and opportunities. We need to get the parties there. If there are too many pre-conference conditions, we shall not get them there. My hon. Friend's contribution to the subject was of unusual distinction.

  Dangerous Dogs
  10.14 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to have the opportunity for a debate on curbing dangerous dogs and on the control of those animals. Several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. However, I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends would have been willing to have had a few minutes knocked off this and other Adjournment debates if the Government had made a statement here about Robin Leigh-Pemberton's 17 per cent. pay increase this year which is part of a total increase of £20,000. He is one of the people appointed by the Government who have called on ordinary working people to make sacrifices. I say that by way of comment and it does not, naturally, form part of my main debate. I am just snapping at the Government's heels. It is appalling that people line their pockets in the way in which Robin Leigh-Pemberton has apparently done.
  The debate stems basically from pressure generated outside because of a series of attacks by dogs, culminating in the saddest attack of all—that on Rucksana Khan, which has received much publicity. The problem does not solely concern pit bull terriers. I will list some of the recent attacks which were described in a recent edition of the Daily Express.
  On 16 January, six-year-old Rachel Hetherington was mauled by a friend's pet lurcher near her Birmingham home. She received 26 stitches. On 18 February, William Roach, aged 38, was savaged to death by his alsatian at his home in Rusholme, Manchester, as his wife tried to rescue him. On 22 March, baby Steven Berry was mauled in his pushchair by a bull terrier at a Sheffield bus stop. On 7 May, five-year-old Michael Parkinson was savaged by two rottweilers near his Bradford home. He received 80 stitches. That incident stimulated me and other hon. Members to table an early-day motion calling attention to the need for the control of dangerous dogs.
  On 8 May, three-year-old Natasha Thorpe's nose was almost bitten off when she was attacked by a collie at a neighbour's house at Craigmillar in Edinburgh. She received 40 stitches. On 8 May, Frank Tempest, aged 54, had his nose and ear ripped off by two pit bull terriers as he walked home from work in a Lincoln suburb. He needed micro-surgery. On 10 May, Karen Jowett, aged 21, was attacked by a doberman in Westgate in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. She needed more than 100 stitches. On 13 May, two-year-old Paula Holmes was mauled by her grandmother's American pit bull terrier at her Bolton home. She suffered a broken nose and needed stitches for facial injuries. On 15 May, Pat Lord, aged 39, underwent micro-surgery after her right arm was chewed to the bone and broken by her pet rottweiler. Some pet! On 17 May, police constable John Cooper was savaged by a pit bull terrier in Newcastle. He received stitches in a throat wound.
  The attack that especially caught the public's concern was that on Rucksana Khan. I quote from the front page of the Bradford Telegraph and Argus which says:
  "Rucksana was tossed about like a rag doll by the ferocious dog for 15 minutes while onlookers struggled to free her from its vice-like grip … The six-year-old from Springfield Street, Manningham, Bradford, suffered 23 dog bites to her back and three deep bites to the left hand side of her chest where the dog gripped on for dear life. She has five other bites to her chest and lost two teeth in the attack …

  1059
  One doctor said today that the injuries were the worst of their kind he had ever seen. Rucksana was a hair's breadth away from losing her life in the attack."
  The paper carried a colour picture of little Rucksana resting in her hospital bed, and it was obviously a very bloody picture. I do not generally endorse such exploitation, but the Bradford Telegraph and Argus was right to use the picture, as the Yorkshire Post was right to use a black and white picture. Other papers were also right to use the picture because it has helped to jolt the Government into the awareness that millions have been urging on them for the past three or four years.
  The Government have been warned time and time again. A clause was added to the Local Government Act 1988 allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable local authorities—or such organisations as he may, after consultation, designate—to introduce a dog registration scheme. I shall return to that in detail in a moment, but the fact is that those powers have not been exercised, on the ideological ground that their exercise would produce an irrelevant and unwanted layer of bureaucracy. In ray view, and in the view of virtually all the animal welfare organisations, that is not the case. I shall refer in a moment to those who support a dog registration scheme and explain how such a scheme could help with the control of dangerous dogs.
  During our debate on the Local Government Act 1988, as reported in Vol. 124 of Hansard at columns 933–35, I cited the sort of accidents that were taking place then, in 1987. The headmaster of a first school in my constituency took a small boy home because he was feeling ill—a generous and helpful gesture on the part of that headmaster. What was the outcome? When the headmaster got to the house where the little boy lived he found that there were four dogs, one of which, a rottweiler, broke loose and attacked and mauled him, breaking his arm. The headmaster was so badly injured that he was off work for three months. It took two dog wardens, who were hastily called, to keep the dog off him. As is the usual rule, there was no prosecution because the dog was destroyed and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 does not close that loophole. The following day, the irresponsible dog owners, at whose hands the headmaster had suffered grievously, bought a doberman to replace the dog that had been put down. People can only stand by, helpless.
  A constituent of mine who lived near the house in question had a baby daughter. The family had rather a nice small back garden, but they could not leave their baby daughter in it in her pram because they were frightened that the doberman or the rottweilers would leap over the fence and savage her. Why should people have such limitations placed on their freedom and enjoyment? Once one's baby daughter has grown up, one cannot go back. During that cherished period, the family were denied many happy moments in their garden because the irresponsibile family living nearby owned four savage dogs. Mercifully, that family has now gone and the problem has disappeared.
  Bradford has one of the best dog warden services in the country, but it does not have the money to operate a seven-day service. It would like to, but, like all local authorities, it is short of cash. So what happened at weekends while my constituent was in that predicament and wanted to take her baby daughter out in the pram? Sometimes the doberman and the rottweilers were allowed to roam loose and she did not dare go out. She could not
  1060
  call the dog warden service on Saturdays and Sundays because it does not operate at weekends. That is the sort of encroachment on people's pleasure, freedom and happiness to which irresponsible dog ownership can lead.
  On 21 May, I received a letter from a woman, who wrote:
  "I have three children aged 3, 6, and 8 years, and there are a lot more young children living and playing on the same street. I really believe it is only a matter of time before these dogs do harm someone."
  My correspondent is referring to two pit bull terriers owned by the occupiers of the house next door—a house in Bradford. She continues:
  "We have reported the problem to the police but they cannot do anything unless someone is harmed by the dogs. The dog warden seems to have his hands tied also. After so many recent attacks surely it would make sense to make stricter laws as a matter of urgency, before another child or adult is attacked by these dogs, and this time killed.
  I happen to be in a position to know that dog bites are a frequent occurrence and sometimes it can be the fault of the victim for teasing the dogs. But these dogs just attack for no reason at all. They wag their tails and look friendly at first but then they just turn fierce … even in the garden. I am terrified that these dogs will jump over the fence one day and in so doing end up in our garden. If this did happen and mine or any other children are hurt, I would never ever forgive Mr. Baker. He has done enough damage in his previous role to children without killing them off altogether."
  That is a succinct review of the position.
  As I said, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 did not alter matters significantly because, although it increased penalties, it did not provide for them to be applied to owners whose dog is killed following an attack. The owner cannot be fined if the dog is dead.
  There is a real need to extend protection to include not only pit bull terriers but dobermans, rottweilers and alsatians—the breeds mentioned in the list of attacks that I gave at the beginning of this brief debate. They are all unpredictable and potentially highly dangerous animals. Yesterday, when I suggested to the Home Secretary that we might consider classifying them under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, the right hon. Gentleman responded by suggesting that that Act specifically excluded dogs. On my reading of the Act, stored in the No Lobby, that is not the case, although I suppose that it may have been amended by a subsequent measure which has not been brought to my attention. In any case, a narrow amending Act—I have presented a Bill to Parliament for that very purpose—could lead rapidly to the application of that Act in respect of dogs. My guess is that such a measure would receive overwhelming support in the House.
  The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 provides for local authority licensing, for powers to inspect premises to ensure safety, and for the refusal of a licence if there is any danger to the public. Any breach of conditions or failure to obtain a licence is a criminal offence and the provision is self-financing because a charge is made for the licence fee.
  Bradford has an excellent dog warden service with six staff. Such local authority services could certainly provide help and guidance for owners. Some owners buy fluffy puppies, which, a few months later, turn into big, savage rottweilers. Some people are simply helpless in the face of such dogs and they need the help and guidance that the dog warden service can provide.

  1061
  Dog wardens could also help to enforce a dog registration scheme. The Government say that irresponsible owners would not register. But what about the decent owners who would welcome registration, who want to look after their dogs and who gain great pleasure from dog ownership? Should they suffer as a result of that attitude of irresponsible dog owners? Saying that we should not have a registration scheme because irresponsible owners would not register is like saying that it is no good having criminal sanctions in respect of burglary because burglars do not like them. That is nonsense. Under a registration scheme, if dogs are a menace, their registration details can be checked and their owners brought to account. Guidance and help can be given where necessary and dogs can be put down if they are out of control.
  I shall place on record what a dog registration scheme would do and quote a briefing paper prepared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for a debate in the Lords in June 1990, of which the RSPCA sent me a copy:
  "The knowledge of an owner that a particular dog can be identified back to that particular owner promotes responsible ownership. So, for example, people are less likely to let a dog stray to get injured or create nuisance.
  The link between the dog and a named owner is important for effective enforcement: e.g. 95 per cent. of stray dogs caught by Bradford dog wardens are disowned. Both cruelty and attack prosecutions have failed through lack of the proven link. Media attention on the most prominent cases has generally brought a result in terms of finding owners, but a very large, unrecorded number of cases never get to court."
  The Minister of State, Home Office has set her face against a dog registration scheme for some reason that is beyond human intelligence. A young woman constituent of mine was attacked in Manningham park by a terrier. She will have scars on her legs for the rest of her life. The owner who encouraged the dog to set upon that young woman was approached by the police. They would have prosecuted under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which, as the Minister is aware, provides penalties including imprisonment for people who encourage dogs to attack others or fail to have a potentially fierce dog muzzled in a public place. However, the police will prosecute only when they have clear proof of ownership and that is precisely what a dog registration would achieve.
  When the police approached the young man who had set the dog on that woman, he said, "It's not my dog. I've given it away to my friend." On the basis of that, the police said that they could not prosecute. Although I pressed them to prosecute, they said that they would have difficulty proving the case in court. That is an important aspect of a dog registration scheme. The young woman who is scarred for life thinks very little of the Government who, after I wrote to them, said that there was nothing that they could do.
  The level of the dog registration fee depends on whether it is meant to pay for registration only or for a complete control and welfare package. The Association of District Councils has suggested a £15 to £20 once-only fee and the London School of Economics suggested £10 annually for an entirely self-financing scheme.
  Why should all owners have to pay? While other Department of the Environment policies are increasingly based on the "polluter pays" principle, proposed dog control duties for local authorities are to be funded only
  1062
  from the poll tax. The benefits for responsible dog owners include speedy recovery of stray dogs and the perception by non-dog owners that dog owners are paying their way.
  Surveys show that dog owners generally do not begrudge helping the less well-off. A fee will also help to deter impulsive acquisition and the giving of dogs without due consultation. There can, of course, be proper exemptions for the blind and disabled. Such a system works successfully in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Farmers Union reports that sheep worrying cases have decreased markedly against the background of a growth in the sheep flock from I million to 2·3 million in December 1989 mainly in the lowlands and often near town fringes where the problem of worrying is greatest.
  The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has reported a dramatic reduction in roaming packs of dogs which are of great concern to many people. It has also reported that there are fewer stray dogs on the streets. The director of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals challenged many points made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in the debate in April 1980.
  In France, the Netherlands and West Germany, where compulsory dog registration schemes are in force, the stray dog problem is small. The highest percentage of dogs returned to their owners occurs in West Germany, where 66 per cent. are returned. West Germany has a nationwide licensing scheme coupled with compulsory registration and tattooing of pedigree dogs. The greatest stray dog problems are found in Italy, Portugal and Spain where compulsory registration and identification schemes are not in force—and also on the United Kingdom mainland.
  In Sweden enforcement of the compulsory registration and licensing laws has resulted in a 90 per cent. reclaim rate with very few strays. London is 10 times the size of Stockholm, but Battersea Dogs Home receives 88 times more strays than the one stray dogs home in Stockholm, which never fills its 50 cages. It is clear that stray dogs always represent a potential danger.
  Registration would help to curb dangerous dogs by promoting education and training through its national database targeted at problem areas, by discouraging ill-advised acquisition, by encouraging neutering and by providing a properly resourced and effective dog warden system to enforce banning orders. While a hard core of the most irresponsible owners may fail to register, the threat of penalties is likely to cause them to exercise greater control. Registration enforcement also gives an extra sanction to dog wardens who are often aware of particular problems.
  I do not have time to refer to the long list of local authority and welfare organisations, hygiene associations, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, farming organisations and dog welfare organisations that support a registration scheme. However, that support clearly exists.
  Legislation is required to control a wider range of dogs than just pit bull terriers, whether the Government use existing legislation—of which there is a plethora—or whether they introduce new legislation. Action must be taken as a matter of urgency.
  The Yorkshire Post and the Telegraph and Argus have campaigned vigorously over the issue and the Yorkshire Post has referred to the Animal Health Act 1981, which gives widespread powers to the Minister to control

  1063
  dangerous dogs and to ensure that they are muzzled. The Minister should consider that act with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  It is also important to introduce a compulsory insurance scheme against third-party accidents. The dog registration scheme is important. The Telegraph and Argus does not always endorse my point of view, but in a useful editorial it stated:
  "It should not be forgotten Ministers are responsible for the fact that the law over dog control is in a mess. Nicholas Ridley, when Environment Secretary, abolished the dog licence because the fee had been left unchanged for so long that it was costing more to collect than it brought in for the Government … Because of their obsession with cutting official controls"—
  the Government—
  "opposed the alternative of modernising the dog licence by raising the fee to a sensible level with a national computer register of owners and exemptions for special cases like guide dogs for the blind. The money would have been given to local authorities to employ more dog wardens to deal with the growing menace."
  The Telegraph and Argus conducted a telephone poll which showed overwhelming support for that point of view. Such a scheme is eminently sensible and I strongly urge the Government to consider all my points and the points that my hon. Friends will make and then introduce legislation as a matter of urgency.
  10.37 am
  Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on introducing the debate, and as I agree with everything that he said, I will be extremely brief.
  My hon. Friend referred to the picture of Rucksana Khan which jolted the Government, after 12 years of inaction, into trying to do something to control dangerous dogs. Many of my constituents have been concerned about dangerous dogs and the control of dogs in general for a very long time. They suspect that Cabinet Ministers are not seized of the urgency of the problem because many of them do not come into daily contact with dogs, certainly not with stray dogs, and most definitely not with dangerous dogs.
  My constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member in the Chamber today come into contact with such dogs. Every day they must run the gauntlet of stray and dangerous dogs. They have to live next door to dangerous dogs. Indeed, one of my constituents lives in a block of flats where there are dangerous dogs. A mother rang me recently to tell me that she is too terrified to visit her daughter who lives in a block of flats because the tenant downstairs has three dangerous dogs. Her daughter is too terrified to go out or to allow her child to go out because they must pass the dogs which live below them. In the case of Rucksana Khan's attack, the owner of the dog lived in a one-bedroomed third-floor council flat. I do not think that such a situation can be tolerated any longer.
  I warn the Government that, unless they do things that have the popular support not only of the overwhelming majority of the public but of dog owners, their efforts to tackle the problem will fail, and fail sadly and miserably. We saw with the poll tax that, if the Government seek to do things that do not have the popular consent and support of the overwhelming majority of citizens, they are bound to fail. The Government must take action that commands general support, and in particular the general support of dog owners.
  1064
  There is no doubt that the central issue to success in this matter is the early introduction of an effective dog register. There are 8 million dogs in this country. There are 10,000 American pit bull terriers, it is believed, and 1,000 are thought to be in the city of Bradford. We must know where those dogs are and who owns them. If we are to take effective action, a dog register is vital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred to the poll that was conducted by the Telegraph and Argus. It is very revealing. When asked whether they supported a dog register, 785 people said yes, and only 47 said no. When asked whether they supported muzzling, 873 people said yes and just 60 said no. When asked whether they supported import bans, 740 people said yes, and just 16 said no. When asked whether they supported the humane destruction of extremely dangerous dogs, 824 people said yes, and 130 said no.
  Therefore, I urge the Minister at least to say that the Government are willing urgently to reconsider introducing a dog register. That is the central pillar on which we can build effective and comprehensive legislation to deal with the control of all dogs and tackle the menacing problem of extremely dangerous dogs. If when they present their Bill the Government do not respond to public opinion, I and many other hon. Members will seek to amend it to introduce a dog register. I hope that we can do that on a free vote. I have no doubt that, if that happens, a dog register will be supported and introduced. However, I would much prefer that to be done with Government support and through Government legislation. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are beginning to change their minds and to come into line with public opinion.
  10.42 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I shall make just a few remarks and will reserve my other comments for the Second Reading debate.
  As someone who has worked as a voluntary supporter for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for many years and has owned Staffordshire bull terriers, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The debate is not only about fighting dogs. Dangerous dogs are in a number of categories, including those that are specifically bred for fighting either as breeds or as cross breeds.
  For 10 years we in the animal welfare movement warned that the Government's inactivity in banning the introduction of American pit bull terriers would lead to a massive overproduction by breeders for the purpose of supplying the dog-fighting market. Breeders cannot tell a bitch to have one or two pups. Each time a breeder breeds dogs for the dog-fighting market, a huge surplus finds its way into the open market for those who want such dogs for a macho image and for those who, unfortunately, believe that such dogs can, with training and control, act as normal family pets, but that has not been and never will be the case.
  Straying feral dogs are dangerous. For millions of years, dogs have had instincts of aggression, territorial packs and scavenging. When dogs stray or become feral, those instincts become even more apparent. Because of

  1065
  those instincts, they become dangerous and regularly attack many hundreds of people. Many estates and communities are being terrorised by large packs of stray and feral dogs. There is also the problem of family pets that become dangerous because of a lack of training and control or the social environment of their owners.
  It is no solution to isolate American pit bull terriers and fighting dogs in the short term. We cannot deal with the problem of dangerous dogs if we do not introduce a dog registration scheme. How can we tackle the issue of those who breed for dog fighting and those who breed for financial gain if we do not have a registration scheme to identify dog breeders, owners and fighters who are responsible for the problem in the first place? How can we tackle the issue of stray feral dogs if we do not have a dog registration scheme? A dog registration scheme would bring accountability to those who irresponsibly get rid of their animals or who, through lack of training or control, allow their animals to become dangerous to themselves and others in the community.
  The isolation of the pit bull terrier and other fighting breeds will not resolve the issue. Hon. Members will have to discuss the matter again in five years. People involved in dog fighting will simply switch to the cross-breeding of English bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers. If we are interested in protecting the traditional dog breeds of the United Kingdom, we must introduce a registration scheme. Without such a scheme we shall see a switch to other dogs and aggression being bred into other breeds. Pit bull terriers are already being used for fighting and badger baiting.
  The matter is complex. Unless the Government are prepared to take on wider issues than that of registration, hon. Members will debate dangerous dogs again and again. People will be killed, accidents will proliferate and people will be damaged for life. People involved in dog fighting and badger baiting will continue the evil and awful trade that they call a sport. Family pets such as the Staffordshire and English terriers will be exploited for dog fighting and badger baiting.
  I plead with the Government to make registration an essential core of the legislation. Without that central core, the issue will not go away and will become worse. In the end, the British public will decide. The public are sick and tired; they have had enough. They often cannot go safely about the streets of London because of the dangerous animals that roam our streets. It is time to take action against such animals.
  10.47 am
  Mr. Peter Hain: I welcome the excellent initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in promoting this issue. I wish briefly to draw attention to the plight of 130,000 postmen and postwomen throughout Britain. In Wales last year, 600 postmen and postwomen were attacked by dogs. Nationally, the figure is 7,400, causing 5,300 days lost in absence at a cost to the Post Office of £0·5 million; that is an increase in days lost through absence of 12·5 per cent. Those attacks are increasing relentlessly, making Postman Pat's life a misery. Postmen and postwomen are worse off
  1066
  than sheep. At least farmers have rights of redress in respect of dog attacks on sheep. Postmen have absolutely none.
  I ask the Minister to respond to two issues. First, the proposals that the Government have introduced are confined to public places. Postmen complete their deliveries on private property. Will the Government protect them?
  Secondly, only a handful of attacks on postmen and women in recent years have been committed by pit bull terriers. The overwhelming majority of attacks were by other breeds of dog. The Government's case is unsustainable. We need not their piecemeal proposals, but a comprehensive system to make dog owners accountable, to protect postmen and women and to protect the general public. Until a dog registration scheme is introduced, the Government's proposals will be seen as nothing more than a public relations exercise.
  10.49 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) for bringing this matter to the House this morning. I have every respect for the sincerity and depth of feeling of all hon. Members about the matter. The backcloth to the debate has changed markedly over the past day or two. In the first case, as the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced yesterday several measures aimed specifically at dangerous dogs. The principal and most important measure was a total ban on pit bull terriers and other fighting dogs. As the House knows, we propose to ban ownership of the American pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa dog and any other dog of a type commonly bred for fighting. The ban on the import of such dogs is already in place.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield warned us that the ban might not be sufficient in the future because other dogs may be bred for fighting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said that there will he a facility in his Bill to add to the schedule other dogs that are known to be bred for fighting.
  The ban is aimed specifically at fighting dogs. These are dogs which have been bred to be aggressive, to care little about the pain that they suffer, to fight without regard for the injuries that they receive and to be entirely fearless. Once such dogs start to fight, they cannot be stopped and they are quite unpredictable. Many people in papers and discussions have likened the dogs to loaded guns. We are all agreed that there is no place for such dogs in our society. We must take urgent steps to rid ourselves and our society of the dogs once and for all. It would be irresponsible to equivocate because measures are needed urgently. I am grateful to Opposition Members and all hon. Members for being willing to see urgent measures brought before the House and action taken immediately.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister mentioned urgency. It will still take some time for a considered piece of legislation to be introduced in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, it could have been introduced earlier. In the meantime, could not emergency legislation have been introduced yesterday or today to require the muzzling and keeping on a lead of dangerous dogs? If such

  1067
  a measure became inappropriate or was included in later legislation, it could be amended in the later legislation. But something could have been done. Nothing will change until the legislation is introduced.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is right that we have not been able to introduce legislation in the past 24 hours. However, we shall introduce the measure within a week or so. We are preparing the legislation as urgently as possible. It is important that the measures are as comprehensive as possible and that they achieve the support of as many people as possible.
  Alongside the measures that we intend to introduce, the Government have decided to create a new criminal offence which will be along the lines of, and a development of, the offence outlined in the consultation paper. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 does not apply to back gardens, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South rightly said. The Act applies only to public places. The hon. Member for Neath may be interested to know that, during consultation on the existing legislation, considerable support was expressed for making the offence under that Act apply to private property. I hope that we shall introduce such a measure. I hope that that will go some way to meeting the anxieties of the hon. Member for Neath about attacks on postmen and women.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised several points on the existing law as it relates to the types of dogs that we have discussed during the past few days. There is some misunderstanding about the criminal law as it stands. It seems that people do not appreciate that it is already an offence to allow unmuzzled ferocious dogs to be at large. It is with that offence, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, that many people are charged when their dog has ca used injury to others.
  The new offence will apply more widely and I hope that it will be easier to enforce. it will attract higher penalties than the current offence. Those who allow their dogs to cause injury to others must know that they will be liable to the criminal law. It is essential that that is clearly understood.
  However, there will be other cases where the law does not have the flexibility that perhaps it should have. There may be cases where it seems right to a court to order, not the destruction of the dog, but muzzling or some method of control suitable to the circumstances. We feel that it is right that the courts should have such additional powers and the Bill will provide them. I hope that that will meet the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bradford, West about dogs on housing estates. In my constituency, too, there are several housing estates where tenants own dogs that can cause anxiety to others.
  Alongside those measures, the existing powers of the court, now reinforced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, guarantee the destruction of any dog that is dangerous, regardless of whether a criminal offence was committed or can be established. These powers will remain in place. It is very important to be able to ensure that any dog that is dangerous, of any type or breed, can be put down certainly and without delay. Failure to bring in a dog for destruction renders the keeper of the dog liable for disqualification, as well as fines up to level 5, depending on the circumstances. In such cases it is not necessarily the owners who are at fault. If a dog becomes dangerous and is perceived to be so, that dog is a danger to other people
  1068
  and to human life. That dog is the weapon which must be destroyed. It is absolutely essential that all hon. Members and the public understand that.
  As the House will know, last summer the Government issued their consultation paper, "The Control of Dogs". The responses were many and various. However, on two points the general public were unanimous. The first was the widespread desire for the new general criminal offence which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced yesterday, together with increased powers for the courts to muzzle dangerous dogs. The second was the universal public dislike of dogs such as the pit bull terrier which represent such a danger to small children such as Rucksana Khan. We have taken up both points in our recent proposals and I hope that the House will welcome them with the same enthusiasm as the public expressed during the consultation process.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South had a particular interest in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. This is Department of the Environment legislation and I understand that there are the usual technical difficulties in adapting it to the purpose of keeping dangerous dogs. But I do not wish to dwell on technicalities. The purpose of this legislation is to control wild animals, wild in the sense that they live in the wild rather than that they are particularly aggressive. It provides for, in effect, private zoos in which animals can be kept for their own safety and the safety of the public.
  Dogs such as the pit bull terrier are not wild animals in that sense. They are domesticated animals which have become fierce through breeding.
  Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I shall give way in a moment.
  I agree that the Dangerous Wild Animals Act sets down requirements which could be used to keep pit bull terriers in conditions of high security, but, I have to ask the House, why do people want to keep dogs like this?
  Mr. Madden: Before the Minister completes her speech, will she make it clear to the House and the country that she is willing to test, in the House, support for and opposition to a dog register, which has been the central theme of every contribution to the debate?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot think what a dog registration scheme would have done to prevent Rucksana Khan from being savaged. I cannot think what such a scheme would have done to help those who have been seriously hurt, wounded or damaged as a result of violent acts committed by dogs that were out of control. The people who own the dogs to which we have been referring will never come forward to become the registered owners of dogs.
  When our backs are turned, those who keep dogs such as pit bull terriers will take them to the pit or train them with heavy weights. They will use live cats as bait. They can use a zoo, as it were, to breed an even more dangerous dog. To put such people alongside those who would be responsible about animals is not to be realistic.
  We should have no part in the breeding of dangerous dogs. The dog is a companion animal. It has been bred for hundreds of years to be responsive to humans, gentle and kind. We must give no succour to those who wish to change this breeding to make dogs fierce. As dogs are all of one species, fierce animals can be used to cross-breed with breeds of good temperament to produce fierce

  1069
  versions of dogs. We must do everything that we can to avoid that. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduces legislation, that is what we shall endeavour to do.
  I hope that it is common ground that we all want dogs of any sort to be of good and reliable temperament. There is no place for dogs which have to be kept in what I would term, to refer to another part of my responsibilities, category A conditions. It makes no sense to have dogs kept in wire cages outside. I hope that there will be universal support for the measures that my right hon. Friend will introduce shortly.
  11 am
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in the past two days there has been a series of points of order, raised especially by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), about tabling questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on national health service trusts. It was suggested by those two hon. Members that the Clerks in the Table Office were not allowing such questions to be tabled.
  Mr. Speaker rightly told me yesterday that no hon. Member wantonly misleads the House. I am sure that you will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in column 784 of Tuesday's Hansard Mr. Speaker made it clear that he would investigate with the Table Office whether the Clerks had given the indication to which the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Copeland referred. As some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), have learnt most clearly that the Clerks did not give such an indication, and as inadvertently two hon. Members have misled the House, it would be immensely helpful to the House and to clear the good name of the Clerks, who are always completely neutral, independent and above party politics, if Mr. Speaker were to make it clear—not through you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before the House rises—that the allegations made by the two hon. Members to whom I referred were entirely false.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said and especially for his reference to the Clerks. My recollection is that Mr. Speaker made the position clear in his statement yesterday. I shall, of course, cause investigations to be made in view of what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the House is cutting into the time of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).
  Mr. Cryer: It is a convention of the House—I am sure that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows this—that when we name other hon. Members during points of order, or when raising issues in other ways, we give them notice so that they have the opportunity to appear in the Chamber to respond to whatever is said about them. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman troubled to do that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary to do so.

  Active Citizenship
  11.3 am
  Mr. David Amess: The concept of active citizenship means different things to different people. It is all-embracing. I believe that active citizenship, when it is healthy, makes for a stable and well-ordered society. As I said, it means different things to different people, and as a Conservative I suspect that I place an emphasis on it different from the emphasis that it is given by socialists.
  I am proud to say that active citizenship in Basildon is thriving. Indeed, it is leading the way. I intend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, to indulge in an unashamed roll of honour to salute all the active citizens in my constituency.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has given his name to an excellent document entitled "Releasing the Community Spirit". Many excellent ideas are set out in that document, which provides a framework for the active citizen. It is well worth reading.
  I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, is a modest person. He would be the last to entice anyone to praise his efforts. However, I intend to give him praise, for his name is engraved upon the hearts of my constituents. I think that he has visited my constituency no fewer than four times. On each visit he has been responsible for making fundamental improvements to the lives of all my constituents. First, in 1986–87, he was the Minister with responsibility for new towns. He made sure that those who lived in what were termed concrete camps of properties in Vange, who bought them with the best of intentions, were enabled to purchase them back. I cannot over-emphasise how much that has meant to my constituents.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the police station in Basildon and saw at first hand where it was intended to build the new court house. There was an argument about linking the police station with the new court house via an underground tunnel. My right hon. Friend returned to the Home Office and made sure that there would be a tunnel linking the two buildings.
  Some years ago, my right hon. Friend replied to an Adjournment debate on St. Luke's hospice. It was while he was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security that privately, behind the scenes, he encouraged local residents to pursue the project.
  I congratulate the Government on their many initiatives to encourage active citizenship, perhaps the most recent of which was the pledge that £4·5 million of taxpayers' money would be used to support Crime Prevention Week. Sadly, the socialists in Basildon tried to take full credit for the scheme. In fact, it was a Home Office initiative. I am delighted to tell the House that Crime Prevention Week proved to be an enormous success in Basildon. It was successful during the week in question and the many continuing projects will bring enormous benefit for the residents of Basildon in the years ahead.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our attempts to help Basildon in the past. Is he aware that the attitude of the Labour party in Basildon towards Crime Prevention Week—it claimed responsibility for that excellent and successful concept—ran full in the face of

  1071
  national Labour party policy? The Labour party chose to condemn national Crime Prevention Week and to condemn the actions of all citizens who voluntarily played a full part in making the scheme a success. Perhaps those at Walworth road should talk to the representatives of the Labour party in Basildon.
  Mr. Amess: How right my right hon. Friend is. Basildon socialists are frequently out of step with socialists nationally. That is why two Thursdays ago there was a 9 per cent. swing to Conservative party candidates in my constituency. The leader of the Labour group is a treasurer at Walworth road. It must be an increasing worry to those concerned that his advice is being taken by the Labour party.
  I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will give details of what local businesses are doing to assist in all the Government initiatives, because I am fed up with people knocking local business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher wrote in the excellent document to which I referred, local businesses have been magnificent in their support of active citizenship.
  I am not ashamed to say that I am proud to be British. This is the finest country in the world and I am fed up with the British disease of continually knocking ourselves. If we are not moaning about the weather, we are always saying that the grass is greener on the other side. It is not and it is time that we followed the example of others and beat the drum for Britain.
  I am proud to live in Basildon, which is the finest new town in Britain and is the beacon of the south. Because some unkind articles have been written over the years about my constituency—we did not necessarily take offence at the article on Essex man and Essex woman—I initiated the "I love Basildon" campaign, which enabled people to wear attractive badges and display bumper stickers on their cars and in shops. It was an extremely effective campaign which said, in effect, "We live in Basildon and we are proud of our town."
  The campaign was specifically aimed at the national problems of litter, graffiti and vandalism. Conservative Members believe in leading by example and that is why I undertook, late at night, to go on what I called anti-vandal patrols. I approached groups of youngsters on street corners and asked why they were there and not attending our local youth clubs and other activities provided in the town. Their main complaint was that, as they were under age and could not drink alcohol, commercial enterprises in the town were not prepared to run discos providing non-alcoholic drinks. Local businesses rallied round magnificently and I am delighted to report that in Basildon we are providing discos at which youngsters can enjoy non-alcoholic drinks.
  We also worked with such enterprising people as the Guardian Angels, not in an unorthodox fashion but to demonstrate that we were concerned with individual responsibility. There is no earthly reason why people should drop sweet papers on the floor, throw cigarette ends out of car windows and so on. Throwing litter and rubbish on to the floor costs the nation money and at this time, when we are concerned for the well-being of the economy, we must make sure that every penny is well spent. There is no reason why huge sums of money should be wasted because we have a litter problem.
  Local people have set up working parties on the Westminster model and, on a voluntary basis, are clearing
  1072
  up some of our estates and more unsightly roads. I am delighted to report that local schools responded magnificently to national spring-clean week, which proved extremely effective.
  Why, when somebody changes the lettering on a street sign so that the name of the road becomes a dirty or swear word, is there never anybody present to see the graffiti happen? I assume that not adults but children are responsible for such graffiti. The parents of those children should accept responsibility for the unsocial behaviour of their offspring. Nobody who indulges in graffiti can be considered an active citizen, in Basildon or elsewhere.
  I pay tribute to the police in Basildon. When I became a Member of Parliament, we had one local police station. We now have three, thanks to the support of the Home Office. We have a police station at Pitsea, a new one being built at Laindon and our central police station in Basildon.
  We have a magnificent new court house, where people gather in a civilised fashion. Gone is the overcrowding that used to take place in Billericay magistrates courts. In those days there was enormous pressure on the counselling given by social workers and the new court house has raised morale among the members of the probation service and among chief officers. I am delighted with the support that the Government gave to our new court house.
  Like the police throughout the country, the police in Basildon are absolutely magificent. I would not wish to be a policeman. It is an extremely difficult job and the men and women in our police force, under increasingly difficult circumstances, because of the change in behaviour of the population generally, face great difficulties. We should congratulate and encourage the police in all their endeavours.
  Mr. John Patten: If the police are doing such an excellent job in Basildon and nationally, which the Government and people generally recognise to be the case, and if they are doing an extremely fine job in crime prevention, why does my hon. Friend think that it is now Labour party official policy to take responsibility for crime prevention from the police and give it to local councils? Does he think that the Labour party does not really trust the police?
  Mr. Amess: Certainly. I cannot think of a worse scenario than local socialists in Basildon having control of the police force. That would be outrageous and my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the point.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on my pamphlet. He does a remarkable job for the people of Basildon and we are hearing much of his own activities behind the praise that he is giving to others. Is not it interesting to note that where there is a good police force, the people respond to it, with citizens wanting to assist and taking a more active part in neighbourhood watch and similar schemes? Has he noted the increasing awareness among younger people of what they can do for youth crime assistance with the police, rather than being on the wrong side of the law? All such matters are part of the community working properly and my hon. Friend's efforts are helping to make sure that that happens in Basildon.
  Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and he is right. I was about to deal with the question of neighbourhood watch schemes and the other

  1073
  initiatives to which he referred. Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend the 10th anniversary of the victim support scheme in Basildon. It is a magnificent initiative, again supported by the Government, and the chairman said in his annual report:
  "Until recently victims of crime had long been neglected by the community."
  My hon. Friends and I feel passionately that the real victims of crime are not given enough attention. The initiative in Basildon has addressed that problem. He went on:
  "The Police, the Probation Service and the Judiciary were primarily concerned with the offender. The victim might be asked to give evidence but there was no organisation to help victims of crime".
  Does the House understand the role of the active citizen in victim support, which is dependent on untrained volunteers—ordinary men and women who, after selection and training, have time to visit victims? A leaflet on the group says of the volunteers, who are not paid for their sacrifices:
  "Volunteers are caring people who are able to listen and respond to the victim's needs. Information on these and on the agencies and services available to them is given to volunteers during training, enabling them to offer victims a confidential service on behalf of the community. Each volunteer carries an identity card issued by the Police."
  The victim support group is so dedicated that, when the new court house opened, it initiated a fund-raising team to serve tea and coffee there. It has enjoyed tremendous success with the continuity of its co-ordinators. Although this is a sad and serious project, they have embarked on a scheme to study the causes of murder and manslaughter.
  The group has asked me to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister one point concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A person in receipt of state benefits can be penalised if he receives a lump sum because state benefits are taken into consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend can comment on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher mentioned the neighbourhood watch scheme. A retired gentleman called Ken Coulter is what is called the divisional controller in Basildon. Every day of the week, he is in Basildon police station working on the scheme on behalf of the community. It is thanks to his efforts and those of his team of volunteers that there are now 600 of these groups in Basildon representing 171,000 residents and guarding 62,000 properties. There are 186 liaison officers and 8,962 people in the youth section. It is a magnificent effort. Our local neighbourhood scheme has piloted a pet watch scheme, which co-ordinates the activities of residents who are naturally upset when they lose their pets. Their contribution to our local society is profound.
  Underpinning all this has to be education. I am delighted to say that our schools are doing a magnificent job, in partnership with the police, in educating our young people. Sadly, we lost our way in the 1960s, when we set young people a bad example and in the past decade we have been paying the dividend. Our schools are now in a healthy state. Local police come in regularly to show young people how they can help in developing the concept of active citizenship. I salute the efforts of the police.
  Frequently, young people come to my surgery with suggestions for new projects. Only on Saturday, six young people, six or seven-year-olds, asked for my support for an
  1074
  environmental project in Langdon Hills and brought me beautiful coloured drawings. They were going to work with the local community in clearing up their estates.
  How sad it is to hear of a minority of parents who expect teachers to do it all for them. Education is a partnership. Schools are responsible for children between 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock, but parents must take full responsibility for their children outside those hours and at the weekend.
  Basildon has many voluntary organisations for the handicapped. Sports for the disabled are run by two groups. There is nothing so moving as to go along to these annual sports days and see disabled men and women participating in sporting activities in a way that able-bodied people would find impossible. They never allow disability to hold them back. A wonderful woman, Mrs. Childers, is chairman of PHAB—the physically handicapped and able bodied organisation—which does a wonderful job. I am sad that the socialist council is threatening to take away its transport facilities and those of other similar organisations and is trying to blame such measures on the Government, who are not to blame.
  A great deal of magnificent work goes on at Valery lodge, which was inspired by a woman who, sadly, has since died of cancer and her husband, who is blind. Basildon also has a town crier organisation—talking books for the blind. Volunteers meet to produce these tapes, which blind people enjoy. We have the friends of Elmbrook school, which is attended by severely disabled people who have actually climbed to the top of Big Ben.
  I have already mentioned St. Luke's hospice. It took a German woman, Trudy Cox, her husband Les and their family to show British people that if one is determined, anything is achievable. We do not have any millionaires living in Basildon, or if we do, they are keeping a low profile. If I knew about them, I would immediately try to sign them up as members of the Conservative party. Despite that, in six years, through tombolas and raffles, the hospice has raised over £1 million.
  Mr. John Patten: That is extraordinary.
  Mr. Amess: It is quite extraordinary. Last year, the Duchess of Norfolk opened the hospice. Knowing that we have a number of social problems in Basildon, with many people on low incomes, she was able to see at first hand what a magnificent job people had done. Five weeks ago, we were privileged to have a visit from the Princess of Wales. She was deeply moved by the wonderful achievements of Trudy Cox and others in building the hospice.
  I congratulate the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which has 500 members and supplies meals on wheels and book services. The Basildon hospital league of friends has been going for over 25 years and has raised, by the efforts of its 300 members, £25,000. I am the unpaid, voluntary spokesman for the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations, the largest unpaid voluntary organisation. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would tell the Treasury that the association would be delighted if VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment were zero-rated and if the Broadcasting Authority would give the association its own frequency.
  The marriage guidance council, RELATE, of which I have the privilege to be president, also does a magnificent job, as do the team of volunteer Samaritans at Little

  1075
  Lullaway and the citizens advice bureaux. We take for granted the work of the Rotarians, the Round Table, the Inner Wheel and the carnival charities, which each year raise money for local people. I have the privilege of being the president of the local scouting organisation, which will be here soon to enjoy the privilege of having tea with Mr. Speaker. Both the scouts and the girl guides do a wonderful job.
  I have the privilege also to be president of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade. It, too, does a magnificent job. Basildon boys club and the Unge boys club, of which I am also privileged to be president, do a magnificent job in helping local boys to join in sporting activities. am delighted that the Minister for Sport is here. I know that he will pay tribute to the work done by the National Association of Boys' Clubs.
  The private car hire and taxi charity organisation, which organises an annual run each year, should be congratulated. I introduced a ten-minute Bill, now an Act of Parliament—the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988—that was inspired by the Essex Horse and Pony Protection Society. I congratulate it. Recently we have launched Pets as Therapy. It was inspired by Leslie Scott-Ordish and is based in Maidstone. A team of volunteers offer their friendly dogs to be taken along to old people to be patted. It cheers up the old people.
  The Royal British Legion does a magnificent job. I very much regret that the socialists in Basildon seem to be preventing us from having a permanent war memorial. How magnificent the poppy collectors are. The arthritis and stroke clubs also do a magnificent job. Crossroads, of which I have the privilege to be president, provides a care attendance scheme that is responsible on a voluntary basis for providing care to people who have disabled children. It provides counselling advice and looks after disabled people while the carers have a holiday.
  Finally, I must certainly not forget the Church. We have 28 local churches which do a magnificent job. I very much regret that only 2 per cent. of the population worship regularly. The Minister and I happen to be Catholics, but to me all the local churches in Basildon do a magnificent job. In particular, I pay tribute to Paul Smith, who leads the Living Word Community church. He goes along privately—I do not have the time to do so—to speak to people who have severe emotional problems. He counsels them on an individual basis.
  I hope that in the short time that I have been given for this debate I have demonstrated that we do not need the socialists in Basildon to lecture us on a caring community. It is through active citizenship, through the many voluntary organisations in Basildon, that we demonstrate every day, week and month that we are a truly caring society. We lead the way in the country. I hope that this morning the whole House will join me in paying a very warm tribute to all the active citizens in Basildon.
  11.32 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I should like to be the first to join in those words of praise for the active citizens of Basildon. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has given us an extraordinary list—a litany, if one likes—of all the organisations, with many of which he is notably involved, that contribute so much to the life of that town. It is active citizenship, which is the subject of this debate.
  1076
  At the beginning of his remarks my hon. Friend paid some kind tributes to me. I do not know whether I shall ever be opened up after my death for a post-mortem to be carried out, but if I am I suspect that they will find the word "Basildon", together with a few other words, engraved on my heart. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and, through him, those who help him, on the magnificent 9 per cent. swing to the Conservative party that they achieved at the recent local elections.
  It fills me with horror to learn that obstacles may well be placed in the way of a proper war memorial to the deceased active citizens of Basildon by the socialist council in Basildon. I hope that common sense will break out and that that Labour council will be persuaded to think again about what strikes me as the most disgraceful obstacle being placed in the way of the erection of a proper memorial to the dead of Basildon.
  I am growing very worried—and I became more and more worried as I listened to my hon. Friend—about other obstacles that the Labour council in Basildon is putting in the way of active citizens. I understand that the excellent organisation PHAB, to which my hon. Friend referred, is likely to have some of its transport that is provided locally withdrawn by the council. That is disgraceful. Disabled people deserve better, even from Labour councils.
  I cannot, unfortunately, give an instant response to my hon. Friend's point about value added tax on hospital radios. However, I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that either he or one of his colleagues will get in touch directly with my hon. Friend. He has promoted a most notable debate. It gives me the opportunity to pay tribute not only to him and to the active citizens of Basildon but to the tens and scores of thousands of people of all ages and from all sections of our community who work in or support voluntary organisations and charities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is now well understood and accepted by the majority of people in this country that there is a clear role for these organisations alongside statutory provision by national or local government.
  It is a deeply outdated argument, redolent of the late 1970s, that there is no role at all for voluntary organisations in working closely with both national and local government and also in working closely with business in what may turn out to be a fruitful tripartite alliance in the 1990s. From small things larger things grow. Thirty or 40 years ago, housing associations—small voluntary organisations—were not thought highly of by many people in this country, yet now they are a major provider of housing, bringing together national and local government, voluntary organisations and business.
  It is only a distant blip on the radar screen, but perhaps in the next 10 or 20 years we shall see bodies called care associations springing up to provide care in the community and bringing together statutory, local and voluntary provision and business help of various sorts. That is why this debate is so valuable. The outdated arguments of the 1970s and early 1980s about each area having its territory and there being a frontier beyond which the statutory service must not advance, or over which the voluntary sector must not travel, is deeply outdated and should be consigned to the dustbin of tiresome debate.
  Voluntary organisations also provide people with the opportunity to pick up a theme that has been consistent in

  1077
  Conservative thought for the past 200 years. Disraeli is, perhaps, too often quoted in this place, but I quote him again on the need to help the little battalions. If we look across the Atlantic, we see a similar theme, with what President Bush said about the need to look for the thousand points of light in the American community and the work done by the voluntary organisations there. That is something that we wish to promote, not to hold back. That is why we do what we can in the Home Office, and in all Government Departments, particularly through the excellent work of the voluntary services unit, to promote the work that volunteers do.
  The House may be interested to know that, starting on 3 June, there will be a major volunteers week during which local and national events are to be arranged to publicise and celebrate the contribution made by volunteers. That will be going on in Basildon, as elsewhere. We take every opportunity to encourage responsible and active citizens to give not just of money but of their time, too. One of the most encouraging trends that we have seen during the 1980s has been the willingness of the business and voluntary sectors to join in partnership with Government to tackle the problems that concern us all. The breaking down of barriers and the willingness to work together is very welcome.
  These are not just fine words. I can announce today—I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to hear it—that we shall be making a grant towards the start up of a scheme jointly proposed by the Home Office, business in the community and the action resource centre to attempt to stimulate more volunteering by employees—a theme and a trend, I think, of the 1990s. This grant—£51,000, or £51,500 for those who are precisely minded in this place—will cover half the cost for the next three years of two pilot projects in Leeds and Leicester. Unfortunately, we did not have a bid from Basildon. If we had, I dare say that one of the two pilot projects would have been in Basildon. The pilot projects have been designed to show how closer links between local, voluntary and business sectors can be established and to develop practical models for employee volunteering which can be replicated throughout the United Kingdom. That will help to promote active citizenship by employees, sometimes during employers' time. Many businesses, large and small, are recognising that if employees are allowed to volunteer for activities, it can help to enrich and enhance the experience of those employees.
  There have been many definitions of active citizenship. For me it can be defined as someone making more than a solely economic contribution to their community; someone who not only cares but acts on their caring instincts. In his extraordinary list of caring people in Basildon, my hon. Friend put his finger not on the definition of active citizenship but on the practical outcome of it.
  Many people have identified with the theme of active citizenship and it has captured a great deal of imagination and public debate. It has been useful in persuading people to think about the contribution that they might make and in developing recognition of the contribution that many already make to their neighbourhood.
  1078
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon listed a range of things taking place in Basildon as examples of what can be done. He mentioned crime prevention and gave the name of one active citizen who visits the police station daily and is co-ordinating neighbourhood watch schemes. I am afraid that I cannot remember his name.
  Mr. Amess: Mr. Coulter.
  Mr. Patten: I pay tribute to him and to the neighbourhood watch movement in Basildon. Crime prevention is very important. It caught the national imagination in April during the first ever British national crime prevention week. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon for what he said about Home Office efforts. Crime prevention week was built on the hard work of the police and other statutory agencies and the hordes of volunteers up and down the country.
  I have been amazed at the outright attacks and condemnation of crime prevention week from the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. Their comments are a slap in the face for the tens of thousands of volunteers and active citizens of all political parties and no political party who took part in 6,000 separate schemes during that week and attracted many millions of pounds worth of private sector sponsorship and advertising which was freely given to promote crime prevention week.
  It is clear that the Labour party does not approve of voluntary action in crime prevention. What the Labour party has said—I deplore it—is entirely consistent with the two extremely dangerous themes that are now emerging from printed and published Labour party policy documents. It represents a direct attack on the partnership between active citizens concerned with crime prevention and the police. One of the first things that the Labour party has pledged to do is to take away from the police responsibility for crime prevention—the first phrase of any police constable's oath—and transfer it to local authorities. Tell that to the people of Basildon, Lambeth, Haringey, Southwark and Liverpool and other areas with Labour councils.
  Even more sinister is the Labour party's pledge in its printed policy documents—the documents are there for us all to see—to extend the political control of the police by having elected police authorities, starting in London. One can imagine what policing would be like in Basildon if the local authority was responsible for crime prevention and the police in that part of Essex. It would break down the fruitful link between voluntary citizens and the police. I applaud the practical work being done by the Essex constabulary and the neighbourhood watch movement in Basildon. For example, they have introduced the innovative pet watch scheme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred.
  Characteristically, my hon. Friend has picked on a theme that is catching the imagination of people nationally. The Government will do all that they can, financially and in other ways, to promote that in the coming decade. I predict that the coming decade will see a great increase in national volunteering and the rapid coming together of Government, business and the voluntary sectors so that their endeavours may be put on a sound footing to bring into the foreground of public life the little battalions who can really answer local needs in Basildon and elsewhere.

  Sport and Recreation
  11.45 am
  Mr. Tom Pendry: It is a pleasure once more to bring to the Dispatch Box the Minister for Sport so that he may have yet another opportunity to shine. He is looking particularly fresh this morning after a strenuous evening yesterday when he was responsible for spinning the tombola wheel at the sports hall. Thanks to him, I won a prize—a pair of football shin pads. I wondered whether it was an omen for today's debate, but I hope that it will not be that rough. It is a pity that I am taking the Minister away from his beloved cricket. I understand that he was invited to the international game at Edgbaston today. I hope that after the debate he will be able to hurry along the M1 and M6 to see the best of that game.
  I should like to apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is attending a memorial service to the late Ron Pickering. I am sure that the House will know that Ron Pickering was a great ambassador for sport. He was a great sports commentator, and his passing has meant the loss of a great advocate for British sport. I know that the Minister agrees with that.
  This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to tackle several problems. I have had two other debates with him in the recent past. In December we debated the problems facing football, and in February we debated the problems of sport in schools. Also, we had our little clash on Tuesday. It is a pity that we do not have a regular slot for sports questions. I know that the Minister agrees with that as he said so recently on television. The House would like to have an opportunity to question the Minister from time to time, and I know that he would like to be able to answer those questions. I know that he is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and I have been pressing for that facility for many years. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House informed us only 13 days ago that the Government do not intend to provide it. I see that the Minister is surprised. Once more he has been sidelined and I am sure that he wants to get to grips with it because the Leader of the House has written to the hon. Member For Luton, North, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and myself to say that it is riot timely to provide a slot. I hope that the Minister will join us in keeping that matter on the boil because such a facility is long overdue. I know that we can rely on his support.
  I hope that the Minister did not think that I was churlish on Tuesday for not congratulating him on his Question Time debut. I should like to take this opportunity of doing so. I could not do so on Tuesday because of the content of his answer. I believe passionately in sport, which has suffered greatly in the past from a lack of funding and investment. Therefore, I could not congratulate the Minister on an answer that appeared to contain a boast on his part when there has been a declining level of financial provision for sport under this Government. In reply to my supplementary question the Minister said that, uncharacteristically, I was talking nonsense.
  I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, characteristically, I will not let that remark pass without challenge. Far from talking nonsense on Tuesday, I
  1080
  reminded the Government of their record, according to information from the Department of Education and Science. Figures supplied in written answers show that, compared with five years ago, funding for sport, through grant in aid to the Sports Council and the urban programme, has fallen in real terms by £3·8 million and £11·9 million respectively. That makes a total cut in direct funding, compared with the 1986–87 figure, of £15·7 million.
  The Minister may suggest, however, that I should consider the cumulative cut in direct funding for sport in that five-year period. I am only too happy to do so, but I suspect that he will not be too happy to hear what I have to say. The total cut in grant in aid to the Sports Council since 1986–87 is £12·5 million, and in funding for the urban programme £25·5 million, making a total cumulative cut of a staggering £38 million. That is indefensible.
  The Minister must explain the reason for this catastrophic state of affairs. Furthermore, he must explain why cuts will continue to rise in the coming year. In 1991–92, direct Government funding of sport will fall, to keep pace with inflation, by a further £5·3 million. Hansard got it wrong and corrected it, but that is what I said on Tuesday.
  The Minister attempted to obscure those figures in a written answer by observing that over the same period the amount of money generated by the Sports Council without Government help increased from £5·46 million pounds to £10·95 million. If that is the method by which he is attempting to hide the fact that the Government have consistently and drastically cut the Sports Council's budget, it is little short of disgraceful. Effectively, he is saying that, although the Sports Council has made great efforts to increase its income from its own activities, the Government have scuppered its efforts, pocketed the proceeds and left it no better off than it was five years ago. Which of the two is it? He is trying either to expose the Government's pathetic record or to hide it.
  I look forward to the Minister's reply and challenge him to dispute the figures that I have announced, which were supplied by his Department and confirmed by the Sports Council and by the Library.
  The Minister will also wish to tell the House of his recently announced £1 million scheme for coaching schoolchildren through the National Coaching Foundation. I congratulate him on securing that money, which will be paid for five times over by the reduction in next year's grant to the Sports Council.
  I hope that the Minister will tell the House the whole truth about the scheme and will confirm the figure that he supplied to me in a parliamentary written answer on 21 May, which shows that the scheme will last for only eight to 10 weeks, will involve only 0·2 per cent. of children under the age of 11 to 14 in maintained schools, and will cover less than one fifth of local education authorities.
  I am aware that the scheme is meant to be a pilot scheme to establish examples of good practice for use in other areas, but the Minister must confirm that funding will be made available to support further projects that might arise from the pilot scheme. If he cannot give that assurance, many will question whether the scheme is the start of something worthwhile or merely a short-term public relations exercise. I am sure that he will wish to allay our fears on that.
  Funding for sport is one of a range of issues that the Minister will be considering in the formulation of the

  1081
  Government's sports policy. I know that he has consulted a wide range of bodies as part of the review. In a parliamentary written answer on 30 November, he listed more than 50 of them. Curiously, he has failed to consult one body that has consistently and effectively supported sport at every opportunity—the Labour party.
  Lest the Minister doubts that claim, I ask him to reflect on the following facts. A Labour Government created the Sports Council and gave Britain its first and, as is universally recognised, finest Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I trust that the Minister will not take too much exception to that claim. A Labour Government published Britain's first, and to date only, White Paper on sport, and introduced the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which established the system of licensing sports stadiums that is still in use today. A Labour Government fulfilled their duties to European and international sport not only by negotiating and signing on behalf of Britain the European sports-for-all charter but the Gleneagles agreement, which facilitated the application of probably the most comprehensive and solid pressure against the evil of the apartheid regime, the sports boycott, which has been instrumental in bringing about the welcome changes in South Africa.
  On a personal note, I am proud to have been the Minister who, in a Labour Government, introduced mandatory rate relief to the level of 65 per cent. for sports clubs in Northern Ireland, which has done much to benefit and promote grass-roots sport in the Province. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath pointed out to the Minister on Tuesday, a Labour Government put their money where their mouth was and provided financial assistance to both the World cup and the Commonwealth games in Britain.
  That stands in stark contrast with the Pontius Pilate hand washing that has characterised the Government's deplorable treatment of the world student games in Sheffield and the Manchester-led British Olympic bid, about which I shall say something in a moment.
  Over the years, Labour councils and, to their credit, a few Conservative councils have fought, against all the odds, to maintain and develop the highest sporting facilities to implement policies encouraging equal opportunities of access and participation in sport and recreation. No wonder, then, that when my party produced its 21-point manifesto for sport at the last election, compared to the non-existent policy of the Tory party, one Sunday newspaper observed,
  "When it comes to sport, there's only one Party in it."
  That is still true, but the Government would have us believe otherwise. They say that much has changed, but the record of the Minister and his colleagues, whom I have heard described in the sports world as Johnny-comelatelies, proves that they still do not recognise that sport plays an important part in the lives of people in this country. The Sports Council suggests that some 21 million adults and 7 million children take part in sport or active recreation in Britain each year. I hope that the Minister will at least be gracious enough to acknowledge the debt that Britain's sports men and women owe Labour Governments and councils, who were addressing sports needs long before the Government took office.
  Unfortunately, however, the Minister is in a difficult position. I am sure that he—and I mean this—honestly
  1082
  endeavours to do his best for sport. But he is a member of a Government who neither fully understand nor accept the full economic and social case for sport. They see sport as a ready source of income rather than as an aspect of society that deserves financial support. Each year they extract from sport £3 billion in betting duty and taxes, but put back only approximately one fifth.
  The Government fail to see that, in reality, funding for sport represents an investment in the health and well-being of this country. For example, sport pays a fundamental role in promoting good health and physical fitness, thus reducing the burden on the national health service. Furthermore, the provision of sporting and recreation opportunities has been recognised by social workers, the police and probation officers as being particularly beneficial in reducing inner-city crime. Given their record, I hope that the Government will take particular note of that point. Should the Minister care to consider the treatment meted out by his colleagues to the report of the working party—Sport and Active Recreation Provision in the Inner Cities—of his predecessor the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), I am sure that he will acknowledge that the Government have missed no fewer than six explicit deadlines for action.
  They include the production of a publicly available progress report on the implementation of the report's recommendations by the end of 1990—that is the report I referred to. They also include the production of a practical guidance booklet on dual use, together with the collection and publication of responses by the end of 1990. That has been missed as well. There is also the production of a clear and comprehensive statement of the Government's overall objectives for sport and recreation provision in the inner cities by August 1990. That has been missed. Finally, there was the establishment by 1989 of an inter departmental group to identify, encourage and develop joint initiatives for sport.
  "That is a shoddy state of affairs. Many people in the sporting world are saying, in respect of the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), "Come back, you were not so bad after all." The Minister is new in his job and he has yet to make his mark, but it would be well for him to take note of some of the recommendations of his predecessor, for which he received little recognition.
  The Minister should stop trying to tell the hon. Member for Luton, North what he has missed—he is desperately trying to find out what happened at the beginning of the debate and I know of his interest in it, but he will have to catch up later because I want the Minister's ear.
  It is ironic that, even on simple financial grounds, investment in sport makes economic good sense. Far from being a financial drain on the Chancellor, sport represents a significant factor in the national economy. It is estimated that sport generates about £6 billion of consumer expenditure each year and the sports industry employs more people than the motor manufacturing industry and its ancillary industries—and that is even before the way that the industry has been treated as a result of the Budget. However, if the Chancellor wishes to locate an aspect of the economy—and perhaps the Minister can help in this matter—that has undergone significant and spectacular growth in recent years in spite of his policies rather than as a result of them, he need look no further than the sports and leisure industry. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to grasp the fact—or if they have grasped it they

  1083
  have not acted on it—that the economic success is only a small proportion of what could be created if fuller backing were given to sport and recreation.
  In its 1990 report on local authority support for sport, the Audit Commission acknowledged that participation in sports is supply led and that it depends on the availability of facilities. Given the cuts in funding for sport which, as I outlined, have been the hallmark of this Government, we have missed a golden opportunity for economic investment in that area. That has to stop, and the Minister must come behind us to see that it does stop.
  Unfortunately, far from investing in sport, the measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget will bleed the sports industry further dry. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), in a question to the Minister two days ago, asked him to study the implications of the value added tax increase on sports and sports clubs. In case he has not had time since then to do so or had time to read my speech of 20 March on the Budget, in which I outlined precisely what the effects would be, I shall save him the job and tell him the implications.
  The effect of a 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT means that our sports men and women will have to give the Government an extra £105 million in increased tax and duties on items such as equipment and on admission fees. Lest the Minister feels tempted to dispute those figures, I can tell him that they have been checked and verified by the Sports Council, but, more important from his point of view, in a letter dated 17 April from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I know that the Minister will not accuse his colleagues of talking nonsense. I am sure that he will accept, as a result, that the Budget has been a disaster.
  Of course the Minister will wish to counter that argument. I have heard him say before that the Budget provided for a foundation for sport and the arts, but even he must realise that he is on shaky ground there. For a start, that much-trailed organisation is still nowhere near coming into being. The Minister is shaking his head, so perhaps he will give us some welcome news today. The Government have provided firm evidence of that by failing to table a new clause to the Finance Bill, which was promised to me by the Financial Secretary recently. That new clause was to effect a cut in the football pool duty to facilitate a foundation. I suggest that that is because there is, to date, still no agreement between the proposed funders of the foundation and the pools companies which are to set up the foundation. If he does nothing else, the Minister must confirm or deny that fact when he replies, because the football, sports and arts lobbies want to know where they stand.
  The Government are offering precious little help in this matter. The Minister will know that the Chief Secretary was forced to admit to me in a parliamentary written answer on 28 March that the Government did not have the most basic plans for this foundation, including who would be on it, what would be the ratio of funding between sports and the arts provided in it, how many staff it would need and what measures will be in place to ensure monitoring, audit or accountability of its work. What light can the Minister shed on that?
  If the Minister's performance to date is anything to go by, the answer must be none. When he did have a stab at it, he got his sums terribly wrong. I am sure that he will recall his claim on 23 April that the foundation would provide funds of £75 million.
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins)indicated assent.
  Mr. Pendry: I am glad that he recognises that he said that. I should have thought that his colleagues in the Treasury were astounded by his claim, because they have been saying that it would provide £60 million. Again, they do not know what they are talking about—or one does and one does not because they cannot both be right. They were talking about £60 million, so where does the magical £75 million come from?
  In answer to a written question on 29 April the Minister told me that it would come from increased betting turnover. However, I challenged the Financial Secretary in my speech only 23 days ago to confirm that that would require pools companies' turnover to be increased by 25 per cent. to £1 billion for the current 12 months, but he was unable to do so. Perhaps the Minister can do it—his sums may be better than those of the Treasury. Perhaps he should not be in his current post, but should be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I shall put a word in for him if he can get this right. Instead, the Financial Secretary dodged the question and said that the Minister for Sport would be surprised by my comments. I see that the Minister is surprised. Having had the chance to get over his surprise, the Minister must now tell the House plainly and simply: is he prepared to repeat his claim and suggest that betting turnover will increase by 25 per cent. to provide an extra £15 million for the foundation? The House has heard the question; we shall await the Minister's definitive reply.
  To be fair to the Minister, I admit that he has had to suffer at the hands of this Government a pretty raw deal that has afflicted not only him but his predecessors. The Government do not value or respect their Ministers for Sport. Rather, they use sport for convenient public relations exercises and ignore and snub the Ministers involved. The Minister will know that in only too painful detail. For example, he was humiliated by being excluded from any ministerial discussions surrounding the sport and arts foundation until well into the event. I shall give him another chance to come clean. I challenge him to deny that his first official, on-the-record meeting with Treasury officials to discuss the foundation took place on 24 April, more than five weeks after the Budget announcement. I have sympathy with the Minister and I am very much on his side because that is a disgrace. He has also had to suffer the embarrassment of spending months hinting in the national press that he would convince the Treasury to abolish corporation tax for the national governing bodies of sport, only to be wholly rebuffed by the Chancellor. It is no wonder that he was not included in the talks 11 days before the Budget.
  I ask the Minister to recall his words to The Mail on Sunday on 20 January. He said:
  "I'm looking very hard at the financial structure of sports so they can be released from having to pay corporation tax. I feel very strongly about the tax that sport has to pay and I believe that we can change this and get more money into the grass roots of sport. I'm not going to make any promises"
  —to be fair—
  "but there are many sports followers in the Cabinet."
  I ask him to explain what went wrong.
  Having looked at the financial structure, did the Minister realise that he could not get the Treasury to agree with it, despite his own admission that it would provide a much-needed boost for grass-roots sport? What happened

  1085
  to all the supposed sports lovers and sports followers in the Cabinet when he needed them? Chief of those is the Prime Minister himself. Would a sports-loving Prime Minister allow his Minister for Sport to go out on a limb and then humiliate him? I realise that the Minister may choose not to reply to that point and I understand that it may be difficult for him. I assure him that some of us can see the reality behind the Government's hype and we sympathise with him.
  Nevertheless, there can be no excuse for inaction by the Government. The Minister must at the very least persuade his colleagues to take action to help the British Olympic bid with financial support and not just with words. The Minister promised 150 per cent. support—perhaps he does not get his figures right after all. To date, there has been not a single penny for the bid or for the wider Olympic movement. As a result, the British Olympic Association remains the only national committee to receive neither direct Government grant nor tax relief.
  That is the reality behind the myth of the sports-loving Prime Minister. There is no difference between his policies and those of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). That is not good enough. The Minister must give the House his unequivocal commitment that he will stick to his guns, honour his words of last January and argue the case for the British Olympic Association to be released from corporation tax. Unless he does that, the British Olympic Association will be hampered to the extent of £1·5 million.
  The Minister must tell the House that he will vigorously pursue the Secretary of State for the Environment and persuade him to provide urgently needed direct Government money to boost the Manchester-led bid. [Interruption.] The Minister has the opportunity now to listen to sport and to respond instead of talking to colleagues to whom he can talk at any time. He must answer the points, otherwise we cannot back him in his sports slot. I hope that the Minister will say something positive about the Manchester Olympic bid. He knows the importance of delivering the goods on this occasion. If he does not, he will be in severe danger of becoming a Minister who is responsible for broken promises. I realise that that may not be his direct responsibility.
  It is good to see the hon. Member for Luton, North in his place. He shares many of my views—if hon. Members can believe that—on the sporting world. I will touch on football, and I know that he is passionate about our national game.
  Mr. Atkins: What about cricket?
  Mr. Pendry: Perhaps I should have said "our national winter game". That would please the Minister.
  Unfortunately for the Minister, this debate has come two days late. Until last Tuesday, I would have given some qualified support to the Government for their having changed their attitude towards football. Having had their fingers burnt on the identity card scheme, one would have expected them to make an about-turn. The Government have taken a helpful attitude through the Football (Offences) Bill, and that must be placed on record because it deserves recognition. I hope that the Bill will make our football grounds far more attractive places.
  1086
  On Tuesday, the Government published their response to the very fine report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs entitled "Policing Football Hooliganism". It seems that the Government have reverted to type. They rejected the Committee's considered and well-argued recommendations for reconsidering the requirement for small clubs to have all-seater grounds and sought to impose full economic charging for policing at football matches. In doing so, the Government are, once again, threatening clubs with a policy that will put many of them in danger of bankruptcy.
  The Minister will be aware of the crippling effect that escalating police charges have had on clubs, especially given the additional financial worries of having to meet the Taylor deadlines. How can the Minister defend a policy that will close clubs and undermine moves towards ground safety?
  I hope that the Minister will not merely repeat the line, which is always used on these occasions, that the Government have reduced pool betting levy to release £100 million over five years to football. Although that cash is welcome, as the Minister and everyone else know, even discounting the possible rocketing of police charges as a result of Government policy, the money will fall far short of the resources needed by football to meet the Taylor requirements. The £100 million represents a tiny proportion of the £2·4 billion that the Government have taken out of football since 1979 in pool betting duty. The Minister must either promise to argue the case for greater financial help for football or he must give a commitment to press the Home Secretary for a change in the currently disastrous direction. The Minister will not be forgiven for anything less by those who love the game of football.
  The Minister will recall that in our debate on sport in schools I asked him to give his backing to the teaching of swimming in schools. I note that, at a conference organised by the Swim For Life campaign on 15 April, the Minister said that there was no doubt that the ability to swim saved lives and that the provision of swimming tuition at school could be justified on that ground alone. At the same conference Hamilton Bland, a faculties consultant to the Amateur Swimming Association, argued that the revenue needed to teach every 10-year-old to swim would be roughly £4·8 million. That is a lot of money and I accept that the Minister may not wish to commit the Government to such resources. He will recognise that I did not ask him to do so when I spoke in that debate. I asked him whether he would give his backing to a survey to find out what the available resources were for teaching children to swim. He chose not to reply to that request, so I repeat it now. Will he conduct a survey and give his pledge to ensuring that all available resources are used to the full?
  My final request to the Minister is that he should recognise the importance of the international dimension of sport, especially the potential for using sport as an integral component in aid packages. He will be aware that the Minister for Overseas Development told me in a recent answer that a high priority is not given by host countries to that area of aid. I find that hard to accept, and I am sure the Minister does as well. I hope that he agrees that even a cursory glance at the development and aid programmes of the other European states will reveal many sporting projects. Is it not the Minister's duty to ensure that sport is given a high priority in that area by the Government and that British sport plays its part in the international aid package?

  1087
  I should very much like the Minister to make a meaningful contribution to the debate. I will, therefore, conclude by saying that many hon. Members of all parties genuinely wish the Minister well. They know that he has a difficult role, and they wish that his position in Government was elevated so that he would have more clout in arguing his case. However, those of us who love sport also recognise that we are not getting a fair deal in the House, especially from the Government. We feel that many things are necessary, and we look to the Minister to play his part and to fight his corner to ensure that we have a better deal. I hope that we shall have more debates in the House on sport and recreation because they affect many people whom we represent.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am willing to call the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the Minister has little time. The hon. Gentleman would need to seek leave to intervene because he has a later debate. There is a slight risk that he might not be granted that leave.
  12.17 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins): I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that I tried to give him an opportunity to speak.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on having recovered from last night, as I have. I also congratulate him on having the opportunity to raise this subject today. He is right to say that I would otherwise have been at Edgbaston. He may be interested to know that the most recent score that I have heard is that the West Indies were 44 for two, which is extremely good news.
  It would be remiss of me, especially today, not to draw the attention of the House to the sad death last night of one of the greatest of English footballers, Stan Mortensen. He played close to my neck of the woods. He was a great footballer whose passing will be regretted, not least because of the famous cup final that was always described as Matthews's cup final, but which some might argue was actually Mortensen's cup final because he scored such a fine hat-trick.
  Those of my hon. Friends who have been kind enough to join me in listening to the debate live in a different world from that of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I have made a point—perhaps wrongly, although I hope not—of not talking too much in the early stage of my tenure but of listening to people instead. I have gone round a number of organisations and heard what they have had to say. Broadly speaking, the comments that I have heard and the responses that I have had from those in sport differ widely from the views of the hon. Gentleman.
  People always want more money and no one in sport is any different from anyone in any other walk of life. The hon. Gentleman listed so many commitments to increased spending that I did not have time to add them up. I should be interested to know whether his views represent official Labour party policy or whether those commitments were his idea alone.
  Mr. John Carlisle: They do.
  Mr. Atkins: If that is so, it is more than a little worrying. No doubt the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and
  1088
  the shadow Chancellor would have views about the amount of expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman wishes to commit his party.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about parliamentary questions. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and I had a little banter about maiden questions and debuts. I realise that the situation is governed largely by the ballot but the fact remains that, although I have been in office since last July, the hon. Lady's question is the only one that I have answered orally during that time. Much as I would love to—and much as it is suggested that questions are planted, which, as hon. Members know, is never the case—I cannot answer questions unless hon Members table them. In a notable early-day motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North drew attention to the fact that those who were criticising were those who had not tabled questions.
  Mr. Pendry: If I recall the early-day motion correctly, the hon. Member for Luton, North excluded me from the charge.
  Mr. Atkins: I am sure that he did that as a matter of course. I know that the hon. Gentleman is committed to these matters.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about figures. I could deal with them in detail, but there is perhaps not enough time, as we have other matters to cope with. I would say, however, that since 1979, we have increased the Sports Council's grant by about 30 per cent. in real terms. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I am in constant contact with the chairman and members of the Sports Council and we do what is necessary to ensure that the figure keeps pace with inflation.
  I find the hon. Gentleman's somewhat dismissive remarks about what the Government have done for sport frankly unhelpful, which, as he is in opposition, I suppose he wants them to be. His views are also largely out of line with those of the sporting fraternity. For example, the hon. Gentleman dismissed fairly lightly the £1 million extra that I was able to find, in relation to the pilot scheme for coaching, on my move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science. The National Coaching Foundation, through its estimable director, Sue Campbell, has done remarkable work in encouraging people to recognise the importance of coaching.
  It was because of the case that Sue Campbell and others put to me that I was able to find an extra £1 million for a pilot scheme based largely on the achievements of Nottinghamshire county council and on its all-party initiative to encourage coaching out of school hours on an extracurricular basis as well as on highlighting some of the improvements that are needed in physical education in schools. The pilot scheme was divided roughly three quarters to one quarter between able-bodied children and the disabled. It goes without saying—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree—that we need to concentrate on those with disabilities, who can gain so much confidence and achieve so much, sometimes in integrated sporting efforts with able-bodied people as well as in the sporting activities in which they alone participate.
  The pilot scheme was intended to establish whether some of the ideas tried locally in Nottinghamshire could work in a national context and it has been well received. It will be extended round the 10 regions of England. The

  1089
  hon. Gentleman may dismiss it as involving only 2 per cent. of the young population, but, none the less, I am sure that it will achieve a great deal and that we shall learn some lessons from it.
  I cannot give the hon. Gentleman assurances about further funding because the essence of a pilot scheme is that local communities should be encouraged to recognise the importance of the activities involved and then fund them for themselves. The Government strongly believe that we should encourage the private sector to continue to be involved and to increase its commitment to sport, whether through sponsorship or in other ways. All the evidence points to the fact that the private sector is keen to do that—indeed, that it is already doing it. We want to encourage the mixed funding of sport, whether through the dual use of community facilities or by the support and sponsorship by companies of schools and clubs.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to football, which is pertinent at the moment, and to police charges. I have told the Home Office—and it has received it well—that the clubs and I believe that it would be most helpful if there were more concentration on the professional and proper stewarding of football matches in addition to the police presence. The stewards involved would, of course have to be properly trained to a standard acceptable to the local police authority, which is required to ensure that the policing is properly done.
  Football is unusual in not having contributed to the cost of policing over the years. I am sure that rugby pays its own costs, and cricket certainly does. I do not see why football necessarily should be any different, although I recognise that the introduction of police charges would immediately have a detrimental effect on the lower clubs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a strong supporter of football and he and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is why we have persuaded the Home Office to phase in the charges over five years and, at the same time, to encourage the use of properly trained expert stewards so that the police requirement is reduced. Both measures should assist somewhat.
  There is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and me on the importance that we place on swimming—not least because it is a life-saving activity as well as a recreation and competitive sport. It is argued that, from the age of 11, every youngster should be able to swim. There is no difference between us on that objective. None the less, to do that immediately would require a substantial increase in funding and resources. We are arguing not about the objective but about the timing. As I said, I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman made a commitment to ensure that everyone had those facilities, which would
  1090
  involve a great deal of money being spent on swimming pools and so on, the Opposition spokesmen on Treasury matters might take a slightly different view.
  Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the Minister heard me correctly. I am not saying that the Government should commit themselves to the figure given by the Amateur Swimming Association. I am merely asking him to commit himself to look at the available resources before deciding what funds the Government can commit.
  Mr. Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of having a closed mind. At the swimming conference that I attended, I undertook to consider all sorts of matters relating to funding.
  Before I conclude my remarks, I wish to mention the Manchester Olympics. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I share a commitment to the north-west as we both represent north-western constituencies. I am sure that he is as delighted as I am that Manchester's bid is now the United Kingdom's Olympic bid. I have already had conversations with the British Olympic Association and the Manchester bid committee and I reinforce my commitment that I will do everything I can to promote that bid. However, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will be aware that more than just one Minister is involved in respect of the costs and other matters connected with the bid.
  When pleas are made for extra money for the bid, it should not be forgotten that by the year 2000 we will have spent about £3 billion of Government money on infrastructure in the north-west. In Manchester that expenditure will include the second terminal at Manchester airport, the supertram and the new road structure for which, in my former incarnation, I was partly responsible. A lot of money is being spent in Manchester, and deservedly so because it is the best region in the country.
  I had a conversation with Bob Scott yesterday and the Manchester bid committee restated that it expects the bid to be privately financed. The committee expects to meet that requirement. In that respect, the bid committee seems to disagree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. Incidentally, such privately financed bids proved successful in Atlanta in the United States.
  From the Prime Minister downwards, the Government are committed to sport. We will continue to give evidence of that commitment through the foundation, which I have not been able to refer to in detail today because of the time available to me. However, that foundation more than doubles the commitment of funds to sport by the Government. That gives the lie to the Opposition's suggestion that the Government do not appreciate, are not committed to and are not interested in sport. We are and we remain so and, while I do this job, that commitment will be reinforced on every possible occasion, supported by my colleagues who take a continuing and deep interest in sport on a regular basis.

  Franco-British Relations
  12.30 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I must declare an interest as I am the chairman of the Franco-British parliamentary relations committee and deputy chairman of the British section of the Franco-British Council. I have never made and am unlikely to make a penny in profit out of those activities.
  It is difficult to speak of Anglo-French relations without lapsing into well-meaning platitudes. I am pleased that so many people in Britain derive an agreeable impression of France from programmes like "'Allo, 'Allo" and from the elegant jottings of Mr. Peter Mayall and the accounts of his life in Provence. I share his passion for that delectable region.
  However, there is another France which is more a matter for our discourse. It is a France that has long since outstripped our living standards. It is the France of Peugeot Talbot, of the Compagnie Generale des Eaux, the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, and the great public works which ensure that all regions of France will have swift access by road and rail to the Channel tunnel without necessarily having to pass through Paris from the day that the tunnel is opened.
  That other France is the country which has made up for its lack of natural energy resources by the most ambitious and successful nuclear energy programme in the world. It is a country which now has for the first time a woman as its head of Government, the formidable Madam Edith Cresson, who was well known in her previous ministerial capacity to several present and former Cabinet Ministers. She was well liked, but also somewhat awesomely respected.
  It is that vibrant and sometimes over-thrustful France which is now one of our main partners in the European Community. The 600 years of enmity to the beginning of this century and the close alliance in two wars during the century are no longer what concern us now. We are now concerned with the future. Nor should we concern ourselves too much with purely bilateral Anglo-French relations as such.
  I served for five years in the British embassy in Paris in the 1950s. I was lucky enough to serve under two great ambassadors. Oliver Harvey taught me to distinguish between the pays-légale and the pays-réel and Gladwyn Jebb taught me to recognise and to urge the opportunities for Britain to get alongside France in the building of a united Europe. However, three of my five years had elapsed before I discovered that there was an official sitting somewhere in the depths of the Quay d'Orsay who dealt with Great Britain. He subsequently turned out to be the French Foreign Minister and then ambassador to the United Kingdom.
  What really matters now is how our two countries work together or fail to do so in the European Community in the maintenance of world security and in promoting the development of poorer countries in the third world.
  There are certain things which I and those who care about good relations between our two countries would like to see done to improve those relations further. The Franco-British Council, the body set up by the late President Pompidou and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), set out to promote closer co-operation in matters outside the
  1092
  direct competence of Government. It is duly grateful to the Government for their generous moral support and the only slightly less generous financial support for the council's work. However, the fact remains that the support given by both the French and the British Governments for those activities pales into near invisibility beside the huge resources which have been poured into Franco-German co-operation since the understanding between General de Gaulle and President Adenauer and which provides for a massive programme of exchanges between young people and of language teaching.
  Despite that huge governmental effort to develop Franco-German relations, there is a still larger latent support both in this country and in most parts of France for Anglo-French exchanges and for the learning of our two very dissimilar languages. It is quite right that industry on both sides of the channel, in particular firms that trade extensively in our two countries, should make the major contribution to exchanges from which it derives direct and tangible benefit. Those programmes of exchanges—I can vouch from the happy experience of my own constituency when such exchanges resulted in the twinning of Colwyn with Roissy en Brie—need priming by a judicious injection of funds at the right time and at the right level by Governments.
  As I have said, direct Anglo-French relations are a less profitable matter to study than the role that our two countries play in partnership or in rivalry on the European or world stages.
  The recent Gulf crisis demonstrated that, despite some differences in assessment in the early stages—differences which, I am sorry to say, were deliberately magnified and distorted by a few in this House and by all too many in the popular press who imagine that they can win cheap popularity by jibes at the French—our two countries are clearly designated as the two leaders. I go so far as to say that they are the only two significant principals in any European activity outside the NATO area. It would be seemly for the British media to acknowledge rather more readily than they do the quite exceptional role that French relief agencies, notably Médecins sans Frontières, are playing in that and similar emergencies.
  The mention of NATO reminds me that one of the biggest obstacles to closer defence co-operation between Britain and France—the only two nuclear powers in Europe—namely, French non-participation in the NATO command structure, is beginning at long last to show some slight signs of weakening in practice if not yet in theory. Difficulties between our two countries—sometimes painful difficulties—will continue. The agricultural policy of the European Community has long been and will continue for some years yet to be a fruitful source of quarrel.
  Even though the protection of her domestic agriculture has ceased to be the all-dominating political issue in the now highly industrialised France, folk memories die hard. French public opinion did not reprove as sharply as it should have the actions of impoverished and enraged sheep farmers from the stony soil of the south-west who so brutally set fire to a lorryload of live sheep from the overstocked grassy hills of the Welsh countryside.
  Clearly, the common agricultural policy will remain for some time yet a source of potential difficulty rather than opportunity for closer co-operation between our two countries. I very much hope that our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not rest content with that state of affairs or curry favour in this House or

  1093
  elsewhere by playing up those differences. We need, can get, and to a large extent are getting the close co-operation of the French in the rapid and fundamental evolution of the European Community which is taking place.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done to foster Anglo-French relations. Does he agree that, in development of European political union and European monetary union negotiations, it is striking and interesting to note that the other great ancient nation, France, with its long history, does not appear to fear any loss of sovereignty, as some of our colleagues in the House and perhaps outside do? Those who fear it are a minority. The French believe that, by pursuing further integration in the Community, they will increase their real, practical sovereignty and retain all their powers of decision making.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend's comment prompts two observations. First, the French are realistic about these matters. They clearly understand that the trappings of sovereignty are relatively unimportant and that what matters is the extent to which a country can exercise real influence in the world. Therefore, the French are prepared to accept limitations which may not be far reaching in order to secure more effective co-operation within the European Community.
  Secondly, it is welcome that the British Government have recovered and are reasserting freedom of manoeuvre on integration and are prepared, in order to secure vital British objectives, to pay lip service if necessary to ideals which are strongly held on the other side of the channel but which do not excite such support and enthusiasm here. Such ideals matter dearly to our continental partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I have been struck by the way in which the Government are exerting that freedom of action.
  There is a great deal of common ground between the British and the French about the structure of the European Community. We should build on that common ground. We are the two nations with the longest natural national histories and the most clearly defined identities. We are the only two nuclear powers in the Community. We are the only two permanent members of the Security Council. We are the two nations which have retained from our previous empires a continuing and well-informed interest in developments in every part of the globe. We two are as well-placed as any nation to strike the right balance between pursuing closer integration in Europe while holding open the door to the newly-free countries of eastern Europe.
  France, alone in the EC, straddles the divide between the northern and southern halves of the European Community. Clearly it has a vital role to play in the immediate enlargement of the Community to include the European Free Trade Association countries. So vital is it to ensure that we maximise co-operation between France and Britain at this critical moment that on both sides of the channel we should bite off our tongues before giving vent to petty irritations. It is a stroke of good fortune that at this moment the two countries are represented by two diplomats—Sir Ewen Fergusson in Paris and M. Bernard Dorn in London—for whom better understanding between our two countries is a veritable passion.
  1094
  I also derive considerable comfort from the presence at the Dispatch Box of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who will reply to the debate.
  12.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): A considerable time has passed since the House last discussed the important subject of Anglo-French relations, although there was a debate in another place on 18 June last year which coincided with the 50th anniversary of General de Gaulle's historic call to arms from Carlton gardens. I welcome this opportunity to take stock on the anniversary of the defence of Calais in 1940. I am especially pleased, and it is appropriate, that the debate was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who told us something about the history of his connection with France. Of course, he omitted to tell us that he served with distinction in the second world war and was wounded in northern France. He has spent the whole of his parliamentary career fostering Anglo-French relations through the Franco-British parliamentary group.
  It often passes unobserved how many hon. Members on both sides of the House devote a considerable amount of their time and energies to fostering relations between Britain and various parts of the world in which they happen to take an interest, for either constituency or personal reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West is a particularly fine example.
  Anglo-French relations have gone from strength to strength in recent years. We have powerful shared interests as members of the United Nations Security Council, as nuclear powers and as members of all the multilateral institutions which affect our interests. There is hardly any subject on which Britain and France do not now consult closely at all levels. The annual summit has developed into a forum for in-depth discussion of issues of real importance, including our mutual defence interests. This year's summit in France will see a continuation of that trend: substance rather than form, the best characteristic of Britain's relationship with France in the 1990s.
  There are countless other contacts. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had two warm and productive meetings with President Mitterrand since last November, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sees his French counterpart almost as often as his own Cabinet colleagues. There are also many other long-standing historical links, such as those between veterans' associations, and cultural links, such as town twinning and youth exchanges. My hon. Friend referred to the town twinning that involves his constituency and he will be pleased to hear that my constituency, Watford, has an extremely successful town-twinning arrangement with Nanterre, which is just outside Paris. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything that we can to build on these programmes and especially those that enable our young people to move freely between the two countries.
  There are also extensive business links. A much more recent development, and one which we welcome, is the secondment of British and French diplomats to their sister ministries across the channel. I hope that the young diplomats who take part in the scheme do not have to wait for as long as my hon. Friend, when he was in Paris, to find

  1095
  a diplomat who looks after the interests of both Britain and France in the Quai d'Orsay and in our own Foreign Office.
  The best-known non-governmental body that is active in the promotion of Anglo-French relations is the Franco-British Council. My hon. Friend is the deputy chairman of the British section. He is an active participant in the council's activities, which have made a significant contribution to Franco-British understanding since its inception in 1972. The Government support the council financially, with a grant of £74,500 in this financial year.
  The council has an important role in bringing people together, in breaking down barriers and reducing stereotypes. A meeting last month to analyse the ways in which the British and French media have handled recent events was a good example of that useful activity. My hon. Friend left us in no doubt about the importance of the work carried out in that area. I sometimes think—I dare say that my hon. Friend may agree—that some people who live abroad take certain sections of the British press rather more seriously than we do. Nevertheless, problems can be created for us all.
  It is more important than ever that Britain and France should understand each other and work closely together. I am confident that the Franco-British Council will continue its good work to this end which the Government support as a valuable complement to governmental activities.
  As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Britain and France have a role in all major international and regional issues. Both countries contribute in full measure to the deliberations of the Security Council and played a central part in the unprecedented agreement in the international community on the steps needed to reverse Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait. We both sent a swift and sizeable military contingent to the multinational coalition which was forced to carry out the task. We are again working closely each day to alleviate the suffering of the Kurds and others who have fled the savage repression in Iraq. Franco-British co-operation over the crisis has been exemplary. During the difficult weeks of the recent past I spoke on several occasions to my French counterparts, including the Minister with responsibility for overseas development, who was a founder of Médecins sans Frontières. I think that we could claim that with the co-operation between France and Britain we led Europe and perhaps influenced the world in dealing with those matters.
  A few more examples should suffice to demonstrate the breadth of Anglo-French relations nowadays. Britain and France both contributed substantially to the Paris charter for a new Europe adopted at the CSCE summit in Paris last November, which set the seal on the more co-operative international environment that has taken the place o f the cold war. The newly inaugurated European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, with its London site and French president, is a further symbol of the close co-operation between our two countries.
  Britain and France both gladly gave up their rights and responsibilities as wartime allies following Germany's unification last year. We are both proud of our contribution to that historic event, which for both of us has cemented our partnership with Germany. The completion of the service tunnel across the channel and,
  1096
  yesterday, the first rail tunnel, gave Britain and France a physical link again, for the first time since the ice age. I look forward to the opening of the tunnel on 15 June 1993.
  Trade relations between our two countries have shown a remarkable increase in recent years. Britain and France are each other's third-largest export market. Britain's exports to France reached £10·9 billion in 1990, an increase of 15 per cent. over the previous year. French exports to Britain have seen similar increases and the upward trend is continuing. Investment flows in both directions have increased noticeably. France is now by far the most important European investor in the British economy.
  Defence and security, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are an important part of the relationship. Our positions, as the only European nuclear powers, and as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, give us a special range of shared interests and responsibilities, in addition to those that we jointly exercise as members of NATO and the Western European Union. We both have global interests and a global outlook and we both maintain a broad spectrum of military capabilities. Our presence together in the Gulf as the major European ground forces co-operating with the United States symbolised how much common ground we share.
  Britain and France co-operate at all levels and over a wide range of defence matters. The Government attach great importance to that close collaboration. We worked closely together in the conventional forces in Europe negotiations and share a similar approach to future conventional arms control.
  In the nuclear field as well there is regular dialogue across a broad range of issues. We agree with France about the need for a more effective European contribution to our collective defence arrangements. Under the active French presidency of the WEU, which ends next month, we have made progress together in developing some ideas for a stronger European defence identity based on the WEU.
  Of course, we do not agree on everything. The United Kingdom and France have different attitudes to integration in NATO, although we hope that one outcome of the NATO review will be fuller participation by all the allies in the defence commitment to the alliance. However, we differ on the longer-term arrangements for European defence. We have urged that the debate in the inter-governmental conference on a common foreign and security policy should focus on substance, rather than mechanisms, but we and the French are at one in considering that the outcome of the various debates in progress this year should be both a reformed alliance and a stronger European pillar.
  The Anglo-French summit in May 1990 agreed that there should be
  "an enhanced programme of co-operation with particular emphasis on future security arrangements in Europe".
  The Prime Minister and President Mitterrand pursued this further when they met in January this year. I am confident that that range of issues will again be on their agenda at this year's summit. We also keep in close touch with the French Government, as with other EC Governments, on progress in the two inter-governmental conferences, to which my hon. Friend referred.
  On political union, we share a good deal of common ground. We both, for instance, are very wary of ceding control to the Community, and hence to the Commission,

  1097
  in areas where we feel it more appropriate for national Governments to operate, either alone or in co-operation with each other. We agree on the overall structure—the architecture—of the "union" that is now under discussion in the inter-governmental conferences. That is, we both see the "union" as something different from, but including, the Community. We are both keen to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community within that broader European "union".
  There is also considerable common ground with the French Government in the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union. We are both agreed on the need to strengthen the ecu during the EMU process and on the need to establish some Community monetary institution with real tasks to perform in stage II. We also share the view that any European central bank should operate under political guidelines set by the Council. Even the United Kingdom reserve on participation in stage III the single currency union—is now accepted by partners, including France. Of course, there is still a great deal to negotiate, but both we and France are working to overcome our differences.
  I feel, as I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members feel, that there is a move in Europe, not just from Britain but towards Britain, to accommodate each other and to find common ground rather than emphasising and exacerbating differences. I hope that the British Government have played their part in bringing that about. I know that the French Government have also played a part.
  We do not agree on everything, even under the broad heads of agreement. France, like the United Kingdom, is determined to protect her own national interests within the context of closer European co-operation. That is well understood and I am sure that when we are obliged to take a different line in the inter-governmental conference, for instance on questions of European social policy or the timing and content of economic monetary union stage II,
  1098
  differences of view and the reasons for them are well understood by both sides, because of the closer co-operation that we enjoy. We will continue to work constructively in the inter-governmental conference with the French and others for a satisfactory outcome acceptable to all.
  We shall work for an outcome that enables the Community to take the necessary steps forward within the union. Those steps are necessary because the success that the Community has acheived through the single market, which the United Kingdom played such a prominent role in bringing about, has made the Community an important trading and economic bloc. Whatever our approach to it —our approach places an emphases on intergovernmental co-operation—we know that an economic bloc of such consequence must develop commensurate political and defence personalities. That is why my right hon. Friend has made proposals for an enhanced common security policy. That is why Britain and France are playing a leading role in discussing how the Western European Union, outside the union itself, can develop a European defence personality that will enable western Europe to defend its economic and strategic interests outside the NATO area.
  Relations with France and Germany are at the heart of our European policy. As we move through the inter-governmental conference, the stakes are high but the prize, in terms of the future security, stability and prosperity of our continent, is also high. Productive relations with France and Germany are an important means to that end. Let no one be in any doubt that it is not only desirable but feasible to have good relations with both simultaneously. The vigorous pursuit of British interests does not require us to be permanently at odds with one or other of our partners. I am confident that, with Britain and France working together, we shall succeed in sustaining the objectives that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West, with others of my hon. Friends and, I should like to think, with Opposition Members.

  Health and Social Services (Eastbourne)
  12.59 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: I thank those who have enabled me to speak this morning. I thank also the Minister for the time that she is to give to responding to the debate.
  As a Sussex Member of Parliament, and as a keen supporter of Brighton and Hove Albion, may I take one moment to express my good wishes to the team on its success last night in reaching the final of the play-offs. The team will appear at Wembley in June. I wish the management and the players well on that occasion.
  This is a very serious debate. When one looks at the figures of those who are waiting for national health service operations in the Eastbourne area, one can only be very surprised indeed. Last September we had 3,938 people on the hospital waiting list, over 1,000 of whom had been waiting for over a year. The position during the last six months—the most recent figures of all are those to March 1991—shows little or no improvement on those figures. Although the Government have encouraged health authorities, in Eastbourne in particular, to reduce the number of people who have been waiting for more than two years, that has been at the cost of those who have been waiting for up to two years. Today we still have 3,900 people on our hospital waiting list.
  Perhaps even worse is the position of the notional time that it would take to clear that number of people. If there were no new people requiring hospital surgery and therefore hospital admission, it would take one year and 14 weeks for that number of people to be treated. Of the 191 district health authorities, Eastbourne is the fifteenth worst. We are in the bottom 8 per cent. for performance and for high waiting lists. I understand that the position in the south-east Thames area is the worst in the country. It has six of the worst 16 district health authorities out of the total of 191.
  We have also suffered a massive loss of beds. Since 1983 there has been a 36·2 per cent. reduction in the number of beds available in the Eastbourne health authority. That has to be set against a south-east Thames average reduction of 30 per cent. and an all-England average of 21·2 per cent. We have lost a much larger number of beds than other district health authorities. During the October by-election that saw my election to this House. the Conservative candidate tried to claim—and did claim in writing—that we had 200 beds at St. Mary's hospital which, when visited, he could see had been demolished.
  Since that occasion in October I have had referred to me a fairly large number of cases, to a few of which I wish to refer. I shall make the full details available to the Minister, but I am sure that she will understand if I refer to them as cases. The first case is Mr. A. Mr. A had been waiting to go into our district general hospital for major surgery for an aneurysm of the aorta—quite a dangerous condition that requires intensive care. Twice he was given a date for admission and twice it was cancelled. One can imagine the stress. On the third occasion he was admitted. He was prepared for surgery but he then had to be sent home, after preparation for surgery, because another emergency required the bed space. One can also imagine the stress on that occasion. The pressure on bed space in the district general hospital is just one of the problems that we face.
  1100
  The outpatient services, though, fare little better. There have been considerable cuts in joint funding, available with local authorities. The example that I want to give is that of Master Craig. He is a Down's syndrome child. The county has recognised that he has special speech therapy needs, but unfortunately that therapy has had to cease. He was obtaining 30 minutes of therapy each month—itself thought to be inadequate, but at least a help—but that has now been terminated. A letter from the district speech therapy manager of the district's community health services says that speech therapy will no longer be available in this case
  "until our funding and staffing levels are increased."
  A similar letter from the same speech therapy manager sent to all schools showed that speech therapists would no longer be available to visit schools to assess children. In other words, they would have to be known to have a need or be referred to a clinic by someone else, but it is not clear who.
  On a further case I am pleased to say that my late predecessor obtained success during his time as Member of Parliament for Eastbourne. In March 1989 Master W experienced a problem obtaining a replacement for a national health service bone conductor hearing aid. After some months his mother went to the late Ian Gow who managed to secure that replacement by July 1989. At the time, a promise was given that a spare bone conductor hearing aid would be kept at Brighton or Eastbourne. In October 1990 the hearing aid went wrong again and Master W went to Princess Alice hospital in Eastbourne and was told that a replacement would be obtained as soon as possible. There were many telephone calls and many visits and, eventually, early this year, they visited me. By 3 February, some four months after the need arose, Master W received the bone conductor hearing aid that he needed. His mother commented that it came in a very nice case which will never be used and which was a waste of NHS funds.
  The answer to those problems and many others that I could have listed is that we need more resources. We need to reduce waiting lists, increase beds and provide a better out-patient service. The response that we are being offered to those problems is an application for trust status. A year ago the majority of consultants, doctors, nurses and other professionals concerned said that they did not want trust status, so the health authority put the application back in the drawer. It has now been brought out again. The health authority consists of a group of unelected people with no mandate. It is claiming that it could increase staff and decrease waiting lists. However, the Minister and I know, because we read and check our facts, that that has not been happening in other parts of the country. We know of the cuts in staffing at Bradford and Guys and we know of the budget-holding general practitioners in Watford who seem to be able to demand a better service than GPs who do not have budget-holding status. Only yesterday I saw in the newspaper that a lady wrote that in her area of Oldham the waiting time for an appointment has increased from two weeks to three months.
  The people of Eastbourne want to know whether the future will be better than the present. They want answers to various questions. For example, will trust status enable unelected people with no mandate to sell buildings? Could one of our hospitals be sold and work concentrated on another? Could unlimited private work be accepted? I met the chairman of the group making the trust application

  1101
  and he told me that he thought that it could take in extra laundry from Eastbourne to make a profit. Should that be happening, and will it be possible as it would would divert people from their proper tasks? Will those unelected people be able to hire and fire staff without reference to elected bodies or to Government? Will they be able to take people from abroad who can pay more rather than the people in Eastbourne who have great need?
  Those questions are in the minds of my constituents now. I have asked the chair of the group making the trust applications whether he will hold a community referendum. He said no. Therefore, I intend to hold such a referendum. I shall be circulating to every household in my constituency the details of the proposals and inviting them to say whether they support them. I shall do that in June so that the results can be made available to the Minister when the application is considered in mid-August. Does the Minister believe that she should abide by the result of the referendum, so that the people of Eastbourne can have a major say in the provision of health services? The service is far too big to be made a political football; we should listen to local people.
  I want to deal now with related health matters, some of which come under the social services department. There are more people over 75 in east Sussex than in any other social service provider in England. Eastbourne has a large proportion of over 75s, and indeed of over 85s. There is a great need for residential care, especially nursing homes. In Eastbourne, the number of private nursing home beds increased from 1,065 in 1984 to 1,411 in 1990. That is a cause for much concern, unless Government grants enable those places to be maintained. Fears were expressed only this week to the Select Committee on Social Security that funds might not be made available to support those people.
  There are many mentally handicapped people in Eastbourne, because it is a nice place to live and the quality of life is high. I recently visited an excellently run private home for mentally handicapped people, the Heatherdene. It is concerned about funding for individuals in its care.
  Linden Court in Eastbourne is a training centre for mentally handicapped people, but cuts in social security benefit have led to concern about not only residential places but the buying power of people in contributing to that establishment.
  A deaf mentally handicapped child has attended Hazel Court school in Eastbourne for the past four years, having moved from Hackney. He is now becoming an adult but wishes to continue with the adult training that is available at Linden Court. The county council has said that Hackney must pay his costs of £200 per week and £35 a week for a taxi. He having lived in east Sussex for four years, one would have thought that the council could meet the bill. His mother described the decision as heartless and uncaring and asked how can we expect Hackney to contribute.
  Just before Christmas, I tried to raise with East Sussex county council the saga of a residential home called Milton Court. In late September, county councillors were promised that a report on care in that home would be made on 11 October. In early October, I met a man who had been transferred from a day centre at the residential home to another day centre, having been told that it was
  1102
  to close. No report was tabled at the social services meeting on 11 October, but staff had been sent a letter saying that their jobs would cease and asking whether they would transfer elsewhere. There was no matching joint finance from the district health authority for the future intentions for that home.
  The county council has much responsibility in this matter. Councillors were not told the truth. They were told that investigations with a local housing association might be brought forward. Unfortunately for the county council, the previous day I had attended a meeting with the housing association, which had told me it had only just received a letter asking whether that might be possible, and of course it was not. The funding from the district health authority was not going to be sufficient to carry out that project. The county councillors were not told what would happen in Milton Court and, in the meantime, the staff were given letters of dismissal. The staff were also told by the director of social services not to speak to councillors. That does not seem the way to plan for care in the community.
  There were also proposals earlier this year to close eight residential homes in east Sussex. The number of beds in the county is to decrease from 1,212 to 772, a loss of 440. In the editorial in our local Evening Argus the editor summed up the position well when he said:
  "East Sussex has one of the highest percentages of old people in the country and the numbers of those aged 85 plus are rising. The suspicion is that there simply may not be enough homes for those who cannot cope by the mid 1990s."
  Into that scenario the county council recently announced the closure of another residential home in Eastbourne, St. Anthony's Court. To save just £138,000 a year the council plans to close an absolutely wonderful home. The home has a friends' organisation to raise money for extras. I recently attended a fun day at which two local primary schools sang and provided entertainment for those who live there. The staff are superb and the buildings are perfect, yet the county council wishes to sell the home.
  The pressures on Eastbourne will not decrease because homes in adjacent towns such as Hastings and Peacehaven will also be sold. The reduction of 440 residential care places is to fund an additional 179 day care places. The equation does not add up. Our care in the community strategy, which we want to put in place for 1993, will require more day care and respite care places and the loss of residential care places will scupper that policy.
  The management of social services in east Sussex has not been good, but recently it has become chronic. Last year it overspent by £1·6 million without telling any of the councillors. It is closing many homes and has appointed at high level many additional top managers but very few grass-roots social workers. The Minister should investigate the social services department in east Sussex and especially the actions of the chairman of the social services committee, Councillor Pat Wright, and the director, Mr. Nicholas Holbrook. If she does not, the strategy for community care will be scuppered.
  There have been no Government funds to plan community care. The threat now faced by local authorities, which will have community care responsibility devolved to them in 1993 and which will also have the possibility—no, the probability—of massive local government reorganisation in 1994, is a recipe for chaos, for

  1103
  confusion and for poor standards. Local government needs to know where it is going and it needs to have the resources.
  Some essential services will fall between stools. Will the Government give some assurances about authorities, such as East Sussex, that want to plan over a five or 10-year period on "in" and "out" packages? The promises made today must hold for the future.
  An example of a service that will fall between stools because the planning is not there for it is the drug misuse service. In Eastbourne, there are three voluntary organisations—the Libra Trust, the Seaside Centre, run by the Young Men's Christian Association, and Open Door. They provide, with grant aid, support for young people who have a drugs problem. Will the trust that is proposed for Eastbourne district general hospital and the community care plan which will come into force for the county council in 1993 take on board the need for grants for those bodies? I fear that they may not.
  Eastbourne has unique challenges. We need answers and action, not ideas which are not welcome and which do not inspire local confidence. The health and well-being of our community is at stake. The people whom I represent need and deserve to know what the Government intend to do to help them.
  1.19 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on seeking this opportunity to discuss the health and welfare needs of his constituency. However, I was disappointed by his biased and lopsided account because, before coming to this debate, I studied the situation in his area. In his discussion of health and welfare, he singularly failed to draw attention to a group that is doing outstandingly well in Eastbourne—the general practitioners. I am pleased to report to the hon. Gentleman that 88 per cent. of his general practitioners reached the higher target—the 90 per cent. target—for child immunisation and that 70 per cent. of them reached the higher target—the 90 per cent. target—for cervical cytology. That is one of many examples.
  In East Sussex, there has been a substantial drop in the number of patients whom each GP has to look after. There has been a big increase in the number of practice staff. On the basis of the new GP contract, GPs are clearly providing an excellent service for patients.
  I began by mentioning the family practitioner services because they are often the basic building blocks of not only our hospital services but our social services. I was enormously impressed on 12 February when I asked Councillor Pat Wright, the chairman of the social services committee, who seemed to me to have done an excellent job, together with the first-rate director of East Sussex social services, Nicholas Holbrook, and a councillor from Eastbourne borough council to speak to me and to take me through the practical steps that they were already taking to implement care in the community. In many respects, they are ahead of others, especially in their work to co-ordinate their proposals with housing authorities and in integrating their plan with health authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman began with the question of waiting lists. It is a fortuitous circumstance that his debate should coincide with today's report by the Select Committee on Health on waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman is one of the
  1104
  first to learn that, today, we are able to announce the most dramatic improvement in the number of patients who have been waiting an unacceptable length of time. There has been a 38 per cent. fall in the number waiting over two years and a 19 per cent. fall in the number of patients waiting over a year. The hon. Gentleman and I will both agree that it is unacceptable for patients to wait for such long periods. However, I must make it clear that one patient in two is admitted immediately. The judgment on hospital admission is based on clinical priority. The average for patients who are not admitted immediately is five weeks. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the need for further progress in his health authority, as in others, on cutting down the number of those waiting.
  In Eastbourne health authority, there has been an excellent advance in cutting down. There has been a 61 per cent. decrease in the two-year waiters. We want there to be more progress, and to help this year, as well as the increase of funding for the health authority of over £12 million in one year alone—going from £59 million to over £71 million in 1991–92 to spend on the health care of people in Eastbourne—there is additional funding from the region of £186,000 which is intended to help especially with the waiting lists for ear, nose and throat treatment, oral surgery, urology and gynaecology, which are important areas of progress and activity.
  This year, we are spending about £60 million through the regions. We are making it clear that we must bring down the number of patients who wait for unacceptable periods. Today's excellent news on the progress made over the past year is a heartening first step.
  The hon. Gentleman fell into the trap, as so many other hon. Members have done, of referring to the number of beds as an indicator of care. That is a naive approach, whether applied to care in the community or to hospitals. Increasing numbers of us can now receive support on a domiciliary basis in the community or day care. Reports from authoritative sources constantly stress the importance of moving towards more day care. I am pleased that the hospitals in the hon. Gentleman's area have been able to increase the number of patients treated—even at a time when they were rationalising bed use.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the concept of the Eastbourne hospitals trust. I have already seen, and am most impressed by, the prospectus that has been produced. Over the next three months, it will be the subject of consultation with the people of Eastbourne because it is important that they should know and understand. The hon. Gentleman talked about the strengths and weaknesses of ballots and referendums. The key point is that these are complex issues on which people need to have an informed and reasoned discussion. Scaremongering and doom and gloom can play no part. When the Secretary of State decides whether to approve the Eastbourne hospitals trust, in his mind will be purely and simply the question whether that is a better way of managing the health service to improve the care of patients—national health service patients. That is the aim, objective and pride of our national health service.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the trust would be free to undertake private work. We have no vendetta against the private sector. Many people wish to spend their resources on private health care. But the aim, objective and commitment of national health service Ministers, the management executive and the national health service trusts is to pioneer, develop and improve the quality of

  1105
  national health service work. The hospitals may admit private patients or patients from overseas. We have no objection to that. But our criterion, aim and objective is that it should be done to improve the care of national health service patients.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about income generation —whether the trust could use the plant in the hospital to provide laundry services. That is a matter for the trust to consider. But its goal, its mission, its purpose in being, is to provide national health service work. That is the key to the national health service trusts.
  The sort of policy objectives that we are considering are already taking off in Eastbourne. I have looked at some of the criteria established in the contracts between the purchaser authority, the commissioner, the Eastbourne health authority and the existing provider units. The criteria state that residents who are mentally handicapped shall be consulted in all aspects of their health or welfare. They state that acute patients must have an individual care plan with specific aims for care and at least a daily comment on their progress. They state that, on discharge, the general practitioners should be informed within one week of the recommendations for the patient. Those are the quality objectives to which we are committed and which our national health service reforms are already achieving.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to care in the community. He spoke about resources in relation to drawing up preparations for the care in the community provisions. I urge him to consider the evidence. The increase in the social service spending that we have recognised this year is of the order of 23·5 per cent. That is the largest single increase in social service spending for 15 years.
  1106
  The hon. Gentleman referred to specific aspects of care in the community. For the first time, we are to have a drug and alcohol specific grant allowing spending to the order of £2 million for voluntary organisations—precisely the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What about the new work for the mentally ill? The specific grant, allowing £30 million worth of spending, will result in East Sussex receiving £330,000 towards its work for the mentally ill—a very important group. What about the money specifically for training for community care? This year, we substantially increased the amount that goes towards training those in social services for this important and popular development.
  East Sussex has received £220,000 towards training social service staff so that they are properly and effectively prepared for the implementation of this important policy. The authority is working hard to ensure that the needs of the frail and vulnerable—those who are entitled to an effective quality of care in the community—are met. That will take time and detailed planning. Next year's plan, which is subject to consultation, will be a further and important springboard for progress.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne should have no doubt about the commitment and concern of those involved in social services and health care. If the hon. Gentleman is tempted to suggest that his party has reservations about national health service trusts, he should contact Councillor Marian Border. She is a Liberal Democrat councillor and a non-executive member of the Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS trust in Newcastle. We believe that that is a way of using the resources more effectively and powerfully to provide better patient care. It will be subject to consultation and detailed consideration before the final plans are announced in Eastbourne. I have been impressed by and warmly congratulate those people who have pioneered service improvements for the people of Eastbourne.

  Deep-mine Coal Industry (Lothian)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: The Government have a responsibility to ensure that this country has an energy industry which meets our short-term needs and ensures that in the long run we will not have to depend on imported energy. For those and other reasons, I believe that Energy Ministers should be concerned about Monktonhall colliery in Lothian.
  Scotland is an energy-rich country. We have nuclear and hydro-electric power, offshore oil and gas and the coal industry. However, it must be accepted that we will depend on our coal industry long after the oil and gas have run dry. There is therefore an important strategic reason why we should protect the long-term future of our deep-mine coal industry in Scotland—an industry which has been reduced to the single Longannet complex.
  We were reminded today of the severity of the balance of payments deficit. At the bottom of the recession, it was announced today that there was a balance of payments deficit in March of more than £300 million. Surely the Government accept that it is only common sense to take decisions intended to reduce our balance of payments deficit in the long term rather than to exacerbate them.
  It is worth recalling that, while we are now struggling to break even in our energy balance of payments, as recently as 1985 we had a surplus of more than £6 billion on our energy balance of payments. I hope that that gives some idea of the huge potential of our energy industry and, in particular, our coal industry for the balance of payments if the Government are prepared to accept some responsibility for ensuring that the right decisions are taken.
  It is not just those important strategic questions that affect the economy and the coal industry. The decision to reopen Monktonhall colliery is crucial to the Scottish economy. We now have only the Longannet pit, which is operating very efficiently, as no doubt the Minister will confirm later. Output in the Scottish economy fell last year by 9 per cent. Unemployment was high and is now rising significantly. Against that background, and during a recession, there must be a strong case for encouraging a nationalised industry such as British Coal to invest in the Scottish economy. A decision to invest in Monktonhall would give a very important boost to the local economy in Lothian. A boost in investment—although not a huge investment—is required to bring the pit back into production. There would be a boost also in terms of the creation of direct jobs in the mine and also indirect jobs and in terms of the additional local purchasing power that would be generated in the local economy as a result of those jobs. That project is very important for the Lothian economy.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has acknowledged that the Government have a responsibility and that it stems partly from the concern that any Government should have for the future of the Scottish economy. So that there is no misunderstanding, I shall quote from a letter dated 8 May 1991 from the Secretary of State to the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. He stated:
  "I am well aware of the strength of feeling surrounding the possible redevelopment of these mines, particularly Monktonhall. Indeed, a number of independent proposals to
  1108
  this end have been brought to my attention. For this reason I recently wrote to John Wakeham in view of his responsibility for coal policy throughout Great Britain."
  I hope that, if nothing else, that demonstrates that the Government have a responsibility and cannot simply wash their hands and suggest that all such decisions should be taken on a short-term basis by British Coal.
  The Minister will be aware of the campaign that has been mounted to secure the reopening of Monktonhall. A very important document called "Monktonhall Colliery—The case for revival" was produced collectively by Lothian regional council, the Midlothian district council, East Lothian district council, and the National Union of Mineworkers Scottish Area. The campaign has widespread support throughout Scotland and the support of Labour Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has a deep and long-standing interest in the industry, would have liked to participate in the debate.
  The tradition of coal mining in the Lothians goes back hundreds of years. I have had the privilege, as you probably know, Madam Deputy Speaker, of representing Edinburgh, East for almost 21 years. When I was first elected, quite a number of collieries were operating in Lothian. Latterly there are two collieries, Bilston Glen and Monktonhall—two large pits employing more than 1,000 men. If my memory serves me rightly, Bilston Glen employed almost 2,000 men not so long ago. Bilston Glen is now closed and all that is left is Monktonhall, which has been retained on a care-and-maintenance basis.
  Let us be quite clear about what happened at Monktonhall. When Monktonhall was put on a care-and-maintenance basis, British Coal invested £14 million in new workings to open the Peacock seam, an important area of reserves which are accessible from the Monktonhall colliery. A total of 9 million tonnes of coal reserves are readily accessible from Monktonhall colliery at present. There are probably another 40 million tonnes of reserves that can be accessed from the colliery. That does not include the important reserves under Musselburgh bay. Before the redrawing of the parliamentary boundaries in 1983, I had the privilege of representing Musselburgh. We had a long discussion and argument about the siting of a satellite shaft in Musselburgh which would have allowed the men to reach the coal at Musselburgh bay, but the coal was to be brought up at Monktonhall colliery.
  There is no doubt that if we can get through the short-term crisis for the deep-coal mining industry in Lothian, the Monktonhall pit will probably be in operation for another 100 years—that is no exaggeration —because of the scale of reserves. It was always said by the old National Coal Board that the reserves under Musselburgh bay had tremendous potential and undoubtedly could be exploited profitably in the long run. Nothing in the document to which I referred or the argument relates to the reserves under Musselburgh bay. The powerful case that has been mounted is based on the reserves that can be accessed from the Monktonhall colliery at present.
  I accept that the decision whether to resume production, in particular under the Government's policies —I do not try to make a party point—is not only based on long-term strategic lessons. There must be a short-term market for the coal. However, all the evidence shows that there is a market for the coal.

  1109
  I do not wish to rely too heavily on the analysis in the document to which I referred. Various analyses have been made. But, unlike a few years ago, there are several positive developments on the likely demand for coal in Scotland. First, there is a good prospect—perhaps the Minister will comment on it—that the undersea cable that will enable Scottish Power to supply electricity to Northern Ireland will go ahead. The signs are that we are likely to have a positive decision on that in the near future.
  Secondly, I assume that the interconnector between Scotland and England will be upgraded. It was upgraded previously but a doubling of capacity is now planned. I believe that that should go ahead as quickly as possible. I suspect that, if it had not been for privatisation, the upgrading would have been further ahead by now. It will enable additional electricity to flow from Scotland to England. In previous years there have been disputes between the electricity and the coal industries, but Scottish Power is now well pleased with the competitive coal supplied to it by British Coal.
  It would be a mistake to assume that in the long run the necessary coal can be supplied from opencast mining. Of course, opencast mining has a contribution to make. However, British Coal has to be reminded, especially as responsibility for its opencast operations has been transferred from Scotland to the English headquarters and the operations are conducted on a Great Britain basis, that over many years there has been an unwritten political agreement between the mostly Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland and the coal industry that councils would take a favourable and sympathetic view of opencast developments on the understanding that some of the economic benefits would be transferred to the deep-mine coal industry. British Coal may be in danger of understating the significance of that unwritten agreement.
  It is fair to say that nothing like the controversy and difficulty that has arisen in England over opencast mining planning applications has been caused in Scotland. There are real problems with opencast mining. The Minister will know more about that than me from his ministerial experience and his knowledge of the position in England. However, it would be unwise for British Coal to think that its outlined ambitious plans for future opencast working in Scotland can go ahead smoothly if it does not give some indication of a commitment to deep-mine coal. An early and necessary sign of that commitment is a positive decision on Monktonhall colliery.
  Growing importance has been given in recent years to low-sulphur coal. One might argue that that has been one of the most important developments since Monktonhall colliery ceased production in 1987. A premium is now put on high-quality and low-sulphur coal. The privatised English generating authorities have emphasised the growing importance that they attach to low-sulphur coal. One of the great strengths of Monktonhall coal is that it has one of the lowest sulphur contents in Great Britain and is potentially a high-quality coal.
  For the reasons that I have given, there is a powerful, long-term strategic case for resuming production at Monktonhall, and, given a positive approach, a commercial case can be made for doing so, even though British Coal has not previously accepted that case. There
  1110
  are grounds for optimism that the commercial circumstances are such that in the years ahead the output from Monktonhall will find a market and can be produced profitably by British Coal or whoever operates the colliery.
  It is no exaggeration to say that, if British Coal decided to write off the colliery, it would be an act of industrial vandalism. British Coal is committed to taking a decision next month. It is within its power to stop the pumps, to allow the colliery to be flooded and to write off a huge investment. In so doing it would sterilise reserves of tremendous potential that would continue into the next century. Huge investment would be written off, including £14 million which British Coal invested even after the colliery had ceased production. Surely such action is unthinkable.
  The easy option for British Coal, of continuing care and maintenance, would contribute nothing to the local economy in the short term. The local community would be greatly disappointed if that option were taken. Jobs are needed in the area and the community is looking for them. If there were a resumption of production—I shall not say what the scale of the initial production should be, and it might not be as great as some might want originally—we would have the chance to prove that the colliery could operate extremely efficiently and competitively and that there was a market for its coal. I would hope that output could gradually be increased.
  I quoted a letter that the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Campbell Christie. Ministers have put it on record that there have been approaches from interests in the private sector which wish to acquire and operate the colliery. Probably there are about five consortia, including the Monktonhall miners' consortium of local miners, who want to operate as a sort of co-operative. Various interests have all expressed a wish to operate the colliery.
  It is not an accident that British Coal invested in Monktonhall after it had ceased production. Care and maintenance has continued. British Coal always recognised that the colliery had tremendous potential. If British Coal is not prepared to operate the colliery, surely the Government will insist that it is not written off for the long term. Surely they will insist that British Coal sells the asset to a private company or consortium. It is not for me to comment on the relative merits of the organisations which have expressed an interest. It is important, however, to put on record that private consortia have declared an interest. If British Coal is not prepared to operate the colliery, it is the overwhelming view of the local community that it must accept its responsibility to the nation and sell the asset to a private company, on the understanding that it will reopen the colliery and bring it back into production.
  There is an abundance of mining skills in Lothian. Some men with a wide range of experience at the pit have not worked since it was closed. There are others who have expertise that is related to the mining operation. From the point of view of local Labour Members, the local authorities, unions and miners, the best outcome of the review that British Coal is carrying out would be for British Coal to decide to reopen the colliery and to restart production. If it took that step, there would be tremendous support and good will within the community. I am confident that if British Coal were to take that bold decision next month, its boldness would be rewarded by competitive production following the reopening of a colliery with a long future.
  1.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) spoke candidly about the potential for the Scottish coal mining industry and about the future of Monktonhall in particular. I share his optimism about the future, but it would be wrong if we did not temper that hope with realism about the formidable challenges that the industry faces.
  Those challenges are not new. The hon. Gentleman will know that British coal mining output peaked in 1913 at not far short of 300 million tonnes a year. Since then, the industry has had to contract to meet market demands. The reason for that is obvious if we consider that before the war there were huge markets for domestic coal, railway coal, for bunkering ships and so on. Even as late as 1950, British Coal was supplying 38 million tonnes simply for the domestic market. Today's sales of domestic coal are just under 5 million tonnes and of course we do not use coal for railway transport or making town gas. So the industry has had to go through a period of substantial restructuring and now coal faces competition from gas, the nuclear industry and so on.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about imports. As members of the European Community and as signatories to the GATT arrangements, we could not operate a protectionist policy, even if we wanted to do so. I agree with him that Britain, and Scotland in particular, has substantial fuel reserves and an impressive diversity of fuel sources, but it would be wrong to protect that market artificially and to exclude imported energy as a matter of course. That would be a recipe for inefficiency and British industry generally would not be well served by a policy that exposed it to excessively expensive electricity prices simply to protect one energy industry.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also spoke of the potential for exporting electricity from Scotland and I am aware of the need to strengthen the interconnector to England. But that, again, needs competitive Scottish power. I think that the industries concerned can rise to the challenge and the restructuring of the electricity industry and placing it in the private sector has helped to create a competitive market in electricity which enables British Coal and the Scottish generating companies to look forward to exporting their power to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  There are formidable challenges ahead and they have been met in the recent past. The Government have been generous in helping British Coal to meet the cost involved. Since 1979, we have provided £17 billion worth of grant aid to enable British Coal to restructure, in conditions that have avoided the need for any compulsory redundancies, and any miners wishing to redeploy to other parts of the mining industry have been able to do so.
  In Scotland, those challenges were faced earlier than in most of the rest of the United Kingdom. The restructuring there was difficult, but was achieved somewhat earlier. The Scottish energy market is particularly competitive. The hon. Gentleman mentioned offshore oil and gas and nuclear and Scotland is well placed for the development of alternative energy sources such as wind power.
  Longannet colliery is successfully producing coal today in a way that shows what can be done with good management, good investment and the commitment and
  1112
  enthusiasm of a highly motivated work force. Longannet is a low-cost, highly productive pit which stands comparison with any in Europe.
  Restructuring has not been painless, but the redundancy terms have, at least since 1979, ensured that those leaving the industry have done so with generous terms to cushion them during the difficult changes from working in the coal industry to working in other employment or taking early retirement.
  That is the background against which the coal industry must operate and against which any decision about Monktonhall must be taken. It is for the industry, which at the moment means British Coal, to decide what its manpower requirements are. It must also, as it has already started to do, change its culture from one that attempts to retain market share at all costs to one that seeks a market share based on competition and reduction of costs to a level from which it can compete against other energy sources. The 90 per cent. increase in productivity that the industry has achieved since 1985 is impressive and shows what can be achieved. If that pace of productivity improvement can be kept up, I too am optimistic about the future.
  As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, British Coal has the stewardship of the nation's coal resources. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, it is responsible for the efficient development of the industry in the public interest. It is charged with the task of determining where the public interest lies. Decision on access to, and exploitation of, reserves has always been a matter for British Coal, based on its assessment of market prospects. We wish to change that. As we have announced, after the next election we intend to privatise the coal industry and alter the statutory framework. That will create new opportunities for operators, companies, consortia and co-operatives of all sorts to mine coal. At present, however, the statutory framework remains that set out in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
  Mothballing is not an easy option for deep mines. It is also an expensive option. Monktonhall is costing British Coal £500,000 a year because it has to be kept dry and the roads have to be kept open. However, it is not true that reserves are lost permanently if a mine is closed. Sometimes they can be accessed from a neighbouring pit, as has happened before. British Coal has given assurances that the pit shafts and road ways are being kept open properly.
  I agree that, if British Coal decides that it does not wish to reopen and work the pit, it should give proper consideration to whether the mineworkers' consortium or the other interested groups should be given the opportunity to work it. We have encouraged the consortium and other interested parties to put their proposals direct to British Coal. I want British Coal to take an early decision. It would be wrong for it to sit for too long on this opportunity without giving others a chance to exploit the reserves if it believes that it is not in its interests to do so.
  Therefore, I undertake, in the light of the hon. Member's remarks to write to the chairman of British Coal drawing his attention to the debate and expressing my hope that a decision will shortly be reached. I do not dispute the status of British Coal. It must make the assessment in the light of market circumstances and its requirements. If, however, other people decide that they

  1113
  can make a success of it—that they can mine the coal economically and sell it at a profit—they should be given the chance to do so.

  Noise Pollution
  1.59 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to bring again to the attention of the House the problem of noise—in particular, the problem of noisy parties and the noise created by individuals, mainly in the towns and cities of our country.
  The House will remember that on 31 October 1990 we debated the subject at some length and discussed comprehensively the problems caused by noise. I intend to concentrate now on a very wide subject—the problems caused by individuals who seem totally bereft of any feeling for their fellow citizens and neighbours.
  At that time in October—and before that date—we had available to us an excellent White Paper from the Department of the Environment. We also had available to us the Batho report—a Government working party report —on noise nuisance. Since then, the Environmental Protection Bill has been passed, part of which takes into account the problem to which I wish to draw the attention of the House.
  It is particularly apt that the debate should take place at this time when my postbag and, I suggest, those of many hon. Members are beginning to reflect concern about noise as summer approaches. People remember the last two summers, which were long, hot and dry. Due to parties in and around our towns, noise nuisance increased. An interesting press article recently suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister was considering a fresh approach to the problem. Since last October's debate, he has had time to reflect upon it. His Department has issued a few directives and suggestions which I believe will help us to combat this terrible nuisance. It is pertinent to point out that the complaints about noise that local authorities have received increased tenfold during the past year. Only the dog problem comes close to that. I believe that that was aired earlier today.
  It is pertinent to ask exactly what the problem is. I believe that there are two aspects to it. First, there is the noise caused by noisy parties. Inevitably, they are linked in the minds of the public with blues parties. In some cases, they are illegal, under recent legislation passed by the House. People are asked to pay to go to parties that are held outside the law. They are also asked to go to parties that take place on an ad hoc basis.
  The tragedy of these events is that they do not occur for just one or two hours. Many go on for several days. I fear that during the coming weekend—a bank holiday weekend —a party might begin in my constituency tomorrow, Friday, and last at least until Monday. That will be a terrible nuisance for those who have to put up with the party and also for those who are not invited to it.
  Many hundreds of people are likely to attend such parties. The way they behave and the nuisance that they cause should be of great concern to us all. It needs to be said—although I am sensitive on the issue because of the criticism that came as a result of the speech that I made in the House last October—that part of the problem arises in towns where there is a large Caribbean influence. That is the case in my constituency. Those of Caribbean origin tend to enjoy loud music rather more than the rest of us do. Their style of music is not particularly accommodating to those who live in close neighbourhoods. Also,

  1115
  regrettably, attached to some of those parties—only a minority—are activities such as drug taking and fornication. That is not my evidence but that of my constituents, and I bring it to the House's attention on that basis. There is concern that those communities tend to dominate lives in certain neighbourhoods with customs that are alien to those of Anglo-Saxon origin. It is a tiny majority, but the problem must be recognised and cannot easily be put under the carpet.
  Those parties do not take place in warehouses outside towns or far away from residential areas. They tend to take place in tower blocks, of which there are several in my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has had similar problems in his constituency. They tend to take place in close communities and, therefore, the nuisance they cause is doubled. If there is a party on, for example, the sixth floor of a tower block with loud music—one must not underestimate how loud the music can be—with scores of people attending, the nuisance extends throughout the tower block and adjoining blocks. It is a terrible problem.
  There is also the problem caused by noisy individuals, some of which is deliberate. Last week I received a letter from one of my constituents who has problems with his neighbours. That is not unusual as many hon. Members receive such correspondence. Sometimes music is deliberately turned up to annoy neighbours. There is no doubt that ghetto-blasters played in the vicinity of others can cause extreme problems. Certain individuals seem content to enjoy themselves throughout the night to the annoyance of their neighbours. There are also instances of people deliberately turning up their television sets to annoy their neighbours. We must bear in mind that many of these events occur in tenements and council blocks with thin walls.
  There is also the problem of car noise. High-powered cars may be revved up late at night, youngsters may roar up and down the street and music may be played loudly causing many problems for the neighbours.
  On a minor scale, there is the problem of the do-it-yourself enthusiast. On occasions they seem to believe that they should be boring holes in the wall at 3 o'clock in the morning. Such persons may be doing admirable things to improve their own facilities, and l am aware that some facilities do need improving, but there are better times to do it.
  Mr. Donald Thompson: I do not look like—nor am I—a do-it-yourself man. I believe that there should be a chap with his name on his ladders. However, as my hon. Friend will know, there are self-build housing groups which need to work and can only work at weekends or in the evenings. Will my hon. Friend comment on those housing groups and on the curtailment of their activities being imposed by some over-enthusiastic local authorities? Those groups build perhaps 30 or 40 houses, not one or two. We should also include those chaps who want to build their own house and live in a caravan while doing so.
  Mr. Carlisle: I sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said. Nobody would wish to lessen the enthusiasm of the do-it-yourself enthusiasts or the self-build housing groups. However, my hon. Friend will know that they have to obtain permission from the local authority, as do others, and if they are carrying out commercial work they have to obtain permission about hours. If any legislation
  1116
  is to be framed or any directive controls are to be imposed, they must take full account of those who go about their business legitimately and in a neighbourly way. My hon. Friend will agree that such people are not deliberately provocative—they just want to get on with a job that they have to do out of hours.
  It is probably true to say that almost every hon. Member who, like myself, represents large urban areas has received complaints about noise. In last October's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) outlined the problems faced by residents in city areas.
  The message from that debate and from my constituents is that they seem powerless to act. The problem is that those who commit unneighbourly acts are not stopped by the various remedies that are available. Those remedies vary. The first and obvious one is for a report to be made to the local environmental health officer. Assuming that his office is open at night—many of these problems occur in the early hours of the morning—he will send an officer to answer the complaint. When the officer arrives on the scene, having ascertained what is going on and perhaps confirming the trouble, he offers the organiser of the party or the perpetrator of the noise 30 minutes' grace.
  I am sure that environmental health officers will agree that the problem is identifying the organiser of the party. One can picture an environmental health officer, or his deputy, arriving at a party of 300 heaving bodies on the seventh floor of a tower block in Luton and trying to ascertain who organised it. The notice of abatement must be served on that person, who then has 30 minutes to turn the noise down. In most cases they do so, but when the officer disappears the music is turned up and the problem persists and sometimes worsens.
  Often, environmental health departments will ask for witnesses. The problem is that people are reluctant to report on their neighbours. Hon. Members all have experience of that.
  If legal action is taken, it is two or three months before the case gets to court, by which time the problem may have disappeared or have been forgotten by the public. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the problem of identification is important.
  The second remedy is for people to go to the police. It is a sad fact that in England the police have no power because making a noise is not a criminal offence. That is the nub of the problem. In many instances, the police will attend but do not have the manpower to prevent the party from continuing. They are often reluctant to go into a party of many people, who may be highly intoxicated, perhaps on drugs and, to put it kindly, in a boisterous mood. It has been reported to me that police have sat outside waiting in their cars. I fully understand their reluctance, especially where the party, as I said earlier, is of a Caribbean nature.
  The police, who are sensitive and anxious to maintain racial harmony, are reluctant to break up such a party because of what might ensue if they do so. One must feel for young officers who are sent to deal with such an "offence"—I say that although it is not a criminal offence to cause much noise—only to find on arrival that they are severely outnumbered. I can understand the police being reluctant and somewhat fearful to intervene in some cases because of the lack of manpower.

  1117
  Another option which has been promoted by my hon. Friend and his Department—and by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in the previous debate—is to try to create a form of neighbourhood noise scheme. That idea sounds attractive and I know that some work has been done on it, but I fear that although such a scheme would probably work well in the nice suburban areas of some towns, it would not be much good in tower blocks with many hundreds of flats. It is unlikely that one could ever get people together to take on board a curfew or whatever was decided by the local community. It is a nice idea which would work in some areas, but I regret that it would not work in parts of my constituency because I personally know of some individuals who would take no notice of such a scheme.
  The last remedy, which I have tried to use on some occasions, is to go to the local borough housing manager or to the committee if the people involved are council tenants and to ask if they are breaking their tenancy agreement by causing a nuisance. In some cases, the borough council is sympathetic, but there is a problem if the people are moved to another area and the noise springs up again. I do not believe—though I stand to be corrected —that the borough council would be able under the law to sever a tenancy unless the people were deliberately flouting their particular agreement.
  The problem is that people who are afflicted by such parties and such noise have very little remedy to enable them to escape and to get things put right. Following the debate and in addition to the initiatives taken by the Department, there are other actions that we must take.
  First, we must have the power, whether through the police, environmental health officers or anyone else, to stop such parties immediately or to stop the people making the noise. The 30 minutes' grace is nonsense, as is having to wait for court action. It must be possible to stop the party immediately if it is causing a nuisance to other people. Secondly, it must be a criminal offence to make such noise. There is no doubt that on some occasions the nuisance is terrible, as proved by the sad letters that we have all had, especially from old people. It must be made a criminal offence if people persist in making such a nuisance of noise to their neighbours.
  Thirdly, the police must have the power, if necessary, to confiscate the equipment immediately. That would at least stop the immediate problem and might stop any future problem unless further equipment were purchased. However, such equipment is very expensive. Fourthly, everyone who attends a very loud party must be involved if arrests are made, as is the case in a pub serving drinks after hours. There must be more of a community responsibility to stop this terrible nuisance.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the great scourge of modern times was the noise emanating from mobile phones in rather plush London restaurants. I must say, with respect, that he knows nothing about the noise that emanates from parties in my constituency and from those in many other towns and cities. The scourge of noise and nuisance during the next few summer months will be terrible for many people in my constituency. It is the Government's duty to encourage any measure to combat that nuisance and at least to make people's lives a little more worth living.
  2.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has done the House a service by drawing to its attention his concerns and those of his constituents relating to the problems of noise. As my hon. Friend reminded the House, the problems of noise and Government plans for tackling them were the subject of a wide-ranging and thorough Adjournment debate last October. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to review progress since. I note from re-reading the official record of that debate that my hon. Friend spoke about particular concerns for him and for his constituents, including noise resulting from road-widening schemes and from noisy parties. Today, he has, for reasons that he explained, concentrated on noisy parties and I will shortly deal with his points.
  Whether the problems are specific to Luton or nationwide, the Government fully understand the concern about noise which, although invisible, can be one of the most potent forms of pollution in its ability to irritate and to create stress in all our lives. It is important that people should feel confident that the problem is being tackled and mitigated. The Government have an important role in ensuring that the framework for doing so exists. We are taking action in many ways to mitigate the pollution of noise.
  The Government's present policy initiative commenced with the setting up of an independent noise review chaired by James Batho. Its report was published together with our initial response last October.
  Since last October's debate, part III of the Environmental Protection Bill has been enacted and the maximum fine for breach of a noise abatement order on trade or business premises has been substantially increased. We also took the opportunity to amend the Bill to give effect to one recommendation that we knew would emerge from the noise review and we clarified the duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints. In addition to the review and the Environmental Protection Act, we published the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" during the same period. It has a chapter on noise and a good deal of the noise review working party's thinking is in it.
  However, my hon. Friend concentrated his concerns on noise from neighbours. There is no doubt that noise from neighbours generates most complaints and that it is, in some ways, the most intractable topic because individual freedoms as well as nuisance are involved. Seeking to strike the right balance between individual freedoms is never easy.
  It must be sensible for neighbours to try to sort out problems among themselves before invoking the local authority and the law. With that in mind, I am delighted that our first pilot neighbourhood noise awareness scheme has recently been launched in the Forest Hill area of Lewisham. The straightforward idea of the scheme is simply that a local group of residents come together in an area of about 1,100 dwellings, mixed in both form and tenure—some privately owned, some council owned, some detached houses and some blocks of flats. A leaflet has been prepared by and for the residents suggesting ways in which the impact of noisy activities can be restricted. In preparing the leaflet, the residents have sought collectively

  1119
  to determine, for example, when it is sensible for people to carry out DIY work or when it is sensible for them not to carry out DIY work.
  Anyone who is suffering and who cannot secure an improvement by a direct approach can drop a note into the local authority neighbourhood office and the complaint will be followed up. The Department of the Environment has funded the development work on the project. We will watch its progress closely and we shall be interested to see how it develops. We hope that if the initiative in Lewisham proves to be a success, it can be replicated elsewhere, including, perhaps, my hon. Friend's constituency.
  In view of the misleading impression that may have been given in some articles in the press about the neighbourhood noise awareness scheme, I stress that in all such schemes the initiative must lie with residents. The leaflet will say whatever they want it to say. There is no national model telling people what to do—nor is there necessarily a desire to prevent individuals from engaging in particular activities. The objective is to make people think about the disturbance that they may cause and about the times of day at which their neighbours may find that least irritating. Where disputes arise, the scheme will enable communities to settle them without recourse to court action, although the power for an individual to go to court as a last resort remains unchanged.
  My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties caused by noisy private parties, such as blues parties, which go on not just for hours but sometimes for days, and at a volume that pollutes the local environment. He expressed concern about ghetto-blasters and car radios played loudly either unthinkingly or, even worse, deliberately. We have given a good deal of thought to complaints about noisy private parties. As my hon. Friend emphasised, those who complain about noisy parties are frequently frustrated that they are powerless to act. It is understandable, therefore, that they should become even more frustrated and furious when they find that a local authority officer or police officer arriving at the scene of a party is apparently also powerless to act to stop it in its tracks.
  The officers face several obstacles. Making a noise is not in itself a criminal offence. The name of the organiser cannot be ascertained. The noise-maker cannot be arrested. Moreover, I suspect that there are problems of natural justice in making the owners of premises
  1120
  responsible even if they are not there when the party is held. We are looking at ways in which to make progress on that. It may be possible for council officials temporarily to remove equipment such as loudspeakers, with police support where appropriate. I am also considering the provision in Scotland, where it is an offence not to desist from making a noise when requested by the police to do so.
  My hon. Friend specifically referred to blues parties. In addition to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, we must bear in mind the fact that blues parties that party-goers pay to attend may qualify as private entertainments and may need to be licensed. If a council can establish that a party is being held for private gain and if that party is not licensed, penalties may be imposed. A fine of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months or both may be applied in respect of parties for which no licence is held, or if a licence exists but its conditions have been breached. Those powers constitute a significant deterrent to the people who organise blues parties with the intention of making a profit.
  The noise review working party was also concerned with the control of noise from commerce and industry in mixed residential areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) reminded us that these issues are not always easy to resolve. In many towns there are no neat distinct residential and commercial areas. Some people might want to build new homes. However, local authorities can take action in respect of self-build if they believe that a nuisance is being caused to others.
  We are concerned that the present arrangements for mixed residential areas are not completely satisfactory. We shall be writing to the British Standards Institution about the recent revision of the relevant British standard. We are also considering the regulations on noise abatement zones. Modern technology should allow us to make the regulations simpler and more useful. We intend to underpin the work on tackling the nuisance of noise with appropriate research.
  The Department of the Environment spends about £750,000 a year on research and the priorities have recently been re-ordered in line with the priorities identified by the working party. I hope that the House will see—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

  Mr. Leonard Pell
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Leonard Pell, who lives in Carlton, near Barnsley. The case is rather complex, as I will explain.
  Mr. Pell is a war pensioner and I hope that this short debate will highlight the erosion of the various benefits that have been paid to war pensioners over the past few years. In particular, I shall refer to the difference in pensions paid to service personnel who retired from the services before 1973 and the benefits paid to those who retired after that date. The difference is due to improvements to the scheme initiated between 1971 and 1973. I shall also refer to the level of disregard applying to war pensions. Although the Minister who is to reply will concentrate on the armed forces pensions scheme, I shall refer to the level of disregard operated by local authorities when taking account of benefits for the purpose of community charge benefit.
  As I said, Mr. Pell's case is rather complex. It encompasses several different issues and benefits. He qualifies for several different benefits because of his substantial disability. Perhaps I should explain Mr. Pell's present circumstances.
  Mr. Pell served in the RAF until he was invalided from the service with a 70 per cent. disability assessment. No doubt the Minister will agree that a 70 per cent. disability assessment is substantial. Since then, Mr. Pell has had surgery and is unfortunately diagnosed as suffering from chronic atrophic gastritis which might lead to cancer in later years. Mr. Pell has also suffered a mild heart attack and is therefore considerably disabled. His disabilities are compounded somewhat by his wife's disabilities. Unfortunately, she is diabetic and was recently discharged from hospital after an operation to remove a tumour. It is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Pell are experiencing considerable financial strain as a result of their joint disabilities. Their financial needs include a special diet for Mrs. Pell because she is diabetic, and the provision of extra clothing and the cost of extra heating which they both require. Mr. Pell's major complaint is that the level of war pensions over the past few years has deteriorated in relation to other benefits and in relation to the 1973 improvements.
  It has long been accepted by Governments that pensions in respect of injuries inflicted during war time or during periods of service in Her Majesty's forces—and for that matter injuries at work—are paid at a slightly higher level than pensions for ordinary social security beneficiaries. That is based on the idea that people injured during their service in the forces were serving the country or the economy in war time. That principle has been eroded by the Government, who no longer maintain that that distinction is entirely valid. Over the past few years, Social Security Bills have tended to remove the distinction between war pensioners and industrial injuries pensioners over and above normal social security pensions. Changes to the social security benefits which came about as part of the 1986 review have also eroded the comparable value of war pensions in relation to other benefits.
  Mr. Pell pointed out in his letter, a copy of which was forwarded to the Minister, that with the introduction of benefits such as income support, war pensioners do not qualify for or are not entitled to some of the benefits for
  1122
  which income support beneficiaries qualify. It is interesting that, for service personnel injured during peace time or at a time other than in war, there are no support funds such as the Gulf support fund or the South Atlantic fund. My constituent does not qualify for any of the charitable benefits that have been made available following recent conflicts.
  In 1973, the armed forces pension scheme introduced service-attributable benefits. Since 1973, pensions for service personnel have been drastically improved. However, no retrospection was allowed to service personnel who qualified for pensions before 31 March 1973.
  In his letter to me, the Minister was good enough to outline arguments about retrospection. The cost of retrospection is quite substantial in relation to all service personnel. It has long been a condition that a person can benefit from a pension scheme only if he is a current serving member. I appreciate the Government's arguments, but the House has also recognised those arguments in the case of women who were widowed and qualified for armed forces pensions before 1973. As we know, action was taken for that special group.
  Special consideration should be given to Mr. Pell and others who were invalided and severely injured during their service for the country. Mr. Pell's disablement is so severe that his working ability has been restricted. Over the past few years it has been totally restricted—he has been unable to work at all. As he could not continue in the service until his scheduled discharge date, he does not qualify for a full pension, but he would have done had he not been injured. As Mr. Pell pointed out in his correspondence, had he not been so severely injured but allowed to continue his service until his discharge date, he would have been well looked after with pensions and benefits.
  Mr. Pell's disability was so great that, initially, he could take up only light work, which he had to give up. He has been unable to build up an occupational pension to add to the pension benefits that he receives from the forces. He was forced to give up employment during the early 1980s and he has been unable to build up any occupational pension provision to compensate him for his inability to work.
  If Mr. Pell had been able to continue in the service despite his disability, he could have built up an occupational pension provision and his entitlement to pension. He argues that the Government should seriously consider improvements in the benefits given to service men who left the services before 1973 and were so seriously disabled that they could not work outside the services. These are men who were invalided from the service. I support Mr. Pell's argument that they should be looked on as a distinct and deserving group.
  Any retrospective action taken by the Government would have to exclude service men who retired from the services before 1973 but were able to complete their term of service, or those who were disabled or qualified for incapacity pensions but were able to work outside the services in civvy street and continue their service term until they reached their retirement date.
  Mr. Pell's other complaint is about the war disability pension, which is regarded by the Department of Social Security as a maintenance benefit. It is subject to the statutory disregard of £10 for the community charge

  1123
  benefit. But the DSS regards such pensions as having "a special nature" because they are awarded in respect of service in the armed forces.
  The £10 disregard is now too low as a proportion of the war pension, the maximum level of which is about £76. In 1971 the maximum pension was about £7·50 and the disregard was about £4, so the disregard was about 53 per cent. The level of disregard has fallen in real terms during the past 20 years. The disregard should be increased to take account of that.
  Several other issues which affect war pensioners are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but I shall touch on them in my concluding remarks. They include the community charge and the disability rate allowance for adaptations and special fitments. Many war pensioners qualified for rent rebates for alterations to their properties. When the community charge was introduced, that rebate was removed, so again war pensioners suffered a fall in income.
  My constituent is considerably disabled as a result of his service to the country. His earning capacity was severely eroded and now he believes that his pension entitlement is also being severely eroded. I call on the Government to consider carefully the small group of war pensioners who were so severely disabled as a result of their service that they could no longer work. The Government should perhaps look on them in the same way as they considered the pre-1973 war widows.
  2.43 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing this Adjournment debate. I confirm that the disregard for the community charge is not one of my responsibilities. However, I shall show the essence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment and I am sure that they will communicate with him on the matter. I am responsible for the armed forces pension scheme. We all want those who have served in the armed forces, and have experienced some disability as a result of that service, to be appropriately provided for. I am sure that we all recognise the value of the service that they have given to their country. I will address the points which the hon. Member raised in a moment, but first I should like to set out the background against which those points must be considered.
  In dealing with service pensions we should recognise that there are two separate sets of provision under which benefits may be paid to ex-service men and their dependants. There is the war pension scheme, which is administered by the Department of Social Security and provides benefits specifically in those cases where a member of the armed forces is injured or dies as a result of his service. There is also the armed forces' own pension scheme, which is administered by the Ministry of Defence. It is mainly the provisions of that scheme which provide the basis for this debate.
  The armed forces pension scheme is an occupational pension scheme and is broadly similar in nature to other public service pension schemes, although there are a number of features designed to reflect the somewhat different characteristics of service in the armed forces compared with the majority of other types of employment, and the relatively short careers which apply to many
  1124
  service men. There is also special provision for the greater physical risks which may arise whether through war-like operations, training for such operations or, indeed, many other types of duty that service personnel may be called upon to perform. Those risks are catered for today by a combination of appropriate provisions within the occupational scheme, in addition to the important and longstanding provisions of the war pensions scheme.
  As with any other provision, money has to be found to pay for the benefits. In the case of the armed forces pension scheme, there is no standing fund from which these costs are met. There are no direct contributions and benefits are paid for, as they arise, from money allocated to the defence vote each year. Service personnel are not, of course, completely insulated from the cost of providing for their pensions. The review body on armed forces pay, in establishing pay rates to recommend to the Government, takes into account the greater value of armed forces pension scheme benefits over those of comparator pension schemes. A reduction is then made from comparator rates of pay to reflect this, and for the overwhelming majority that reduction currently stands at 9 per cent. While this provides an invisible offset, the cost of pensions and any increase in commitments associated with them have to be met within the overall allocation for defence each year. Those costs are continually rising, not least because benefits have been improved from time to time, and the estimated figure for 1990–91 was £1,408 million. They represent an increasing proportion of total defence expenditure, and will of course remain a commitment for many years to come.
  As an occupational pension scheme, the armed forces scheme is managed in accordance with the same principles which apply to such schemes in general. There are two important and allied points. First, entitlements under the scheme are, for any individual and through him his dependants, derived from the rules of the scheme which were in force at the date of his retirement. Secondly, when rules are changed, those changes do not apply to those who are no longer serving at the time when they are brought into effect.
  The detailed rules are inevitably complex, but the main features of the scheme as it stands today are as follows: a pension, paid immediately on retirement, for officers who have given 16 years or more of reckonable service and for other ranks who have given 22 years or more reckonable service; deferred pensions, payable from the age 60, for those who serve for shorter periods, subject to a minimum of two years; pensions for widows, widowers, and dependent children; immediate pensions for those invalided from service on account of injury or ill-health, subject to a minimum of two years' service; enhanced benefits where that injury or ill-health is attributed to service in the forces, with no minimum qualifying period of service; enhanced benefits for the widows and dependent children of those whose death is attributed to service.
  All those pensions are index linked. In the case of long-service pensions, the cumulative increases are payable from the age of 55. But for invaliding awards, and widows', widowers' and dependants' pensions, the index-linking comes into effect immediately following the award. Long-service and invalidity pensions are calculated from representative rates of pay for each rank, and on length of service given. For a full career, based on retirement at age 55, the pension is equivalent to about half of the corresponding rate of pay with, in addition, a

  1125
  tax-free lump sum of three times the annual rate of pension awarded. Because many service men have to retire early, the rate of pension paid for shorter periods of service is enhanced to be better than strictly proportional to the service given. This is to compensate for the short career which may be all that is available, and, as I said, service men can therefore retire on pension by about the age of 40.
  I have already referred to lump sums paid on retirement at the end of a full career, and lump sums are also paid on a similar basis where pensions are awarded for shorter periods of service, and where invaliding occurs. Additional lump sums are paid where injury or death is attributable to service.
  I have given an outline of the main benefits which are available today. However, as with other pension schemes, there have been developments over the years which have gradually introduced changes and improvements in what is provided. I fully recognise that the benefit provisions have reached their current excellent level over a considerable period. In many cases, changes have been made in step with general developments in occupational pension provisions in this country. Others have been particularly devised for members of the armed forces.
  Overall, the changes have included the introduction in 1960 of scales for officers linked to length of service, instead of standard rates for service of at least a minimum length; a substantial revision in 1972 following the introduction of the military salary, incorporating a direct link with representative rates of pay; in 1973, an improvement in the benefits available on invaliding, including where that was attributable to service, and for widows; the introduction in 1975 of deferred pensions for short periods of service; the introduction of pensions for widows of post-retirement marriages in 1978; and, four years ago, the introduction of pensions for the widowers of female personnel, thus ensuring equal treatment between the sexes.
  It is against that background of progressive improvement, and the additional costs associated with each new development, that I shall address the points raised by the debate. I understand, and sympathise with, the feelings of those who have retired in earlier years and do not receive benefits at the same level as are available to those who have retired more recently. The fact that there are such differences is not unique to the armed forces scheme and the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that. It could be found in the great majority of schemes, and for similar reasons. As I mentioned earlier, improvements must be paid for. If we had applied every improvement retrospectively, the costs involved would have been significantly greater and it is unlikely that we would have been able to reach the standard which exists today.
  The scheme as it now stands is very good. I am afraid that we cannot turn back the clock and confer additional entitlements on those who are ineligible because of their earlier dates of discharge. The position for the Department of Social Security's war pensions scheme is, however, somewhat different. Pensions and other benefits payable under that scheme are at standard rates which apply to all those who are eligible, regardless of when they served in the armed forces or the particular date on which that service came to an end.
  1126
  I acknowledge the valuable part which is played by the many organisations particularly associated with serving or ex-service personnel in providing help and care for those who have need of them. Such needs are not necessarily financial. They can take many forms. Recently, with the conflict in the Gulf, we have seen how ready such organisations are to help in any way possible. Happily, with the swift and successful conclusion of the Gulf operations, little was needed. But I, and hon. Members present today, will wish to pay tribute to those dedicated people, many of whom are themselves ex-service men and some with their own war disabilities, who do so much which is out of the public eye.
  I come to the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Leonard Pell. Mr. Pell's service with the Royal Air Force occurred in a number of stages. He initially joined in May 1943 for air crew training but was released in June 1944. After the war, in 1947, he enlisted on an eight-year engagement, which he completed normally and was released in August 1955. In 1959 he again re-enlisted, this time for a 12-year engagement with the Royal Air Force Regiment, which was subsequently extended, on the basis of his continuing in service until age 55. But, as the hon. Gentleman explained, Mr. Pell was invalided from service in 1967, having fallen below the required medical standard for his branch.
  As a result, under the provisions which were in force at that time, he was awarded an invaliding pension under the armed forces pension scheme, and a lump sum. His case was also referred to the Department of Social Security for consideration under the provisions of the war pensions scheme. The claim was accepted and, since Mr. Pell's level of disability was at that stage assessed as being in the range of 6 to 14 per cent., he was paid the appropriate lump sum under that scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pell was assessed at 70 per cent., but that was a later development. The initial assessment was between 6 and 14 per cent. His pension from the Royal Air Force also became tax free.
  As the House may know, war pensioners may seek reassessment if their disability appears to increase or if new disabilities emerge. This is what has happened in Mr. Pell's case. His position has been subject to review, with the result that his overall level of disability is now assessed at 70 per cent., covering a number of different conditions. He has also become eligible for a number of allowances under the scheme which, with his basic war disability pension, are today worth just under £200 per week.
  I have here the figures showing how this is made up. There is a 70 per cent. war disability pension, unemployability supplement, comforts allowance, invalidity allowance, wife allowance, dependants allowance, age allowance and mobility supplement. Together, they make up a figure of £198·94 per week. That is non-taxable and is in addition to his tax-free pension from the Royal Air Force which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is just under £30 per week. Mr. Pell therefore receives, tax free, about £230 per week. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the war pension provisions are substantially better than those that would be available under the industrial injuries scheme, had corresponding disabilities occurred as a result of civilian employment.
  The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pell had no occupational pension, but he was working from 1967, although he may have found it more difficult to work recently, and that would have given him the opportunity to

  1127
  contribute to an occupational scheme or to fund one through the work that he was doing. I accept that Mr. Pell's armed forces pension would have been larger if the improvements made to the scheme in 1972 and 1973 had been in force in 1967. His pension would also have been larger today had he not elected, as he was perfectly entitled to do, to commute part of his initial award shortly after his discharge in order to raise additional capital. As I have explained, there are cogent reasons why we feel unable to make the scheme improvements retrospective, but I hope that the House will agree that the provisions which are available, taken together, represent a very reasonable recognition of Mr. Pell's needs.
  The hon. Member referred to the debate in which I was involved on war widows, and we have seen his early-day motion, which is on the Order Paper today, suggesting that we should make special provision for war disability pensioners whose service ended before March 1963 in some similar way to what has been done for war widows whose husbands' service ended before that date. As the House will recall, it was announced on 11 December 1989 that special payments would be introduced for war widows whose husbands had been killed, or whose service had ended, before March 1973. However, the House will also recall that those special payments were introduced in recognition of the view, held widely in this House and the
  1128
  country as a whole at the time, that the pre-1973 war widows are a unique category for whom quite exceptional measures were appropriate. That was a view also accepted by the organisations representing ex-service men, including those with war disabilities.
  There may also be those who recall that I acknowledged in the House on 23 November 1989 that there was nevertheless some correlation between the position of war widows and those with war disabilities, depending upon service ending before or after March 1973. The connection is, of course, that for both widows and the disabled benefits available from the Ministry of Defence are influenced by the improvements made to the armed forces occupational scheme in 1973. As I have said previously, this date has no significance whatsoever for the standard benefits paid under the separate war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security. The benefits payable under the revised occupational scheme are better than those available previously. However, the similarity in origin does not mean that the situation is, in all respects, the same.
  Question put and agreed to.
  It being Three o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolutions [13 May], till Monday 3 June.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Howbury Grange School
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the future of Howbury Grange school.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received two letters, both objecting to the proposed closure of Howbury Grange school.

  School Premises Regulations
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981; and when he expects to publish the results of the review.

  Mr. Fallon
  Work is currently in progress on a range of topics as part of the review, the results of which are likely to be available towards the end of next year.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what upper limit he will place on the proportion of schools eligible to achieve grant-maintained status, provided each school complies with his current criteria.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. All maintained primary and secondary schools are eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. We will judge each application which comes before us on its individual merits.

  Edinburgh University
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a direct grant to the university of Edinburgh on condition that the Audobon bird manuscripts and editions are retained in perpetuity.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. Universities are responsible for managing their own financial affairs, including the acquisition and disposal of assets.

  Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the results of his review of Government policy on sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 30 November 1990 at columns 501–2, when I said that we aim to publish a statement of the Government's policies and priorities for sport in the summer.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing for each of the past 25 years, the proportion of gross national product which the United Kingdom has given by way of overseas aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Net official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1965

  0·46

  1966

  0·45

  1967

  0·43

  1968

  0·39

  1969

  0·38

  1970

  0·36

  1971

  0·40

  1972

  0·37

  1973

  0·33

  1974

  0·36

  1975

  0·38

  1976

  0·39

  1977

  0·44

  1978

  0·45

  1979

  0·51

  1980

  0·34

  1981

  0·42

  1982

  0·37

  1983

  0·35

  1984

  0·33

  1985

  0·33

  1986

  0·31

  1987

  0·28

  1988

  0·32

  1989

  0·31

  The figure for 1990 will be available in June.

  Kurds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state what is the total value of the aid given by Her Majesty's Government to help the Kurds since the ending of the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since 4 April, British humanitarian assistance for Iraqi refugees, including our share of the EC emergency programme, totals £61·5 million.

  Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the principles governing the management of Britain's own forests are applied to the management of forests overseas as criteria for determining eligibility of aid for specific projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The technical, environmental, social and economic issues involved in the management of tropical forests often differ from those involved in the management of British forests. In financing projects and programmes in developing countries in the forest sector, the ODA uses appraisal, design and management principles which it considers appropriate to issues involved. In doing so, the ODA draws on the expertise of its forestry advisers and, as appropriate, other expertise both in the United Kingdom and overseas.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the residential units completed in the London Docklands UDA since 1981 have been(a) built for sale, (b) built for rent by local authorities, (c) built for rent by housing associations and (d) built for other types of tenure; if he will specify them; and if he will provide similar figures for those residential units that have been built on London Docklands development corporation-owned land since 1981.

  Mr. Key
  Nearly a fifth of all new housing in the UDA is social housing of one sort or another, as shown in the table below.

  Total in UDA

  On LDDC land

  (a) For sale

  12,247

  6,498

  (b) Local authority rented

  804

  209

  (c) Housing association rented

  1,471

  985

  (d) Other—shared ownership

  560

  538

  —self build

  138

  137

  Total

  15,220

  8,367

  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 the new units of social housing and (b) housing improvements or refurbishment.

  Mr. Key
  [pursuant to his answer, 8 May 1991, Official Report, c. 519]: The information is provided in the tables:

  (a) New social housing units

  £ million

  1981–82

  0·0

  1982–83

  0·0

  1983–84

  3·3

  1984–85

  0·0

  1985–86

  0·0

  1986–87

  0·0

  1987–88

  0·0

  1988–89

  50·5

  1989–90

  43·7

  1990–91

  27·0

  Total

  1124·5

  (b) Housing improvement or refurbishment

  £ million

  1981–82

  0·0

  1982–83

  0·4

  1983–84

  0·4

  1984–85

  0·0

  1985–86

  0·2

  1986–87

  1·7

  1987–88

  2·3

  1988–89

  6·8

  1989–90

  1·4

  1990–91

  8·5

  Total

  21·7

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

  Housing (Government Subsidies)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Great Grimsby, Barrow in Furness, Wandsworth, Westminster and Elmbridge his estimate of (i) the average Government subsidy per council dwelling and (ii) the average amount of mortgage interest tax relief for other dwellings.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is as follows:

  Average amount of housing revenue account subsidy claimed per dwelling for 1991–92

  £

  Great Grimsby

  897

  Barrow in Furness

  870

  Wandsworth

  1,518

  Westminster

  2,124

  Elmbridge

  769

  The estimated average cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1990–91 for each owner occupier claiming mortgage tax relief in the United Kingdom was £830, equivalent to £531 for all owner occupiers. Information on the average amount mortgage tax relief claimed broken down by local authority area is not available.

  The capital cost of constructing council dwellings in 1990–91 was approximately £44,000 per dwelling in the north and £55,000 in the south-east and eastern regions, excluding the land cost element.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the value of the housing stock in England; and what effect a reduction in that figure to £1,200 billion would have on the council tax revenue yield overall and from households in each band.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 10 May at column 622.

  The illustrative council tax bills published on 23 April were based on a yield of £6·8 billion. This would not have been different if the assumed value of the housing stock had been lower.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table showing nationally, regionally and for each district, the population, total number of households, the total number of pensioners and children.

  Mr. Key
  Estimates of the population by broad age ranges for each local authority district are given in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication, "Key population and vital statistics, local and health authority areas". A copy of the latest edition giving 1989 estimates can be found in the House of Commons Library and further assistance may be obtained from the Library's statistical staff.

  Regarding information on households I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave him on 21 May 1991 at column 402, and on 20 May at columns 327–28.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table showing nationally, regionally and for each district, the number of two-adult households with three or more children.
  543
  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 21 May 1991 at column 402.

  Air Pollution Monitoring
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the air pollution monitoring sites based in south Yorkshire for(a) ozone, (b) carbon monoxide, (c) nitrogen oxides, (d) acid deposition, (e) atmospheric chemistry, (f) atmospheric hydrocarbon. (g) trace germs, (h) smoke and sulphur dioxide directive, (i) other sulphur dioxide sites, (j) lead sites and (k) multi-element sites including lead.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is currently operating the following air pollution monitoring sites in south Yorkshire:

  (a) ozone, none

  (b) carbon monoxide, none

  (c) nitrogen oxides, none

  (d) acid deposition, none

  (e) atmospheric chemistry, none

  (f) atmospheric hydrocarbons, none

  (g) trace gases, none

  (h) smoke and sulphur dioxide directive,

  Askern 6

  Barnsley 8, 9, 12

  Brampton 1

  Cud worth 1

  Dinnington 4

  Doncaster 29, 33

  Goldthorpe 1

  Grimethorpe 2, 3

  Hoyland Nether, 6

  Lundwood 1

  Maltby 2

  Mexborough 19

  Moorends 1

  Rossington 1

  Sheffield 40, 82

  Stainforth 1

  Swinton 7

  Thorne 2

  Wath-upon-Dearne 6

  Wombwell 2

  Worsbrough Bridge 2

  (i) other sulphur dioxide sites, Barnsley

  (j) lead sites, Sandbeck Hall

  (k) multi-element sites including lead, Sandbeck Hall

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use he plans to make of the university of Aston business school's report on the national survey of parish and town councils in his current review of local government.

  Mr. Key
  We shall take into account the results of the national survey of parish and town councils by the university of Aston business school in our local government review.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to give a definite date for when he expects to receive the university of Aston business school's report on the national survey of parish and town councils; what monetary assistance was given to the clerks to the councils for compiling this information; and what action he will be carrying out after studying the report.

  Mr. Key
  We expect to receive the first results of this survey shortly. The clerks to the councils completed the survey without financial assistance from the Department,544
  in accordance with the usual research practice. The results will be taken into account in our local government review and will inform the Department's work in relation to parishes.

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Boundary Commission to report to him on Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Local Government Boundary Commission's programme of work is for the commission to determine with the resources at its disposal. I understand that the commission is currently considering the responses it has received to its draft proposals for the boundary between the London boroughs of Bexley and Greenwich, affecting Thamesmead, and it is likely to be some time before this review is completed. I regret that I cannot give a firmer forecast.

  Yorkshire Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what target has been set for Yorkshire Water plc to achieve in terms of reducing water loss between reservoir and consumer as part of the efficiency component in price setting.

  Mr. Baldry
  The K factors set for Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. to run for 10 years from 1990 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assumed that there would be continuing efficiency gains across the full operations of the company. No specific target was set within price setting for reducing water loss. Questions on the continuing performance of Yorkshire Water should be addressed to the Director General of Water Services.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports have been made by Yorkshire Water plc on progress made in reducing the proportion of water lost between reservoir and consumer since privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am informed that Yorkshire Water plc has not published any reports on this topic. However, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. (YWS) has a continuing programme to reduce leakage, which is monitored by the Director General of Water Services. YWS outlined its programme to the Yorkshire Customer Service Committee in July 1990.

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment will take place; and what will be on the agenda.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment held its first meeting on 21 May. The committee discussed a wide range of current and longer-term environmental issues.

  Benzene
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the levels of airborne benzene in south Yorkshire.
  545
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has no information on the levels of airborne benzene specifically in south Yorkshire.

  Chelmsford Borough Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement listing the amount of public money his Department has passed to Chelmsford borough council for all services since April 1979; and what are his forward plans for the next three years.

  Mr. Key
  The amounts paid in support of Chelmsford borough council's general services for these years—excluding figures for main housing subsidy for 1979–80 and 1980–81 which could be provided only at disproportionate cost—were:

  Rate support grant (£000)

  Main housing subsidy (£000)

  1979–80

  6,147

  —

  1980–81

  7,034

  —

  1981–82

  3,044

  590

  1982–83

  4,302

  0

  1983–84

  4,367

  0

  1984–85

  4,207

  0

  1985–86

  3,771

  0

  1986–87

  6,005

  0

  1987–88

  4,064

  0

  1988–89

  3,310

  0

  1989–90

  3,219

  0

  The amounts paid to Chelmsford borough council in respect of 1990–91 were:

  1990–91 (£ thousands)

  Revenue support grant

  11,894

  Non-domestic rates

  23,966

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  3,934

  The amounts which the Government propose to pay to the borough council in respect of 1991–92 are:

  £ thousands

  Community charge grant

  1 15,925

  Revenue support grant

  16,629

  National non-domestic rates

  39,795

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  2,930

  1 Estimated.

  These figures exclude information on minor specific grants paid in respect of particular functions or services.

  It is not possible to give details of the amounts of external finance to be paid to the district council in 1992–93 and 1993–94 since this will depend on decisions which have yet to be taken on the amount and distribution of public expenditure in those years.

  Waste Storage
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue new guidance to county councils in relation to the tipping and storage of waste into exhausted gravel pits and quarries.

  Mr. Trippier
  There is already extensive guidance. Guidance on using controlled wastes as landfill materials 546
  in the reclamation of surface mineral workings in general is contained in Minerals Planning Guidance Note 7, "The Reclamation of Mineral Workings" published in September 1989. Detailed advice on aspects of waste disposal is also given in my Department's series of waste management papers. No. 26 in this series, "Landfilling Wastes—a Technical Memorandum" was published in 1986; No. 4, "The Licensing of Waste Disposal Sites", which offers advice to local authorities responsible for waste disposal licensing, was revised in 1988.

  My Department will continue to update guidance to take account of technical developments, the results of research and legislative changes. Work has begun on the revision of waste management paper No. 4 to reflect the changes to be introduced under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under the Act, authorities will be obliged to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State in exercising their licensing functions.

  Aggregates
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue new guidance to county councils governing gravel extraction.

  Sir George Young
  The Government have recently announced their intention to prepare new guidance on the provision for aggregates in England and Wales to replace the current advice in MPG6. The publication of the new long-term forecasts of demand for aggregates on 7 May was the first step in this exercise. The Government will be considering any views which may be expressed about these forecasts, and have also asked the regional aggregates working parties for their views on how medium and long-term demand might be met. Draft guidance will be prepared in the light of these views and will be issued for public consultation in the usual way. It would be premature to issue any revised guidance until there has been a full and open debate about the guidance.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Government's current initiatives and projects in response to the concern about the environmental consequences of meeting the national demand for aggregates.

  Sir George Young
  My Department has a comprehensive programme of research which is examining a variety of matters associated with the environmental consequences of the national demand for aggregates. The main initiatives and projects are as follows:

  A. Current Studies

  (i) study into the use of secondary and waste materials —including recycling—report due July 1991;

  (ii) study into potential supplies of aggregates from coastal superquarries to supply the South-East—final report due August 1992;

  (iii) study into potential supplies from marine sand and gravel off the Humber coast—interim report due September 1991;

  (iv) study into the specifications of aggregates used in the construction industry—final report due July 1991;

  (v) study into the overall environmental effects of surface mineral workings—report due July 1991;

  (vi) study into the effectiveness of restoration conditions for minerals workings and the need for bonds—final report due;

  (vii) study into amenity reclamation of mineral workings—final report due July 1991;

  547

  (viii) study into agricultural reclamation of mineral workings—report due July 1991;

  (ix) study into limestone landform replication—final report due March 1993.

  B. Work about to begin includes:

  (i) a pilot study to begin in July to put into effect the recommendations made in the Groundwork report published in April on the environmental performance of the minerals industry;

  (ii) a study on the environmental effects and control of dust from surface mineral workings;

  (iii) a study on the environmental effects of traffic associated with surface mineral workings;

  (iv) a study to identify the extent and quality of sand and gravel resources in England and Wales.

  In addition to this, my Department will shortly be issuing draft guidance for public consultation on the control of noise at minerals sites which follows on from research completed in 1990.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in support of the establishment of a national dog registration scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Out of 462 local authorities and those organisations known to represent them, 238 responded to our consultation paper, "Action on Dogs", which was issued in 1989. Two hundred and seven of those who responded supported a dog registration scheme. By last June, when the "Control of Dogs" consultation document was issued, of the 244 local authorities and their representative organisations who responded to part II of the paper for which we are responsible, only 135 supported registration.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Local Government Act 1988 to introduce a national dog registration scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. The Government intend to implement, from April 1992, the package of dog control measures contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They include a duty on local authorities to enforce the requirement that dogs wear a collar and identification tag when in a public place and to ensure that stray dogs are collected up. We remain of the view that the package provides a practical and effective solution to the problems caused by irresponsible owners and that registration would be bureaucratic, expensive to operate and difficult to enforce. With regard to dogs which are bred especially for fighting, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced his intention to bring before the House as soon as possible this Session, legislation which will ban the breeding and ownership of such dogs.

  Barratt Houses, Illingworth
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Halifax concerning the sale of Barratt houses at Abbey Park, Illingworth.

  Mr. Key
  I have written today to the hon. Lady about this matter.

  Landfills
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require compulsory insurance against pollution leaks and contamination from landfills.

  Mr. Baldry
  Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, when it comes into force, will include a number of measures to ensure that pollution from landfills is prevented, or, if it occurs, that remedial action is taken. Under the Act, local authorities will impose pollution control conditions on licensees, who will be obliged to remedy any pollution from the site at their own expense. These conditions will remain binding even after closure for as long as the authority is not satisfied that the site is safe, and the licensee will not be permitted to surrender or transfer the licence without the consent of the authority.

  As part of their vetting of licence applicants, authorities will be able to refuse an applicant who has not made or is in no position to make adequate financial provision to discharge the provisions of the licence. The form this financial provision should take will be the subject of guidance from the Secretary of State. A working group including representatives of industry and local authorities is examining the subject of long-term financial provision, including insurance, for waste sites and is expected to report this summer.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on companies' responses to the requirements of integrated pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Integrated pollution control, introduced by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, requires operators of prescribed processes to obtain an authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. To date, 125 applications for authorisations have been received and are being considered.

  Environment Shows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will be making any contribution towards or have any presence at(a) the environmental business show at Alexandra Palace, London on 4 to 6 June or (b) the green show, at the national exhibition centre, Birmingham on 21 to 27 May.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have accepted an invitation to visit the green show on 23 May. The Department does not plan to participate in the show at Alexandra Palace.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any ministerial car on official duty since 1979 has(a) been stopped by the police for breaking the speed limit and (b) been parked illegally resulting in the driver being issued with a parking ticket.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes, to both parts of the question.

  Sewerage
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require the water and sewerage companies of England and Wales to adopt sewerage systems irrespective of their condition.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for costs incurred in connection with the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Key
  [pursuant to his answer, 18 March 1991, Official Report, c. 37]: The improvements to the community charge reduction scheme which we were able to make following the Budget will clearly impact on local authorities' preparation and administration costs. We are therefore proposing to make more grant available to ensure that authorities are reimbursed in full for all reasonable costs associated with operating the scheme. We also propose to simplify the arrangements for distributing the grant in order to ensure that local authorities receive payment as quickly as possible.

  Local authorities will no longer be required to submit initial claims in respect of preparation costs or administration costs. Instead authorities will receive an initial payment of their preparation costs based on last year's claims. Any adjustments necessary at the end of the financial year will be made on receipt of audited claims. In addition, general administration costs for the life of the scheme will be wrapped up in a one-off payment of a flat rate per charge-payer. The amounts which previously had to be claimed for applications for extra relief or revised bills will be reflected in a higher rate.

  On the basis of these proposals the cost of the community charge reduction scheme preparation and administration costs grant is expected to rise from £10 million to about £15 million.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available for local authorities under the urban programme in 1991–92 and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [pursuant to his answer, 29 January 1991, Official Report c.474]: The urban programme is one of many Government programmes which encourage local initiative in urban regeneration. Others include estate action and city grant in my Department, Task Forces in the Department of Trade and Industry and employment and training services supported by the Employment Department.

  We now intend to enhance the effectiveness of our expenditure in urban areas in England. We will be bringing together programmes in selected neighbourhoods so as to tackle problems comprehensively and on a significant scale. A new initiative, "city challenge", will achieve this and improve the quality of our cities. Local authorities will be invited to enter into partnerships with their local businesses and their community to draw together imaginative programmes for the regeneration of their areas. I will support
  550
  those authorities that create the most effective partnerships and prepare the best plans for the neighbourhoods that are critical to the health of their cities.

  Under city challenge, I will invite authorities to draw up programmes of action to tackle their key neighbourhoods. I will expect the authorities, in the preparation of these programmes, to draw upon the wealth of talent and expertise which exists in their cities; local people and the voluntary sector, the business and academic communities, the training and enterprise councils, and Government and other statutory agencies. I will expect them to attract private finance and involve the private sector thoroughly in managing the programme. The programmes should each be for a fixed period, normally not more than five years, and must include key targets and deadlines.

  I will be making available, from within my existing resources, £75 million in 1992–93 in order to pilot the approach in selected pacemaker authorities. The pacemakers will be chosen through competition. I am writing to the leaders of 15 authorities, listed below, asking them to come forward by 5 July with a bid to become a pacemaker. These authorities have been selected to include a variety of urban problems and opportunities. I then intend, in July, to make a selection of the 10 best proposals to be worked up into detailed action plans for final approval by the end of the year. I have asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to oversee the bidding stage. He, the Minister of State for Local Government and Inner Cities or I will be meeting the authorities to discuss their proposals over the next six weeks.

  Once the 10 authorities are chosen, the city action team Ministers will oversee the development of each action plan on behalf of the Government. Day-to-day liaison with the authorities will be the responsibility of the city action teams (CATs); they will provide the point of contact for Government and draw in and co-ordinate the programmes of other Departments. Where there is no CAT, I will ask a Minister to oversee the scheme and will consider whether new interdepartmental machinery is needed.

  Initial work on pacemakers will be monitored closely and provided the initiative shows signs of success, I intend the first full competition to take place in 1992, for spending to start in 1993–94.

  My objective is to see existing programmes pulled together in the most effective way in areas critical to the health of the city. I want to encourage those authorities which have the qualities of leadership and imagination necessary to rejuvenate their priority areas.

  Local authorities invited to submit proposals for pilot city challenge programmes

  Barnsley1

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Lewisham

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Middlesbrough

  Newcastle

  Nottingham

  Salford

  Sheffield

  Tower Hamlets

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  1 Invited to work together with Doncaster and Rotherham on a programme for the Dearne Valley. which straddles the areas of the three authorities.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Ordnance Survey is being examined as a candidate for privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his answer, Tuesday 14 May 1991, Official Report, c. 65]: The feasibility of immediate privatisation for Ordnance Survey was considered and rejected immediately prior to the department becoming an executive agency on 1 May 1990. It cannot be ruled out, however, that after a period of years agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation. I shall continue to keep the status of Ordnance Survey under review.

  London Population
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment(a) what is the current level of population density per acre in London boroughs for planning purposes and (b) when it was last reviewed.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his answer, 2 May 1991, c. 269]: The most recent estimates of population for each London borough are those prepared by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) for mid-1989. The population densities for each borough on that basis are given in column (A) of the table. The mid-year population estimates are revised annually by OPCS.

  The calculation of population densities for the urban areas of each London borough, excluding the main areas of open land and green belt, are available from the 1981 census. Figures on that basis are given in column (B).

  Borough

  Population density

  Persons/acre

  (A)

  (B)

  Barking and Dagenham

  17

  19

  Barnet

  14

  17

  Bcxley

  15

  18

  Brent

  23

  23

  Bromley

  8

  14

  Camden

  34

  30

  Croydon

  15

  17

  Ealing

  21

  20

  Enfield

  13

  19

  Greenwich

  18

  20

  Hackney

  40

  37

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  37

  36

  Haringey

  26

  27

  Harrow

  15

  19

  Havering

  8

  18

  Hillingdon

  9

  11

  Hounslow

  13

  14

  Islington

  46

  43

  Kensington and Chelsea

  44

  43

  Kingston

  15

  16

  Lambeth

  35

  36

  Lewisham

  26

  27

  Merton

  17

  17

  Newham

  23

  24

  Redbridge

  17

  20

  Richmond

  12

  11

  Southwark

  31

  30

  Sutton

  16

  17

  Tower Hamlets

  34

  29

  Waltham Forest

  21

  24

  Wandsworth

  30

  29

  Westminster

  32

  31

  City of London

  6

  7

  Source:

  (A) is 1989 mid-year estimate of borough population by OPCS
  552
  divided by the total area of the borough.

  (B) is the 1981 population density of the urban area, ie the "usually resident population" in 1981 divided by the area defined as urban by OPCS in the 1981 census.

  Cleaner Production Information Clearing house
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what involvement Her Majesty's Government have with the international cleaner production information clearing house based at the industry and environment office of the United Nations Environment Programme in Paris.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: Her Majesty's Government are closely involved with the development of the international cleaner production information clearing house. The ICPIC system has been available to users since 1990 and provides a wide range of information services promoting cleaner production. My Department provided substantial support towards the UNEP cleaner production seminar in Canterbury in September 1990 when the ICPIC system was demonstrated to a wide audience of seminar delegates. The Government are wholly supportive of the UNEP cleaner production programme, and will continue to contribute towards the development of the ICPIC database through the clean technology coordinator at Warren Spring laboratory.

  Assured Tenancies
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) from where tenants can obtain the correct form required to contest rises in the rent of assured tenancies, and at what cost; how many such outlets there are in the country; if he plans to make the form more freely available; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) from where tenants can obtain the explanatory booklet to assist in contesting a rise in the rent of their assured tenancy; how many such outlets there are; if he plans to increase them; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what requirements govern the practice of landlords in informing people in assured tenancies of the four weeks' grace they have between the announcement of a new rent and the date it becomes operative in which to challenge the rise; what requirement there is on landlords to inform such tenants of where to obtain the correct form and the explanatory booklet to facilitate contesting the change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: Copies of the prescribed form which tenants may use in certain circumstances to refer a proposed new rent to a rent assessment committee are available free of charge from local rent assessment panel offices. There are 13 such offices in England and their addresses are listed in local telephone directories. Firms of legal stationers also produce their own versions of the prescribed forms which are widely available for sale.

  Explanatory booklet No. 19, "Assured Tenancies", is available through many outlets including local authorities, housing advice centres and citizens advice bureaux.

  The duties on landlords in respect of increasing rent in assured tenancies are set out in section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. Landlord and tenant have the right to agree a new rent between themselves without reference to a third party.

  If the contract does not contain a provision for rent changes, and the landlord wishes to increase the rent, he

  553
  must serve a notice in the prescribed form on the tenant proposing a new rent. The notice must specifiy the minimum period after the date of service of the notice before the new rent can take effect. In no circumstances can this be less than one month. Rent cannot be increased by this means more frequently than once a year. The prescribed form, "Landlord's Notice proposing a new rent under an assured periodic tenancy or agricultural occupancy" states that the tenant may refer the notice to a rent assessment committee before the beginning of the new period of the tenancy. It also advises tenants to seek advice from a citizens advice bureau, housing aid centre, law centre or a solicitor.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Simazine
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of the herbicide Simazine.

  Mr. Maclean
  Simazine is a pre-emergence triazine herbicide with selective and non-selective uses. It is the active ingredient of some 111 formulated products approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 for professional or amateur use on crops such as beans, apples, pears, currants, sweetcorn and maize, gooseberries, cane fruit, strawberries, hops, asparagus and grapevines. Some products are also approved for use in forestry and non-crop situations.

  Organic Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many organic farms are registered in the United Kingdom currently and in each of the last five years; and if any farms have surrendered their organic status.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is currently no statutory requirement for organic farms to be registered in the United Kingdom. However, under a voluntary scheme administered by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards 135 farms are registered and 554 are in the process of registering.

  Further information on the structure of organic farming may be found on pages 73 to 76 of the 1991 edition of "Farm Incomes in the UK"—available in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many organic farms are currently registered in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each of the other European Community nations.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is currently no statutory requirement for organic farms to be registered in the United Kingdom. However under a voluntary scheme administered by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards 135 farms are registered and 554 are in the process of registering.

  Further information on the structure of organic farming in Great Britain may be found on pages 73 to 76 of the 1991 edition of "Farm Incomes in the UK"—available in the Library.

  The information requested for other European Community nations is not available.
  554
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage organic farming.

  Mr. Maclean
  The organic sector is eligible for the support given to all farmers under a number of general schemes. These include the farm and conservation grant scheme, the nitrate sensitive areas scheme, the set-aside scheme and the pilot extensification schemes for beef and sheep. Advice from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is also available. The processing and marketing of organic produce is being given priority for discretionary European Community grants under our national plans for implementing Community regulation 866/90. We are in addition making a very significant commitment to organic farming research and development. In 1991–92 we are spending over £500,000 on specific organic farming projects and over the next three years this is set to rise to £1 million. We have also commissioned an economic study of organic farming in Great Britain and the full report will be published later this year. We also provide grant aid to the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards that is responsible for establishing standards and for their enforcement. Further support in the form of a specific organic conversion scheme is under consideration.

  Potato Crisps
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of additives presently used in the flavouring of British manufactured potato crisps which his Department considers a possible threat to the health of consumers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no reason to believe any other flavours used in potato crisps pose any hazard to health. If they did, we would ban them.

  Sheep (Radiation Checks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep there are in the United Kingdom at the latest date that have to have a radiation check before they can be moved; and how many farms this covers.

  Mr. Maclean
  The estimated number of animals—immediately post-lambing—is 583,000 on 738 holdings.

  EC Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) overall European Commission expenditure as a percentage of overall European Community gross domestic product, (b) net European Commission expenditure on agriculture as a percentage of overall European Community gross domestic product and (c) the net United Kingdom expenditure on agriculture, including net receipts from the European Commission, as a proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product, for each year since 1973.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:
  555

  (a) Total expenditure from the European Community budget as a percentage of European Community gross domestic product (by calendar year)

  Percentage

  1973

  0·45

  1974

  0·45

  1975

  0·54

  1976

  0·56

  1977

  0·62

  1978

  0·74

  1979

  0·79

  1980

  0·80

  1981

  0·78

  1982

  0·82

  1983

  0·91

  1984

  0·95

  1985

  0·91

  1986

  0·97

  1987

  0·95

  1988

  1·02

  1989

  0·94

  11990

  0·99

  1 Budget.

  (b)

  Expenditure from the European Community budget on agriculture as a percentage of European Community gross domestic product (by calendar year)

  Year

  Percentage

  1973

  0·43

  1974

  0·32

  1975

  0·41

  1976

  0·45

  1977

  0·49

  1978

  0·56

  1979

  0·60

  1980

  0·58

  1981

  0·51

  1982

  0·52

  1983

  0·62

  1984

  0·66

  1985

  0·66

  1986

  0·65

  1987

  0·64

  1988

  0·72

  1989

  0·62

  1 1990

  0·65

  1 Budget.

  (c)

  United Kingdom expenditure on agriculture, including expenditure funded by the European Community as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product (by United Kingdom financial year)

  Year

  Percentage

  1973–74

  0·52

  1974–75

  0·55

  1975–76

  0·46

  1976–77

  0·29

  1977–78

  0·30

  1978–79

  0·31

  1979–80

  0·32

  1980–81

  0·43

  1981–82

  0·37

  1982–83

  0·50

  1983–84

  0·56

  1984–85

  0·52

  1985–86

  0·60

  1986–87

  0·37

  1987–88

  0·38

  1988–89

  0·29

  1989–90

  0·24

  1 1990–91

  0·36

  1 Forecast.

  556
  Sources:

  (a) and (b) EC expenditure: 1973–79—Annual Reports of the European Court of Auditors.

  1990—EC Budget.

  EC gdp—European Economy No. 46.

  (c) United Kingdom expenditure: 1973–74—1985–86—Annual Review White Papers.

  1986–87—1990–91—Agricul-ture in the United Kingdom.

  United Kingdom gdp: 1973–74—1989–90—CSO Economic Trends 1989–90.

  1990–91—Financial Statement and Budget Report 1991–92.

  Agencies
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the next steps initiative; and whether he had identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently two executive agencies within the department, the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Two further candidates have been announced to be launched in April 1992, namely the Central Science Laboratory and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which will be a joint MAFF and Welsh Office agency. Active consideration is being given to other departmental functions as potential agency candidates.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what EC grants the owners of fishing vessels would be eligible to receive to build new fishing vessels, if the United Kingdom fully implemented a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme in line with EC proposals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The availability of EC grants for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels under EC regulation 4028/86 is not dependent on the introduction of a decommissioning scheme. When the latest tranche of EC grant aid was decided last month, no applications for EC grant aid for new construction were successful in any member state.

  Beef and Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum support for beef and sheep farmers in less-favoured areas, for severely disadvantaged areas and for disadvantaged areas— marginal land—respectively, allowable under EC regulations in terms of pounds per hectare; and what is the United Kingdom limit, in similar terms, for these categories.

  Mr. Maclean
  European Community Council regulation 797/85, as amended, sets a maximum compensatory allowance for cattle and ewes of 102 ecu per hectare of total forage area of the holding in the less-favoured areas. At current green rates, this is equivalent to £77·33.

  Under United Kingdom regulations, payments are limited to £62·48 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46·86 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas.

  Total expenditure under the 1991 scheme is expected to be around £142 million, reflecting a 14 per cent. increase over the previous year.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the beef premium payments were made(a) to primary producers in upland areas and (b) to those fattening steers on lowland farms, in the last financial year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The beef special premium scheme is operated in Great Britain at the point of slaughter and at live auction markets on sale with a view to slaughter. The premium would therefore be payable to any eligible primary producer finishing male cattle. In registering for the scheme, producers are not required to state whether their farms are in upland or in lowland areas. The statistics requested are therefore not available.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses there are in England currently up to the EC standard as defined(a) in regulation 355/77 and (b) in regulation 860/90.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present there are 53 red meat and 97 poultry meat slaughterhouses in England which are approved as complying with EC standards. The standards in question are defined in EC directives 64/433 and 71/118 respectively. Regulation 355/77 and its successor, regulation 866/90, relate to financing of investment aimed at improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products. It is a condition of grant aid under these regulations that the project complies with the relevant EC standard.

  Beef (Intervention Stores)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage of beef being held in intervention stores in the EC in each of the past 18 quarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Tables showing EC and United Kingdom intervention stock levels have been deposited in the Library of the House at monthly intervals throughout the period in question.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has received for the Government to amend their present fish quota restrictions from a species base to an area base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Monthly quota restrictions relate to individual fish stocks, which are defined by species and area.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the size and location of the two mink farms on Humberside listed in his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 317.

  Mr. Maclean
  We do not publish this information.

  Agricultural and Horticultural Workers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the average wage levels and hours worked for each category of agricultural and horticultural workers in Northumberland; and by how much they exceed the levels determined by the wages board.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available for Northumberland, however, the latest information for a sample of farms in the northern region is provided in the table.

  Earnings and hours of regular whole-time workers in agriculture and horticulture

  Northern region

  1990 Calendar year

  Average total hours worked

  Average earnings1

  Premium over wage prescribed by Wages Board

  per week

  £/week

  £/week

  General Farm Workers

  46·9

  176·61

  18·51

  Other Stockmen

  47·6

  192·76

  43·47

  Tractor Drivers

  48·7

  216·74

  18·57

  All hired men2

  47·2

  189·85

  24·00

  1 Includes allowances in kind and any bonus paid by employers as a contribution to employees' community charge.

  2 Includes information for foremen, dairy cowmen and horticultural workers for which samples are too small for figures to be shown separately.

  Source: Wages and Employment Enquiry: 1990.

  Agricultural Land (Ownership)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 590, if he will make it his policy to collect information centrally in respect of agricultural land in England and Wales in overseas ownership.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The costs and practical difficulties of adopting such a policy are excessive and outweigh the potential benefits.

  River Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those polluted stretches of rivers and estuaries from which the public should not eat fish.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department has recently issued advice to anglers that it is inadvisable to eat fish caught in polluted waters. If anglers are in doubt about whether a particular stretch of water is polluted, they should seek advice locally from the National Rivers Authority which will be able to advise if the water is of poor quality on the basis of its rivers classification scheme.

  The Government's advice does not apply to commercial fisheries which take place in or near estuaries. My Department monitors commercial fisheries both in estuaries and at sea to protect public health and the results show the quality of the water in the areas of these fisheries causes no problems for the species sold.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves born since July 1988 have been found to have BSE.
  559
  Mr. Gummer
  BSE has been confirmed in one calf born since July 1988. Inquiries as to the source of the disease are still continuing.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 20 May,Official Report, column 398, why he is unable to give the number of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom for each month from January to April.

  Mr. Gummer
  The scientific calculation of the number of cases of BSE is based on the date of onset of clinical disease and there is a prolonged period of time between this and eventual confirmation of disease by post-mortem examination. This means that recent figures are necessarily incomplete and would therefore be misleading.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of cases of BSE in 1991 have been found in farms for the first time.

  Mr. Gummer
  Twenty-seven per cent. of the cases of BSE confirmed in Great Britain between January and April 1991 were on farms on which no previous case had been confirmed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of confirmed cases for BSE by county at the latest available date in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information up to 17 May 1991 is as follows:

  County

  Cases

  ENGLAND

  North

  Cleveland

  33

  Cumbria

  511

  Durham

  101

  Humberside

  116

  Northumberland

  114

  Tyne and Wear

  4

  Yorkshire, North

  1,075

  Yorkshire, South

  91

  Yorkshire, West

  127

  Total

  2,172

  Midlands and West

  Cheshire

  742

  Derbyshire

  417

  Hereford and Worcester

  521

  Lancashire

  605

  Leicestershire

  634

  Manchester

  28

  Merseyside

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  169

  Shropshire

  657

  Staffordshire

  510

  West Midlands

  17

  Warwickshire

  277

  Total

  4,591

  East

  Bedfordshire

  76

  Cambridgeshire

  100

  Essex

  115

  Hertfordshire

  126

  Lincolnshire

  228

  Norfolk

  419

  Northamptonshire

  225

  Suffolk

  338

  Total

  1,627

  560

  County

  Cases

  South-East

  Berkshire

  175

  Buckinghamshire

  246

  Hampshire

  1,023

  Isle of Wight

  207

  Kent

  580

  London

  15

  Oxfordshire

  416

  Surrey

  268

  Sussex East

  372

  Sussex West

  714

  Total

  4,016

  South-West

  Avon

  537

  Cornwall

  2,063

  Devon

  2,994

  Dorset

  2,354

  Gloucestershire

  844

  Somerset

  2,477

  Wiltshire

  1,712

  Total

  12,981

  WALES

  Clwyd

  311

  Dyfed

  1,136

  Glamorgan Mid

  69

  Glamorgan South

  68

  Glamorgan West

  14

  Gwent

  200

  Gwynedd

  76

  Powys

  252

  Total

  2,126

  SCOTLAND

  South

  Borders

  49

  Central

  29

  Dumfries

  190

  Lothian

  21

  Strathclyde

  256

  Total

  545

  North

  Fife

  55

  Grampian

  190

  Highland

  53

  Orkney

  9

  Shetland

  3

  Tayside

  76

  Western Isles

  1

  Total

  932

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  Antrim

  58

  Armagh

  16

  Down

  43

  Fermanagh

  19

  Londonderry

  19

  Tyrone

  38

  Total

  193

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Veterinary Products Committee discussed bovine somatotropin in 1991; what were the outcomes of these discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Committee has discussed BST twice in 1991.

  In April it advised that it remained unsatisfied on the animal safety and welfare aspects of certain BST products, and that this should be reflected in the line taken in discussions in the EC Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products. This advice was accepted.

  In May the committee considered an article published in the British Medical Journal on 2 March and reviewed relevant data. It considered it likely that it would be able to confirm its earlier advice that the products could be used without hazard to human health, but wished first to seek the opinions of independent advisors with special expertise in certain of the matters raised.

  The committee has also been informed of, but has not discussed, the extension of the Community moratorium on BST use, developments in the CVMP, and the hon. Member's parliamentary questions on the subject.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to review his decision to refuse a product licence for bovine somatotropin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall review the decisions in the light of advice from the Medicines Commission following its consideration of companies' appeals. I have no other plans to review them.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are any proposals from member states of the Commission for the EC to end its moratorium on the case of bovine somatotropin; what discussions he has had within the EC on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Commission has made no such proposals and I am aware of none from any member state.

  Sheep Dipping
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many forms, and what proportion, were returned from sheep farmers about sheep dipping last year; what measures he intends to take to ensure that all forms are received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Local authority estimates suggest that approximately 70 per cent. of form R owner declarations of dipping were returned to local authorities. It is for local authorities to take action in those cases where forms are not returned but I have made it clear that I am looking for a much better response from farmers during this year's national dip.

  Ear Punching
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what comments he has received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council concerning the ear punching of cattle; and if he has any plans to discontinue the practice;562
  (2) what comments he has received from the Farm Animal Welfarm Council concerning the ear punching of sheep; and if he will take steps to halt this practice when the variable premium scheme ceases.

  Mr. Maclean
  In its report on the welfare of livestock at markets in 1986, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that on welfare grounds methods should be found for certifying livestock under the premium schemes which did not involve ear punching.

  In their response, the Government noted that provided punches were kept sharp and used by properly trained staff, stress to the animals was kept to a minimum. The Government also stated their willingness to consider other methods which would meet the requirements of the Community schemes, but to date no satisfactory alternatives have been found. There are therefore no plans at present to discontinue this control mechanism in relation to cattle. For sheep, however, the need for ear punching under the variable premium scheme will no longer exist when the scheme ends in January 1992.

  Land Contamination
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has given to farmers whose land is contaminated by spills of inflammable liquids; and what such contaminations he is aware of having taken place since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department investigates incidents involving the spillage of inflammable liquid on agricultural land in view of the possible food safety implications. In the light of the results of such investigations, advice would be provided to the farmer or other measures taken as appropriate. The only recent incident involving such a spillage of which the Department is aware concerned the derailment and fire on a train at Bradford-on-Tone, Taunton on 16 May this year.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations Register
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will set up a register of arms, in line with his request for a United Nations register; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We believe that, in order to be effective, the register should be set up under United Nations auspices on a universal and non-discriminatory basis. That is the approach which we are pursuing.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the timetable for consultation on, and implementation of, proposals for a channel tunnel rail link;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the consultation process which he will undertake on the options for the channel tunnel rail link route.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are considering British Rail's report on the rail link options. To publish details of all the routes
  563
  under consideration could cause needless worry and blight. Once the Government have announced a decision on the way forward it will be for British Rail to undertake wide consultation on the preferred route before embarking on the formal approval process.

  Vehicle Smoke
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department will take in response to complaints from the public about smoke from cars, vans and other vehicles not subject to operator licensing.

  Mr. Chope
  Excessive smoke is usually emitted by diesel rather than petrol engines. As heavy goods vehicles and buses are likely to be the main offenders, and are also the ones against which sanctions are available under operator licensing, the Department has given priority to those larger vehicles. Instrumented checks of emissions from cars and light goods vehicles will, however, be part of MOT tests from 1 November.

  Motorways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the surfacing of future motorways in concrete rather than tarmac.

  Mr. Chope
  Current policy is to permit contractors as wide a choice of materials for road pavements as possible. This encourages competition between different suppliers and ensures the best value for money.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much traffic on the M1 had been reduced since the reopening of the M40 to Birmingham.

  Mr. Chope
  Traffic flows on the M1 south of M6 have been reduced by between 4,000 and 19,000 vehicles per weekday since the opening of M40 to Birmingham.

  Rail Tracks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct British Rail to cease immediately the practice of installing DC single-rail track circuits on non-electrified lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has already decided to cease the practice of installing DC single-rail track circuits on non-electrified lines. BR is also planning a programme of modifications to existing DC single-rail track circuits on non-electrified lines.

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultation exercise on his proposals for a privately funded Birmingham western orbital route.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Private sector firms have responded positively to my suggestion of a private finance competition for the western orbital route. I now propose to go ahead with a competition for the road on this basis. I look forward to seeing their proposals for designing, financing, constructing and operating this road.

  I share the concern of local interests about the need to protect the environment and avoid delay. I can give the
  564
  assurance that proposals for privately financed schemes will be subject to the same rigorous environmental appraisal as conventional roads. I will also keep the target for completion of this important facility as the late 1990s, as it had been for the public scheme.

  It is important to move quickly in setting up a competition. I will shortly be inviting prequalifying bids from the private sector, so that a full competition can be held as soon as possible.

  Taxi Fares (London)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about London taxi fares.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State has made an order increasing London taxi fares by about 8·9 per cent. on average with effect from Saturday 8 June 1991. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum fare of £1·00—including an unchanged hire charge of 40p—for the first 940·5 yd or 3 minutes 13·5 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 313·5 yd or 1 minute 4·5 seconds up to 6 miles and 20p for each 209 yd or 43 seconds thereafter.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the letter dated 6 February from Nithsdale Road Link-up Group; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Chope
  The letter was received in my Department on 14 February. It made a number of helpful suggestions for raising public awareness about the law on rear seat belt wearing by children which came into force on 1 September 1989 and described what the group itself is doing locally to achieve this. The reply explained the publicity which the Department, and some commercial organisations, gave to introduction of the law and the arrangements for providing information about it subsequently. It also offered comments on the text of a publicity leaflet produced by the group.

  I have sent a copy of the reply to the hon. Member.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that speed limiter systems fitted to heavy goods vehicles are fitted only by authorised organisations trained in installation, calibration and sealing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have tabled an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about speed limiter installation. The Department is considering with vehicle operators' associations and speed limiter manufacturers what, if any, regulations might be needed if this provision is enacted.

  Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement listing the money his Department has contributed to road schemes in the Chelmsford local authority area in each of the financial years since 1979–80; and what are his forward plans for the next three years.
  565
  Mr. Chope
  My Department pays 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant towards accepted expenditure on local authority road schemes.

  Before 1985–86 TSG was a general grant and not linked to individual projects. Under the present system, expenditure on specified major road schemes may be accepted for grant. Since 1985–86, accepted expenditure for such schemes in the Chelmsford borough council area has been as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  5·279

  1986–87

  7·167

  1987–88

  6·335

  1988–89

  5·846

  1989–90

  5·835

  1990–91

  2·189

  A further £0·506 million expenditure on major schemes in the Chelmsford area has been accepted for TSG in 1991–92. This is less than in previous years because a number of schemes have been completed. Allocations for future years will be decided in the light of information in the county's annual transport policies and programme submissions and other competing bids.

  Block TSG allocations have also been given for expenditure on minor works in the county as a whole, but it is for the county council to decide how much to spend in each district council's area.

  In addition, the Department has spent over £36 million since 1979 on improving its own A12 trunk road through the district, including the following amounts on the Chelmsford bypass:

  £ million

  1984–85

  5·978

  1985–86

  15·457

  1986–87

  11·111

  1987–88

  1·804

  1988–89

  1·218

  1989–90

  0·489

  The next major trunk road schemes in the area will be the construction of part of the new M12 from the M25 and the widening of the Chelmsford bypass, but only relatively minor sums will be spent on the design and preparation of these proposals over the next two or three years.

  Vehicle Tax Discs
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicle tax discs have been issued as replacements for stolen discs in each of the last three years for which such information is available.

  Mr. Chope
  The total number of duplicate licences issued for all reasons in each of the last three financial years was:

  Number

  1990–91

  146,720

  1989–90

  132,075

  1988–89

  135,649

  Separate records are not kept of the number of duplicate motor vehicle tax discs issued because the original has been stolen. Duplicate tax discs are also issued if the original has been lost, destroyed or mutilated so that it can no longer be used.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the approximate cost of the works that have been carried out and are due to be carried out on the designated existing channel tunnel rail routes to enable continental through freight and passenger services to be run after opening; and what is the approximate breakdown between(a) the terminal at Waterloo, (b) the Redhill to Tonbridge electrification, (c) the installation of continuous welded rail and other improvements to existing track, (d) improved signalling, (e) bridge reconstruction, (f) construction of new passing loops and (g) other main heads of cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail currently expects to spend approximately £700 million, at 1990–91 prices, on infrastructure works to enable European passenger and freight services to operate when the channel tunnel opens. £142 million will be spent on building the international terminal at Waterloo, £21 million on electrifying the line between Tonbridge and Redhill, £9 million on bridge reconstruction and £250 million on new track, upgrading existing track and improving signalling. The remaining £278 million covers other projects, including the North Pole maintenance depot, freight inspection facilities and freight terminals in London and elsewhere.

  British Rail
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has approved the plan for re-organisation of British Rail entitled "Organisation for Quality"; and if he will place copies of relevant documents in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has kept the Department in close touch with its planned reorganisation, which should improve management accountability and its focus on the customer. I shall place a summary of the proposals in the Library shortly.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has commissioned any recent study to evaluate the effects of(a) traffic flow, (b) accident risk and (c) pollution of the environment arising from an increased speed limit on motorways of 90 mph.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the speed limit on motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no such plans, but a review of speed limits is currently being undertaken.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of road accidents causing one or more fatalities in which vehicles carrying inflammable liquids were involved for each year since 1985, giving the total number of dead and injured for each year.

  Mr. Chope
  I regret that I am unable to do this.

  The Department collects information only on road accidents involving personal injury. The standard report

  567
  form, STATS19, completed by the police for these accidents does not include information on cargoes carried by the vehicles involved.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the accident rates for equivalent lengths of contraflow for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is not available in the form requested. Detailed studies into the safety of major motorway roadworks were carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on schemes carried out in 1982 and 1987. The studies concluded that rates were about 0·18 personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres or nearly 1·6 times the rate on motorways without roadworks, but even so only about a sixth of the rate on built-up A-class roads. Rates were found to be higher than the average in the contraflow section itself, slightly higher at the approach and lower beyond. A new study of safety at contraflows on all-purpose dual carriageways has begun and will report in December 1992. The TRRL will also be updating its earlier motorway studies.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the Driving Standards Agency regarding the qualifications required for the disabled becoming driving instructors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Driving Standards Agency has circulated a discussion paper on this subject to officials within the Department and at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea. A meeting to discuss the paper will be held shortly.

  Shale Fire, Midlothian
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety implications for rail travellers, of the underground shale fire at Newbridge, Midlothian.

  Mr. Freeman
  The fire on the embankment at Newbridge is being closely monitored by British Rail, which is taking remedial action and has meanwhile imposed a 5 mph speed limit on the affected line. I am assured that there is no risk to passengers.

  Syston Bypass
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce his decision on the inspector's report on the inquiry regarding the A607 Syston northern bypass; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Early next month.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will introduce legislation requiring those persons owning certain breeds of dogs to obtain third-party insurance; and if he will make a statement;
  568
  (2) if he will introduce legislation enabling American pit bull terriers to be humanely destroyed; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will bring forward proposals to add American pit bull terriers and Japanese tosas to the list of dangerous animals specified under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 to make owners liable to prosecution even if a dog is put down after an attack; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will introduce legislation requiring owners of certain breeds of dogs to have their dogs on a short chain lead and muzzled whenever in a public place; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) if he will introduce legislation banning the breeding within the United Kingdom of fighting dogs, including American pit bull terriers; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what legislation he proposes to introduce concerning dangerous dogs; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) if he will introduce a ban into the United Kingdom on the import and export of fighting dogs, including American pit bull terriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban with immediate effect the import of pit bull terrier and tosa dogs.

  Ms. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that my right hon. Friend made in the House on Wednesday 22 May at columns 945–46.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the arrangements for those attacked and injured by dogs to apply to the criminal injuries compensation scheme for compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board can entertain applications from victims of attacks by dogs or other animals where a crime of violence has been committed, for example, where a dog has been deliberately set on the victim.

  Automatic Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has that fully automatic weapons, including the Uzi submachine gun, are illegally on sale in south Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am aware of the allegations made in "The Cook Report" television programme broadcast on 20 May. The investigation of such matters is for local chief officers of police, to whom any relevant information should be passed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain for his departmental library a video recording of the Central Television programme "The Cook Report", broadcast on 20 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has a recording of this programme.

  Mr. Liwa Uddin
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he arranged for the British high commission in Islamabad to issue a visa to Mr. Liwa
  569
  Uddin following the dismissal by the immigration appeals tribunal of the Home Office appeal on 7 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The tribunal's written determination of 7 May was sent by facsimile to the entry clearance officer in Islamabad on 22 May. It is for him to pursue the case, taking account of the adjudicator's findings.

  Radio Authority
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will dismiss Lord Chalfont as head of the Radio Authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Courts
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to increase the staff numbers in Crown courts.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor presently intends to increase staff numbers in the Crown Court during 1991–92 by approximately 62 above those in post as at 1 April 1991. Staffing levels in the courts are fixed in relation to current and anticipated workload.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions will consider whether any charges may be brought in the United Kingdom against General Pinochet in relation to offences of murder and torture in that country which may constitute crimes capable of proscecution in the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  The United Kingdom has no jurisdiction concerning any offence of murder committed by a foreign national in Chile. Since 29 September 1988 the offence of torture has been justiciable in this country wherever it might have taken place, by virtue of section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Act has no retrospective effect.

  Court Procedures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what training is given to court staff to assist them in advising plaintiffs intending to make small claims for personal injury;

  (2) what training is given to court staff to help them advise plaintiffs in small claims procedures.

  The Attorney-General
  A range of training courses, covering the various steps of civil business procedures, are available to staff in the county courts. This enables staff to assist litigants with court procedure.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice is given to court staff about referral of personal injury case plaintiffs to specialist legal assistance.

  The Attorney-General
  Very few personal injury cases are presently commenced without professional help. Training given enables staff to assist litigants with procedural advice.
  570
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will bring forward proposals to extend to England and Wales the provision applicable in Northern Ireland for courts to obtain and pay for expert medical and other reports in small claims personal injury cases.

  The Attorney-General
  There is presently nothing which compels personal injury claimants to use the small claims procedure and therefore no need for such a provision. Should the policy change, this possibility would be considered.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many court staff received training in(a) small claims procedures and (b) personal injury cases in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. As a matter of principle, all county court staff receive training which enables them to assist litigants with procedures in civil litigation.

  Ativan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from those engaged in legal action against Wyeth on account of the harmful effects of the drug Ativan about the availability of legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither I nor my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor have received any representations about the availability of legal aid to pursue legal actions against Wyeth concerning the drug Ativan. The Legal Aid Board is responsible for the administration of legal aid in such cases and it is not aware of any difficulties over the legal aid arrangements.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General how many court actions relating to mortgage repossessions there were in Doncaster county court in each year since 1979 to 1990 and for 1991 to date.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage actions for possession entered and orders made for possession in Doncaster county court in each year since 1986, the first year for which figures are available, and for the first four months of 1991 are shown in the table.

  Number of mortgage possession actions entered

  Number of mortgage possession orders made

  1986

  546

  159

  1987

  559

  242

  1988

  564

  313

  1989

  478

  335

  1990

  594

  415

  11991

  252

  169

  1 January to April.

WALES

  Housing Consultancy Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of housing consultancy work given by him to Aldbourne Associates in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) the current year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The value of the work done lies in the support given to improvements in housing management on PEP estates and elsewhere, for which expenditure totalled £228,514 in the financial year 1989–90, £249,161 in 1990–91, and £16,038 so far in 1991–92, the final year of the main contract. Work has been done on a cost-reimbursable basis.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the continuation of groundwater studies beyond 31 July related to the proposed barrage and the impact o r the raised water table on properties in central Cardiff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have had no such consultations with the chairman of the development corporation. My officials are in touch with officers of the corporation about the progress of the groundwater studies as part of their routine liaison.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide comparable but extended figures for Wales to those put in the Library by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 April 1990, deposit 5906, showing, for each local authority area and giving the assumptions made about equalisation, what level of (i) capital value rates, (ii) council tax and (iii) local income tax would be required in order to raise the same amount of revenue as with(a) the 1991–92 community charge, both before and after community charge reduction grant, and (b) the 1991–92 community charge, both before and after community charge reduction grant, but on the basis that the community charge was fully operational without any transitional or related elements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement to the House of Commons on 23 April, and to the material which was placed in the Library of the House on that day. This gives full information on the illustrative effect on household bills had the council tax been in place in Wales in 1991–92.

  Grey Seals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the last survey of the population of grey seals along the Welsh coastline was undertaken; and if he has any plans to fund another survey.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I understand that the last comprehensive survey of the population of grey seals along the Welsh coastline was undertaken in 1974.

  The Countryside Council for Wales is currently considering an application for grant aid from a consortium
  572
  of agencies, led by the Dyfed Wildlife Trust, to undertake a census of seals in Cardigan bay. They are very interested and sympathetic but await further details of research methodology and technical details before decisions can be made.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to mark World No Tobacco Day on 31 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  While recognising the importance of World No Tobacco Day, particularly in those countries with no national event, my Department concentrates its efforts on the United Kingdom's long-established and successful National No Smoking Day which was held this year on Wednesday 13 March.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the size and location of each mink farm currently operating in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am not aware of any mink farms currently operating in Wales.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have put forward schemes for Welsh Office approval under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988, whereby local authorities can provide council tenants with a cash grant to help them buy a home in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  One authority undertook a scheme during 1990–91 and is currently evaluating the results. A second authority has recently indicated an interest in operating a similar scheme.

  University College, Swansea
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the basis for his decision to subtract any European Community funding towards the innovation centre at University college, Swansea.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No application has yet been received for European regional development fund assistance for phase II of the innovation centre at University college Swansea.

  Manufacturing Output
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of figures showing the value of manufacturing output levels in Wales in each year since 1975 at constant 1975 prices.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Changes in the level of manufacturing output at constant prices are best measured by the index of industrial production and construction for Wales (1985 = 100). Annual averages from 1978 are given in the following table. Welsh figures for years prior to 1978 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  573

  Index of manufacturing output Wales

  1985 = 100

  1978

  101·0

  1979

  103·7

  1980

  91·4

  1981

  92·9

  1982

  91·7

  1983

  95·1

  1984

  100·0

  1985

  100·0

  1986

  104·7

  1987

  116·7

  1988

  128·1

  1989

  131·6

  1990

  133·8

  Information Division
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details for the last three years showing(a) the overall budget of the Welsh Office information division, (b) the amount of money dispersed by the information division to outside advertising agencies and (c) the percentage of moneys dispersed to advertising agencies which has been accounted for by advertising companies based in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  For information on the Department's total publicity budget, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 25 April 1991.

  The overall budget of the Welsh Office information division for the past three years is: for 1988–89 £1,239,003; for 1989–90 £1,375,806; and for 1990–91 £729,647.

  The amount of money dispersed by the information division to outside advertising agencies for 1988–89 is available only at disproportionate costs; for 1989–90 £266,670; and for 1990–91 £265,956·18.

  The percentage of moneys dispersed to advertising agencies which has been accounted for by advertising agencies in Wales for 1988–89 is only available at disproportionate costs: for 1989–90 it is 58·14 per cent. and for 1990–91 it is 71·07 per cent.

  Newtown Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to announce the starting date for the construction of the proposed Newtown bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I shall be appointing consultants shortly to develop a scheme to bypass Newtown which we have recently added to the Department's long-term trunk road programme. It is too soon to indicate when construction might commence.

  Craft Initiative
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many craft business advisers are employed in Wales under the craft initiative; what is their job description; how many were so employed on 1 May 1988, 1989 and 1990, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the period of the craft initiative, which came to an end in March this year, three craft business advisers were employed and were in post on 574
  the dates in question. Two were employed by the Welsh Development Agency and one by the Development Board for Rural Wales. Their job description was to provide a first point of contact for access to the full range of services offered by Government agencies in Wales, the Wales Craft Council, local authorities and enterprise agencies. As experienced craft producers, they were also to offer advice on craft businesses.

  The WDA currently employs three craft advisers. I understand that the role of the DBRW's adviser will also be retained, as part of an expanded marketing department.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how Government money devoted to the craft initiative is spent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The craft initiative came to an end on 31 March this year. An evaluation of the initiative has been placed in the Library of the House. New arrangements for support of the craft industry in Wales have been put in place.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cash increase had been allowed to general practioners in Wales in their indicative dry budget in 1991 and 1992 as compared with their dry expenditure in 1990; and on what basis it is computed.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The indicative amounts which, in accordance with section 18 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, family health services authorities specify for GP practices' prescribing are not cash budgets.

  In setting the indicative amounts for 1991–92, FHSAs have used as the starting point the basic price of drugs prescribed by and dispensed for each practice in 1989–90. This figure has been adjusted by a national—England and Wales—uplift factor to take account of changes such as those in the price of drugs. Each FHSA's medical adviser will then have considered whether the resultant figure for each practice appeared to be justifiable on clinical grounds and will have taken into account any new factors which might bear upon the prescribing of that practice. All GP practices will have been offered the opportunity to discuss their indicative amounts with the responsible FHSA's medical adviser.

  The assignment of an indicative amount will not prevent any GP from prescribing the drugs which their patients need.

  Training
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of trainees in Wales who will take advantage of the new training voucher scheme in each of the last three years of its availability.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1991–92 the North-East Wales training and enterprise council estimates that between 1,200 and 1,500 young people will take advantage of its training credit in its pilot scheme. Credits will be extended progressively throughout Great Britain year by year. Initially TECs and local enterprise companies will be invited to submit proposals for local schemes offering training credits in their localities to come into operation in April 1993. Schemes will be selected to cover another 10
  575
  per cent. of the national total of 16 to 17-year-olds leaving full-time education. We intend that within five years, every 16 to 17-year-old leaving full-time education will have the offer of a training credit.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional finance will be available for the new training voucher scheme in Wales in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 respectively; and if he will also publish for each year the total finance available for these credit vouchers, taking into account all existing and new schemes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The level of additional resources to be made available to the north-east Wales training credit pilot in 1992–93 has not yet been finalised. For subsequent years the total resources available for training credits in Wales will depend on the speed with which coverage is extended in the Principality.

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had concerning the future of the epilepsy unit at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from hon. Members and from members of the public, including a petition.

  Health Authority Referrals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen or women of the nine health authorities in Wales regarding the amounts to be set aside for extra-contractual referrals and the circumstances for its use.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for individual health authorities to determine within the record resources made available to them for 1991–92.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in tabular form for 1991–92(a) the projected income from employees' national insurance contributions, (b) the estimated current expenditure (i) of the national health service, (ii) on state retirement pension, (iii) on unemployment benefit and (iv) on all other social security payments and (c) the percentage (a) represents of (b).

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested on estimated income and expenditure in 1991–92 is in the table.

  £ billion

  (a) Employees national insurance contributions1

  13·7

  (b) Expenditure of the NHS

  31·8

  Expenditure on retirement pension2

  25·5

  Expenditure on unemployment benefit

  1·0

  Expenditure on all other social security payments3

  36·4

  (c) Percentage (a) represents of (b)

  14·5 per cent.

  1 Includes £1·9 billion contribution to the NHS.

  1 Excluding non-contributory retirement pension.

  576
  3 All other social security benefit spending including all local authority spending on housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  War Widow's Pensions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the level of war widow's pension or equivalent benefit in all EC countries which sustained casualties in the second world war.

  Mr. Jack
  Currently war widow's pensions administered by the Department range from a standard £67·60 a week to a possible £103·42 including age and rank additions. These pensions are payable to all widows whose husbands' death is attributable to service at any time. In addition second world war widows and all other pre-1973 war widows receive special payments of £44·36 a week from the Ministry of Defence. These sums are in addition to anything which may be payable under Ministry of Defence occupational schemes.

  The European Commission does not collect information on war widows' pensions payable in the member states. The table gives such information as we have been able to obtain on other countries' schemes. I am advised that rates vary widely depending on such factors as military rank or previous civilian occupation.

  Weekly rate

  Denmark

  Between £89·69 and £129·15.

  France

  Between £39·51 and £107·11.

  Italy

  £30·34 plus supplement of £5·96 if annual income less than £3,543.

  If husband died after the war, £14·21—£14·69.

  Belgium

  £97·94, if husband killed in service.

  Germany

  £38·10 (basic rate) plus supplements according to factors such as extent of injuries—up to a total weekly maximum pension of about £167·71.

  Notes:

  1. The rates have been changed into sterling using purchasing power parities.

  2. In France an additional allowance may be payable if the widow has no other pension.

  Payment Delays
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance manual, "Departmental Compensation Scheme for Delay in Payment of Benefit and Refund of Contributions".

  Miss Widdecombe
  I described the basic principles underlying the payment of compensation for delay in my reply of 13 May at column 30. It would not be appropriate to make public internal guidance notes.

  Motability
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether there is any financial disadvantage for a company selling a vehicle purchased through the motability scheme;

  (2) if there is any evidence of companies operating a differential charge for those purchasing vehicles with and without assistance from the motability scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  Motability is an independent charity. The terms and conditions under which companies provide vehicles under the scheme are a matter for Motability.
  577
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage, of people on mobility allowance have purchased a vehicle through the motability scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the motability scheme is a matter for Motability itself. However, as at 9 May 1991, mobility allowance was being paid direct to Motability Finance Ltd. on behalf of 79,997 people who have lease agreements with Motability and 17,042 with hire purchase agreements. The combined total represents 14·9 per cent. of all mobility allowance beneficiaries.

  Mr. Neil Farmer
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the compensation recovery unit to resolve its position in respect of Mr. Neil Farmer of 7 Welton gardens, Bulwell, Nottingham, and to write to him.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the compensation recovery scheme 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.

  Farmer's Lung
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now take steps to provide a scheme of no-fault compensation for those who have suffered farmer's lung after working in agriculture.

  Mr. Scott
  Employed workers in agriculture who suffer disablement as a result of farmer's lung are eligible for benefits under the industrial injuries scheme.

  Pensioner Couples
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those benefits and their average value which are available to pensioner couples on basic pensions who are in receipt of income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 22 April 1991, c. 327]: I regret that some of the information given was incorrect. In the list of benefits, the entry "Industrial injury benefit" should read "Industrial injuries benefits". Also, the third foot-note should explain that invalidity benefit and sickness benefit can continue for up to five years after pensionable age in place of retirement pension. For invalidity benefit this will be paid at an equivalent rate, for sickness benefit there is a 5 per cent. abatement. One partner may elect to retain their invalidity or sickness benefit while the other may choose to receive retirement pension. However, a married woman, relying solely on her husband's contributions, cannot take her retirement pension until he has claimed his.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Hong Kong on the recent recommendations of the Electoral Reform Society on electoral reform in Hong Kong.
  578
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This report deals with matters which are the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not discussed it with them.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 599, regarding his proposed non-involvement relating to the new airport for Hong Kong, if he will give details of any action taken during and subsequent to his visit to the far east.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I said in my answer of 31 January at column 599, the provision of a rail link to Hong Kong's new airport is a matter for the Hong Kong Government.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Not at present. We shall await the outcome of the next meeting of Antarctic treaty parties in Madrid next month before a decision is taken on what action is required.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to sign the draft protocol of the Antarctic treaty parties agreed at the Madrid summit.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The final text of the protocol has not yet been agreed by the Antarctic treaty parties. It would, therefore, be premature to speculate on a date for its signature.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the achievements and failures in international arms control involving his Department in the past year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the course of the last 12 months, the CFE treaty has been signed, although problems remain over Soviet implementation of certain of its provisions. The treaty eliminating United States and Soviet intermediate nuclear forces has been implemented successfully. There is also the prospect of a START treaty reducing United States and Soviet strategic arsenals, and of reductions in short-range nuclear forces in Europe. We are working to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime; for the continued expansion of the missile technology control regime; and to make a success of United Nations Security Council resolution No. 687's requirements in relation to Iraq's nuclear, biological chemical and missile capabilities. We have welcomed President Bush's recent proposal for completion of a chemical weapons convention within 12 months, and are preparing for the third review conference of the biological weapons convention which will offer an opportunity to strengthen that regime.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigative groups have been established, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 687 on verification and
  579
  destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; what involvement there is of United Kingdom experts in these groups; what offers of personnel and resource assistance were made by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations in support of resolution 687; and what estimation of cost to the Exchequer has been made of United Kingdom participation in furtherance of resolution 687.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Pursuant to section C of Security Council resolution 687, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has established a special commission, and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and co-operation of the special commission, has established an action team. They are making arrangements for inspections required by the resolution. The United Kingdom has given technical help and equipment to the International Atomic Energy Agency for its initial inspection in Iraq, which is already in progress. A senior United Kingdom expert in chemical and biological defence matters is the British member of the special commission and is playing a prominent part in its work. The United Kingdom has offered to make available other experts and analytical services. We are now considering what further assistance we can provide. The cost to the United Kingdom of these aspects of Security Council resolution 687 cannot yet be estimated because the scale of the required activities is still being assessed and no decision has yet been made on how they will be funded.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to extend to two hours the time the Minister of State with responsibility for arms control spends with non-governmental organisations at the next collective meeting held to discuss Government policy on arms control and disarmament matters.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I attend the meeting for as long as my other commitments permit, and allow ample time for discussion of the major issues. Additional questions are thereafter fielded by a team of officials.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting with non-governmental organisations with the Minister of State with responsibility for arms control on 14 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At my meeting with non-Governmental organisations on 14 May a wide range of arms control and disarmament topics were discussed. The proceedings were held under Chatham house rules and were thus off the record.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise the issues of nuclear non-proliferation controls and a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Preparations for the NATO summit are at an early stage; but we regularly discuss these matters with our allies and partners.

  EFTA
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will endeavour to ensure that in the negotiations between European Free 580
  Trade Association countries and the EC, any reduction in tariff rates is matched by the restoration of access for EC fishermen to EFTA country waters.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The EC/EFTA negotiations on a European economic area are aimed at extending the Community single market to the EFTA countries. On fisheries, the Community is pressing for greater access to EFTA fishing grounds in exchange for some liberalisation of trade between the two sides. We are working to ensure that the final outcome satisfies the interests of the United Kingdom fisheries industry.

  South Atlantic Fisheries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has given to the Uruguay proposals for south Atlantic fisheries.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The proposed Uruguayan scientific conference in Montevideo in June to discuss South Atlantic fisheries has now been cancelled. As the Falklands fishery is one of the main fisheries in the region, we had arranged United Kingdom representation at the conference, and will always give due attention to any Uruguayan proposals on South Atlantic fisheries.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what progress has been made in UNESCO towards reforms and as to what issues remain unresolved in the way of the return of the United Kingdom to UNESCO.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We recognise that progress towards reform has been made in UNESCO since we left in 1985. But before we are able to consider re-joining, we need to see real improvements to achieve programme concentration; progress towards greater decentralisation; implementation of management and administration reforms; and improvements in setting UNESCO's budget.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will direct Her Majesty's ambassador to Kuwait to lodge a formal protest with the Kuwaiti Government about the conduct of trials of alleged Iraqi collaborators.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Kuwait about the quality of justice dispensed to those charged with collaboration with the Iraqis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have stressed to the Kuwaiti authorities on a number of occasions in the last few months our hope that trials of detainees for war crimes or collaboration would follow due processes of law and respect human rights. Her Majesty's ambassador has recently re-emphasised the Government's concern that proper arrangements for the presentation of evidence and the defence of those accused at such trials should be carefully observed. We understand that the courts in Kuwait have adjourned a number of cases to enable defence lawyers to study prosecution evidence and prepare their cases more thoroughly. We welcome this.

  President Mubarak
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with President Mubarak prior to the announcement on 8 May of the withdrawal of Egyptian troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' discussions with President Mubarak in Cairo on 2 May covered bilateral and regional issues, including regional security.

  We have consistently made clear that it is for the states of the region to take the lead in devising arrangements for their security.

  Arab Security Force
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the establishment of an Arab security force in the Gulf.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Gulf Co-operation Council, Egypt and Syria are developing regional security proposals based on the Damascus declaration. GCC countries have agreed in principle to establish a common deterrent force. We have said that we will help to underpin regionally agreed arrangements, if asked, but do not envisage troops in the region permanently.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards challenge inspections to support a chemical weapons control regime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We consider that a system of intrusive challenge inspection will be necessary to provide an effective verification regime for a future chemical weapons convention.

  Gas Fires
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the inside ambient temperature at his Department below which the gas fires are permitted to be used; and what steps have been taken at his Department to improve energy efficiency.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office aims to provide an inside ambient temperature of 16C (61F) in accordance with the Office, Shops and Railways Premises Act of 1963. With the objective of reducing energy consumption by 15 per cent. over a five-year period, heating management systems and energy efficient lighting are being installed in a rolling programme and as part of the refurbishment of the main building. A staff awareness campaign has been launched and is to be intensified.

  Chile
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to the Government of Chile concerning the visit on 18 May of General Pinochet; what information he has about the nature and purpose of the visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We made known to the Chilean Government our reservations about this visit which, they told us, would be a private one. On 18 May, at the invitation of Royal Ordnance, General Pinochet visited their premises at Hatfield and Aylesbury. Neither Ministers nor officials had contact with General Pinochet.

  Security Council Resolution 687
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the information gathered by the United Nations investigation commission in Iraq, established in pursuance of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, will be published by either the United Nations or member Governments involved in the operations to liberate Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not yet aware of any arrangements to publish information arising from inspections by the special commission or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the GDP per head in(a) Scotland and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. John Maples
  GDP per head in Scotland and in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1989 is provisionally estimated at £7,021 and £6,649 respectively.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an analysis, comparable with table 5.7 of Cm 1520, showing(a) that local authority expenditure in Wales which falls outside expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and (b) that local authority expenditure in Northern Ireland which falls outside expenditure within the responsibilty of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested for local authority expenditure in Wales, consistent with that given in the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement (Cm 1520), is given in the table below. All local authority expenditure in Northern Ireland falls within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  583

  Local authority expenditure in Wales which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales by economic category

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Pay

  175

  189

  209

  222

  251

  329

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  28

  29

  34

  42

  43

  Current grants to persons

  212

  229

  232

  254

  273

  301

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  10

  10

  13

  12

  17

  7

  Total

  426

  458

  488

  531

  585

  638

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an analysis, comparable with table 5.8 of Cm 1520, showing that local authority expenditure in(a) Scotland which falls outside expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, (b) Wales which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and (c) Northern Ireland which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Local authority current expenditure in Scotland which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by function

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  8

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  9

  9

  9

  15

  13

  15

  Social security

  299

  349

  404

  419

  476

  553

  Total

  311

  362

  417

  437

  492

  576

  Local authority current expenditure in Wales which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales by function

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  7

  7

  8

  9

  9

  10

  Law, order and protective services

  189

  204

  225

  246

  275

  304

  Education

  45

  46

  49

  53

  60

  75

  Social security

  174

  190

  192

  209

  222

  239

  Total

  416

  448

  475

  518

  568

  631

  Incomes
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average income in(a) Scotland and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Maples
  Household income per head in Scotland and Yorkshire and Humberside in 1989 is provisionally estimated at £6,890 and £6,583 respectively. Region and county income statistics are published today 23 May in the April issue of Economic Trends.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables showing, for the years since 1961, identifiable general Government expenditure by function in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom total identifiable general Government expenditure, (c) as an amount per capita and (d) as an amount per capita expressed as an. index, United Kingdom identifiable general Government expenditure=G100.
  584
  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested for local authority current expenditure in Scotland and Wales, consistent with that given in the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement (Cm 1520), is given in the tables. All local authority expenditure within Northern Ireland falls within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mellor
  Data on identifiable general Government expenditure by function and territory in the years 1985–86 to 1989–90 are given in appendix E of the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement (Cm. 1520). Corresponding data for earlier years are not readily available on a directly comparable basis with these figures.

  Manufacturing Output
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing the value of total manufacturing output in the United Kingdom in each year since 1975 at constant 1975 prices.

  Mr. Maples
  Changes in the level of output of manufacturing industry at constant prices are best measured by the index of manufacturing production based on 1985 prices. Annual figures from 1975 are given in the following table.

  Index of Manufacturing production (1985 = 100)

  Year

  Index

  1975

  101·6

  1976

  103·5

  1977

  105·5

  585

  Year

  Index

  1978

  106·1

  1979

  106·0

  1980

  96·8

  1981

  91·0

  1982

  91·2

  1983

  93·8

  1984

  97·4

  1985

  100·0

  1986

  101·3

  1987

  106·6

  1988

  114·2

  1989

  119·0

  1990

  118·3

  Inflation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list showing the latest available figures for the rate of inflation in each OECD member country.

  Mr. Maples
  The following table gives the information:

  Consumer price indices—annual percentage changes April 1991 unless stated

  Per cent

  Australia (Q1, 1991)

  4·9

  Austria (March)

  3·5

  Belgium

  2·9

  Canada

  6·3

  Denmark

  2·6

  Finland (March)

  4·8

  France

  3·2

  Germany (West)

  2·8

  Greece

  21·5

  Iceland (March)

  5·6

  Ireland (Q1, 1991)

  2·5

  Italy

  6·9

  Japan (March)

  4·0

  Luxembourg

  2·9

  Netherlands

  2·6

  New Zealand (Q1, 1991)

  4·5

  Norway (March)

  3·6

  Portugal

  11·8

  Spain

  5·9

  Sweden (March)

  10·7

  Switzerland (March)

  5·8

  Turkey (March)

  62·4

  United Kingdom

  6·4

  United States

  4·9

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the net effect on taxation revenue by way of(a) corporation tax and (b) capital gains tax of the Government's proposed decommissioning scheme for fishing trawlers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply. There are no plans to introduce a Government-funded decommissioning scheme, but I have said that, if industry representatives could produce an industry funded scheme which offered long-term conservation benefits, the Government would consider it.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table summarising the results for 1989–90 of the annual exercise conducted according to the Northern Ireland (Share of United 586
  Kingdom Taxes) Regulations 1975, as amended, using, where relevant, the categories of tables 3.14 and 3.15 of Financial Statistics, identifying for each which of methods 3(1) and 3(2) have been used and separately identifying gross revenues and revenues net of collection costs;

  (2) if he will place in the Library (a) a technical explanation of the methodology adopted and of the difficulties encountered in its application, (b) a note indicating the number of years for which the exercise required by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and its predecessors has been undertaken in broadly comparable form and (c) a reconciliation, if necessary, between the figures provided above Northern Ireland's attributed share of United Kingdom taxes as published in Cm 1123.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: Payments into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in 1989–90 in respect of Northern Ireland's attributed share of United Kingdom taxes comprised £2,578 million for taxes collected in 1989–90 and £105 million for adjustments to payments in previous years—as published in Cm 1123. Adjustments to the 1989–90 payment are not yet available. I have placed details of the breakdown and other information requested in the Library.

HEALTH

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the sums which his Department will transmit to regional health authorities in the current financial year, if he will publish a table showing the increases and decreases in real terms in the allocation of such hospital and health service funding in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total amount available for net revenue spending on hospital, community health, family health and related services in 1991–92 is £17·96 billion. Of this, the main population based allocation for the 14 regional health authorities (RHAs) is £14·85 billion. RHAs will also receive special allocations such as the service increment for teaching, and increased support for centrally financed initiatives such as the AIDS programe, project 2000 and 100 consultants.

  The table shows the main population based allocations for the 14 RHAs over the past 10 years. These are given at current cash levels and at 1991–92 cash levels using the GDP deflator, and demonstrate a real term increase over the period of 23 per cent.

  Year

  Allocation cash

  Allocation 1990–91 cash levels

  1982–83

  7,281,698

  12,113,906

  1983–84

  8,166,250

  12,985,562

  1984–85

  8,454,184

  12,793,463

  1985–86

  9,049,056

  12,985,938

  1986–87

  9,615,451

  13,342,496

  1987–88

  10,215,098

  13,441,945

  1988–89

  11,276,275

  13,828,885

  1989–90

  12,330,178

  14,215,832

  1990–91

  13,377,893

  14,314,346

  1991–92

  14,853,676

  14,853,676

  Note: To allow for consistency of comparison the allocations shown above exclude additional allocations made in-year such as the cost of review body pay awards.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cottage hospitals have been closed in England in the last five years; and what provisions are made for the closure of these units and the disposal of hospital buildings and property.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested. The available information on acute, mainly acute and partly acute hospitals with fewer than 50 beds is given in the table.

  National Health Service acute, mainly acute and partly acute hospitals with less than 50 beds, England

  Year

  Number

  1985

  255

  1986

  246

  1987–88

  1n/a

  1988–89

  232

  1989–90

  221

  1 In 1987–88 the method of collecting statistics changed. The detailed analysis to provide these figures was not possible because of problems with data quality of some site-level returns.

  Cottage hospitals are subject to the same rules for consultation on closure as other hospitals. A copy of a guidance booklet, "Consultation and Involving the Consumer", giving advice on this was issued last year, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  The disposal of hospital buildings and property is a matter for health authorities.

  Ativan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in checking the drug Ativan for harmful side effects and addictiveness.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When the licensing of medicinal products was introduced in the United Kingdom the drug Ativan was already on the market and was therefore given a licence of right. The quality, safety and efficacy was subsequently examined in order that a reviewed product licence might be granted.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) carefully monitors reports of adverse reactions to all licensed medicinal products and advises the Licensing Authority when action is required in relation to specific safety issues. The problem of addiction with benzodiazepines, the group of drugs with similar properties to Ativan, has been recognised for a number of years. This problem has been drawn to the attention of the medical profession on a number of occasions and the CSM has recommended restrictions in the use of these substances. The CSM continues to monitor this situation.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department first received evidence of the harmful side effects, including addictiveness, from the drug Ativan; and what action was taken to end its availability on prescription.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) operates a yellow card scheme for physicians to report suspected adverse reactions to drugs. Under the scheme, the CSM received the first report of a suspected reaction to Ativan in November 1973. The first 588
  report for drug dependence was received in May 1977. It is important to recognise that the report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Ativan remains available on prescription in the NHS under its non-proprietary name.

  HIV (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many citizens of the Irish Republic are receiving treatment in respect of HIV or AIDS within the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his statement of 14 May,Official Report, column 174, if he will arrange to place in the Library full information gathered as a result of the monitoring exercise of health trusts to which he referred.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. As I made clear at the time, this preliminary information gathered as part of the routine monitoring of NHS trusts by the NHS management executive may well change from week to week. It is possible that the information about job prospects at Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust given to the Select Committee by its chief executive on 22 May means that it has already been overtaken, and it is more likely that there will be about as many jobs created as lost in the 57 first wave trusts.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department and the NHS management executive have to provide managerial and management development assistance to the Guy's and North Lewisham hospital trust.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Guy's and Lewisham hospitals national health service trust will continue to be eligible to apply for funding from central initiatives such as resource management. We have no plans to provide any other managerial or management development assistance to the NHS trust. Each NHS trust is responsible for its own management development.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual salary for 1990–91 for the district general manager of each of the predecessor district health authorities of NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of payments awarded to individual national health service employees are a confidential matter between employer and employee. District general managers are paid on performance-linked contracts. The rates payable from 1 September 1990 were within the ranges of:

  DGM 1 £43,940 to £63,470

  DGM 2 £41,500 to £59,950

  DGM 3 £37,980 to £55,060

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what upper limit he will place on the proportion of hospitals eligible to achieve trust status, provided each hospital complies with his current criteria for it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no compulsion to apply for trust status: it is a decision to be taken by each
  589
  unit independently. We have no intention of limiting the numbers of units which can become trusts other than by rejecting applications where the selection criteria are not fulfilled.

  Mr. Hinchiliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the guidance which has been given to the chairmen and chief executives of NHS trusts with regard to their making political statements or comments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No such guidance has been issued.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek powers to prevent health service trusts from entering commercial activity other than those related to matters of direct relevance to health; and if any trusts have commenced engagement in such activity.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Powers, which are already available to health authorities, were extended to trusts to enable them to enter into commercial activities, for the purpose of generating additional income, provided that these activities do not adversely affect or reduce services to national health service patients; that profits are reinvested back into the health service and that the scheme does not conflict with national policy or cause ethical or legal problems.

  It is for the trusts themselves to determine how to use these powers to the benefit of patients.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salaries or other emoluments are paid to the doctors of those NHS trusts which have been established within south Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The salaries of doctors of national health ervice trusts and those of other staff are a matter for the trust board. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the NHS trusts concerned for details.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish details of the originating debt, including its division between public dividend capital and interest bearing debt, of each of the national health service trusts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: The originating capital debt for national health service trusts will be equal to the value of the net assets transferred to the trusts on 1 April 1991, which will be determined when the accounts of the relevant health authorities have been prepared and audited. At that stage an order will he made by statutory instrument under section 9 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 setting out the composition and terms of the originating capital debt.

  Census
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions were given to census enumerators in Wales with regard to making freely available to each household a set of census forms in the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Census enumerators were instructed to offer all households in Wales the choice of a Welsh or English form as part of the form delivery procedure.590
  Regrettably, reports were received that some enumerators had not done so. Special instructions were therefore issued to ensure that when the enumerator called back to collect completed forms, anyone who had not been offered a Welsh form could obtain one from the enumerator who would call back later to collect it when completed. All English language household forms used in Wales contained a prominent note enabling people who wanted a Welsh language form to get one by telephoning the census inquiry number.

  I hope that these measures have ensured that everyone in Wales who wanted to use a Welsh form was able to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the forms used at the recent census were printed in the Welsh language.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All public census forms for issue in Wales were available in both Welsh and English; 200,000 household forms, 90,000 individual forms, and 10,000 listing forms for use in communal establishments were printed in Welsh. Figures are not yet available on how many were used.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received arising from the administration of the recent census, arising from(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland, respectively; and if he will list the main grounds of complaint in each country.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We received 73 letters between 1 April and 21 May from right hon. and hon. Members in England and Wales conveying comments from constituents on aspects of the census. The Registrar General is replying to 69 other letters from right hon. and hon. Members who have written to him or whose letters have been forwarded to him from Ministers in other Departments. No analysis of the different aspects of the census mentioned in the correspondence is available yet.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland, is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total level of expenditure on the resource management initiative.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At 31 March 1991, the Department had made available £97·6 million of central funds to support the resource management initiative and the subsequent resource management programme. Regional and district health authorities and individual hospitals have provided some additional funding for individual projects.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the joint evaluation of the resource management initiative by the NHS management executive and the joint consultants committee.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Discussions between the NHS management executive and the joint consultants committee in 1989 and 1990 concluded that a formal full-scale joint evaluation of the resource management initiative was
  591
  impracticable. The NHS management executive has taken account of evidence from the evaluation of resource management commissioned from Brunel university and other sources in reaching decisions to extend the resource management programme. The joint consultants committee issued its own guidance on hospital management arrangements in June 1990.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work has been undertaken by his Department and by consultants retained by his Department on the effectiveness of the resource management initiative; and what have been the conclusions of this work.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Department commissioned Brunel university to undertake an evaluation of resource management as demonstrated at the six acute pilot sites included in the initial resource management initiative. The evaluation began in 1988 and was completed at the end of 1990. The final report, "The Brunel University evaluation of Resource Management", a copy of which will be placed in the Library, concluded that progress in implementing

  HCHS Capital since 1974–75

  Public expenditure

  Capital receipts (mainly land sales)

  Total Expenditure

  Total at 1990–91 prices adjusted:

  by the GDP deflator

  for the change in input unit costs

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  1974–75

  —

  243

  —

  —

  —

  243

  —

  1,101

  —

  1,157

  1975–76

  —

  327

  —

  —

  —

  327

  —

  1,181

  —

  1,192

  1976–77

  —

  356

  —

  —

  —

  356

  —

  1,132

  —

  1,159

  1977–78

  —

  315

  —

  —

  —

  315

  —

  881

  —

  897

  1978–79

  —

  358

  —

  8

  —

  366

  —

  923

  —

  933

  1979–80

  —

  395

  —

  10

  —

  405

  —

  876

  —

  855

  1980–81

  —

  540

  —

  16

  —

  556

  —

  1,016

  —

  933

  1981–82

  —

  651

  —

  20

  —

  671

  —

  1,118

  —

  1,091

  1982–83

  —

  682

  —

  19

  —

  701

  —

  1,091

  —

  1,122

  1983–84

  —

  692

  —

  33

  —

  725

  —

  1,078

  —

  1,137

  1984–85

  —

  767

  —

  50

  —

  817

  —

  1,156

  —

  1,230

  1985–86

  899

  803

  85

  85

  985

  888

  1,322

  1,192

  1,400

  1,262

  1986–87

  915

  —

  149

  —

  1,064

  —

  1,380

  —

  1,441

  —

  1987–88

  914

  —

  201

  —

  1,115

  —

  1,373

  —

  1,436

  —

  1988–89

  922

  —

  279

  —

  1,201

  —

  1,377

  —

  1,462

  —

  1989–90

  1,206

  —

  232

  —

  1,438

  —

  1,549

  —

  1,603

  —

  1990–91

  1,458

  —

  220

  —

  1,678

  —

  1,678

  —

  1,678

  —

  Because of transfers between programmes it is not possible to produce a consistent run of figures over the whole period. Figures in Presentation A have been adjusted to reflect the transfer to HCHS of FHS Administration, Disablement Services Authority and FHS cash limited spending. The figures in Presentation B do not reflect these transfers and are therefore not comparable with those for later years.

  NHS (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is kept by the NHS on the length of time NHS staff at(a) doctor level and (b) other levels wait for various types of operation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not collected on waiting time by occupational group.

  Sign Language Interpreters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 423, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, if he will make it his policy to collect information centrally in respect of health authorities that provide British sign language interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is up to providers of health services to make arrangements locally to assist communication with 592
  resource management at the pilot sites has been slower than originally anticipated, but that substantial progress has been made and continues to be made at each of the sites. The report also suggested that the pilot sites have provided valuable lessons for the future development of resource management. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of HCHS net capital expenditure in(a) cash, (b) constant prices adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator and (c) constant prices adjusted by the changes in input unit costs in the years (1) 1974–75 to 1978–79 and (2) 1979–80 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is given in the table. In order to give a complete picture of capital investment in the national health service, spending financed through proceeds of land and property is also shown.

  patients with hearing impairment. We see no useful purpose in collecting information centrally on these arrangements.

  Dentists (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists to date in the Doncaster area have withdrawn from the national health service since the introduction of the new dental contracts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Between 1 October 1990, the date the new dental contract was introduced, and 30 April 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, four dentists withdrew from Doncaster family health services authority's dental list, out of a total of 85. Two have joined dental lists in other areas. During the same period the names of 11 dentists have been added to Doncaster's dental list.

  Intestinal Cancer
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund the introduction of a national screening system for the early detection of intestinal cancer via occult foetal blood tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It would be premature to consider this before we know the outcome of a study, which the Department and the Medical Research Council are currently funding, to evaluate screening for colorectal cancer.

  Discharged Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the last 12 months for each(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority in England and Wales, the number of national health service patients who have been discharged from national health service hospitals, and who within three months required subsequent hospitalisation for (i) the same complaint or (ii) a different but related complaint.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  World No Tobacco Day
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to mark World No Tobacco Day on 31 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The main United Kingdom event in this field, on which efforts are concentrated, is our own long established and successful No Smoking Day. We recognise, however, the importance of World No Tobacco Day, particularly in those countries which do not organise their own national event and we try to give it suitable recognition.

  This year the Health Education Authority (HEA) will be supplying each health education unit and environmental health unit in England with question and answer booklets on passive smoking together with posters, stickers and ideas for action.

  The HEA is also co-operating with Taxi magazine in a promotion designed to encourage smoke-free cabs.

  Dental Technicians
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions were taken by the General Dental Council against dental technicians during the year 1990 for illegal practice of dentistry in the provision of dentures; and what was their outcome.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand from the General Dental Council that one dental technician was prosecuted during 1990 for practising dentistry illegally. The defendant pleaded guilty to three separate charges and was fined £750 on each count and ordered to pay costs of £200.

  Conisbrough Hospital, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the notification by the chairman of Doncaster health authority of the intended closure of Conisbrough hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that Doncaster health authority is due to consult locally on the proposed closure 594
  of Conisbrough hospital at the end of May. If after full and public consultation the community health council contests the proposed closure, it will be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a decision.

  Budgeting and Charging (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made with the chairman of Doncaster health authority concerning a smoothing mechanism operating after 1 April in respect of the new budgeting system and the new charging system for cross-border flows of patients to hospitals and clinics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities as commissioners of health services consulted general practitioners in their areas before making contracts with hospital and other providers to reflect their views and existing referral patterns. They are also holding cash reserves for patients referred by general practitioners outside the contractual framework.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what progress has been achieved in reducing the hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The ministerial group on junior doctors' hours, which I chair, is making good progress in implementing the heads of agreement on junior doctors' hours signed in December last year, a copy of which is available in the Library. Task forces have been set up in every region and have already received guidance on the role they are to play in reducing the hours and improving the working conditions of doctors in training. Funding for an additional 200 consultant and 50 staff grade posts has been allocated to the regions, along with notice of 100 additional senior house officer posts to assist in the initiative. In conjunction with the profession, we hope to launch the full package of guidance outlined in the heads of agreement in the near future.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the latest date he has available, for each health authority in England and Wales(a) the number of nurses employed as (i) nursing assistants, (ii) enrolled nurses, (iii) staff nurses and (iv) charge nurses and (b) the numbers in absolute and percentage terms at which nurses are employed in each category; and what were the comparable figures five and 10 years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Buerger's Disease
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Buerger's disease have been recorded in each of the last five years for which data are available; and in how many cases this has been given as the cause of death.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The only information held centrally which can be provided without incurring disproportionate cost is given in the table. This relates to the number of patients
  595
  treated in NHS hospitals in England where Thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger's disease) has been recorded as the primary diagnosis.

  Estimated numbers of discharges and deaths (1984–85) and ordinary and day case admissions (1987–88/ 1989–90) where main diagnosis was 1CD 443.1: thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger's disease) 443.1 Buerger's disease

  Year

  Number of inpatients

  1984

  93

  1985

  103

  1987–88

  143

  1988–89

  123

  1989–90

  114

  Source: HIPE 1984–85 and HES 1987–88/1989–90. Data compiled by SMI2A.

  These numbers are provisional estimates based on incomplete data and may he subject to revision.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the link between smoking and Buerger's disease; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the publicity given to the dangers of Buerger's disease from smoking.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are not aware of any current research in this area. Buerger's disease is a rare form of peripheral vascular disease, the cause of which remains unknown, although a close association with the habitual use of tobacco, particularly cigarette smoking, is indisputable. The Health Education Authority is aware of the association between smoking and Buerger's disease and seeks to publicise this as part of its anti-smoking programmes, although other smoking-related diseases result in far higher levels of mortality and morbidity.

  St. Charles Youth Treatment Centre
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's report on the St. Charles youth treatment centre in Brentwood, Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Earlier this year, a young person made a number of serious complaints about aspects of treatment while at St. Charles youth treatment centre. These have been investigated on behalf of the Department by a team of independent experts. They have submitted their report. This contains confidential personal and medical information and cannot be made public. The Department is urgently considering the team's findings, and will make its conclusions public after the young person involved has been informed of the outcome. Any action required in the light of the team's findings will be taken with the utmost vigour.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether cassette needles used by diabetics will be made available free of charge on the same basis as existing needles and syringes supplied for their needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National health service supply arrangements for insulin pens and needles need to be considered together. Subject to our normal evaluation of individual brands, we would consider making pens and 596
  needles prescribable, as an alternative to syringes, provided that this can be done without additional cost. Discussions with suppliers are currently in progress.

  Incontinence Aids
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) which regional health authorities have a policy of providing incontinence aids free to residents of private residential or nursing homes who have been referred by doctors or nurses and (b) which district health authorities do not provide incontinence aids free in the same circumstances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Leeds General Infirmary
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review the proposals made by the Leeds general infirmary hospital trust to increase the number of private beds at the Leeds general infirmary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of private beds at the Leeds general infirmary and associated hospitals national health service trust is a matter for the management board. I understand from the management of the trust that there are no plans to increase the number of private beds.

  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he received the report of the independent experts examining the possibility of a link between the release of toxic gases from certain cot mattresses and sudden infant death syndrome; if he will give a date for its publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report was given to the chief medical officer on 5 February, publication is imminent and the Department will then respond to the recommendations of the expert group.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take to ensure that non-fund-holding general practices in the city of Sheffield are able to place patients in hospitals outside the authority area, where required for the most appropriate patient care and speediest treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  General practitioners remain free to refer patients to hospitals outside their district boundaries. Indeed, the reforms offer improved arrangements to giving practical effect to this freedom.

  Guidance, "Contracts for Health Services: Operational Principles", issued to the national health service on 29 September 1989, a copy of which is available in the Library, made it clear that district health authorities' objective should be to secure contracts which reflect the referral patterns local general practitioners prefer. There has been an unprecedented level of consultation between district health authorities and local general practitioners to achieve this. District health authorities are also holding reserves of funds for referrals where no contract has been secured in advance.
  597
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish general practitioner fund-holding contracts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidance to the National Health Service (EL(90)M B24, a copy of which is available in the Library) has made it clear that contracts for health services with both public and private providers should be made publicly available once they are signed.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given on the relationship between general practitioner fund-holding practices and community health councils regarding their health purchasing policies of such general practitioners.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The community health council has a statutory relationship with the district health authority which retains overall planning responsibility for the provision of health services to all residents, including those on the lists of fund-holding general practitioners.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the Far Lane general practitioner fund-holding practice in Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received one such representation from the Sheffield local medical committee, whom I met on Wednesday 22 May.

  The Far Lane fund-holding practice in Sheffield has legitimately set up a company which is employing consultants to provide a range of services for patients. Regional health authorities are required to agree to such arrangements only where they constitute good value for money by comparison with the alternatives and meet the requisite quality standards for the provision of care. The Trent regional health authority has confirmed that it is content with the arrangements at this practice.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued concerning the use of general practitioner fund holders' premises for private practice; and if he will make a statement.
  598
  Mr. Dorrell
  No guidance has been issued specifically to fund holders. GPs, as independent contractors, are free to use as they like the premises which they own. The conditions for payments to GPs in respect of their surgery premises, are set out in the statement of fees and allowances.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the incidence for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease over the last 10 years in each standard cohort age range of onset of clinical symptoms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not available centrally. Accurate information on current and previous cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease should be forthcoming from the study being conducted by Dr. R. G. Will supported by the Department of Health. In the 1970s, the last time this analysis was undertaken, the peak age-specific incidence was for the 65 to 69 year age group and was 1·7 cases per million per year. Copies of Dr. Will's publication on this analysis will be placed in the Library.

  Steroid Drugs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to the written answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 87, to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, what progress has been made on deciding the timetable, agency and funding of the Government's proposed survey into the prevalence of the misuse of steroid drugs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have identified a research facility with the relevant expertise to carry out this survey and, subject to final contract negotiations, plan to conduct the survey in the autumn. We estimate that the survey will take approximately one year to complete.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Millisle Tourist Project
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any information about foul sewage discharge from Ballycopeland outlet going into the lagoon at the new Millisle tourist development project when there is a north wind and an incoming tide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Sewage effluent is discharged from the Ballycopeland outlet only on the outgoing tide as soon after high tide as possible and is thus carried away from the lagoon.

  The Millisle tourist development project is the responsibility of Ards borough council and there have been no complaints from it or others about sewage entering the lagoon.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the condition of the beach near Drumfads road, Carrowdore, County Down; whether untreated raw sewage is being pumped out to the Irish sea near this location; whether an overspill flows down to Millisle; and if he will make a statement about foul sewage disposal at this location.

  Mr. Needham
  The bathing waters at Millisle are routinely monitored under, and comply with, the

  Date of increase

  President £

  Percentage increase

  Member £

  Percentage increase

  1 April 19821

  29,000

  —

  27,750

  —

  1 August 19831

  31,250

  7·2

  29,750

  7·2

  1 January 19841

  32,750

  4·8

  31,000

  4·2

  1 April 19841

  33,733

  3·0

  31,930

  3·0

  1 November 19841

  35,000

  3·76

  33,000

  3·35

  16 April 19862

  20,000

  —

  33,000

  —

  1 July 19862

  23,000

  15·0

  41,500

  25·76

  1 April 19872

  23,878

  3·82

  43,264

  4·25

  1 May 19871

  47,955

  —

  43,264

  —

  1 October 19871

  48,250

  0·61

  43,500

  0·55

  1 April 19881

  50,180

  4·0

  45,240

  4·0

  1 October 19881

  50,900

  1·44

  45,800

  1·24

  1 April 19891

  53,400

  4·9

  48,100

  5·02

  1 April 19901

  56,600

  4·12

  51,000

  6·24

  1 January 19911

  58,900

  4·06

  53,050

  4·02

  1 April 19911

  63,300

  7·47

  57,050

  7·54

  1 August 19911

  65,250

  3·08

  58,800

  3·07

  1 December 19911

  66,500

  1·92

  59,900

  1·87

  1 April 19921

  68,400

  2·86

  61,600

  2·84

  1 The salary quoted for the President is per annum. The President in his role of County Court Judge is paid by the Northern Ireland Court Service whereas time spent on Lands Tribunal work is paid out of the Consolidated Fund on a pro-rata basis in relation to days worked.

  2 The post was filled in 1986–87 on a part-time basis (hence: the reduced salary) but the postholder worked exclusively on Lands Tribunal work.

  Average wage increases Northern Ireland

  Male

  Female

  Average

  Retail price index Great Britain

  1982

  11·5

  7·7

  9·6

  9·4

  1983

  6·4

  11·0

  8·7

  4·0

  1984

  10·6

  5·6

  8·1

  5·2

  1985

  5·0

  8·8

  6·9

  6·8

  1986

  5·7

  4·8

  5·25

  3·0

  1987

  9·4

  7·2

  8·3

  4·4

  1988

  7·9

  7·6

  7·75

  3·9

  1989

  7·3

  13·3

  10·3

  8·0

  1990

  9·7

  7·8

  8·75

  9·4

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = Not available.

  600
  mandatory standards of the EC bathing water directive. Sewage is held in a retention tank on the shore at Ballywhiskin where it is screened before discharge to the sea on the ebb tide. There is no overspill flowing to Millisle. Sewage discharges to the sea are being examined in the context of the recent EC directive on municipal waste water treatment.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for a new sewage treatment plant for Millisle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Existing sewage treatment facilities at Millisle are being examined in the context of the recent EC directive on municipal waste water treatment.

  Lands Tribunals
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by how much the salaries of(a) the president and (b) the members of lands tribunals increased in the 10 years from 1 April 1982 to 1 April 1992 in cash and percentage terms; and what has been the percentage increase in the average industrial wage and in inflation during the same period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Local Government Staff Commission
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Secretary of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland is leaving his post; and on what date his successor will take up the post.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland. I am advised by its chairman that the secretary will be leaving his post on 11 June 1991, but no decisions have yet been taken regarding the appointment of his successor.
  601
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date a chief executive will be appointed to the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland. I am advised by its chairman that interviews for the appointment of a chief executive will take place on 28 May 1991. At this stage, therefore, it is not possible to say on what date a new chief executive will take up appointment.

  Ultach Trust
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the objectives that were laid down by the Northern Ireland Office as conditions for funding the Ultach trust; and whether these objectives define the relationship between the Ultach trust and Glor na nGael's.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The objectives of Government funding for the Ultach trust are to widen the appreciation of the contribution that the Irish language has made to the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland, to increase knowledge of the language throughout the community and to assist in the provision of written and oral material to promote the wider use of the language.

  All agreements between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Ultach trust are subject to conditions designed to ensure that the funding provided is used in a manner and for the purposes agreed by the parties. This includes a standard provision which gives effect to the policy reflected in the parliamentary reply of 27 June 1985 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Official Report, Vol. 81, column 451.

  Glor na nGael
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what consideration he has given to the independent audit of Belfast Glor na nGael's accounts; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the procedures by which charitable street collections are authorised in Northern Ireland; and whether these procedures were fully complied with for the first Irish language collection undertaken by Glor na nGael in Belfast on 10 October 1990;

  (3) when the decision was made to withdraw funds from Glor na nGael.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These matters are within the purview of current proceedings before the High Court in Northern Ireland and further comment by me at this stage would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure that the development of Irish language resources in the community will not suffer as a result of the withdrawal of funds from Glor Na nGael.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government recognise the interest and importance which many people attach to the Irish language and culture, and have a policy of active support for Irish language projects through their cultural traditions programme and other programmes, such as the action for community employment scheme and the Belfast 602
  action teams initiative. Overall Government spending on the Irish language has increased from approximately £88,000 in 1985–86 to an expected level considerably in excess of £700,000 in 1991–92. This does not take into account the very substantial annual amount spent in schools and colleges of further education. The Government will continue to support efforts to increase awareness and appreciation of the language as part of the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland.

  Grants (Vetting)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details as to which section of the Northern Ireland civil service is responsible for implementing the vetting policy for grants, announced on 27 June 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions under the policy announced on 27 June 1985 are taken by my right hon. Friend and are given effect through all Departments under his control.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the content and purpose of the instructions issued to Departments and public bodies with regard to organisations from whom funds have been withdrawn as a result of the vetting policy on grants announced on 27 June 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Instructions on this matter are internal to Government, but the purpose is to ensure that decisions taken under the policy announced on 27 June 1985 are given effect.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of all instances where public funds have been withdrawn from Northern Ireland organisations under the vetting policy for grants announced on 27 June 1985; how many of the decisions were appealed; and what was the result of each appeal.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to his earlier question on 19 December 1990,Official Report, Vol. 183, c. 160.

  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the new management structure of the Western health and social services board, how many who are deemed to be Protestants have been appointed.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the Fair Employment (N.I.) Acts 1976 and 1989, the Western health and social services board, as a specified public authority, carries direct responsibility for providing equality of opportunity for all job applicants and for its employees. The board has an equal opportunity policy and submits monitoring returns to the Fair Employment Commission as required by the legislation.

  In view of the board's statutory responsibilities, I do not consider it appropriate to provide the information requested. However, the board is prepared to meet with the hon. Member on this matter.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Western health and social services board is taking under its fair employment policy to ensure a fair representation between Roman Catholics and Protestants on its psychiatric unit of management.
  603
  Mr. Hanley
  The Western health and social services board has an equal opportunity policy and has developed procedures for the implementation and monitoring of equality of opportunity which are in line with the recommendations in the code of practice on fair employment. The board seeks to ensure that vacancies are advertised in newspapers accessible by both communities, that shortlisting criteria are not unlawfully discriminatory and that appointments are made in accordance with the health and personal social services selection and appointment procedures which are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services. It is the board's policy that all appointments should be made on the basis of merit and this policy is applied consistently in all areas including the board's area mental health unit.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total monthly budget allocated under the social fund to each district office of the Department of Health and Social Services in each month since April 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social fund budgets are allocated to offices for a full year and not on a monthly basis. Information on the annual amounts allocated to each district office from 1 April 1991 and individual offices in previous years is available in the Library.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure from the social fund by each district office of the Department of Health and Social Services in each month since April 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of each month's expenditure for the district offices from 1 April 1991 and individual social security offices for previous years is available in the Library.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the monthly social fund budgets of each district office of the Department of Health and Social Services were underspent at the end of each month since April 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social fund budgets are allocated for a full year, April to March, therefore the question of an underspend does not arise until the end of the financial year. Details of amounts remaining in each office's budget at the year end are available in the Library.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many community care grant applications were processed by each district office of the Department of Health and Social Services in each month since April 1988; and how many applications were(a) successful, (b) successful on appeal and (c) rejected.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information about the number of community care grants processed each month by each of the district offices from 1 April 1991 and the individual social security offices is available in the Library. The number of applications refused can be obtained from those figures.

  Community care grants are discretionary awards and there is no right of appeal against these. Dissatisfied applicants can, however, apply for a review to the social
  604
  fund officer who made the original decision and if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of this review they can request a review by the social fund inspector. The SFI acts independently of the Department. Details of the number of decisions revised on review by each social security office for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 is shown in the table. Information about the number of cases substituted on review by the SFI is compiled each month by the Social Fund Commissioner's Office for Northern Ireland as a whole, and is available in the Library. It should he recognised that not all cases revised by the SSO or substituted by the SFI on review will be to the applicant's benefit.

  Community care grants—Decisions revised

  Social Security office

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Andersonstown

  22

  97

  185

  Antrim

  8

  65

  48

  Armagh

  10

  14

  29

  Ballymena

  7

  40

  38

  Ballymoney

  4

  17

  15

  Ballynahinch

  6

  28

  11

  Banbridge

  5

  14

  22

  Bangor

  6

  6

  16

  Carrickfergus

  3

  20

  26

  Coleraine

  6

  22

  56

  Cookstown

  24

  33

  31

  Corporation Street

  39

  139

  182

  Downpatrick

  14

  33

  42

  Dungannon

  14

  75

  55

  Enniskillen

  8

  42

  56

  Falls

  19

  126

  84

  Holywood Road

  22

  101

  67

  Kilkeel

  4

  3

  3

  Knockbreda

  24

  47

  44

  Larne

  7

  21

  34

  Limavady

  6

  21

  10

  Lisburn

  19

  57

  103

  Londonderry

  38

  352

  361

  Lurgan

  22

  100

  109

  Magherafelt

  12

  14

  12

  Newcastle

  3

  11

  15

  Newry

  19

  103

  144

  Newtownabbey

  9

  45

  39

  Newtownards

  0

  4

  7

  Omagh

  5

  34

  30

  Portadown

  3

  21

  15

  Shaftesbury Square

  33

  123

  100

  Shankill

  34

  115

  249

  Strabane

  8

  46

  102

  Total

  463

  1,989

  2,340

  Rual Development
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the progress that has been made since the establishment of the inter-departmental committee on rural development.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since taking on ministerial responsibility for rural development in Northern Ireland, I have set up within the Department of Agriculture a new rural development division to take forward the work of establishing the new structures announced at the time.

  I was pleased to be able to announce recently the appointment of Mr. Jimmy Armstrong as the executive chairman-designate for the proposed formation of the Rural Development Council and have asked him to prepare a draft constitution. I have also decided that a council of about 15 members could represent a wide range of rural and other relevant interests. I shall shortly be

  605
  seeking the assistance of appropriate organisations to help to identify potential members who might be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the council.

  Arrangements are also under way to select from the wider public service a small team of area co-ordinators who will establish local networks of statutory agencies to co-ordinate and integrate responses to locally developed community regeneration plans.

  I am aiming to have the next structures fully operational by the autumn.

  LEADER Programme
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the progress that has been made to date in the attraction of funds from the European Community's LEADER programme, and details of any future developments planned for LEADER-funded projects in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Northern Ireland, as the United Kingdom's only objective 1 region, has been accorded an indicative LEADER allocation of 2·8 million ecu. This is disappointingly low, given that the closest contact has been maintained with the Commission throughout the developmental stages of this initiative to ensure the greatest possible compatibility between LEADER and the new rural development structures being established in Northern Ireland.

  However, the Commission has confirmed that the indicative allocations may be revised to take account of the quality of the programmes presented. Accordingly I am considering with officials how best to maximise the Northern Ireland allocation under the initiative. I will be making a statement shortly about the arrangements for implementing the LEADER programme in Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Northern Ireland electricity service concerning the salary increase proposed by the chief executive of the service.

  Mr. Needham
  None. This is a matter in the first instance for the chairman of NIE who is then required to seek the approval of the Department of Economic Development.

  Nationalists
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nationalist people in the Six Counties have been arrested under the emergency powers Act and prevention of terrorism Act since 1973; how many were charged and how many of those charged were convicted.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Republic of Ireland (Government Talks)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what allowances and expenses will be paid to the representatives of the political parties participating in talks with the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and where these talks will be held.
  606
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: On the days when meetings of the political parties participating in talks with the Government of the Republic of Ireland take place in the United Kingdom, allowances will continue to be payable on the basis detailed in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman's question on 14 May 1991, Official Report, Vol. 191, column 126. Other arrangements may be needed for the days on which the talks take place outside the United Kingdom.

  I expect that the opening meeting of this strand of talks will be held in London, that the bulk of substantive exchanges will take place in Northern Ireland with plenary meetings being held in Parliament buildings, and that there will be a meeting in Dublin towards the end of June.

DEFENCE

  Missiles and Nuclear Shells
  Mr. Richmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will withdraw(a) SCRAM-A air-launched missiles and (b) W79 nuclear artillery shells from bases in the United Kingdom and British bases in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on the deployment of nuclear weapons.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Richmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department received the United States military's final draft report of its inquiry into the friendly fire incident on 26 February in the Gulf; if a copy will be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to publish the report into the friendly fire incident of 26 February; and if a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 16 May at columns 272–74.

  Smoking
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the percentage of service personnel who smoke.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No service-wide assessment has been made, although a sample survey in 1989 among 4,000 adult male personnel found that 35 per cent. were cigarette smokers and a further 3.6 per cent. were cigar or pipe smokers.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to discourage smoking in the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence gives wide publicity to the harmful effects of smoking, by way of publishing and displaying anti-smoking literature and posters in defence establishments. Furthermore, it is official policy to discourage smoking on Ministry of Defence premises. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) announced in the House on 5 December 1988, the price of "Blue Liners", the specially produced low-priced cigarettes and tobacco
  607
  available to Royal Navy personnel serving in United Kingdom shore establishments, has been increased progressively arid the concession will cease altogether in December 1991.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. French
  'To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's forecast of United Kingdom defence expenditure for the next three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Defence expenditure in 1991–92 is expected to be around £24·4 billion. This exceeds the supply estimates by some £1·5 billion. Supplementary estimates to provide for this additional Gulf-related expenditure will be presented in due course. Cash plans thereafter are for £23·35 billion in 1992–93 and £23·39 billion in 1993–94, as set out in Cm. 1501.

  Military Expenditure
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of reduced military expenditure on the economy of south-west England.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is too early to say what effect the revised defence programme emerging from "Options for Change" will have on military expenditure in particular regions.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy of the conclusions of the Bristol polytechnic study on the impact of reduced military expenditure on the economy of south-west England for his departmental library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Tornado Exercises, Alaska
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made or are under discussion with the United States of America to enable Tornado aircraft to exercise in Alaska.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Tornado GR1 aircraft deployed to Alaska for a training exercise in June 1990, and the possibility of a further such exercise, is under discussion with the United States authorities.

  RAF Honington
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters and single men's quarters at present are occupied at RAF Honingtort; and how many airmen stationed there have their own houses in the community.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At RAF Honington and its associated sites. 595 married quarters are occupied arid 780 single personnel are living on base. In addition, 393 married personnel own houses in the local area and some 113 single personnel live in private housing either as tenants or owner-occupiers.

  Agency Status
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the "next steps" initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.
  608
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Defence organisations currently operating as "next steps" agencies are as follows:

  When launched

  Executive agencies

  Meteorological Office

  April 1990

  Defence Research Agency

  April 1991

  Defence support agencies

  Hydrographic Office

  April 1990

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  April 1991

  Directorate General Defence Accounts

  April 1991

  Military Survey

  April 1991

  RAF Maintenance Group

  April 1991

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  April 1991

  We plan to move ahead as quickly as possible with the identification and establishment of further agencies in the defence support area. This work will take into account developments in the structure and organisation of the services and the Ministry of Defence as a result of the continuing work on the broad proposals on "Options for Change" which were announced last July.

  Submarines, Irish Channel
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (I) whether the Royal Navy searched and investigated the reported siting of a Soviet Victor III class submarine off the east Antrim coast on 14 May;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding the presence of a foreign submarine approximately two miles off the east Antrim coast on Tuesday 14 May at approximately 1.20 pm.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were no submarines, United Kingdom or foreign, on the surface off the east Antrim coast at the time in question.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to protect shipping and fishermen from risk of activity of foreign submarines between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy is investigating whether the successful firth of Clyde dived submarine movement notification scheme can be extended to other United Kingdom territorial waters. Additionally, work continues to assist with the development of net pinger devices to make fishing nets more easily detectable to dived submarines.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British submarine surfaced off the east Antrim coast on 14 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to awarding contracts to private firms for the provision of Royal Air Force maintenance training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 300 Royal Air Force maintenance training courses have been put out to contract. We will continue to seek opportunities to extend this practice where it is cost-effective to do so.
  609
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to awarding contracts to private firms for the provision of basic Royal Air Force flying training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The RAF has already embarked on major contractorisation at its flying training stations, at this stage concentrating on engineering, supply and domestic tasks which directly support flying training. A similar approach has been adopted with university air squadrons and air experience flights which provide a major source of trainee pilots for the RAF. We are currently examining the potential for contracting out the elementary flying task.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to awarding contracts to private firms for the provision of Royal Air Force apprentice training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following a fundamental review of training in 1989, it has been decided to discontinue Royal Air Force apprentice training and the last tranche of service apprentices will graduate in July 1993. This will not affect the training of civilian apprentices by the Royal Air Force civilian technical training schools (CTTS). Some 50 per cent. of their training will, as at present, continue to be provided through local technical colleges and colleges of further education.

  MOD Properties
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of defence domestic properties there are throughout the United Kingdom and (b) the number unoccupied at the present time; indicating how many have been unoccupied for six months, one year, two years and for longer than two years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not maintained in the precise form requested. As at 31 March 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the total stock of service married quarters in the United Kingdom was 73,462 of which 10,111 were vacant; 7,707 had been vacant for less than one year, 1,104 for one to two years and 1,300 for over two years. In addition, the Ministry of Defence owned 1,573 civilian houses, of which 170 were vacant; 57 had been vacant for under six months and 113 for six months or more.

  Many of these vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already attached to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. In addition 1,864 dwellings were in the process of being sold.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of repairing welding defects in the A91 building at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston; and what effect this has had on training programmes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The problem discovered during the early stages of commissioning in the A91 building is one of corrosion on pipework and vessels. A detailed technical investigation into the cause and extent of the 610
  problem has not yet been completed so we are not in a position to make decisions about what work is needed to rectify the problem. We do not expect this problem to have any adverse effect on the Trident warhead programme. The training schedules of a small number of the future A91 operators have been revised while the problem is being investigated.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to rectify the defect in the installation of supports to the Phoenix system for ductwork on systems other than zone 1 and in the roof spaces above the first floor laboratories in the A90 building at Aldermaston; what system was charged for by the contractors; what steps he is taking to recover moneys from the contractor; and whether he is instigating any criminal or civil proceedings for overcharging, for product substitution or for fraud.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The use of Phoenix supports in A90, in areas beyond zone 1, was approved by the design authority for the building wherever they were fit for the purpose specified. Subsequently none has been found to be defective or inappropriate and none has had to be removed. The supplier charged and was paid for the materials used in the construction. The question of recovery of moneys or the instigation of any criminal or civil proceedings for overcharging has not arisen.

  Royal Air Force Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of Royal Air Force Finningley.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Air Force Finningley is principally a flying training station. No decisions have been taken to change that role.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the past 10 years, the amount of night flying that has taken place at Royal Air Force Finningley for(a) training purposes and (b) other reasons; and how much has taken place to date for 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of hours of night flying by aircraft normally based at RAF Finningley for the years in question were as follows:

  Hours

  1981

  1,189

  1982

  1,112

  1983

  847

  1984

  706

  1985

  480

  1986

  716

  1987

  850

  1988

  626

  1989

  870

  1990

  1,281

  Note: The figure for 1991, to date, is 461 hours.

  Most of this flying took place away from RAF Finningley. Nearly all was for training purposes.

  VIPER Microprocessor
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to accept full responsibility for any damage, injury or death attributable to errors in
  611
  the design of the VIPER—verifiable integrated processor for enhanced reliability—microprocessor where it is used in safety-critical computer systems controlled by his Department;

  (2) what steps his Department has taken with regard to the use of the VIPER microprocessor in safety-critical computer systems controlled by his Department in response to questions as to its design and safety of operation raised in reports published by researchers employed by his Department at the university of Cambridge;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the consequences of his Department's premature announcements as to the reliability of the VIPER microprocessor and its premature market launch through commercial licensees appointed by his Department;

  (4) what steps his Department is taking to discourage the use of the VIPER microprocessor in civil safety-critical computer systems.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The VIPER microchip was designed to a formal mathematical specification. There is debate among theoreticians about the extent to which VIPER can be said to be "proved" in a formal mathematical sense, but this should not be allowed to undermine the importance of the VIPER achievement: it was the first microchip to be designed to a formal mathematical specification; it was verified by the best methods available; and its design has been more rigorously documented and tested than that of any other microprocessor currently available commercially.

  The comments made by the department of mathematics, university of Cambridge, were in the context of the continuing research programme being carried out by the electronics division, DRA, RSRE Malvern and related to the rigour of the mathematical proof process. To date, no errors have been found in the VIPER design.

  My Department remains convinced that VIPER represents the best currently available microprocessor design for use in both civil and defence safety critical applications. If, however, any question about responsibility for damage, injury or death were to arise, it would be dealt with in the light of the relevant legal considerations.

  VIPER is not currently used in any safety-critical computer systems controlled by MOD. Further comment at this stage would be inappropriate in view of current legal proceedings.

  The Gulf (Equipment and Units)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the complete list of equipment and units deployed to the Gulf after 2 August 1990, including territorial and reserve forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of the units and major equipments deployed to the Gulf are being collated and will be published in the statement on the defence estimates and the United Kingdom joint commander's despatch.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to make a decision about the Chieftain replacement programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 19 March at column 90.

  Civil Service Appeal Board
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 272, what was the date on which representatives of his Department were in private communication with the Civil Service Appeal Board; and whether this communication was written or oral.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to my letter of 13 September 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Dockyards (Refitting)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 271, if he will make a statement on the nature of the information about his Department's expected refitting programme that has been provided to the management companies of Rosyth and Devonport dockyards.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The nature of the information provided by the Ministry of Defence to the management companies at Devonport and Rosyth in respect of their core programmes is a commercially confidential matter.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many type 23 frigates have been ordered from(a) Yarrow Shipbuilders and (b) Swan Hunter Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Six type 23 frigates have been ordered from Yarrow Shipbuilders and four from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he envisages placing any more orders for type 23 frigates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 20 February at column 192.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the approximate dates on which he envisages accepting the nine type 23 frigates currently on order into service.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following the acceptance of HMS Marlborough on 7 March and HMS Argyll on 17 April 1991, there are now seven type 23 frigates on order. We expect all the remaining ships to enter service by the end of 1994.

  Equipment Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will provide details of the effect that the temporary bar on new commitments that he described in the debate of 18 June 1990,Official Report, column 688, has had on the equipment programmes listed on pages 37, 39, 40 and 41 of volume 1 of the "Statement of Defence Estimates 1990".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The temporary bar on new commitments was carefully managed to ensure that major equipment projects suffered no significant adverse effect.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which of the defence contractors listed on page 15 of volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990" he has discussed the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. Carlisle
  Discussions between Ministers and defence contractors are conducted on a confidential basis.

  Calcutt Inquiry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 272, what was the amount of fees payable in connection with the Calcutt inquiry; and whether these fees are in addition to the compensation payment of £30,000 to Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The sum of £30,000 paid in compensation to Mr. Wallace did not include legal costs. The sum paid to Mr. Wallace's solicitors is commercially confidential, as are the costs of Mr. Calcutt's work on behalf of the Department.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the impact of the "Options for Change"study on service morale.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The need for the "Options for Change" study is well understood within the services.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what studies have taken place into the possible amalgamation of regiments as part of the "Options for Change" process;

  (2) what consideration has been given to (a) disbanding regiments and (b) converting regiments from Regular to Territorial status as part of the "Options for Change" study;

  (3) whether he is making an assessment of permanently stationing regiments at particular locations as part of the "Options for Change" study;

  (4) whether any consideration of posting individual service personnel from regiment to regiment is taking place as part of the "Options for Change" study;

  (5) whether he is reassessing the system of moving complete regiments to different locations as part of the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to study these and other matters as part of our work on "Options for Change"; but, as we have made clear on previous occasions, it is our intention to retain the regimental system.

  Dockyard Employees (Pensions)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees at Rosyth and Devonport are currently contributing to Government-established pension schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In common with all other civil servants other than those who choose to make private arrangements, MOD employees at Rosyth and Devonport 614
  are covered by the principal civil service pension scheme. This is non-contributory except for a deduction of 1½1 per cent. of pay in respect of the spouses'/dependants' benefits element of the scheme.

  Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment Vessels
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which shipyards have won orders for auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels; whether he has plans to order more auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Harland and Wolff, and Swan Hunter Shipbuilders each have an order for one auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. We expect to order further vessels, but no decisions have yet been made on the size and timing of such orders.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the current number of BAOR infantry battalions and armoured regiments that constitute a BAOR division.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In peacetime, BAOR has three armoured divisions, the composition of each of which is as follows:

  1 Armoured Division—5 armoured regiments and 5 infantry battalions

  3 Armoured Division—4 armoured regiments and 5 infantry battalions

  4 Armoured Divisions—4 armoured regiments and 6 infantry battalions

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any detailed decisions about the future of individual BAOR units or their locations as part of the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 24 January 1991 at column 319–20. No other decisions have been taken.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with his Dutch and Belgian counterparts regarding the future roles of the BAOR.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been involved in regular meetings with his ministerial colleagues from the other NATO countries, including the Netherlands and Belgium, when discussions have taken place on a range of issues including the future roles of allied forces in Europe.

  Belgium
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances he has had from his Belgian counterpart regarding the supply of defence equipment and material for British armed forces in the event of a crisis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Belgium provided valuable assistance in the form of medical and logistic support to the coalition (including British) forces during the recent crisis in the Gulf. As a member of the NATO alliance, Belgium is committed, like other members, to the concept
  615
  of collective defence. We have not sought any assurance from the Belgians about possible support for British forces in the event of a future crisis outside the NATO area.

  Type 42 Destroyers
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to order a replacement for the type 42 destroyer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following withdrawal from NFR90, we have been considering the way forward for an anti-air warfare frigate to replace the type 42 from around the turn of the century. We hope to make an announcement on the next stage of this programme in the next few months.

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the lives of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) on 20 May at column 391 to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed).

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) replace Royal Navy Lynx helicopters or (b) extend the lives of Royal Navy Lynx helicopters.

  Mr. Carlisle
  Royal Navy Lynx helicopters will be deployed on Royal Navy ships into the next century. A range of improvements is being introduced to sustain their capability during the remainder of their operational lives.

  General Service Respirator
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the speed of the delivery programme for the general service respirator S 10 has been changed in the past six months.

  Mr. Carlisle
  Contract deliveries of SIO respirator facepieces were increased in the last quarter of 1990 to support Gulf deployment requirements. Deliveries have now returned to the normal rate.

  Equipment Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will provide details of the effect that the "Options for Change" study has had on the equipment programmes listed on pages 37, 39, 40 and 41 of volume I of the "Statement of Defence Estimates 1990".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not yet in a position to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 December 1990 at column 161 and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 19 December at column 212.

  Thailand (Service Personnel)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the allowances payable to those British service personnel working in Thailand who are not attached to the British embassy.
  616
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Entitlement to allowances and liability for charges for service personnel serving abroad depend on the location and the nature of the duties being carried out and vary in accordance with individual circumstances.

  Staff Training College, Dhaka
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Brimanetish armed forces are presently seconded to the staff training college, Dhaka, Bangladesh; and what is the nature of their secondment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The two-man British military advisory team in Bangladesh assists with military staff courses for all three services at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards arming aircraft in low-flying exercises with live ammunition.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Our policy remains as set out in the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 25 April 1990 at col.208.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the categories of live ammunition and weapons recovered from the wreckage of aircraft that have crashed in low-flying exercises in Britain in the past four years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No aircraft armed with live ammunition have crashed in low-flying exercises in Britain in the past four years. However, practice bombs using small spotting charges and practice ammunition are carried frequently. Some of the aircraft involved in accidents while low flying were carrying practice munitions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any planes carrying or armed with live ammunition have crashed in Wales in the past three years from(a) low-flying exercises and (b) other flying
  exercises.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any live ammunition has been recovered from the wreckage of aircraft which have crashed in low-flying exercises in the Brecon and Radnor constituency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

  Open Policy Documents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all open policy documents published by his Department since 1980; and what plans he has to publish further open policy documents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal document published by the Ministry of Defence which sets out defence policy is the annual statement on the defence estimates. In addition, the Department makes available a wide range of material dealing with policy issues, ranging from discussion papers to press releases. It would be
  617
  impractical to provide a list of all such materials published since 1980. The Ministry plans to continue its practice of issuing policy documents as appropriate.

  Defence Research Agency Videos
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the video shown by the Defence Research Agency at the defence components and equipment exhibition in Birmingham on 14 and 15 May, cost to make; how many copies are available for distribution; how much it costs to hire the video; and whether it is available to foreign military authorities on request.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the Defence Research Agency, Mr. Nigel Hughes, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Scottish Power (Submarine Incident)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about incidents involving a submarine and the boat Scottish Power between midnight on 18 May and 3 am on 19 May; if he will conduct an inquiry into the allegation by the skipper of Scottish Power that a submarine buzzed the vessel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The skipper of the yacht reported to the Clyde coastguard that between 2300 on 18 May and 0100 19 May, he had sighted lights close to his vessel on three occasions. In the final instance he reported that he also saw the conning tower of a surfaced submarine approximately half a mile away. Submarine movements at the time of this incident have been fully reviewed and I can confirm that there were no Royal Navy or NATO submarines within 60 miles of the location of the reported sighting.

  Cambodia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the military training given to those military forces in Cambodia that are fighting against the Government of that country and are not part of the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullins) on 30 October 1990 at c. 864.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the effectiveness of those military forces in Cambodia that are fighting against the Government of that country and are not part of the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no reliable information about the effectiveness of such forces.

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what income Scottish Homes received in capital receipts from house sales in the fourth quarter of 1990–91 and in 618
  the first quarter of 1991–92, from (a) right to buy sales, (b) rents to mortgage sales, (c) sales under the portable discount scheme and (d) vacant possession sales.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for the fourth quarter of 1990–91 financial year is set out in the table. Details for the first quarter of 1991–92 are not yet available.

  £ million

  Right to buy sales

  9·041

  Rent to mortgage sales

  0·129

  Portable discount scheme

  0·191

  Vacant possession sales

  1·032

  Total

  10·393

  The figures include receipts from miscellaneous items, such as building insurance and repair funds. Figures net of these items are not currently available for each type of sale.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Homes (ex-SSHA) dwellings were modernised in each calendar year, and in each financial year from 1979 to the nearest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is available on a financial year basis only and is as follows:

  Number of houses comprehensively modernised

  Financial year1

  Number

  1975–76 to 1981–82

  8,22

  1982–83

  1,074

  1983–84

  1,122

  1984–85

  1,180

  1985–86

  1,246

  1986–87

  733

  1987–88

  1,223

  1988–89

  733

  1989–90

  2811

  1 Figures for individual financial years not readily available.

  2 Includes 278 units which were improved in estate based strategy areas.

  Local Museums
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much expenditure on local museums has increased since 1979, both in terms of Government grant-in-aid and expenditure by local authorities.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Government support for local museums is channelled through the Scottish Museums Council, which works to improve the quality of local museums and gallery provision in Scotland. The council's grant-in-aid from Government has increased from £145,000 in 1979–80 to £665,000 in 1991–92, an increase in real terms of 98 per cent. Information on local authorities' expenditure on museums was not available separately until 1983–84. However, expenditure on museums and libraries has increased from £27·8 million in 1979–80 to £93·8 million in 1991–92, an increase in real terms of 46 per cent. On museums alone the increase in expenditure from 1983–84 to 1991–92 is 24·1 per cent. in real terms.

  Prison Catering
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the sum per prisoner, per day allocated for catering at Her Majesty's prison, Perth.
  619
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost of food for prisoners is determined by the weekly ration sheet based on an approved dietary scale. On that basis the average daily cost of food per prisoner in Her Majesty's prison, Perth is £1·15.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the standard of food provided to prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Perth.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Prison dietary scales are designed to ensure that all prisoners are given balanced, nutritional and varied meals. The catering arrangements for prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Perth are of a satisfactory and acceptable standard.

  Govan Initiative
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current year's budget for Govan Initiative; and what proportion of its funding comes from central and local government.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The total urban programme budget for Govan Initiative in the current year amounts to £795,254. Central Government grant meets 75 per cent. of the cost, with the balance being provided by local government.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if in the nursery schools to be provided by Govan Initiative the system for entry will be similar to the priority system operated by Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There will be some similarity with the system operated by Strathclyde regional council. However, to meet the objectives set in the application for funding under the urban programme, first priority will be given to the provision of child care resources to patents undertaking full-time training or education whose objective is to gain or return to employment.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a request for additional funding from Govan Initiative.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In response to an approach for additional funding, approval under the urban programme was given on 2 May 1991 to additional expenditure of £18,184 to meet increased capital costs relating to the provision of child care units in the area of the Govan Initiative.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budget for Locate in Scotland's activities in each year since 1986–87, at 1991–92 prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The cost of running Locate in Scotland from 1986–87 to 1991–92, taking account of salaries, administration expenses, travel, marketing and advertising is shown in cash terms and at constant 1991–92 prices in the table. The 1991–92 figures are provisional at this stage.

  Year

  Cash

  1991–92 price base

  £ million

  £ million

  1986–87

  3–8

  5·2

  1987–88

  3·9

  5·0

  1988–89

  4·0

  4·9

  620

  Year

  Cash

  1991–92 price base

  £ million

  £ million

  1989–90

  4·3

  4·9

  1990–91

  4·6

  4·9

  1991–92

  5·1

  5·1

  Forth Valley Health Board
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assistance will be given to Forth Valley health board by way of additional investment and so on, to develop laboratory services, including virology within the board's area;

  (2) what consideration is being given to the rationalisation of laboratories at Falkirk royal infirmary and Stirling royal infirmary on one site; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether Forth Valley health board will be free to contract out laboratory work currently carried out at Falkirk royal infirmary to other health boards; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what discussions have taken place with privately owned hospitals regarding the future placement of laboratory work currently carried out at Falkirk royal infirmary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Capital investment in laboratory services is a matter for the health board to consider in the context of its capital plan. Some £200,000 has been spent recently on improvements at Falkirk and district, and Stirling royal infirmaries. No proposals are being considered at present by the health board for rationalisation of the facilities on one site or to contract out laboratory work to other health boards. The improvements in the respective laboratories will enable the board to carry out a wider range of tests in the existing premises.

  There have been no discussions with privately owned hospitals about the future placement of laboratory work currently being carried out at the Falkirk and district royal infirmary.

  Audubon Bird Manuscripts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will purchase Edinburgh university's Audubon bird manuscripts and first editions and return them to the university on permanent loan.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the income scale which will apply to the assisted places scheme in Scotland in school session 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For school session 1991–92, I propose to lay regulations before the House in due course providing for progressive parental contributions for one assisted pupil in relation to family income as follows:
  621

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  Parental contribution (percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,821 but does not exceed £9,591

  9·0

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,591 but does not exceed £10,375

  12·0

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,375 but does not exceed £11,930

  15·0

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,930 but does not exceed £14,321

  21·0

  That part (if any) which exceeds £14,321 but does not exceed £17,442

  24·0

  That part (if any) which exceeds £17,442

  33·0

  The relevant income scale is open-ended, but the remission can of course be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.

  Postgraduate Grants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many grants have been given for postgraduate qualifications in Scotland in each year since 1979, and for what qualifications in each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Overall figures for the number of awards offered to Scottish domiciled students in respect of vocational postgraduate and certain other second courses during each academic year from 1978–79 to 1987–88 are set out in table 1.

  Information on the breakdown of vocational postgraduate awards by broad subject area for each year since 1988–89, which has been compiled from a different source, is set out in table 2. Similar information for earlier years is not available.

  Table 1

  Number

  1978–79

  3,085

  1979–80

  3,521

  1980–81

  3,211

  1981–82

  2,943

  1982–83

  2,853

  1983–84

  2,785

  1984–85

  2,627

  1985–86

  2,739

  1986–87

  2,892

  1987–88

  2,787

  Table 2

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  Legal qualifications

  380

  390

  431

  Secretarial studies

  90

  87

  21

  Art and design

  92

  107

  114

  Business studies

  248

  286

  288

  Accountancy

  109

  101

  90

  Information technology

  334

  353

  501

  Social work

  141

  159

  1

  Ministry

  25

  28

  27

  Librarianship

  54

  76

  66

  Engineering and technology

  91

  88

  85

  Teacher training

  858

  876

  1,391

  Others

  281

  288

  253

  2,703

  2,839

  3,267

  1 Responsibility transferred to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Aberdeen Royal Infimary
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what amount of grant for capital expenditure has been paid to the Grampian health board in respect of Aberdeen royal infirmary in each year since 1979;

  (2) what applications he has received from Grampian health board for grants in respect of capital expenditure at Aberdeen royal infirmary for each year from 1987 to 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: Each year, health boards submit capital expenditure plans detailing their known proposals for the next 10 years. Funding for capital projects is provided by means of an annual capital allocation to each board related to these plans. Boards have considerable freedom to deploy the sums allocated in accordance with their own priorities. Only in certain circumstances are sums earmarked for specific projects (at present mainly for projects costing more than £5 million in total and prior to 1987 for projects included in boards' major building programmes). From 1979–80 to 1990–91 no sums were earmarked within Grampian health board's capital allocations for expenditure on Aberdeen royal infirmary. Expenditure on minor projects was drawn from the main block allocated to the board.

  On 10 May I announced that I had given approval for the first phase of a major development at the infirmary. This phase of the development will cost £7·3 million and will provide 30 additional general surgery day patient beds, 30 additional in-patient surgical and gynaecology beds and 41 in-patient ophthalmology beds. In 1991–92, £1·676 million has been specifically earmarked in Grampian health board's capital allocation to fund the start of the development and further provision will be included in the allocations for later years to facilitate its completion. Sums included in the board's capital plans for expenditure on the infirmary during the period 1987 to 1994 were:

  £ million

  1987–88

  0·669

  1988–89

  0·585

  1989–90

  0·623

  1990–91

  0–829

  1991–92

  1·676

  1992–93

  4·357

  1993–94

  2·303

  Audiology
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number of full and part-time physical measurement technicians in audiology employed by each health board currently and for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the number of qualified physical measurement technicians in audiology in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The available information regarding the number of qualified physiological measurement technicians working in audiology in Scotland is shown in the following table.
  623

  Audiological technicians by health board and whole-time 1 part-time at 30 September 1990

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Argyll and Clyde

  6

  2

  Ayrshire

  0

  1

  Borders

  3

  0

  Dumfries

  3

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  Forth Valley

  4

  3

  Grampian

  9

  1

  Greater Glasgow

  18

  8

  Highland

  0

  0

  Lanarkshire

  0

  0

  Lothian

  7

  1

  Orkney

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  Tayside

  10

  1

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  Scotland

  60

  17

  The breakdown of physiological measurement technicians into specialties was not available before 1990. It is for individual health boards to determine, after taking account of the needs of the population in their areas, the number of physiological measurement technicians in audiology they employ.

ENERGY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has held with generators seeking to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation regarding contract length; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has frequent and regular contact with generators about non-fossil fuel generation, including contract length. I am confident that the regional electricity companies have the flexibilities they need to be able to offer acceptable contracts to generators wishing to contract within the proposed 1991 NEED Renewables Order.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his Department's library a copy of the study on the Hinkley Point C public inquiry, by Crispin Aubrey.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department's library has on order a book entitled, "Meltdown: the collapse of the nuclear dream", by Crispin Aubrey, which includes a chapter on the Hinkley Point C public inquiry. If the author has produced a further study on the inquiry, a copy will be considered for purchase when details about publication are known.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many times he has had to adjudicate on the propriety of real estate transactions involving estate agents who advised on electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. The privatised companies are responsible for commercial transactions pertaining to their property.

  Euratom Treaty (Safeguards)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether an application has ever been made to the president of the European Court of Justice under article 81 of chapter VII of the Euratom treaty to ensure safeguards inspections are conducted.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such application has been made in respect of an installation in the United Kingdom.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Newport West of 12 March,Official Report, column 435, what forms of assurance were given by the United Kingdom to the countries of origin of the plutonium reprocessed prior to 1973 that their plutonium was kept separate and segregated from United Kingdom origin plutonium and military plutonium.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such assurances for the reprocessing of civil spent fuel have either been requested or given. It has been the Government's policy since 1986 that civil and non-civil spent fuel should be reprocessed in separate campaigns.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any Ministers or officials from his Department, or from the energy technology support unit, will be present at the special workshop on photovoltaics and their physics, technology and applications, to be held in Tripoli in Libya on 15 to 20 June.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No one from my Department or the energy technology support unit will be attending the workshop in Tripoli.

  Oil and Gas Exploration (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest developments relating to the exploration for oil and gas off the Welsh coast, and any guidance given by the Welsh Office to those involved in such work.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Exploration for oil and gas takes place under licences awarded by my Department. Approvals, consents and guidance associated with these licences are issued by my Department.

  Licensees also consult the Ministries of Defence and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Transport for guidance on defence, fishing and navigational matters in the licensed areas, the Nature Conservancy Council for guidance on environmental matters, and, in the case of blocks close to shore, local planning authorities. The Health and Safety Executive is now responsible for monitoring and providing advice on offshore safety.

  Evidence of oil and gas has been found in only one block to date. The block concerned, 110/13, lies in the Irish sea and was licensed in 1989. The oil and gas discovered in this block has yet to be appraised.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is able to announce the results of the 12th and frontier offshore licensing rounds.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am now able to inform the House about the offshore oil and gas licences that I propose to award in these two separate rounds.

  In the 12th round I received 115 applications for 81 of the 120 blocks on offer; 80 companies were involved. Following careful examination of these applications by my Department, I am now prepared to offer licences for 74 blocks.

  The number of applications received was satisfying in itself. In addition, the proportion of blocks applied for was the highest for 10 years and showed that the oil and gas industry maintains its very strong interest in obtaining licences on the United Kingdom continental shelf. The success of the round was confirmed by the quality of the proposals put to us by the successful applicant companies and the exploration which will flow from these awards. This will help ensure that the UKCS remains a major international oil and gas province well into the next century.

  The response to the first separate round of licensing for frontier areas was also very encouraging. I received 13 applications from groups involving 37 companies for six of the 11 tranches of blocks on offer. I am pleased to be able to offer licences for all these tranches. This will give a fresh impetus to exploration in these areas.

  The success of these two rounds demonstrates that the present form of licensing continues to offer the most effective means of releasing offshore acreage to the industry for exploration. The frontier round result especially also highlights the responsiveness of the licensing system to the particular circumstances of different areas. Both rounds demonstrate the importance my Department attaches to listening to the views of the oil and gas industry.

  For licences awarded in both rounds, special conditions will apply wherever appropriate to ensure that operations are carried out with due regard to the environment and to fishing, navigation, defence and other interests. These conditions are tailored specifically to the particular circumstances of individual blocks and were agreed with the organisations consulted during preparations for the licensing rounds.

  A copy of the list of awards has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Financial Services
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on Government policy on multi-tied agencies, as outlined by the Securities and Investments Board;

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals to modify the rules of best advice, as embodied in the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board's current retail regulation review includes the present best advice and polarisation regime. The SIB review is at an early stage, but I understand the possibility of multi-tied agencies is one of the issues to be considered.
  626
  I look forward to there being a lively public debate on retail regulation. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will send their views to the SIB and let me know of their concerns.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to take to assist the clothing manufacturing industry in the Blyth Valley constituency.

  Mr. Lilley
  Companies in Blyth Valley can take advantage of a range of existing schemes including regional selective assistance—a negotiable incentive to investment which can contribute to the capital costs of a project—and subsidised consultancy under the enterprise initiative.

  BAT Industries plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the original BAT accounts for 1990 were lodged at Companies house; and if any queries were raised with the company about those accounts;

  (2) whether he will investigate BAT's revision of its 1990 accounts and ask the Institute of Chartered Accountants to investigate the effectiveness of the initial audit.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am pleased to note the prompt action taken by BAT Industries plc in voluntarily issuing a supplementary note under new section 245(1) of the Companies Act 1985, to correct an error in a note to the 1990 accounts which I understand are due to be laid before its shareholders in general meeting on 29 May. The accounts in question have not yet been delivered to the Registrar of Companies.

  Disciplinary Cases
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish an up-to-date list of the disciplinary cases which, following the publication of inspectors' reports, he has asked the Institute of Chartered Accountants to investigate.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following seven inspectors' reports have been passed to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Of these reports, five were disclosed to the institute under the provisions of section 449(1) (1) of the Companies Act 1985 prior to their publication. I understand that the first three reports have been passed to the joint disciplinary scheme. The remaining four are under consideration by the institute itself.

  Milbury plc

  Westminster Property Group Limited

  Minet Holdings plc

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  Alexander Howden Holdings plc

  The Greenbank Trust plc

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  Sound Diffusion plc

  The Animal Defence Society Limited

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the president of any of the accountancy bodies applying for the recognised supervisory body status is directly elected by its membership.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the presidents of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland are directly elected by the membership.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether, as a condition of recognition as a recognised supervisory body, he will make it his policy to require the applicants annually to state the number of their council members who are not directly elected by the membership;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy as a condition of recognition to require the accountancy bodies seeking the status of a qualifying body to ensure that its students will be required to learn at least one other European language;

  (3) whether he will make it his policy as a condition of recognition as a recognised supervisory body to require the applicants to annually publish the number of complaints which they receive against their members.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the Companies Act 1989, the Secretary of State has no power to refuse recognition on these grounds.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place in the Library a copy of the investigative and disciplinary arrangements offered by the applicants for the recognised supervisory body status.

  Mr. Redwood
  A copy of each application, which includes details of the applicant's arrangements for the investigation and disciplining of its members, has already been placed in the Library (Official Report, 19 December 1990, col.187).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to propose legislation under which the standards of accountancy firms criticised in the inspectors' reports would be independently investigated.

  Mr. Redwood
  Part II of the Companies Act 1989 will introduce an effective system for monitoring and investigating professional standards.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the council of any of the applicants for the proposed recognised supervisory bodies is not entirely elected by its membership.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the councils of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants may have co-opted members, although the power to appoint them has not been exercised in every case. Most of their councils are elected. The council of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants is wholly elected by the membership.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of the accountancy 628
  bodies applying for the recognised supervisory body status encourage their members to give proxy votes for council elections to its president.

  Mr. Redwood
  So far as I am aware, none.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the deadline by which any member of the public may object to the granting of recognised supervisory body status to any of the applicants.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department will consider representations made at any time. However, I asked that comments on the applications reach the Department by 15 May (Official Report, 18 April, column 222).

  Auditors (Disqualification)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether at any time since 1979 his Department has asked the Institute of Chartered Accountants to disqualify any individual from acting as an auditor.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is for the professional bodies to determine, in accordance with their disciplinary procedures, whether a member who is the subject of a complaint referred by my Department should lose his authorisation to audit company accounts. I would of course take appropriate action if there were reason to question the way the bodies exercised their responsibilities.

  Audit Qualifications
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate the trend in going concern audit qualifications.

  Mr. Redwood
  The auditor's considerations in respect of whether a company is a going concern may be an issue which the auditing practices board will wish to address.

  Auditors (Disclaimers)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to investigate the disclaimers of opinion issued by auditors.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department and the financial reporting review panel as appropriate are always willing to consider instances where it is alleged that a company's accounts do not comply with the statutory requirements.

  Hallmarking
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to defend the action brought by J. Kohle GMBH & Co. KG against him, the British Hallmarking Council, and the Goldsmiths Company, challenging the basis of United Kingdom hallmarking of precious metals.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering the legal position. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have made clear their view that the compulsory marking of precious metals is essential to protect the interests of the consumer and honest trader. The Government believe that this is best achieved through the United Kingdom hallmarking system.

  Coppernob Ltd.
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set up an inquiry under the Companies Act 1985 into the activities of Coppernob Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I shall be replying soon to the hon. Member's letter of 14 May about the company.

  United Kingdom Production
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will publish figures showing the percentage of total United Kingdom production of(a) coal, (b) steel and (c) tinplate which has been produced in Wales.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information for 1990 is as follows:

  Percentage of total United Kingdom production produced in Wales

  Commodity

  Per cent.

  Coal1

  6·5

  Crude steel2

  31·2

  Tinplate2

  100·0

  Sources:

  1 Department of Energy: figures relate to all deep-mined and opencast coal, financial year 1990–91.

  2Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Salesmen (Representations)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the effectiveness of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in protecting limited companies from rental misrepresentations by salesmen leasing or selling fax machines and photocopiers.

  Mr. Redwood
  Limited companies that lease equipment or buy equipment under a credit agreement are not covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ensure that leasing companies are made fully responsible for the representations made by salesmen acting on their behalf who are not employed by the leasing company.

  Mr. Redwood
  Consideration is being given to proposals that the rights of lessees should be extended in the circumstances provided.

  Environmental Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received to date for support under(a) the environmental management options scheme, (b) the environmental technology innovation scheme and (c) the Euro-environ programme; and if he will indicate the sectors of industry from which applications have been received to date.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am pleased to say that, as at 1 May 1991 my Department has received 229 applications under the environmental management options scheme: 59 involving United Kingdom companies under the Euro-environ scheme and 170 under the environmental technology 630
  innovation scheme which is a joint DTI/DOE scheme. Applications have been received from over 20 different product sectors with some covering more than one sector, such as soil remediation, waste and water treatment, chemicals and domestic waste.

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answers to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) of 22 January,Official Report, column 118, what progress his Department has made in evaluating the hazards of petroleum coke used in domestic appliances and in discussing with the suppliers the instructions for use of this fuel in domestic appliances.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Department has found some evidence of problems when petroleum coke has been used in closed appliances or has not been blended before use. There is little evidence of problems experienced by consumers when the fuel is pre-blended and used only in open-grate fires. Such precautions form the basis of our recommendations to suppliers to provide instructions for consumers. The suppliers have undertaken to provide clear instructions on the safe use of this fuel.

  Director General of Telecommunications (Report)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 1990, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. The seventh report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1990. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to strengthen export controls aimed at preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are committed to intensifying efforts to prevent proliferation in view of the heightened international concern. In the light of this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to extend controls to the remaining 13 precursors of concern identified by the Australia Group, in common with other member countries, in order to ensure the effectiveness of multilateral export controls. It has also been decided to extend the general end-use control which was introduced in December last year in the light of concerns relating to chemical and biological weapons, to cover materials and equipment of concern for nuclear weapons and missile purposes.

  Exporters (Advice Services)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals for the improvement of information and advice services to United Kingdom exporters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: The Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and

  631
  Commonwealth Office overseas trade services provide a wide range of information and advice to United Kingdom exporters. We have made substantial improvements in our services over the past two years and our regular quality monitoring system reports high levels of satisfaction among our business customers.

  We keep our services constantly under review. The joint directorate, formed on 2 April this year by merging the export service management units of the DTI and the FCO, has as its priority task to ensure that our export services operate well throughout the world. The fact that some 90 per cent. of our customers say that they will use our services again demonstrates their value and quality.

  Mr. Mohinder Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been (i) granted and (ii) refused since 1984 for financial assistance available to small businesses from(a) Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi, (b) West Middlesex Immigration Services Ltd., (c) Swordshine Ltd. and (d) Hammersmith Securities Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: This Department does not reveal details of applications for

  Employment training

  Destination of trainees 3 months after leaving in period December 1989 to November 1990

  Per cent.

  Full-time Job

  Part-time Job

  Full-time Education/training

  Self-Employed

  Jobclub

  Voluntary Work

  Unemployed Claiming Benefit

  Unemployed Not Claiming Benefit

  Something Else

  Work Exp. Employer

  Other Employer

  South East

  8

  17

  12

  2

  6

  3

  3

  35

  8

  5

  London

  6

  14

  6

  4

  7

  5

  3

  44

  7

  4

  South West

  9

  15

  8

  2

  11

  4

  4

  36

  6

  4

  West Midlands

  9

  15

  8

  3

  2

  4

  4

  46

  5

  4

  East Midlands and Anglia Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  15

  8

  3

  5

  5

  4

  43

  6

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9

  16

  7

  2

  7

  4

  3

  44

  4

  4

  North West

  9

  16

  7

  2

  7

  5

  3

  44

  5

  4

  Northern

  10

  15

  6

  2

  3

  5

  3

  48

  5

  3

  Wales

  8

  14

  7

  2

  9

  4

  3

  42

  6

  4

  Scotland

  10

  14

  5

  3

  4

  4

  3

  48

  4

  3

  Great Britain1

  8

  15

  7

  3

  5

  5

  3

  45

  5

  4

  Source: Employment Training Follow-up Survey.

  Percentages may not total 100 due to independent rounding.

  1 Includes some trainees with nationally contracted training providers.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, the number and proportion of employment training leavers who obtained a vocational qualification.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following table gives the percentage of trainees leaving employment training between October 1989 and September 1990, the latest date for which information is available, who obtained a qualification or credit or who were awaiting results. Numbers of trainees achieving qualifications or credits towards qualifications are not available, because not all trainees respond to the follow-up survey.
  632
  support. These are confidential between the company and the Department. There is no trace of any financial assistance to these companies.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary off State for Employment if he will list, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for the latest available period, the number and proportion of ET trainees who three weeks after leaving were(a) in a full-time job with their work experience provider, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) in a part-time job, (d) in full-time education or on a training course, (e) employed in their own business, (f) in job clubs, (g) in voluntary work, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit and (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit.

  Mr. Jackson
  The destinations of trainees leaving employment training between December 1989 and November 1990, three months after leaving, are shown in the following table. Percentages only are provided, because not all trainees respond to the follow-up survey.

  Employment training

  Proportion gaining qualifications or credits

  All leavers between October 1989 to September 1990

  Region

  Obtained qualification or credit

  Awaiting results

  Percentage

  Percentage

  South East

  28

  4

  London

  20

  4

  South West

  27

  5

  West Midlands

  23

  5

  East Midlands and Anglia

  24

  5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23

  4

  North West

  22

  4

  Northern

  28

  5

  Wales

  26

  4

  Scotland

  27

  5

  Great Britain1

  25

  4

  Source: Employment Training Follow up Survey.

  1 Includes some trainees with nationally contracted training providers.
  633
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for the latest available date, the amounts paid to(a) ET providers and (b) YT providers in the form of ex-gratia payments to compensate them for hardship caused by recontracting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the 1990–91 financial year, my Department operated a special ex-gratia compensation scheme for ET providers. Where a contract with a training provider was foreclosed or modified substantially, reducing contracted volumes or recruitment earlier than the last effective day of the contract, my Department undertook to make an ex-gratia payment. There was no similar arrangement for youth training.

  The table shows the provisional outturn expenditure to end March 1991 under the special employment training ex-gratia payments arrangements.

  Region

  Amount £

  South East

  97,000

  London

  74,000

  South West

  166,000

  West Midlands

  190,000

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Nil

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,000

  North West

  102,000

  Northern

  262,000

  Wales

  56,000

  Scotland

  47,000

  National providers

  302,000

  Total

  1,315,000

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of employment training trainees who were being paid their training allowance and/or training premium by the Employment Service in each month since April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is provided in the following table. I am glad that employment training continues to help so many unemployed people in their efforts to find employment.

  Employment training trainees receiving employment training allowances—May 1990 to April 1991

  Number

  May 1990

  202,795

  June

  194,459

  July

  187,196

  August

  180,916

  September

  179,955

  October

  185,988

  November

  190,041

  December

  194,045

  January 1991

  189,109

  February

  198,413

  March

  192,279

  April

  167,427

  Source: Employment Service records.Employment Service

  Employment Service
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the Employment Service has made in meeting its targets outlined in the 1990–91 agency agreement; and if he will show for the latest possible date(a) total unemployed job placings and variance from target, (b) long-term unemployed job placings and variance from target, (c) people with disabilities job placings and variance from target, (d) inner-city job placings and variance from target, (e) number of claims not pursued following initial contact and variance from profiled annual reference level, (f) number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit and variance from annual reference level and (g) number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators and variance from annual reference level.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am informed by the chief executive of the Employment Service that for the period April 1990 to March 1991, the agency's performance against target was as follows:

  Performance Achieved 1990–91

  Variance from target/ reference level

  Per cent.

  Total value of correct payments of unemployment benefit (target of 95 per cent.)

  95·7 per cent.

  1+0·7

  Percentage of new claims input to computer within six days of a claim being made (target 91 per cent.)

  86·8 per cent.

  -4·2

  Claims not pursued following initial contact

  448,000

  +12

  Claimants moved to an appropriate benefit other than unemployment benefit

  78,400

  -2

  Number of people who withdrew their claim after having contact with fraud investigators

  64,700

  -14

  Unemployed job placings

  1,396,900

  -15

  Long-term unemployed job placings

  208,100

  -24

  People with disabilities job placings

  34,200

  -20

  Inner city job placings

  471,000

  -9

  1 The Employment Service 1990–91 Annual Performance Agreement represents this target as the total value of incorrect payments. The figure used here is an inversion of this.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the establishment of the Employment Service executive agency; what is the annual salary for each employee; and what savings his Department will make in connection with this agency.

  Mr. Jackson
  The employees of the Employment Service are civil servants and as such receive salaries appropriate to their particular grade. The table shows the numbers employed in each grade and the minimum and maximum points of each salary scale.

  A total of £13·6 million, or 2·3 per cent., of running costs savings were achieved in the first year of operation as an agency—1990–91.
  635

  Grade

  Number in grade

  Minimum of salary scale

  Maximum of salary scale

  (£)

  (£)

  Grade 3

  2·

  47,090

  54,720

  Grade 4

  7·

  40,116

  43,307

  Grade 5

  16·

  32,551

  36,997

  Grade 6

  24·

  24,997

  32,551

  Grade 7

  157·6

  21,905

  26,121

  Senior Executive Officer (SEO)

  364·4

  15,156

  19,348

  Higher Executive Officer (HEO)

  2,013·7

  12,367

  15,786

  HEO (D)

  1·3

  14,141

  17,789

  Executive Officer (EO)

  9,791·7

  7,286

  12,621

  Management Trainee

  16·0

  8,931

  13,145

  Administrative Officer

  21,492·0

  4,561

  9,278

  Administrative Assistant

  3,130·6

  4,121

  7,574

  Senior Personal Secretary

  7·0

  10,623

  12,162

  Personal Secretary

  41·1

  7,834

  9,598

  Typing Manager

  8·9

  10,988

  12,580

  Typist

  256·4

  5,977

  7,834

  Support Grade Band 1

  134·2

  8,345

  8,862

  Support Grade Band 2

  194·9

  4,438

  7,942

  Graphics—Technical Grade

  6·0

  9,348

  12,704

  Senior Instructional Officer

  30·0

  16,441

  17,125

  Higher Instructional Officer

  57·0

  14,552

  15,468

  Instructional Officer 1

  216·0

  13,145

  13,691

  Senior Economic Assistant

  3·0

  14,141

  17,789

  Economic Assistant

  1·0

  11,117

  13,100

  Senior Information Officer

  1·o

  15,553

  20,467

  Accountant (Grade 7)

  1·0

  23,407

  26,121

  Accountant (SEO)

  2·0

  17,125

  21,862

  Accountant (EO)

  1·0

  9,302

  14,851

  Auditor (SEO)

  8·0

  15,786

  20,152

  Auditor (HEO)

  19·0

  12,880

  16,441

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  1·0

  14,141

  17,789

  Assistant Statistician

  2·0

  11,117

  13,100

  Senior Research Officer (Social Science)

  5·2

  13,821

  18,925

  Research Officer (Social Science)

  4·1

  9,348

  13,821

  Senior Psychologist

  26·0

  16,822

  20,467

  Higher Psychologist

  4·0

  13,262

  16,176

  Psychologist

  62·0

  11,026

  12,143

  Physiotherapist

  3·5

  13,465

  15,385

  Chief Nursing Consultant

  1·0

  31,158

  33,939

  Nursing Consultant

  4·0

  25,004

  26,835

  Senior Social Worker

  1·0

  16,822

  21,287

  Higher Social Worker

  30

  13,262

  16,822

  Social Worker

  27·5

  9,348

  14,381

  Hostel Manager

  2·0

  13,466

  17,831

  Hostel Steward

  2·0

  8,236

  9,725

  Hostel Orderly

  3·5

  5,599

  5,891

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  1·0

  12,704

  16,822

  Support Manager Grade 3

  1·0

  9,438

  11,222

  Industrials

  25·0

  6,755

  9,509

  TOTAL

  38,182·6

  Note: People employed in London in many of these grades may progress beyond the maximum of the National scales shown above. They also receive an additional London Weighting allowance.

  Virtually all our employees are covered by nationally negotiated Performance Pay Agreements which, subject to set criteria, allow additional pay to be earned.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the total staff of the Employment Service executive agency are on secondment from Government Departments and, in particular, from his Department.

  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.
  636

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the take-up figures of disabled persons into employment under the quota scheme operated by public sector employers for each of the years 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  As with all questions on Employment Service operational matters, I have referred this question to Mike Fodgen, the executive agency's chief executive, for reply. A copy of that response will be placed in the Library.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of permits issued
  637
  exempting employers from the quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 for each of the past five years.

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

  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount spent on employment rehabilitation centres for each of the past five years, in cash and constant prices.

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

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the allocated budget of each of the operational TECs for 1991–92, showing the amounts contracted for(a) youth training, (b) employment training and (c) the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Budgets for 1991–92 have been allocated by funding block rather than individual scheme. The allocated budgets for each of the 76 operational TECs for funding blocks 1 to 3 are set out in the table.

  Funding block 1 £ million

  Funding block 2 £ million

  Funding block 3 £ million

  South East

  Essex

  14·999

  5·835

  3·320

  Hampshire

  19·665

  4·800

  2·690

  Heart of England

  5·718

  1·483

  1·200

  Hertfordshire

  10·601

  2·877

  2·385

  Isle of Wight

  1·941

  0·577

  0·515

  Kent

  19·015

  5·338

  3·180

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  3·358

  1·012

  0·705

  Surrey

  6·715

  1·746

  1·680

  Sussex

  13·864

  4·636

  3·380

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  11·183

  2·314

  1·870

  London

  AZTEC

  3·390

  4·360

  1·430

  LETEC

  10·050

  17·750

  2·700

  SOLOTEC

  6·870

  7·170

  1·940

  STTEC1

  5070

  15·460

  3·510

  South West

  Avon

  14·918

  12·030

  3·491

  Devon and Cornwall

  29·581

  20·254

  6·070

  Dorset

  8·148

  3·921

  3·921

  Gloucester

  7·395

  3·568

  1·600

  Somerset

  7·350

  2·754

  1·530

  Wiltshire

  7·385

  2·936

  1·540

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  20·713

  28·101

  4·107

  Central England

  5·861

  4·936

  1·382

  Coventry

  13·939

  10·918

  2·588

  Dudley

  5·904

  6·169

  1·041

  Hereford and Worcester

  5·347

  4·130

  1·177

  Sandwell

  5·650

  6·261

  1·041

  Shropshire

  7·568

  5·912

  1·557

  Staffordshire

  21·250

  12·381

  2·898

  Walsall

  4·530

  6·268

  0·887

  Wolverhampton

  6·143

  6·819

  1·041

  638

  Funding block 1 £ million

  Funding block 2 £ million

  Funding block 3 £ million

  E. Midlands and Anglia

  Leicester

  13·715

  4·184

  2·695

  Northants

  5·460

  2·714

  1·415

  Lincolnshire

  10·867

  3·329

  1·808

  Greater Nottingham

  10·719

  4·549

  1·965

  North Nottinghamshire

  7·900

  5·516

  1·430

  South Derby

  8·889

  3·539

  1·799

  North Derby

  6·165

  2·238

  1·114

  Norfolk/Waverney

  11·446

  4·493

  2·213

  Suffolk

  8·777

  1·582

  1·294

  Bedfordshire

  5·920

  1·767

  0·895

  GPTEC

  4·005

  1·533

  0·568

  CAMBSTEC

  3·010

  0·476

  0·749

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Leeds

  10·097

  20·492

  2·273

  North Yorshire

  8·091

  7·201

  2·047

  Bradford

  9·558

  9·315

  1·673

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  9·362

  10·460

  2·056

  Wakefield

  6·281

  6·077

  1·054

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  12·783

  13·867

  2·165

  Sheffield

  10·148

  14·455

  2·492

  Rotherham

  5·852

  6·266

  0·984

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  6·200

  4·802

  1·555

  CEWTEC

  9·778

  13·633

  2·443

  Cumbria

  10·100

  6·863

  1·596

  ELTEC

  8·650

  6·000

  1·759

  LAWTEC

  11·935

  10·838

  2·764

  Manchester

  16·070

  19·007

  4·506

  Merseyside2

  25·618

  30·925

  4·480

  METROTEC

  4·901

  4·346

  1·043

  NORMID2

  7·950

  6·117

  1·357

  Oldham

  4·306

  3·218

  0·795

  QUALITEC

  4·976

  4·163

  0·608

  Rochdale

  2·700

  3·961

  0·775

  South and East Cheshire

  5·510

  2·422

  1·088

  Stockport HP

  4·670

  3·668

  1·528

  Northern

  Teesside

  16·012

  11·391

  2·557

  Tyneside

  22·027

  13·350

  3·750

  Wearside

  10·219

  6·998

  1·385

  Durham

  16·782

  10·517

  2·662

  Northumberland

  9·325

  3·352

  1·486

  Wales

  Gwent

  9·368

  5·232

  1·655

  North East Wales

  7012

  3·333

  1·384

  North West Wales

  6·978

  3·120

  1·631

  Mid Glamorgan

  11·135

  5·727

  1·719

  Powys

  2·029

  1·101

  0·590

  South Glamorgan

  6·007

  4·380

  1·461

  West Wales

  15·455

  8·877

  3·490

  1 Becomes operational 27 May 1991.

  2 Becomes operational 24 June 1991.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to require that each training and enterprise council includes representatives of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 22 May 1991]: The TEC prospectus stated that the private sector directors on training and enterprise councils should broadly reflect the mix of commerce and industry in their area and should include executives with first-hand experience of running small businesses as well as major employers. More generally, TECs are required to take account of the needs of small firms in their plans to bring about a dynamic and prosperous local economy.

  Disabled People (Special Schemes)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made, and how many grants have been awarded, for each of the past five years for(a) the personal reader service scheme, (b) the special aids to employment scheme, (c) the assistance with fares to work scheme and (d) the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme.

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

  Employment Statistics (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of total employment by industry and what was the percentage change in employment by industry, by year for the period 1979 to 1990 and 1991 to date, for the Doncaster area classified by: men, women, young persons and ethnic minorities.

  Employees in employment in coal mining and manufacturing in the Doncaster travel-to-work area

  September 1981

  September 1989

  Number (000's)

  Proportion1 (per cent.)

  Number (000's)

  Proportion1 (per cent.)

  Deep coal mines

  16·4

  17·8

  6·0

  6·9

  Manufacturing

  25·3

  27·5

  19·9

  22·8

  1Employees in Activity Heading 1113 (deep coal mines) and Divisions 2 to 4 (manufacturing industries) of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980, as a percentage of all employees in the travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the levels of redundancies., by industry, in the Doncaster area by year for the period 1979 to 1990 and 1991 to date, classified by men, women, young persons and ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of redundancies confirmed as having occurred is given in the tables. Data

  Confirmed redundancies in Yorkshire and Humbcrside region (1979–83) and Doncaster area (1983)—SIC 1968

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  Doncaster

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1983

  1. Agriculture, Forest and Fish

  0

  136

  26

  63

  103

  0

  2. Mining and Quarrying

  220

  191

  1,237

  1,477

  4,246

  632

  3. Food, Drink and Tobacco

  1,633

  2,310

  2,227

  2,691

  1,724

  207

  4. Coal and Petrol Products

  0

  126

  962

  106

  151

  0

  5. Chemicals and Allied

  173

  1,486

  2,588

  711

  714

  0

  6. Metal Manufacture

  1,736

  9,130

  14,405

  6,796

  5,841

  62

  7. Mechanical Engineering

  2,805

  4,717

  6,660

  6,240

  5,299

  317

  8. Instrument Engineering

  27

  256

  358

  123

  111

  0

  9. Electrical Engineering

  173

  1,931

  2,058

  893

  799

  114

  10. Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering

  342

  120

  198

  85

  326

  17

  11. Vehicles

  36

  3,129

  4,018

  3,601

  1,988

  601

  12. Metal Goods (N.E.S.)

  700

  3,856

  5,316

  2,714

  2,971

  187

  13. Textiles

  3,114

  9,254

  4,348

  5,883

  2,484

  232

  14. Leather and Fur etc.

  773

  16

  180

  137

  63

  0

  15. Clothing and Footwear

  1,436

  2,904

  3,374

  2,780

  499

  0

  16. Bricks, Pottery, etc.

  896

  2,430

  1,515

  981

  1,924

  201

  17. Timber, Furniture, etc.

  405

  992

  1,251

  1,452

  644

  0

  18. Paper, Printing, etc.

  321

  407

  1,356

  595

  785

  185

  19. Other Manufacturing Industries

  269

  949

  745

  687

  603

  70

  20. Construction

  1,130

  2,967

  3,460

  759

  1,073

  37

  21. Gas, Electricity, Water

  0

  9

  50

  527

  427

  15

  22. Transport and Communication

  358

  831

  1,577

  1,030

  885

  119

  23. Distributive Trades

  1,018

  1,680

  2,583

  2,826

  2,111

  27

  24. Insurance, Banking, etc.

  41

  83

  248

  300

  98

  0

  25. Professional and Scientific Services

  0

  72

  215

  497

  446

  99

  26. Miscellaneous Services

  198

  512

  1,729

  1,586

  1,228

  11

  27. Public Administration, Defence

  34

  385

  418

  417

  264

  59

  Total

  17,838

  50,879

  63,102

  45,957

  37,807

  3,192

  640
  Mr. Jackson
  Information for employees in employment according to industry by district and by travel-to-work area is available only from the censuses of employment for 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. This can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Separate data for young persons and ethnic minorities are not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of the number of people employed in(a) coal mining and (b) manufacturing in the Doncaster travel-to-work area; what percentage these are of the total employed; and what the comparable figures were in 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for employees in employment by travel-to-work area is available only from the periodic censuses of employment. The earliest and most recent estimates are from censuses taken in 1981 and 1989 and are given in the table.

  are available for Doncaster only for the period 1983 to date. Data given for 1979–82 are for the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Information is not available to identify separately men, women, young persons and ethnic minorities. I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article on official statistics on redundancies that appeared in the September 1990 edition of Employment Gazette.
  641

  Confirmed redundancies in the Doncaster area 1984–90

  SIC 1980

  Industry

  SIC

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Agriculture

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Energy and water

  1

  188

  5,181

  1,117

  1,008

  278

  271

  0

  Extraction of minerals

  2

  138

  191

  62

  10

  512

  25

  0

  Metal goods

  3

  36

  406

  335

  1,145

  262

  386

  69

  Other manufacturers

  4

  280

  124

  387

  195

  0

  77

  14

  Construction

  5

  9

  57

  166

  0

  14

  60

  10

  Distributive trades

  6

  56

  152

  138

  104

  53

  18

  0

  Transport and communications

  7

  140

  0

  18

  18

  29

  0

  29

  Insurance, banking etc.

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other services

  9

  0

  0

  25

  0

  22

  0

  52

  Total

  847

  6,111

  2,248

  2,480

  1,170

  837

  174

  Confirmed redundancies in the Doncaster area 1991

  Industry

  SIC

  January

  February

  March1

  April1

  Agriculture

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Energy and water

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Extraction of minerals

  2

  0

  298

  0

  0

  Metal goods

  3

  22

  18

  0

  0

  Other manufacturers

  4

  72

  0

  0

  0

  Construction

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Distributive trades

  6

  0

  0

  22

  0

  Transport and communications

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Insurance, banking etc.

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other services

  9

  0

  0

  29

  0

  Total

  94

  316

  51

  0

  1 Provisional and subject to revision.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has, by year, on the number of individuals covered by the redundant mineworkers payments scheme who have left the Doncaster travel-to-work area unemployment register since the commencement of the scheme.

  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.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and percentages of(a) male unemployed and (b) female unemployed in the Doncaster area as at 1 April in each year from 1979 to 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information, for the Doncaster travel-to-work area, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of persons employed by sex in each standard category of employment in the Doncaster area for 1 April in each year from 1979 to 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for employees in employment according to industry by district and by travel-to-work area is available only from the censuses of employment held in September of 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. This can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers in the northern region and in each county within the region are covered by the 642
  various wages councils; how many have had their individual pay or conditions checked by the councils; and in how many cases underpayments were discovered.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no statistics of the total numbers of workers covered by wages councils in the northern region or in counties. The following table gives information about workers in each wages council industry in the northern division of the wages inspectorate whose pay was checked in 1990 and the numbers found to have been underpaid.

  Wages council

  Number of workers whose pay was checked

  Number of workers found to be underpaid

  Aerated waters

  32

  0

  Clothing

  291

  14

  General waste reclemation

  126

  4

  Hairdressing undertakings

  584

  49

  Retail (non-food) trades

  2,078

  123

  Retail food and allied trades

  2,445

  404

  Licensed non-residential establishments

  3,625

  280

  Licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants

  1,177

  113

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  399

  49

  All other councils

  83

  5

  Totals

  10,808

  1,040

  Ionising Radiation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the common dose limits and radiation protection standards applied to those who work with ionising radiation in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) each of the other European Community countries.
  643
  Mr. Forth
  Common dose limits and radiation protection standards for work with ionising radiation apply throughout the European Community and are set out in European Community directive 80/836/Euratom (as amended by 84/467/Euratom). The United Kingdom legislation that implements the European Community directive is the ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 and the mirror Northern Ireland provisions, copies of which are held in the Library.

  A comprehensive picture of how member states have met their obligations under the directive is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Employment-related Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each employment-related agency(a) those that have published their business plans for 1991–92 and (b) those that have not yet published them.

  Mr. Jackson
  The only executive agency within my Department is the Employment Service; its operational plan for 1991–92 was placed in the Library of the House on 9 May.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of responses about the future of the careers service has supported its retention under local education authority control.

  Mr. Jackson
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list showing the latest available figures for the rate of unemployment in each OECD member country.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following is a table which gives the latest available internationally comparable unemployment rates for the OECD countries.

  Comparisons of unemployment between OECD countries

  Standardised unemployment rates2 seasonally adjusted

  Percentage rate

  Latest month

  Spain

  15·8

  November

  Ireland

  15·1

  March

  Canada

  10·4

  March

  Italy

  9·8

  October

  New Zealand

  9·6

  February

  France

  9·2

  February

  Australia

  9·1

  March

  United Kingdom

  8·6

  March

  Belgium

  8·5

  March

  Netherlands

  7·5

  February

  United States

  6·8

  March

  Finland

  5·7

  February

  Norway

  5·0

  November

  Germany (FR)1

  4·5

  February

  Portugal

  4·5

  November

  Sweden

  2·3

  March

  Japan

  2·0

  February

  OECD Total2

  6·6

  February

  Major 73

  6·1

  February

  Source: OECD "Main Economic Indicators" and Press Releases.

  1 There are no reliable figures available as yet for a unified
  644
  Germany. The rate quoted is for what was formerly West Germany.

  2 Only the countries listed are included in the total.

  3 United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, USA, Japan and Canada.

  Piper Alpha
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of victims of the Piper Alpha disaster who are still awaiting settlement of compensation claims against their employers.

  Mr. Forth
  Compensation payments are a matter between Occidental and the survivors or the families of victims.

  Paint
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to promote water-based paint products in the construction industry as a replacement for solvent-based products.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive has produced industry-specific guidance including two leaflets, "Health Hazards to Painters" and "Solvents and You", setting out the risks attached to work with solvents and outlining the control and preventive measures to be taken. Exposure to solvents can be minimised by the use of low-solvent or solvent-free materials. However, such products may contain other toxic substances and employers must therefore assess the relative health risk of alternative products available.

  Service Industries (North-East)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the variations in the rate of increase of the number of jobs created in the service industries in the regions of the north-east in the past two years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest estimates of employment for area within standard regions relate to the 1989 census of employment. More recent estimates of changes in the number of employees in service industries in the north standard region—Cumbria, Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Northumberland—are as follows:

  Employees in the service industries in the North Region

  Actual change (thousands)

  Percentage change

  1989

  March

  6·0

  0·9

  June

  -3·2

  -0·5

  September

  8·2

  1·2

  December

  14·7

  2·1

  1990

  March

  -3·9

  -0·5

  June

  -2·5

  -0·3

  September

  1·4

  0·2

  December

  7·9

  1·1

  Careers Services
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about his proposals to encourage local authorities and training
  645
  and enterprise councils to work in partnership to oversee the operation of careers services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Prior to the White Paper on "Education and Training for the 21st Century" (Cm 1536), I received a very wide response to my consultative document on the future of the careers service. Many of those responding supported LEAs and TECs working closely together. As announced in the White Paper we shall support LEAs and TECs which wish to work together, and we propose to legislate to open up options for the management of the careers service.

  Licensed Mines
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions against licensed mines proprietors were brought by Her Majesty's mines inspectorate in 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  As a result of informations laid by the Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate, there was one prosecution of a licensed mine proprietor in 1990–91.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many licensed mines were inspected in 1990–91 by Her Majesty's mines inspectorate; and if he will publish a list of each mine inspected.

  Mr. Forth
  In the 12-month period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 a total of 150 licensed mines were inspected.

  Following is a list of the mines inspected:

  Licensed mines that have been inspected in 1990–91

  South western

  Abbey

  Alltwen Hill

  Blaencuffin

  Blaengrennig No. 2

  Blaenpergwm

  Blaentillery No. 2

  Blaentwina Drift

  Bodyst Uchaf

  Brawds Level

  Bryndulais No. 2

  Brynglas

  Bush New Level

  Brynant Varteg

  Bwlch

  Caeglas Level

  Cannop Drift

  Cannop Engine

  Carn Cornel No. 2

  Cefn Mawr No. 2

  Craig-y-Pant

  Crugau

  Crugau No. 2

  Cwm Glo

  Cwm yr Onnen

  Danygraig No. 3

  Darrell

  Dinas Rock

  Dynant Fach No. 1

  Dynant Fach No. 2

  Elwyn

  Evanwill

  Ffroch-y-Garran

  Ffynonau Duon No. 4

  Ffynonau Duon No. 2

  Ffynonau Duon No. 2

  Ffynonau Duon No. 3

  Forest No. 3

  646

  Garnwern

  Glanderi

  Gleison

  Glen

  Glo Mynydd

  Graig-y-Fforesr No. 2

  Graig-y-Llyn

  Graigddu No. 2

  Gwynfryn No. 2

  Hamblin Gale

  Hayners Bailey

  Heol Hen

  High Street

  Hirfynydd

  Hopewell in Wimberry

  Ivy Rock No. 3

  Ivyrock No. 2

  Little Cwm

  Llechart No. 2

  Lleti Philip No. 3

  Lyn

  March Hywel No. 2

  Morses Level

  Nant Gwrhyd No. 2

  Nant Merddog

  Nantmelyn

  Nant-y-Cafn

  Nant-y-Glo

  Nant-y-Mynydd No. 2

  Nantglas Newydd

  Nanthir

  Nantmelyn No. 2

  New Parc

  New Penrhiw

  Oak

  Old Park No. 2

  Old Unemployed

  Pantygasseg

  Pantygasseg No. 3

  Parc Level

  Pentwyn No. 3

  Penywaun No. 2

  Ponty

  Reddings Level No. 2

  Rhaeadr No. 2

  Rheola

  Rithan

  Sarn Helen

  Scranton

  Tai Level Lo

  Tan-y-Garn

  Tyn-y-Graig

  Tyn-y-Wern

  Upper-Rha-Bryn-Oer

  Venallt

  Waunhir No. 2

  Wem Tarw No. 2

  Winstone

  Ystrad Anthracite

  Western

  Acres Nook

  Apedale 1–4

  Apedale 5–6

  Apedale 7–8

  Bank Top No. 2

  Castle

  Coed Talon M2

  Draycott Cross

  Haying Wood No. 2

  Hulme Mine

  Little Sheriff

  Parklands No. 5

  Podmore Hall

  Quaker House

  North Midlands

  Amber Valley Mine

  Doe Lea Mine

  Moorside Mine

  647
  North Yorkshire

  Hay Royds Mine

  Mainband Mine

  Green Clough Mine

  Scotland

  Ayle East Drift Mine

  Backshot Mine

  Barhaugh Mine

  Barras Hill Mine

  Blagill Mine

  Blenkinsop Castle Mine

  Clrghyll Drift Mine

  Craigman Mine

  Drovers Drift

  Eldon Drift

  Falstone Mine

  Falstone No. 2 Mine

  Glenview Mine

  Greenland Drift Mine

  Harviestoun Mine

  Lassodie No. 2 Mine

  Lonnen Drift Mine

  Middridge Drift Mine

  648

  Osmond Croft Mine

  Park Drift Mine

  Rashiehill Mine

  Saline Mine

  Shadfen Park Drift

  Smithy Dene Mine

  Tows Bank Drift Mine

  Viaduct 'A'

  Viaduct 'B'

  Whittle Mine

  Woodside Drift Mine

  Woody Close Drift Mine

  Wrytree Farm Drift Mine

  Wem Tarw Mine
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will institute a public inquiry into the fatality which occurred at the Wem Tarw licensed mine on 21 May.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate is currently investigating the accident and will take any necessary consequential action.

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

Defence Industries: Market Conditions>
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of growing unemployment in the defence industries, what plans they have for diversification.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, how companies choose to respond to changing conditions in the market for defence equipment is a matter for the companies and not the Government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about 760,000 civilians earn their living directly from defence work? Many of these people are highly trained but would need retraining to change to work on peaceful projects. Does the noble Earl not believe that the Government should have a role in retraining? Has he seen the document prepared by a group of unions representing their members in industry which sets out a number of recommendations on what should happen so that we do not suffer as a result of the peace dividend?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness conjectures as to what might happen. The way ahead is certainly not yet clear with regard to what redundancies might occur. As she knows, under Options for Change all these factors have been carefully considered, including how and the right time to inform industry.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will understand that the defence industry budget cut meant certain unemployment and that can be justified on any side of the House; the less that is spent on defence, the less the need for employees. But does he agree that the Government must surely have known what was to happen and have had some idea on what to do about the staff who were made redundant, bearing, in mind especially that many of them are highly skilled?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the issue should be kept firmly in perspective. The defence industry is planned to reduce by 6 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. Many industries regularly face fluctuations in the course of normal trading similar to those facing the defence industry.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the present state of the world, will my noble friend also make sure that an adequate defence industry remains effective in this country?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes. There is need to keep a careful and thoroughly explored balance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl's department take into account that many of the workers in the defence industry may now be unemployed? Is he aware that these employees are not merely specialists and skilled craftsmen but they will be extremely difficult to replace if the need should arise? Can he say whether the Government are looking carefully at the situation of those who have now lost their jobs? Does he agree that they are not merely specialists and skilled workmen but they will be extremely difficult to replace if we suddenly have to re-examine our defence industry?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. But the Government have consistently made clear that it is for senior management, directors and shareholders of the defence contractors to decide their future. After information from and consultation with the Ministry of Defence, the matter lies in their hands.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister's reply sufficient on such a vital matter for the UK economy? Is it correct to say that between a quarter and one-third of British engineers and scientists are employed in the defence industry and that it absorbs about a quarter of all research and development funds? If the noble Earl agrees that that is true, does he not also agree that it is much too important a matter of policy simply to he left to the market in this way?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I repeat that it is the Government's opinion that the decisions to be made on the way ahead for defence contractors are for the individual companies. As regards research and development, it is not our policy to achieve a gradual reduction in the real level of spending on defence R&D so that it does not absorb a disproportionate share of available technical resources.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it would now be prudent for the Government to re-examine their policy on the purchase of defence equipment from overseas? Does he accept that the Government should pursue an unadulterated policy of buying British, bearing in mind that the future of our supplies will be more secure if we do that rather than shopping throughout the world?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the first requirement is value for money, as the noble Lord well knows. I do not know whether he is aware that by far the major part of the procurement of British arms comes from United Kingdom manufacturers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there seems to be considerably less flexibility on his part than there was when we last discussed this matter? Does he recall that when the issue was last discussed at Question Time he announced that there was to be a trip by someone from what is called the Department of Trade and Industry—which as far as I know still exists—

325
designed to encourage companies to diversify when Options for Change brought about defence reductions? Can he say what happened to that expedition?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not certain what happened about the expedition except that each side made its views known. I am happy to say that the Department of Trade and Industry still exists and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, has the noble Earl taken into account the submissions from the unions, which have done a great deal of work on this issue and which are gravely concerned about the future of their members?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that I have made clear that the Government regularly consult and inform defence contractors. It is for them to pass on the message to their unions.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that before cuts are made in the defence budget the armouries and the arms which were used in the Gulf war will be replenished to their former state?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is slightly off the mark of the Question. Certainly that kind of thing is being taken into consideration in the investigation into the operation in the Gulf.

Cambodia
11.13 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Cambodia, and what progress has been made in the peace process.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we remain actively engaged in promoting the Cambodian peace process, both as a member of the UN Security Council and on a bilateral basis.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, although it did not contain a great deal of new information. Can he tell the House what subjects are being discussed by the officials from the ODA and the Foreign Office who are at present visiting Cambodia? Have they met members of the Cambodian Government and did the subjects discussed include the resumption of bilateral aid between the United Kingdom and Cambodia? In view of the fact that an estimated 300 amputations per month are caused by mine explosions, can the Minister say why the ODA has withheld support to the Cambodia Trust, which has been set up in Oxford and which is trying to ship artificial limbs out to Cambodia? Is that not the best humanitarian aid that Britain could offer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly draws attention to the two British officials who are currently in Cambodia. That is but one of our bilateral contacts taking forward the peace process. They will be meeting senior Cambodian officials and will be urging the regime to respond constructively to the peace proposals now on the table. They will also be looking at the work of British NGOs in Cambodia.
I was slightly puzzled when the noble Baroness said that we should give aid to—Cambodia I think "reinstate" was the word she used. Since 1988–89 £2.25 million has either been spent on or committed to humanitarian assistance inside Cambodia; and £15 million has been spent since 1979 on humanitarian assistance for non-communist camps along the Thai-Cambodia border.

NHS Trusts
11.16 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidelines they have issued to the newly formed self-governing hospital trusts regarding the treatment and admission of patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, National Health Service trusts are bound by the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and other statutory requirements. We have issued general guidance to all units within the National Health Service, both self-governing and directly managed, on the operation of the new contract-based system; and specific guidance to trusts has been issued under the title NHS Trusts: A Working Guide, copies of which are available in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a letter in my possession which was circulated by the newly formed Christie Hospital Health Service Trust to district health authorities in its area suggesting that a ward which has been closed could be re-opened if district health authorities each make a financial contribution? The letter from Mr. Fry, the chief executive, contains the following short paragraph:
"Our aim is to secure the necessary funding from all of our purchasing authorities. In the event of authorities choosing not to contract with us for this even better level of service then the additional facilities will not be available to residents of that district".
Is it the intention of the Government that health trusts should behave in that manner? If the Government do not support that will they give them a categoric instruction to cease this type of practice, which in fact is an immediate introduction of a double tier health system?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the object of creating national health trusts was to allow flexibility for innovative and forward-thinking arrangements in the provision of health care for the benefit of patients at large. We want to see the purchasers of care learning

327
from each other so that the benefits are spread to all patients as soon as possible. We want every opportunity to be taken to level up the provision of health care and we want to see all the available facilities used. If the noble Lord prefers certain facilities not to be used, then he presumably would go ahead and ban those opportunities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can we take it therefore that the Minister and the Government are totally in support of this disgraceful practice which will operate against the largest sections of the community attending that hospital for treatment? Is she standing by that practice?
Bareness Hooper: My Lords, we do not consider it disgraceful practice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the Opposition appear to have such an enormous prejudice against self-governing hospital trusts, unless it is a love of bureaucracy for its own sake?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords, I cannot explain why the Opposition wish to see these opportunities for improving the services to patient care going ahead.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that one of the reasons we are apprehensive—and this is shared by nearly every sector of the medical profession—is that people could live in an area of a particular trust where the trust is not wealthy enough or cannot get the money to send patients for specialist treatment. Large numbers of the medical profession all over the country are of the opinion that that is a fundamental break from the principles that were created when the NHS was first formed.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, a great many people in the medical profession are involved in the trusts; a great many people in the medical profession are enthusiastic about the opportunities that the trusts afford. If noble Lords want evidence, it is that there are well over 100 applications for trust status in the second wave.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to allow the trusts a little time to settle down and do their job properly? It seems unlikely that a trust would be so foolish as not to consider the admission and treatment of patients as almost its entire priority. Without that there is no point in anything.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. We are a mere seven weeks into the operation of the reforms. The benefits arising from this opportunity have not yet had time to be seen. We believe that the effect of the trusts will be to improve patient care.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say roughly how long it takes for a trust to start after an application has been made?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is probably about a year. The formal applications so far received for trust
328
status to start in April 1992 are already being considered. The decision will probably be made towards the end of this year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that no trust will be able to opt out of providing essential services such as geriatric care or mental health care without the express consent of the district health authority?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the way the reforms are operating. It is the duty of the district to provide for the health care needs of its population. The district will therefore contract with National Health Service trusts and other units. It is the duty of the trust to perform the contract that it has agreed with the district.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is no limit on the number of private beds in an opted out hospital whereas there is a 10 per cent. limit in directly managed hospitals? Why is there a distinction? Would the Government intervene if an opted out hospital decided to take more than 10 per cent. of private patients, particularly if the decision resulted from taking in private patients from overseas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, what is important is that National Health Service trusts should perform the contracts that they have entered into with district health authorities and GP fund holders. They will have to fulfil the terms of the contracts. If over and above the terms of those contracts to meet the health needs of the district they have spare capacity, there is no reason why they should not use that to earn income which will benefit general patient services. I refer the noble Lord to Section 5(9) and the relevant annexes of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which makes specific provision for safeguards in this area.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the first part of my question. Why is there no limit on private patients in opted out hospitals but a 10 per cent. limit in directly managed hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the system of contracting will ensure that National Health Service trusts provide the amount of care that is required by the district to fulfil its needs. Therefore there is no reason to specify a particular amount. It would be ridiculous to do so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that self-governing hospital trusts are the same hospitals with the same patients, paid for with the same money and treated by the same doctors and nurses? How then can they be described as having opted out of the National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly correct. No one is talking about them opting out of the National Health Service except people like noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who clearly misunderstand the reforms.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, when the noble Baroness agreed a short time ago that it was wise to allow the trusts to settle down to see how they worked out, did she mean that the Government will not accept or declare any more trusts until we have seen how the existing ones have worked out?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. We have always said—we put forward the same arguments during the passage of the Bill through this House—that we would expect to see second wave and third wave trusts coming forward in subsequent years. We shall nevertheless have the experience of the first wave of trusts, which, as was made clear in the debate the other day, have been very successful so far in their first seven weeks. In introducing new and important services for patients, we shall have that experience to build on in making arrangements for the second wave of trusts.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the ability of the Secretary of State to sack the chairman of a self-governing hospital is a clear indication that in no way can the self-governing hospitals be described as opting out of the NHS?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I refer again to Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act which specifies that power among a number of other very important safeguards for the running of these publicly funded National Health Service units.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if, as the Minister and her noble friend have said, there is so little difference between the new system and the system as it was before, why are the Government bothering with this change and causing such grave apprehension throughout the nation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are seeking a more efficient use of public funds in the National Health Service. We believe that the trusts, like the GP fund-holding initiatives, will be front runners in showing us the way forward. They have proved so far that that is the case.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I should like the Minister to clear up the anxieties of some people who are not experts in this field. Assuming that contracts are entered into between the trusts and district health authorities, what control will the NHS or the districts have over the activities of the trusts? Will she put that information in the Library? Is there any direct control over the trusts apart from the power to sack the chairman of the body or to dissolve the trust? Does the NHS have any control over their activities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, compliance with guidance or directions given by circular or otherwise to health authorities or particular descriptions of health authorities is one of the conditions of being a National Health Service trust which is specified in the schedule to the Act to which I have previously referred. Furthermore, the contracts, which are the documents of most interest to patients in terms of the patient care that they expect to receive, are public documents and are published. They are certainly available in the districts. If the noble Lord cares to
330
investigate the contract in a district, he may do so. In addition, an annual report is required to be published by every National Health Service trust. It has to be presented at a public meeting. There is ample opportunity for members of the public to know what is going on in the trusts. The Secretary of State, as for any other unit in the National Health Service, has ultimate responsibility to Parliament for the running of the National Health Service, including National Health Service trusts.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in order to get the record straight, is the Minister aware that for 37 years I was associated with Bermondsey? I come through there every day of my life and I know what goes on. There is no demonstration against the decision of Guy's Hospital. It is a beloved hospital.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that goes for most of the National Health Service trusts. I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the Government are so concerned about the interests of the patients or the consumers, can the Minister say why it is that the community health councils, which were established to protect such interests, do not have automatic access to National Health Service trust hospitals as is the case with the hospitals under the district health authorities? What is the difference? Further, is that not a diminution in the protection for patients?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of all the public documents that are available to the CHCs as well as to every member of the public, I believe that there is quite adequate access.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I ask again: if in fact the NHS is not satisfied with a contract drawn up between a district health authority and a trust, what effective control do the Government have to insist that it is changed, short of sacking the chairman or dissolving the trust?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if the Secretary of State finds that a district health authority has not entered into an adequate contract or that the contract has not been performed adequately, he has powers to remonstrate with the district health authority and. therefore, impact on the operations of the National Health Service trust.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, that answer is not clear enough. I am not talking about the control that the NHS has over a district health authority. The specific question was: what sanction or control do the Government have over a trust, short of sacking the chairman or dissolving the trust?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Secretary of State has exactly the same powers over National Health Service trusts as he has ultimately over any other unit in the service.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I take that to mean that the Government can in fact impose a different contract on the trusts. Is that correct?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, that is not very effective control, is it?

The Science Budget 1991–92: Select Committee Report
11.32 a.m.
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Science Budget 1991–92 (3rd Report, 1990–91, HL Paper 37).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, today we are debating three reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Two of them represent work mostly carried out last year. The third was produced in record time, thanks to high technology, earlier this year. A common thread unites them.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will introduce the report of his sub-committee on definitions of research and development. We often have to ask whether in Britain we spend enough on R&D, and on civil R&D in particular; and how that compares with what other countries spend—because, as your Lordships' committee has pointed out many times, international comparison is the most useful indicator of whether the spending level is about right. But before such comparisons can reliably be made, one first has to set up appropriate definitions that everybody both here and abroad will abide by. The report is important in the present context because it shows that in this country we spend less on R&D than is often stated to be the case.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will also present his sub-committee's report on how the United Kingdom responds to proposals for new international scientific programmes. That report is important in the present context because, as certain kinds of science get more expensive, international collaboration—often desirable in its own right, to be sure—becomes the only way to continue in the field when money is short. One therefore hopes that proposals for international programmes can be dealt with quickly and fairly. We found teat appropriate procedures exist for considering most kinds of collaboration, but they should work better than they sometimes do. As we shall see presently, however, international collaboration has one drawback, which is that it introduces a strong element of inflexibility into the affairs of the funding bodies; namely, the research councils.
The Third inquiry was chaired by me, and I shall introduce it now. It was concerned with the science budget for 1991–92. As your Lordships will readily understand, we have been methodically gearing ourselves up to examine the level of spending on basic research by bodies such as the research councils—the science budget, as it is called, to distinguish it from the total spending on R&D of which it is only a part. The precise budget for next year is something of a detail, your Lordships might think. We decided to look at it because of the shoal of anguished letters addressed to us during January and early February bewailing the
332
drastic measures of retrenchment mooted by the Science and Engineering Research Council to circumvent a serious financial problem. There was talk of closing the unique Nuclear Structure Facility at Daresbury, of withdrawing from the European high flux neutron facility at Grenoble and of severely reducing the funds available for research grants and studentships in order to balance the budget.
However, it was not just the letters. In a public statement, the recently appointed chairman of the SERC, Sir Mark Richmond, did not mince matters; he thought that the settlement was "lousy". Moreover, the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, Sir David Phillips, was reliably reported as having complained to the Secretary of State that the whole budget allocation was,
"substantially less than the sums needed to sustain the health of the UK science base".
Clearly, many believed that there was a crisis in the funding of science this year. We decided to find out to what extent this was so and how it had come about. However, while looking at the science budget, we tried to find out more about the likely effects of changes that the Government propose to make in the dual funding system; that is, the system whereby general support for research comes from the Universities Funding Council in addition to the more selective, and often more massive, support of the research councils.
That is a topic addressed by your Lordships' committee on many occasions. It is also referred to in the White Paper, which was published on Monday, but not in terms that add anything to what we already know in this particular respect, whatever the merits of that document may otherwise be. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will have more to say about it than I have. I shall say only that had the proposed transfer of funds from the UFC to the research councils taken place as originally intended, the resulting difficulties facing university research would have been even more severe.
Well, was there a crisis? Yes, there was; but although I shall not weary your Lordships by quoting too many figures, one first has to look at the longer-term financial envelope. Here I must thank our Clerk, Dr. Walters, our specialist adviser, Professor Roger Williams, and our special assistant, Dr. Ian Harrison, for their analytical skills and presentational flair.
The Government asserted, and we accepted, that there had been in real terms a 23 per cent. increase in the science budget in the 10 years since 1981-82. That budget is almost entirely allocated to the five research councils, of which in financial terms the SERC is easily the biggest and, it appeared, the hardest hit. It is allocated by the Secretary of State on the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
However, the total money available for research also includes substantial amounts allocated by the Universities Funding Council specifically for the support of research under the dual funding convention. That sum has been shrinking, so that when the two allocations are added together—something that the DES apparently never does—the total increase since 1981-82 is only about 10 per cent.
Moreover, when allowance is made for the fact that the average costs of scientific research increase a little more than the overall inflation rate because of its increasing sophistication—say, 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. more—then the increase in the science budget is small or even negative over that 10-year period.
Even if that argument is rejected on the grounds that there is but one index of inflation and the Treasury deflator is its name, the Government have consistently underestimated the going rate when settling the current value of the science budget. Hence, there has been in effect a continuing squeeze for many years on the money available for scientific research, so that there is by now no fat left in the system to absorb or disguise short-term shortages unless drastic measures are taken to reduce still further the volume of research supported.
It is against that longer-term background that one has to see the allocations to the research councils this year. The DES argued that the additional money made available to the ABRC for 1991–92—£60 million in total—when appropriately massaged to allow for a variety of changing circumstances was equivalent in cash terms to an increase of 6 per cent., equal to the Treasury estimate of the rate of inflation. But much of that £60 million was not new money! It included £23 million capital expenditure that became available for general spending during this financial year. ABRC, however, had assumed that this money was in the baseline and had already committed it. When that is allowed for, this year's increase is more nearly 4.5 per cent. The precise analysis is given in the report and I shall say nothing more about it. Whether or not it is normal practice to treat baselines in that cavalier fashion, it seemed clear to us that the Treasury had pulled a fast one because the ABRC and the research councils had expected, and had been led to expect, otherwise.
When that reduced sum came to be shared out among the research councils some fared very badly. The SERC was given a cash increase for the year of just 2.9 per cent., much less than any realistic estimate of inflation. Under its former chairman, it had quite reasonably assumed that it would be treated more generously than that. Unfortunately, it had already acted on that optimistic assumption, a very unwise thing to do. I speak as a former chairman and accounting officer of that council. It should have known better than to run the risk of what in business terms would have been called bankruptcy. In effect it so committed itself to large items of expenditure from which it could not rapidly withdraw—international and other collaborative projects —that the only way it could escape a serious overspend resulting from the inflexibility of the budgetary allocations it had made was to cut the research grant and studentship budget. It cut it from £44 million to £25 million, leaving many of our most innovative young scientists with no means of support. If that is not a crisis I do not know what is. To escape from the ongoing situation, it precipitately proposed to withdraw, without adequate scientific reviews, from some of the big facilities I have mentioned.
Some indication of the gravity of the consequences for university research will be given by my noble friend Lord Porter of Luddenham, whose maiden speech we eagerly await. He is a most distinguished chemist and former president of the Royal Society. Indeed, I am tempted to describe him as "the Nobel Lord" for that is what he is. We are delighted to welcome him as a full blown Member of this House today, knowing that he intends to be a very active Member hereafter.
What has been the government reaction to this unhappy series of events? Mr. Clarke vehemently denied that there was a crisis, but he seemed not to have understood that there was really no other course open to SERC, once the position I have described had been reached, than to do what they have done. He seemed to wish to punish it by refusing to help in any way. Perhaps the officers responsible for such rash policies deserve some admonishment, but if no help is forthcoming the only real sufferers will be the disappointed research grant applicants from the universities who comprise so much of the science base of this country and who are in no way responsible for what has happened.
The SERC claims that it has been done out of £40 million which it was confident it would get. Be that as it may, we have done our sums too, and we reckon that on a conservative estimate it should be given, through the ABRC, the greater share of an extra £12 million for 1991–92, presumably from the contingency reserve. That would ameliorate somewhat the position on research grants and would enable the research councils, especially the SERC, to seek a better balance of expenditure so that difficulties of the kind which have occurred this year will not occur again. I hope the Minister who is responding for the Government today will be able to give some encouragement on that score. I hope too, that she will be able to offer some relief by way of recompense for increased VAT which, by raising the Treasury deflator from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. amounts in effect to a further cut of £9 million.
The Minister may refer to the Written Answer that most conveniently found its way into the Commons Library early this morning. It appears to give the research councils more money. It does nothing of the kind. It merely announces the allocation for planning purposes of notional sums already agreed by government, but held back by the ABRC, for the two years following the one in which we claim that there is a crisis. At best it allows the research councils to proceed on level funding thereafter. It does nothing to reduce the crisis in their present funding.
That is almost the end of my tale but not quite. In our report we have been critical of Government and critical of SERC. But our chief concern as a Select Committee is, of course, with the health of science and technology in this country and the uses to which they are put in industry and elsewhere. At the start of my speech I said that there was a common thread uniting our three reports. It is the shortage of funds for research and development resulting from the fragmentation of responsibilities. On the one hand, the Government insist that industry should pay for what they are pleased to call "near market research". On the other, more and more voices are declaring that

335
a healthy industrial performance presupposes a stronger science base. At best there is a huge gap in between that nobody wants to fund; at worst, neither side has been properly funded for years.
On 28th January, a group of us were privileged to he received by the Prime Minister, who wished to discuss our concerns about the organisation and funding of science. He said that he intended to ask the appropriate Cabinet committee to form an overview of the science and technology of the nation so that in future particular issues such as the size of the science budget can be judged in that wider context. We were impressed and delighted, but have heard no more since. Perhaps the Minister can report on the latest progress because something of the kind is sorely needed. If co-ordination cannot be made to work, the only alternative —and in my view it would be a retrograde step—may be to centralise responsibilities in a new department of science and technology. We cannot go on with the piecemeal approach any longer.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Science Budget 1991–92 (3rd Report, 1990–91, HL Paper 37).—(Lord Flowers.)
11.48 a.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I have to introduce two reports. The first is Definitions of R&D and the second, International Scientific Programmes. First, I wish to express my thanks to all the members of the sub-committee which produced the reports, to those who gave evidence to us and to our specialist advisers, Professor Roger Williams for both studies and Dr. Mick Lomer for the second, and to our invaluable Clerk, Dr. Rhodri Walters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, a common thread runs through all three reports that we are considering today: it is the Government's policy towards and support of, or lack of support of, research and development, or to use another phrase, science and technology. Definitions of R&D, I must admit, is not an exciting title. I do not pretend that our report makes fascinating reading, but it is important. The reason why we embarked upon it was due to the concern that the Select Committee felt, and had expressed in its reports on civil R&D, that neither the Government nor industry were devoting sufficient effort t3 it. Also, Ministers had made statements which purported to show that all was well and that both the Government's and the nation's record compared well with that of our principal economic rivals in the field. The committee believed that this was not the case and that the arguments that Ministers used—of which we quote examples in the report—were distorted by including the Government's expenditure on defence R&D or what the Ministry of Defence calls R&D. That accounted for almost half the Government's R&D expenditure and was much higher as a percentage of GDP than that of Germany and Japan and slightly higher than that of France. However, the percentage of GDP that we devoted to civil R&D was significantly less than that of France, Germany and Italy, and much the same as that of
336
Japan. In Japan, the effort devoted by industry to civil R&D represents a much higher percentage of GDP than in this country.
I have used the past tense because we carried out our study in 1989, working on figures related to 1987 and 1988. There have been changes since then, but not such as significantly to affect our conclusions.
If one is to use international comparisons in this field, one must try to compare like with like. That is not easy. The methods of support for R&D, both defence and civil, vary a good deal from country to country. The best means of comparison is to observe the manual produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, called the Frascati Manual, which I have in my hand. I believe that I am one of the few to have read it.
The first rule to observe is that everyone in the business should follow the definitions in the manual as closely as possible. We were concerned to find how few people either observed it or even seemed to know about it. It is at present being revised and we made suggestions for its improvement which we hope will be included in the new edition which is due next year.
One of our main complaints was that a large proportion, certainly more than 50 per cent. and perhaps as much as 80 per cent., of the large sum which the Ministry of Defence classified as development did not fall within the Frascati definition of experimental development as,
"incorporating an appreciable degree of novelty".
When one considers how large a slice of government expenditure on R&D that represents, your Lordships will appreciate what a degree of distortion is introduced if defence R&D is included when making international comparisons. We were glad to note that in their response, which took over nine months in gestation, the Government went some way to recognise this. They told us that work was in hand to improve the Ministry of Defence figures. We look forward to the results and hope that they will not be even longer in gestation.
The other important reason for having agreed definitions of R&D and observing them is that government policy is said to be based on giving financial support to some kinds and not to others. In theory, they accept responsibility for the support of basic research through the research councils, and, hitherto, the Universities Funding Council, and, both in their own laboratories and extra-murally, support for their own activities, such as defence, and their statutory responsibilities in other fields. They are also prepared to give encouragement, preferably on a shared basis with industry, to what has been called strategic research. The trouble is that people mean different things when they use that term. In their annual review of government R&D, the Government define it as:
"applied research in a subject area which has not yet advanced to the stage where eventual applications can be clearly specified".
That is close to the definition adopted by your Lordships' Select Committee in a previous report. However, in some fields, such as the medical field, it is used to describe the accumulation of knowledge, including data collection, as a general scientific

337
background from which new ideas may spring. What is clear is that the Government believe that anything more applied than that, which they describe as "near-market" research, should be financed by those who expect to profit from it: that is industry. The result of vagueness in this area, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, is to leave a grey zone of considerable importance which is not well financed either by government or by industry.
One of our important conclusions was that although a more detailed breakdown may be useful for certain national purposes, when making international comparisons definitions should remain broad. More detailed ones have a spurious appearance of accuracy which they do not merit. Defence should be excluded and perhaps all development also. Attention should be concentrated on the effort devoted to research. The best comparison is gross expenditure on civil R&D—that is by both government and private sources—as a percentage of GDP and growth of that expenditure as a percentage of GDP. For those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject, I commend not only our report but also that produced by the Science and Engineering Research Council in July last year entitled, Research in the United Kingdom, France and West Germany: A Comparison. It came to the same gloomy conclusion as did our report. We said,
"that, as a nation, we arc investing too little in civil R&D and the situation is getting worse. Our national expenditure (particularly in the private sector) is not in line with our competitors".
The other sub-committee's report on innovation in industry had something to say about that.
I turn now to our report, International Scientific Programmes, published in February of this year, to which the Government have not yet made an official response. We embarked on this because we were told that there was general dissatisfaction about how the United Kingdom responded to proposals for international scientific programmes. We ourselves had been much concerned, when studying marine science, about the unsatisfactory situation at that time over United Kingdom participation in the ocean drilling programme. That was subsequently resolved. It was suggested to us that the procedures for considering participation in international scientific programmes and for evolving a co-ordinated response were not well known and involved serious delays. As a result the international scientific community gained the impression that although British scientists were highly regarded abroad, the Government were not interested in international scientific co-operation. Our study led us into a wider consideration of the subject than the narrow one of how, as a nation, we responded to other people's proposals.
It became clear to us that there are many different kinds of international scientific co-operation, varying from mutual co-operation between scientists working in the same field—perhaps each working from his own laboratory, requiring no bureaucratic structure to support that co-operation—to major international
338
laboratories, involving considerable expense, of which CERN, the European Centre for Nuclear Research, is the most obvious example. Science in space is another.
There are also many different reasons for international co-operation. Advancement of science by exchange of ideas and experimental results is one; the need to make observations at many widely separated points of the globe or in different natural circumstances is another. That applies very much to the environmental sciences. The desirability of building up scientific expertise in other countries, particularly in the developing world, is another. Finally, the expense of creating and maintaining expensive facilities which few nations could afford on their own, such as the need to have access to space and to sources of neutrons and to study particle physics, is important.
We found ourselves classifying programmes as, first, informal and personal; secondly, formally co-ordinated, multi-centred and without funding, which does not mean that one does not need money for them—each participant finds the money from some source in his own nation—and thirdly, the same kind of programme, but with funding, where there is an international arrangement for funding. Finally, there are the large centralised programmes and facilities. We stressed the importance of the informal and personal which we saw as growing in importance as the nation's relative position in world science continued to fall. We expressed concern that the transfer of funds from the Universities Funding Council to the research councils should not result in a reduction of funds for travel, especially for young researchers.
We found no great problems with the second category in which we noted that EUREKA worked well, as indeed does the International Energy Agency. We commended the Department of Trade and Industry for the part it played in promoting EUREKA. We suggested that the research councils should expedite their machinery and procedures for responding to proposals for co-operation from our own sciences and should make the procedures more widely known.
In the third category we were inevitably much concerned with the European Framework Programme. However, we tried not to go over the ground that had already been covered by the European Communities Select Committee whose report entitled A Community Framework for Research and Development was the subject of a debate in this House on 28th January. We found the Treasury's attitude to additionality and attribution—once we had struggled to understand it—as unsatisfactory as the European Communities Select Committee did. I know that my noble friend Lord Sherfield will have more to say about that. We drew attention to the need for wider participation from the scientific community in considering proposals for that programme, and for regular evaluation of projects once they had been accepted. One cause of the attribution/additionality problem is the success that scientists in this country

339
have achieved in attracting funds from the programme, to the envy of the French as we learnt when we visited Paris.
In the difficult category of large, centralised programmes and facilities, we did not support the suggestion that a new co-ordinating body was needed to consider proposals. However, we concluded that closer liaison was needed between the Cabinet Office science and technology secretariat and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and between the latter and chief scientists of government departments when they were significantly involved. We recommended that the Cabinet Office's document Guidelines for Future International Collaboration should be made widely known to the scientific community as a whole.
We made two observations. First, we deprecated the Government's negative attitude to hosting large scientific facilities in this country. That is a great contrast to the view taken by the French and German governments. Secondly, we noted that there is no supra- lational forum which takes a strategic overview of the development of large facilities in the context of the activities of national facilities. It could sometimes be preferable to convert a national facility into an international one rather than develop an international one from scratch. The Joint European Torus at the International Atomic Energy Authority's laboratory at Culham is a successful example of that.
Finally, I wish to make a personal observation arising from this study. I fear that we may not be thinking internationally enough in the scientific field. There is a danger in regarding the primary role of science as underpinning economic competition, whether in national terms or in making the European Community competitive with Japan and North America. That is to take too narrow a view and it will not produce the best science for the benefit of mankind. We sometimes forget that mankind includes ourselves.
12.3 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I am glad to speak to the three Motions which have been put forward. I shall confine my remarks to the two Motions tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, about which he has just spoken. I shall frame my remarks primarily from the point of view of an industrialist but also as a member of the Select Committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I had the privilege to serve on that committee and I commend the able way in which the noble and gallant Lord conducted the two inquiries. As he himself said, definitions are by nature a dull subject. I agree with him, but I must emphasise how important definitions are for all that. They are particularly important from industry's point of view.
R&D is an important factor in maintaining the competitiveness of industry, as all noble Lords will be well aware. The issues that were brought out in the reports are important and deserve the close attention of Her Majesty's Government. I shall touch briefly on one or two reasons why the two reports are so important. As the noble and gallant Lord said, definitions of R&D are often used for comparative
340
purposes. There is no doubt that there was a wide divergence of view as regards the definition of R&D and as regards whether we were comparing like figures with like. Clearly we were not, and therefore there was a danger of becoming misled in using figures for comparative purposes.
I wish to pick out four reasons for the importance of this subject. First of all, there is a need for industry itself to record its R&D spend in a meaningful way so that the figures can be used in company accounts and can be studied by all interested parties. Those figures can then be used as part of our national statistics for comparative purposes on a national and international basis. Secondly, the figures are important because the DTI needs to associate the figures collected by industry with the Government's relative spend in similar fields. This would enable the DTI to take a meaningful overview of the position of this country's industries relative to those in other countries. I hope that not only will the DTI take such a meaningful overview, but that it will also use the figures for discussions with industry as regards what measures are necessary to maintain the full competitiveness of our industries in the international field. I hope that that will form part of the new activities outlined recently by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Thirdly, I wish to emphasise the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, relative to the dominating position of Ministry of Defence expenditure in this field. That can be misleading if it includes a lot of expenditure which does not constitute research or development. Having worked in this industry, I am aware of the large sums of money which are spent, for example, on aero-engine testing, on flight testing and on aerospace equipment. That expenditure is extensive and it does not necessarily constitute either research or development directly. The situation must be clarified if the figures are to be meaningful.
Fourthly, it is frightfully important that our financial institutions and finance houses also take note of the figures and reconsider them in a meaningful sense so they can satisfy themselves that companies are adequately taking care of their future. The financial institutions can also give credit where credit is due to companies that are doing just that. We have received the Government's response to the report on the definitions of R&D. I, for one, welcome it as constructive and helpful. I hope that the Government will take further note of the recommendations.
I turn now to international scientific programmes. Again, I emphasise how important it is to consider these strategically and to ensure that we are taking the maximum opportunity to develop our science base through such programmes. I urge the Government to look closely at this matter for the reasons which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, mentioned.
I wish to make four points from an industrial point of view. First, participation in these programmes enables us to participate in high technology programmes which we would not otherwise be able to involve ourselves in due to the high expense involved. That should be taken very much into account. Secondly, it exposes the scientists and technicians who

341
participate to high technology fields and also enables them to make contact with their peers in other countries. That can be extremely stimulating and rewarding and its value is not to be overlooked.
Thirdly, there are wide gains to be achieved from the acquisition of new technologies, new methods of measurement and instrumentation, new materials and so on, all of which will feed back into the more general field of R&D and make a very valuable contribution to our industrial research and development base.
The fourth point, which came out very clearly in our inquiry and which has already been made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is the opportunities represented through hosting major projects. When one hosts a major project in the country it widens exposure beyond the scientists and technicians participating directly and reaches many other scientists and technologists, giving them access to such a facility. Wider still, there are opportunities for students and others to participate and see something of the work. Hosting such projects also provides opportunities for our industrial companies to participate in the development and supply of the advanced equipment required.
It has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, that government decision-making procedures in this field are very diffuse. That was brought out very clearly in relation to the question of decision-making on participation in and hosting of major projects. It seemed to be nobody's job to look at projects constructively and strategically and decide whether or not they would be worthwhile. We were left with the impression that they were judged largely on financial considerations by the Treasury. The criterion appeared to be whether they would pay on a direct financial basis rather than whether they would be worthwhile on a broad basis, taking into account the advantages that I have mentioned of participation, which can be much more important than the direct financial gain.
I hope that the Government will recognise that: we are at a disadvantage. We should face up to it, and the Government should face up to it. We are at a disadvantage in not having a Minister of science or some such arrangement to oversee science activity. I do not advocate that we should have such a Minister, but I believe that the Government should recognise the weakness of the present position and take conscious steps to ensure that the weakness is taken care of in some way which ensures that we are not at a disadvantage vis-à-vis our competitors.
I hope that the Government will take note of the recommendations. They are extremely important to our R&D effort and to industry. I commend them to your Lordships.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I take part in this debate, having recently come out of hospital and therefore not having served on the committees. However, it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the two chairmen who introduced the reports. I do not think that the House
342
of Lords or many people outside it are aware how much work is involved in the chairmanship of such a committee. There is a prodigious quantity of paper to read. Whereas very few of the members of the committee can claim to have read all the papers, the chairman has to read them all.
These are brilliant reports and it is unfortunate that the Government have been so slow in making it possible to hold a debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has views on that. If the Government had only reacted more quickly to the report on R&D we could have had a debate earlier. Each of the reports would have warranted a whole day's debate.
I echo the tribute that has been paid to the clerks, and in particular to the new clerk. However, let us also remember the original clerk who was responsible for the R&D report, Mr. Paul Hayter, who has gone on to higher things and has set an example which will be very difficult to follow. Mr. Rhodri Walters has done a very good job, as have the officials.
It is also unfortunate that this debate takes place when the Lord Privy Seal is unable to be present. Once again the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is landed with a tremendous chore, which I am sure she will carry out very well. She has done the same already in previous sessions of this Parliament and I am sure that she will do her best. I have received a letter of apology from the Lord Privy Seal in which he says that he greatly regrets not being able to be present on this occasion.
It is a formidable range of subjects which we have to debate today. Luckily the debate on atomic energy has been moved elsewhere, but we are still trying to carry a great deal. If it was not for the fact that this is nearly the Chief Whip's last day, I should have had something rude to say to him. However, the complaint is not so much against our people as against the Government and their indifference to the requirements of the House of Lords. I say that with good temper and I intend no reflection on anyone in this House.
The report on definitions of R&D, which we could with benefit have debated a long time ago, is a formidable one. It is worth recording—because we have had a very good introduction from the noble and gallant Lord who chaired the Committee—that the Committee recommends that the practice of quoting combined defence and civil R&D figures in the UK should generally be discontinued. Some comments on the subject have been made by ACOST. The Government could be a great deal less defensive. They go on defending a totally indefensible position on the grounds that they do not have an up-to-date estimate of what ought to be done. It is quite clear that putting defence R&D with civil R&D is greatly misleading. I am sure that my noble friend who will speak from the Front Bench will have something to say on that.
It is a very valuable report. It may not have a very exciting title Definitions of R&D—but it is a very important report. I commend noble Lords who have not had a chance to look at it at least to read the conclusion and the section on defence R&D. The problem is a very difficult one. How far the noble Baroness will be able to satisfy us I do not know, but

343
I live in hope. She has satisfied us so often in the past when we did not expect to be satisfied that we still have hopes on this particular occasion.
I want to say something more about international scientific programmes. I should also like to say how very glad we are to have a past President of the Royal Society and past head of the Royal Institution in our midst. He served with great distinction in the Royal Institution and it is a wonderful thing to have him in this House. I do not believe that any committee in any country in the world has among its members such tremendous expertise as the Select Committee on Science and Technology. There are a few of us along for the ride because we are politicians and we sometimes help, but the distinction of members of the Committee is very great.
I should like to say a few words about the subject of international scientific programmes, which the noble a id gallant Lord, Lord Carver, introduced very clearly. As he explained, the committee undertook its investigation following allegations by the Royal Society that there was a procedural vacuum in the United Kingdom for assessing proposals for international programmes. We found that the United Kingdom's response to proposals did not raise such problems as to merit a radical departure, but we thought that the procedures were capable of being improved. I should like to say a few words on the aspect of the machinery of government.
In the United Kingdom, responsibility for the conduct of research and for research spending is diffused. We have no ministry of science and, in the absence of such a ministry, we look to the Cabinet Office science and technology secretariat and to the Chief Scientific Adviser. At one point during one of the meetings that I attended, we interrogated the Chief Scientist almost as if he were the Minister. He is a substitute for a Minister, and very good he is, but we should not—in any case, this is not the occasion—turn lightly away the idea of a ministry of science. It has worked exceedingly well in France, Germany and Australia, although there are criticisms even there. The subject needs to be considered. I am not totally committed to the idea of a minister for science. A great deal would depend on such a minister having the right status in the Cabinet. If he is a junior Cabinet minister, it may not be very good. The account of the meeting of some of my colleagues with the Prime Minister was encouraging and we look forward to hearing a little more, but there is no doubt that the Cabinet Office secretariat is a crucial institution in that respect.
As the noble Lord made clear, there are certain things in which the Cabinet Office does not need to be involved, such as some of the climate research programmes under the World Meteorological Office and the International Council of Scientific Unions, which rely on applications for research council funding. That might cause difficulty, often because many researchers have unrealistically high expectations of research councils' ability to respond quickly. That is a matter for potential collaborators and research councils to sort out between them, and we recommend that they do so.
The other problem that we identified was that of
344
expediting UK responses to proposals for large centralised programmes and facilities such as the ocean drilling programme, the European synchrotron radiation facility or the James Clerk Maxwell telescope. Much of that decision-making involves the research councils, the ABRC, the DES and, ultimately, the Cabinet Office. Decision-making can be paralysingly slow. Sir Herman Bondi wrote to tell us how important it was to come to an early decision on the principle of such programmes. We resisted the siren voices which suggested that we should have another layer of bureaucracy, but we recommend that existing Cabinet Office machinery be made to work rather more expeditiously. There should be earlier contact between the Cabinet Office and the ABRC as soon as such proposals for collaboration are mooted, whether "top-down"—to use an extraordinary piece of language—by governments or "bottom-up" by research councils or groups of scientists.
Where proposed collaborative projects are supported by a government department rather than by a research council, the Chief Scientific Adviser should direct the department—again, I am talking about him as if he were a Minister—to take advice from the ABRC wherever a proposal might have a significant impact on financing. The Cabinet Office Guidelines for Future International Collaboration should be given a dissemination that goes wider than government departments. We thought that the Department of Education and Science might helpfully append to those guidelines practical procedural advice to a scientist wishing to advance a proposal as rapidly as possible. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate will have something to say on those matters.
The report raises other important issues, but I wanted to concentrate on the machinery aspect because it is a sensitive matter. Some of it works extraordinarily well in difficult circumstances and some does not. In this age of "steady state", which is sometimes called "shrinking state", international scientific programmes are an essential feature of the progress of our nation. The least we can do is to oil the wheels so it works rather better than it has done.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, I wish to comment first on the Science and Technology Committee's Report on R&D definitions and then to say something about its report on the science budget.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, outlined—the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, also referred to this point—the first report has dealt with the importance, as far as possible, of obtaining accurate and consistent data; of obtaining agreed and clear definitions on what constitutes R&D and what does not; of avoiding the selective use of statistics; and of comparing like with like. It warns about the difficulties involved in classification when there are too many subdivisions of R&D. As has been mentioned, it warns particularly about including defence costs when making international comparisons because much of the expenditure in that area is not strictly R&D, according to Frascati definitions. When making comparisons with Japan and Germany, that can be

345
misleading because of their small investment in defence R&D. As we have heard, the report's recommendation is that total civil R&D as a percentage of GDP should be used as an international comparitor. On that basis, it is shown from OECD statistics for 1987 that France and the US spent somewhat more than the UK, but also that Japan, Sweden and West Germany all spent about one third more than us.
The report is rightly critical of the selective use of statistics to suggest that UK investment in civil R&D is up to the level of our industrial competitors. We have recently been treated to a further example by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who stated that the British Government spent a higher percentage of GDP on civil R&D than Japan. That is strictly true: 0.55 per cent. for the UK as against 0.42 per cent. for Japan. I am sorry to throw figures at your Lordships, but that is the nature of the debate. However, it is only part of the truth and therefore dangerously misleading. It ignores the fact that Japanese industry invests a huge amount in civil research—four times as much as their Government—making a total of 2.8 per cent., as against our total of about 1.8 per cent. It is the total investment in civil R&D that is crucial for the health of manufacturing industry and the country, not necessarily its source.
If we wish to compare government funding alone, it would be wiser to compare with countries that have a more similar scientific and economic structure to our own. Government-funded R&D is 0.75 per cent. of GDP in Italy, 0.86 per cent. in France and as high as 0.92 per cent. in Germany, which is almost double the amount that the Government spend in this country. As I said, our figure is 0.55 per cent. Selected comparisons of statistical data chosen to make a political point, ignoring contrary data, is at best short-sighted. It is the nation which is the real loser when the facts are manipulated to conceal the truth.
Perhaps I may now turn to the report on the science budget. We have a crisis, to which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred, as a result of the funding of research councils falling short of their expectations. In particular, the SERC, which is the main provider of research funds in universities, received £40 million less than anticipated, which will have dire consequences for the availability of research grants for new students this year.
The Government claim that there has been a 25 per cent. increase in real terms in the science budget since 1979. On the face of it that appears indisputable although, as shown in the science budget report, a more realistic inflation factor would provide a less healthy picture. Whatever the reason for the disastrous situation in which the research councils find themselves, whether it is the result of their own mismanagement or whether the DES is responsible in not making the situation clear enough, what needs to be stressed is that government spending on academic research in science and technology in this country is abysmally low in comparison with other nations.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has produced its own statistics to show that the United
346
Kingdom spends 49 dollars per head of population compared with about 60 dollars in Germany, Holland, France and the United States; in other words, they pay 20 per cent. more. We should need to spend another £300 million to bring us into line with our European neighbours. I think that this places into perspective the shortfall of £40 million in the SERC budget. It shows contempt for the value of scientific research in this country.
If the Government should challenge with their own statistics the figures produced by the CVCP, I hope that they will do so in the spirit of the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in making more complete comparisons of like with like. We all know that, in the hands of the unscrupulous, statistics can be made to demonstrate almost anything: lies, damned lies and statistics, as Disraeli said. But for honest truth-seeking folk such as your Lordships, taken with a pinch of healthy scepticism and some intelligent interpretation, they can be a very useful guide.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, in rising to address this House for the first time I should like first to thank noble Lords for the very great kindness that they have shown to me since I came here last year. In particular I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his most gracious words about me this morning. I was hesitant to ask your Lordships' indulgence in hearing me until I had time to benefit from the great wisdom which is to be found—indeed, abounds—in this House. But being mindful of the fact that by definition a life Peer is not immortal, I shall tempt fate no longer.
Over the past months I have been privileged to serve on your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and today is something of a feast day for us as we take note of three of its recent reports. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Flowers for his kind reference to me. I shall confine myself to a few remarks about the report on the science budget, which he summarised so clearly for us. I hope that what I say will not be controversial. I shall speak about the way in which the budget is spent rather than its absolute amount, as that is, or at least should be, a matter for scientists as much as, if not more than, politicians.
A first glance at the graphs in the report which show trends in funding over the past 13 years might indicate to noble Lords that, apart from an ominous recent downturn in the funds coming from the Universities Funding Council, support for the universities is not so bad after all. But if funds provided over this period by the Government to the research councils have stayed roughly constant in real terms, why has support for so many university research workers almost dried up? It is because only a very small proportion of those funds ever reach the university scientists who work in the basic sciences of mainstream physics, chemistry and biology.
As one of those poor research workers, perhaps I may declare a personal interest. I and my colleagues at Imperial College—a group of nine young research fellows and students—are trying to unravel the fundamental processes of photosynthesis. It is an

347
important and competitive area of research and one that is moving rapidly. In order to move even more rapidly into the fast time domain of femtoseconds where the action now is, we need an instrument called a copper vapour laser. This is made in this country by Oxford lasers.
Four years ago we applied to the only funding body available to us for this purpose, the Science and Engineering Research Council. Our work had just been rated excellent for scientific merit and also cost-effectiveness and placed in category 1 by that council. Our application was unsuccessful. We resubmitted the application four times over the next three years. In one case the reason for rejection was given; it was on the grounds that—to quote the letter:
"it is not the Committee's policy to provide lasers directly to academic groups, but rather to encourage the provision of lasers at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory".
That is an in-house establishment of the SERC. Our other applications were rated alpha but unfunded and the most recent one was graded top of all the applications to the committee considering it. One might therefore have grounds for hope that a fifth application would be successful. But now, as my noble friend Lord Flowers explained, there has been a cut of nearly 50 per cent. by the SERC in the amount available to its science board for research grants, and the funding of research applications will be further delayed
Over this period we have had to use old and inadequate equipment. We spent an inordinate amount of time filing applications and borrowing apparatus, including the laser itself, which we managed to borrow from the manufacturer. I estimate that I and, much more important, my young colleagues have lost at least two years, they at the beginning of their careers, by this saga. There is nothing unusual in our case; it is just about par for the course.
How has this state of affairs arisen? The £40 million, which we have heard referred to several times and to which the SERC overcommitted itself is less than 10 per cent. of its total budget and might have been accommodated were it not for the fact that most of its expenditure is on expensive, in-house establishments and prestigious big projects which it is almost impossible to run down. Almost the only flexibility margins available for cuts are those allocated to small, responsive mode applications (I apologise to the sensibilities of noble Lords for that awful jargon). The £25 million which we have heard remains this year to fund all these important applications in all the universities of the country is less than 6 per cent. of the £450 million which the SERC receives from the Government.
The long-term solution is surely to have a long-term solution. The funds available for the support of scientific research must be planned over a time which is commensurate with the time taken by the research itself. Otherwise how can the scientists plan? Furthermore, to avoid a recurrence of what seems to be a natural drift away from responsive mode funding (bottom tip funding) to top down direction, we need a separate funding body—or better still, several of them, a plurality of them—for these small grants. The Royal
348
Society has operated a small grants scheme over the past three years and it has been a life saver for many of our best young scientists. Without some ring-fencing of this kind matters are likely to get worse as the remaining research funds under university control are transferred to the research councils, never, many of us fear, to be seen again by the universities.
Most of our great scientific discoveries of the past have come from individuals and small groups working within or very closely associated with our universities. This country has been proud of its science and has given its scientists encouragement, if not bounty. Today support seems to be given not only sparingly but grudgingly, with all sorts of strings attached.
Throughout history all great civilisations have pursued the arts and the sciences while their industry and trade flourished. These activities are inseparable, and if one is diminished, so are the others, and so is the country itself. Britain had, and still has, a leading place in the development of modern science. I believe that we should maintain that.
I thank noble Lords for hearing me on this subject which is so important to all of us.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I regard it as an exceptional privilege to have the responsibility, on behalf of the whole House, of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, on his outstandingly lucid, erudite and arresting maiden speech. It has been an even greater privilege to listen to him. No one could possibly speak about British science with greater authority. He is a most distinguished scientist, jointly receiving the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1967. He holds a clutch of honorary degrees. He holds the Faraday, Davy and Rumford Medals of the Royal Society, of which until recently he was such a distinguished president. He presided with equal distinction over the affairs of the Royal Institution. We all listened with great attention to what he had to say. I have noted from Dod's that his recreation is sailing. I would simply like to congratulate him on his maiden voyage in your Lordships' House. I feel sure that we shall look forward to many such interesting and exciting voyages with him in the future.
I make no apology for turning briefly at the outset, because of the research element of the debate, to the present position of the National Health Service. The only reason why I do so—some noble Lords may feel that the topic has been exposed; some may even feel that it has been overexposed in your Lordships' House —is because of the situation facing medical research today in many of our NHS hospitals. It was accepted in last week's debate that between 1979 and 1990 the Government have increased the funding of the NHS by 50 per cent. in real terms based upon governmental estimates of the rate of inflation. However, throughout that period nationally agreed salary increases for nurses, doctors and other members of staff have never been fully supplemented and health authorities have been required to find the extra money from efficiency savings.
Medical costs, like many science costs—to which reference has been made in this debate—have risen

349
some 30 per cent. faster than the retail prices index and other factors upon which the government estimates of inflation are based. We know that the demands for health care for a progressively ageing population have increased costs by about 2 per cent. per year over the same period. There have been major additional costs resulting from the introduction of new and effective drugs and from the development of advanced medical technology.
Thus, despite the hugely escalating costs of our National Health Service there has been a general agreement among most health authorities and the majority of the medical profession that the NHS remains significantly under funded. Research has inevitably suffered. Last week the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals expressed the gravest concern about the funding of our universities, pointing out that with increased costs arising from the VAT increase in the last Budget, they are now in seriously straitened financial circumstances, unable to pay anything more than a token increase in salary to their staff, and that they will be unable to pay to clinical academic staff—who in the past have been guaranteed comparability with their NHS colleagues—the pay award recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body. That could be the final nail in the coffin sounding the death knell of the declining discipline of clinical academic medicine, in which segment of our universities some of our most able and innovative research workers are employed. We are told that, after suffering major cuts in resources over many years, universities now need £500 million extra this year simply to stand still.
About two weeks ago the medical subcommittee advising the Universities Funding Council expressed grave concern about the future of clinical teaching in the light of recent cuts in services in the teaching hospitals. Now we have before us these carefully argued statements in the excellent report so ably introduced by the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Carver, indicating that government support for science is in an equally, if not more, parlous state.
I shall not repeat the arguments that they have adduced, nor the many which are so dispassionately but forcefully argued in the reports of the Select Committees. Can it really be right that the Science and Engineering Research Council should have been compelled to cut its new research grants by 50 per cent. and its research studentships by 15 per cent.? Is it right that the Medical Research Council, like that body, should have rejected on purely financial grounds first class research projects so that all around us we hear the same: "Approved, but not funded".
These matters are the lifeblood of British science and of university research, upon which not only the scientific but also the future economic and industrial well-being of this country, and improvements in the health of its people, depend. We spend less on government support for science in relation to our gross national product than virtually all of our major competitors in Europe as well as Japan and the United States. Even Australia, despite its recent national economic problems, has made the positive decision in
350
the interests of that country's future to increase government funding for science, including medical research.
I fully understand the Treasury's wish to restrict public spending. However, its almost obsessional preoccupation with that objective could well destroy the seed corn of future scientific discovery in the UK, just as it could have similar disturbing consequences in relation to medical care and education.
Perhaps I may express my especial personal concern about the present position of medical research, upon which the Department of Education and Science, through its Medical Research Council, spends more than £200 million annually—an amount which nevertheless, I am told, is less than the tobacco companies in the UK spend annually on advertising. Speaking as a former member of that council, and as the former director of a laboratory concerned with research into neuromuscular disease, but also as the current chairman of a charity, the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which funds substantial research in the neuromuscular field, I can only echo the rising tide of anxiety and deep concern being felt by my medical and scientific colleagues.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, the dual support system under which research in this country has for many years been funded in this country requires that there should be provided in our universities, hospitals and other appropriate institutions of higher education, an infrastructure consisting of well-found laboratories with a full range of basic equipment and services, and secretarial, technical and library support. As a former medical school dean, I can say that, in my medical school years ago in some departments in clinical medicine, that infrastructure, though minimal, was nevertheless crucial. In my own department of neurology, which had an annual research grant income when I left it in 1983 of about £350,000 a year, all the technical staff were paid for on "soft" money for over 20 years until we achieved university support from the dual support infrastructure, some admittedly provided by private endowment. It was an index of the loyalty and dedication of our staff that they stayed despite the personal insecurity involved in moving from one short-term appointment to another.
There is irrefutable evidence to the effect that the dual support system has crumbled both in the universities and in the National Health Service. Because of the financial restraints to which I have referred, the research expenditure in each of those areas has often had to be cut in order to preserve teaching and patient care.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to the extraordinary proposal through which it is intended to remove the financial component providing the research infrastructure of the dual support system (the so-called DR component) from the university grant and to transfer it to the research councils. While my comments probably come far too late, I must say that I cannot imagine a more ill-conceived proposal. Now that, according to the recent Government White Paper, the polytechnics are to become universities,

351
many more institutions will compete for these shrinking research funds. There is evidence that the DR money will be spread thinly across the entire higher education structure.
There is, of course, a suggestion that much of the funding may be restricted to favoured universities and departments of proven research achievement. But my experience as dean of a medical faculty—in some respects like a university in microcosm—led me to recognise that one never knew where the next rising research star would emerge from. Sometimes such individuals appeared in the most unexpected departments or quarters of the faculty. Only when a core research infrastructure is available is that emergence from the chrysalis likely to be nurtured.
Above all I am deeply concerned about the position of the charities, which for some years have provided more money for the direct costs of research than has the Medical Research Council. It is perfectly proper that universities and health authorities should charge commercial organisations overheads when they commission research. However, the informal agreement of long standing with the charities to the effect that, in view of the dual support system, they, like the research councils, do not pay overheads has been a crucial component of research support in the UK for many years. I cannot believe that it is right to suggest that hard-earned funds collected by these charities and their innumerable supporters through a variety of fund-raising events throughout the country should be spent upon providing that basic infrastructure of the research environment which should be a part of the provision of the well-found university and of the National Health Service.
The seriousness of the position cannot be overestimated. I urge the Government to think again and, first, if it is not too late, to overturn their remarkable decision about the DR component; and, secondly, to review as a matter of urgency in the country's best interests their science funding policy.
12.53 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, after hearing the opening speeches in this wide-ranging debate I rise to make only a couple of points and to venture a general comment. First, I shall comment on the way in which the Treasury deals with the financing of the European Framework Programme, with particular reference to the practice of attribution and additionality. Do not be alarmed, my Lords; it is not my intention to discuss the merits of that arcane subject this afternoon. However, there is a point which is perhaps one of substance as well as of procedure.
As was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, the subject was first addressed by subcommittee B of the Select Committee on the European Communities whose report was debated in this House on 20th January. That committee, on to which I and other members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology were co-opted for this item, heard some lucid and well presented evidence from Treasury witnesses. In the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, went to great trouble to expound the Treasury policy and his speech was much appreciated.
352
Owing to absence abroad I was unable to be present at the debate. However, I understand that as the report came from the Select Committee on the European Communities, the noble Lord's speech was the substantive reply to the committee's recommendations. That is different from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which receives written responses from the Government to the recommendations that it makes.
I also gained the impression that the Treasury felt that its elucidation of the policy would in itself suffice to convince your Lordships of its merits. That is not so. In its report on international scientific programmes, introduced today by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, the Science and Technology Select Committee returned to the subject. It may be thought that too much committee and official time has already been devoted to the subject. However, your Lordships' Select Committees must take account of the evidence that they receive and there is a great deal of unhappiness in the scientific community about this subject.
Of course no one expects the Government to depart from the fundamental principles for the conduct of public finance, especially in respect of what they probably regard as non-cost-effective units. It is also understandable that the Treasury, having laid down the guiding principles, is happy to leave the departments to deal with the fall-out. However, there are still unresolved questions and the effects of the system appear to be arbitrary and difficult to justify. For example, we were told in evidence that overall the net additionality which came out of the system was 30p to 35p of the total sum. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said in his speech that the amount was more than that. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, picked up that point. However, the way in which the additional sum was made up and what it amounted to was not at all clear, at least to me.
Not many people will have read and digested the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Much more transparency and flexibility need to be applied to the procedures. More explanation is required. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blotch, will be able to assure the House that such a detailed written response to the committee's recommendations will be forthcoming.
I recently left the Select Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I were instrumental in setting up and on which I served for 12 years. I believe that it has done some useful work and it has seen some of its recommendations accepted. However, it has not yet succeeded in changing the Government's negative attitude to the vital importance of a strong science base—the infrastructure to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has referred.
In its report on the definitions of R&D the committee was perhaps rash to venture into the minefield of comparative statistics. I suggest that the Government's response to it is a masterpiece of bureaucratic obfuscation with a sting in the tail. But—and again I shall not weary the House with the detail—there is no doubt that the United Kingdom is at the bottom of the first league table in the level of its

353
support for R&D. That was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Walton, and is borne out by other independent inquiries.
Of course one can do almost anything with statistics. In paragraph 27 the response refers to the indicator of comparative performance known as bibliometric data. It says,
"In these output terms the UK's record is excellent".
What it does not say is that the recovery is due, after a steep fall in previous years, to the increased volume of papers on applied research. The volume of papers on basic research has fallen, and basic research, as has again been said this afternoon, is the seedcorn of scientific achievement.
I have one more example. A Minister recently drew attention to the fact that the United Kingdom has won more Nobel prizes than any other country except the United States. That is true but rather misleading; 94 per cent. of those were awarded before 1981. Since that time the score is the United States 32, Germany 8, the United Kingdom 4 and Japan 2. But I must say that I do not believe this to be a particularly useful measure of a nation's general performance in science and technology.
It is not surprising that the committee made so little impact on the fundamental attitude of the English towards the relative importance of scientific and technological proficiency. It is well known that for over a century warning voices, from the Prince Consort onwards, about the dangers to British industry from the competition from Germany and other European countries have been disregarded.
I came across an example recently which I hope your Lordships will not regard as wholly frivolous. In the 1880s there was a row between geologists about the rocks in north-east Scotland. One of the protagonists was the celebrated Sir Archibald Geikie. The row spilled over into the press and the public arena and, fed by the poor performance of British industry in the international exhibitions of the period, was used as peg for a vociferous demand for more money for scientific research and development; compare our debate today. But the Government were not to be moved.
One Ralph Lingen was then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. He was so strongly opposed to government money being used for scientific research that he managed to curtail any extra spending on it throughout the 1870s and the 1880s and the Royal Society's government grant remained static throughout that time. One wonders on whose shoulders today the mantle of Ralph Lingen has fallen.
I should add that I do not overlook the fact that after World War II, when scientific research and development was much better resourced, it was foreign rather than British industry which in general reaped the benefit. That encouraged the view that research and industrial performance are not related. Our competitors certainly do not appear to agree with that opinion.
In November 1989 I received a letter from the then Prime Minister in response to a brief interim report of
354
the Select Committee of which I was then chairman. It was the one year in the decade in which the Government had made a significant increase in real terms in the science budget. The Prime Minister wrote:
"The Government notes the Committee's warm welcome for the substantial enhancement of the science budget for the current year. The increased resources will sustain top quality science across a broad field of basic and strategic, directed. and curiosity-motivated research programmes. They will enable important new scientific opportunities to be grasped and underpin the excellence of UK science into the 21st century".
Fine words; alas they have buttered no parsnips.
Though on the one hand the Government continue to maintain that they are increasing the science budget, on the other hand they have undermined any increase by clobbering the universities. I find one of the saddest features of the present situation to be the stand-off between the universities and the Government. I am sure that the Select Committee will continue to bring these issues before the House and one day perhaps the penny will drop.
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I was delighted to have the privilege of listening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Porter. It is not often that we have the opportunity of welcoming a former president of the Royal Society into this House. He may not be immortal but we hope that he will contribute to our debates for many years to come.
Today we are debating three closely allied reports of our Select Committee on Science and Technology. As I was only involved in the inquiry into the science budget by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, I shall confine my remarks to that area. Our scientific and engineering research and development are crucial to the maintenance of our competitive position in world markets and therefore to our future prosperity. As technological developments accelerate more rapidly, that will become more important in the future, not less. Historically, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, outlined, science and engineering, whether pure, applied or in their subsequent development, have had to fight for the budget.
This month we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first flight of a jet-propelled aeroplane of the war-time era. Frank Whittle battled unsuccessfully for many years for Air Ministry backing for his research. Fortunately, with war looming, he finally received support for the prototype aircraft and it flew successfully. Where should we be today without his scientific and engineering breakthrough in the field of jet propulsion and gas turbines? His brilliance founded a peace-time industry that powers the airlines of the world.
As Margaret Thatcher appreciated when she said, when opening ISIS in 1985,
"Basic research can be a springboard to the creation of wealth".
We all know that it then needs substantial persistence and industrial commercial encouragement if it is to proceed into the international market successfully. But the initial breakthrough in pure research must be

355
made and needs to be funded at a time when its success is by no means guaranteed and when it might be labelled "blue skies" research.
Not surprisingly, Sir Frank Whittle, with his past experience, joined with over 70 other distinguished scientists and engineers, fellows of the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Engineering—the two most prestigiaus institutions in Britain in these fields—to protest that more money needs to be put towards research and development in science and engineering.
Many people today worldwide are anxious about global warming and the Government are committed to making a United Kingdom contribution to combating its possible disastrous effects. The report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who chaired our Select Committee on the subject, emphasised the uncertainties of future prophecies without knowing the effects of thermal inertia within the oceans.
Recently the parliamentary and scientific committee had a most interesting lecture on proposed research in that field. It is a worldwide problem and should be financed worldwide. But we have the expertise in the United Kingdom and we will want to be involved. It is very expensive research that will need to be financed in the future. Already the National Environment Research Council is having to cut back on the expenditure it wishes to allocate to global, environmental and oceanic research. Other councils covered by the survey are cutting back expenditure and research relevant to this field, too. That does not augur will for the future of this vital field where time is running out. The Government need to plan ahead for substantial expenditure to demonstrate their international commitment to the solution of complex global environmental problems.
The Government have scientific advisers, but I feel that the majority of civil servants are not sufficiently scientifically qualified. That has an unfortunate effect on the science budget. We need more expertise in these matters throughout the Civil Service and especially in the Treasury. I hope that the Government will take that very much to heart. The principle of annuality puts scientific budgets very much at risk, whether it be big projects, such as I have mentioned, or the small ones such as studentships and grants. The Government have allowed 2 per cent. flexibility. I was glad to see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, Kenneth Clarke, said that he would watch the situation and review it We heard in evidence that an increase in flexibility would be very much appreciated. There is nothing worse than sudden spending on less worthwhile projects at the end of the financial year in order no to underspend. Scientific and engineering budgets reed above all to be carefully quantified and planned ahead over a period of say three to five years with an expectation of stability in funding. That way money should be spent wisely. I hope that the Government will investigate ways of moving to that more stable mode of operation.
That brings me to my second point. In our report we refer to the policy of SERC under its previous chairman in,
356
"over-committing available resources in the expectation of settlement for 1991–92 at a level which simply did not materialise … we roundly condemn the practices and policies which have put so much at risk—whatever the excuse".
Scientists and engineers are realists. They know that they live in a finite world. They are supremely numerate. They must put into action that numeracy and judgment which they undoubtedly possess wherever they are operating. I know their feeling of frustration. I was chairman of education in Essex, later chairman of finance, and finally chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission for a number of years at a time when successive governments of both political parties were cutting public expenditure. We could not do all the worthwhile—and to us essential —things that we wanted to do. Full allowance was not made for inflation or for wages and salaries negotiated elsewhere. We felt hard done by, especially on behalf of those we aimed to serve. Nevertheless we had to take note of expenditure agreed in previous years and how it committed us in the annual budget under consideration. We had to make the difficult decisions of putting cherished projects, both large and small, into orders of priority. We did not like it, but we knew that in the spending of public money we had to grit our teeth and do it.
There is never enough public money. The competition for its allocation for many—one might say a myriad of valid sources will continue. We must never forget that it comes from millions of small taxpayers who also have cherished projects of their own that they have to postpone. In David Copperfield Mr. Micawber said that annual income of twenty pounds and annual expenditure of nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence resulted in happiness while annual income of twenty pounds and annual expenditure of twenty pounds and sixpence resulted in misery. The figures are different but the feelings are the same. I am glad to say that the present chairman of the SERC is determined to take a tough line in controlling expenditure and I admire him for it. But because of past action his job will now be much more difficult. I was also shocked to read a report in The Times this month that the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons felt that the SERC had been "insufficiently rigorous" in the sale of Herstmonceux Castle for £8.1 million in 1988 despite offers which it rejected of £9.25 million and £14 million.
Such action undermines our confidence in the complex arguments about statistics and how the science budget is allocated. That is unfortunate, as I believe that scientific and engineering research is vital. We all rely on the intelligence, care, judgment and integrity of those who negotiate it on both sides of the equation. This time it is the young people, the studentships and the grants, which seem likely to suffer. That is not right as they are the seed corn of our future success. The other designated victim in future is the nuclear structure facility at the Darsbury laboratory about which we have received a great many letters in support of the need to retain that important facility for which there is no alternative in the United Kingdom.
The situation is aggravated by our eternal enemy, inflation, but also by the fact that our support for a

357
number of international scientific projects is calculated with reference to the UK GDP and other national currencies. Exchange rates and fluctuations in GDP are entirely external to the scientific world. It would be of great assistance if the science budget could be protected against these factors, as we recommend. I hope that the Government will consider the matter very seriously.
In conclusion, I hope that the Cabinet committee on science and technology, with the Prime Minister's encouragement, can find a better solution to the problems laid out in our report, if possible this year, but certainly in the future. We need a top level committee with the necessary overall clout to sort out the difficulties in the science and engineering budget which is so vital to our country's future prosperity and standard of living. I hope that the Government will act decisively.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, I had the privilege of serving on two of the committees which produced the reports now under discussion. One concerned the science budget and was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the other was on the definition of research and development and was chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. They have very cogently summarised their reports and I do not propose to go into great detail about the recommendations. They are well thought out and considered. The Government would be very well advised to give full weight to what has been said.s
As regards the science budget, my impression is that the present dual-funding system is not working very well. In particular I believe that the SERC has got itself boxed into a corner with great rigidity in the way it spends its money. It has enormous overseas commitments. For example, I believe that at CERN it is spending £60 million. The SERC has enormous other commitments in astronomy and in its own major laboratories. Its single most important function is to support the universities in getting younger scientists and to give them their opportunity. At the end of the day it has fallen completely behind in that function.
It is absolutely ludicrous that the most important function of supporting young scientists and new ideas is the one provision that is cut. The report, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, stated that a relatively trivial sum of money could put that matter right for this year. In spite of the lack of response from the Government so far, I hope that they will give us some encouraging news today about that. I would not mind if they coupled it with a determination to find the money from future SERC spending on some of their so-called fixed expenditure.
The whole business of our universities is under threat. Last year I took part in a debate in Cambridge with Mr. Robert Jackson who was then responsible for higher education. If my memory serves me right, at some stage he said:
"As far as the Government is concerned"
—and he was the Minister for higher education
"science is just another lobby".
358
How damned stupid can you get? It was an absurd thing to say and I am glad to see that he has been moved.
One of the most interesting documents published in recent times—and I do not know how many of your Lordships have had an opportunity to see it—is Innovation, Competition and Culture by the right honourable Peter Lilley. It is a most encouraging document and one of the most important documents on policy that the Government have produced this Session. I should like to congratulate Mr. Lilley and the Government on it. Even so, Mr. Lilley puts on record some of the misconceptions about our universities and science. Under the heading "Academic Snobbery" he says:
"Since Victorian times our educationalists have attributed esteem to subjects inversely to their practical and vocational content. Thus pure science was accorded more esteem than engineering. And engineering, when finally allowed into the university curriculum, was taught with a more theoretical bias than abroad, and usually with no commercial content in the course at all".
A little later on he said:
"Business was not attracted by the academic bias of engineering and science degrees nor by the anti-business attitudes often imbibed with them".
He went on:
"The idea that Government expenditure on 'ivory tower' research automatically generates industrial spin-offs is decisively refuted by our experience".
I think that that is sufficient evidence of a deep-seated feeling on the part of the Government that universities have been letting us down. I believe that they could have legitimately taken that point of view up to the beginning of this decade. However, partly because of the Government's actions and very much because of the universities' self-examination and reforms, in the 1990s the universities are a very different kettle of fish indeed from the universities of the 1980s, 1970s and 1960s. The famous Robbins expansion looking back was much too generalised and gave a lot of people too much freedom of action to spend money how they wished on things of interest only to themselves and was not a very good investment from the point of view of the country. I think it is right that the universities should have a look at what they are trying to do and how they are trying to do it.
There are at least four chancellors taking part in this debate—and I am one of them—and they will all tell you that universities today are absolutely marvellous institutions, operating under enormous difficulties. They desperately need some help and encouragement from the Government.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to this extremely sober document, The State of the Universities, which was published a few weeks ago by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It is very moderately phrased and very cogently argued, and it comes down to the fact that unless of the order of £500 million a year is injected into our universities, our university system is in danger of collapse. It is always easy to cry wolf. It could be said that we have cried wolf before, but anyone concerned with universities will now be absolutely at one that it is not crying wolf this time. Unless the Government take this belief very seriously indeed, nationally we are heading for disaster.

359
It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Education and Science refuses to meet a delegation from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, saying, "What is the point? There is no money anyway, so why should I talk to you?" I do urge the Minister to change his mind. In all sorts of other aspects Mr. Clarke has shown himself to be an extremely realistic, an extremely able and an extremely energetic man. However, I do think he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick with regard to universities, and the sooner he changes his mind the better.
I should like to see much more money going to universities directly under the dual support system rather than through the ABRC. Most university people were very worried by the ABRC attempt a few years ago to grade universities as first-class universities doing a lot of research, middle universities doing a bit of research, and teaching universities doing no research at all. That was argued against and defeated, and has not come to pass. Under the new education reform'; announced by the Prime Minister this week there are indications that it could still be another rather indirect way of achieving the same objective.
The university departments, of which I have first hand knowledge, are now the most useful tool we have for the future to introduce economic prosperity into our country. We have all been studying what has been happening in Japan, Germany and other countries which are moving ahead of us, and it all comes down to the fact that it is the proper exploitation of science and technology on which our whole future depends.
It was a great privilege to hear the noble Lord, Lord Porter, make his maiden speech. The noble Lord is probably the most distinguished scientist alive in Britain today. I knew the noble Lord in the early 1950s when h was the Assistant Director of the Rayon Research Association. That is pretty practical. Rayon made a great deal of money for various companies in the early years of this century, but by the 1950s it was in retreat against all the new so-called chemical fibres like nylon, the polyesters and so on. During the 1960s and 1970s, and to a certain extent the 1980s, rayon has continued its retreat but research has continued. Rayon now has a revival. In the recent figures produced by all the major fibre companies, it is ironic that probably the most profitable fibre is again rayon. The only fibre on which large sums of money have been spent to build new plants at the present time is the new variety of rayon derived from recent research. In other words, great advantage comes from research. If something fades, you can, with a new development, bring it lack again. The recent story of ICI, which is vulnerable to a bid by what might be called a non-scieiltific company, shows how we need new products the whole time. ICI's new products have been in pharmaceuticals and that is producing more than half its profits. It spends about £600 million a year on research—I think the last published figure was £640 mill ion—and it is still trying to find new products to take the company forward. The secret of the Japanese success when we looked into the whole Japanese economic miracle a couple of years ago, was in bringing forward new products new innovations.s
360
They were not always brand new products hut, as in the case of rayon, they improved existing products very considerably.
We now have the opportunity to send a signal to the universities that we believe in them, that we want to encourage them, and that we want to take away from them all these pettifogging constraints with which they are currently occupied. There is a chance for a major revival in this country which is university-based and which will go straight from the university to the industry. The new partnership between universities and industry has been one of the most encouraging developments in my lifetime. We want to nurture it and encourage it. A very simple way to do that would be that every time industry gives a grant to a university the Government should either double or treble the money and so show that there is a partnership between the universities, government and industry.
We are having this debate at the end of the Session. It is one of the most important debates for the future prosperity of this country. I ask the Minister to give us some encouraging news.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, may I say how much I valued and appreciated the excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Porter of Luddenham. I have been privileged to know him for many years and have recognised in him a man of supreme ability and knowledge in science, which has clearly been stated by a number of our previous speakers. Rarely can anyone have claimed to have put science into a new timescale, but his work on flashphotolysis did just that. He has scaled the highest heights in science, and I certainly, and I am sure I speak for all of us, look forward with great anticipation to the very valuable contributions that I am sure he will make in this Chamber.
Today we are considering a wide range of problems of science contained in these three excellent reports. If I may, I should like to turn to one aspect of the topics of debate today; namely, the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology relating to the science budget 1991–92. Owing to the limited amount of time available, I should like to restrict my comments to some aspects of an area that has direct impact on my role as a Professor of Chemistry; namely, the budget of the SERC, with particular emphasis on the position over the cuts in studentship awards and research awards. In so doing I think noble Lords will find that I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Porter has been saying.
The new chairman of the SERC, Sir Mark Richmond, has inherited a difficult problem and I should like to record my appreciation of the way he and his council have tackled this impossible situation. The council of the SERC has directed 10 per cent. savings from its four boards, with a very important proviso that the basic philosophy is to try to protect the research grants and studentships.
The science board, with which chemistry is primarily associated, has a budget of approximately a quarter of the total SERC allocation in other words,

361
of the order of £120 million. This is broken down to research grants, studentships and about one-third for the establishments. It is with the last category that the savings are intended ultimately to be associated. However, this is clearly the most difficult area to make the instant savings required by the present financial allocation. So in the short term the soft targets of the research grants and studentships are to be cut.
I should like to make some personal observations on what I believe this will mean within universities. I can assure the House that the universities are in considerable turmoil about these factors.
In chemistry we are under considerable pressure this year for studentship places. The cut of 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., although not appearing too severe, could not have occurred at a more difficult time. The position in the chemical industry—I remind the House that the chemical industry is the No. 1 manufacturer/ exporter in this country, with a balance of payments surplus of £2 billion—is not at the moment healthy. Recruitment directed to industry has been reduced this year, with a preference being shown for Ph.D. students. This has placed the present generation of graduating students in a difficult situation. That is to be coupled with a decrease in enrolment from the City, a significant recruiter in the immediate past.
For a given student graduating this year, this is his year; there is little hope or consolation in the knowledge that the studentship position will be resolved in two years, as we are led to believe. We are at risk of losing very able students at a time when I believe the country needs them. I remind the House that these will be the Ph.D. students three years from now when we hope industry will be back on the recruiting scale. There will be many disappointed first-class graduates this June/July who had hoped to do research. They will look in directions other than science —certainly chemistry—to fulfil their needs. A number of them will go overseas.
On the research side, the problem is even more acute. In the projected cuts, the allocation to the research grants is to be cut by around 50 per cent. I should like to emphasise a statement made by my noble friend Lord Porter. The grants have not been able to satisfy the needs of the community, in the immediate past anyhow. Thus, for inorganic chemistry, an area in which I am involved, there have been 120 applications this year to the appropriate committee. This is over two rounds of the committee, one for a September submission and one for a February submission. For the first time to my knowledge, arising presumably from the financial crisis, the two have been considered as one, so that people submitting in September have been left in suspense and have not been given the results of their applications. This makes planning, particularly for an October entry, extremely difficult.
It is compounded by the fact that when the grants are to be announced there will be a delay in many instances for a January funding. A discontinuity of this nature is extremely difficult. One cannot expect people to go away for three months and then come back and start up again. I have been told by the
362
chairman of the committee that approximately 10 awards will be made-10 out of a total of 120—and the probability is that they will not be fully but only partially funded. Seventy-five per cent. of the awards —a total of 90—were at the alpha grade. I return now to the point made by my noble friend Lord Porter.
This will result in many of the applicants being told that their grant was graded alpha but was unfunded —the infamous "alpha-unfunded" award. When I was chairman of the chemistry committee we funded not only the alphas but were able to get down to the betas on certain occasions. I am sure that this reflected the better form of funding available in those days.
I should like to put this into more personal terms. We can talk about large figures, but at the end of the day it is people who matter in this issue. I have a young lecturer who over the past three years has submitted grant applications to the SERC. He has had six alpha awards, all being unfunded. I ask you, what can one say? Although he has received some support from industry, if it were not for the dual funding operation, which is also under threat, I do not know what we could do to maintain his research.
With reference to the potential changes in the dual funding, I must agree with the statement of Sir Mark Richmond to the committee, at paragraph 3.12, that
"very bright young potential researchers, in parts of the higher education system that do not attract research support through research councils are less likely than now to be able to fulfil their vocation".
The position is compounded by the fact that when I was a young researcher there were many alternative sources for grants. This point was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Porter. The range has been drastically reduced. However, the reintroduction of the small grant scheme by the Royal Society, primarily due to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Porter, is a welcome change and has helped considerably to maintain a certain morale among the younger members of universities. The changes in the dual research funding to the universities will further reduce the flexibility and ability to sponsor the independent research worker. Research councils normally sponsor areas of research within subjects. These are often established areas or areas where potential is proven. The presence of alternative funding allowed the less popular areas—potentially the areas of the future—to be funded. That point must be emphasised again and again in our consideration of the dual funding operation. How will a young university lecturer who suffers this treatment react to a lucrative offer to go to the USA? My problem with the brain drain is not one of quantity but of quality.
Thus I strongly support the suggestions in paragraphs 2.38 and 2.40 of the report—essentially, the £12 million to which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred in his speech. We are concerned with a crisis of confidence in many chemistry departments throughout this country. I hope that the Government will respond quickly and effectively to the above and other recommendations in the report. The immediate needs covered by paragraph 2.40—the £12 million —is a minimal level of support.
1.38 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I join in the chorus of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. It is an especial pleasure for me to see him in this House because he is not only a fellow physical chemist but our lives have been linked in various ways over many years. He, like myself, is a Yorkshire man; he was educated in chemistry at the University of Leeds where I spent 15 very happy years; and he did much of his seminal work in the University of Sheffield with which I have enjoyed a close connection for about 12 years. I am sure that he will make a splendid and distinguished contribution to your Lordships' House, even though, as he said himself, he is unlikely to achieve that immortality which he thought the title Life Peer by definition would deny to him.
I appear at the end of the list of speakers as a member of all three committees whose reports are under discussion today. I reflect that if one great British statesman from the past could shed light, perspective and wisdom on the issues under discussion today, it would be Lord Haldane of Cloan. As one of the founding fathers of the research council system, who learnt much from his observations as a student in Germany, a country whose scientific policies today we could do well to emulate, he understood better than most that science policy has two major elements; namely, policy for science and the use of science to serve public policy. I do not want to talk about the latter. That us not because it is in any way unimportant; it is because what is done in that sphere is defines by the objectives of individual government departments which pay for the scientific work that they need and to that extent are responsible for formulating priorities and for managing that policy. Moreover, its benefits are generally more immediate than that which concerns us today.
In contrast, the devising and management of a policy for science are much more subtle and complex processes. That difference arises from two causes. In the first place, it is in the nature of scientific inquiry and progress that, if it were not resource limited, it would auto-accelerate. That is simply because the more a scientist knows about science, the better placed he or she is to gain more knowledge more quickly. Unfortunately, that also means that the costs rise rapidly accordingly. For many years now no advanced country has been able to allow expenditure on scientific research to grow proportionately to the demand of its scientists. Consequently, each country sets a limit on what it will spend. The critical policy problems lie in deciding that limit and in what areas the money within that limit shall be spent, including the increasingly important contributions to international scientific programmes about which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has already spoken.
The second cause of difficulty is that the objectives of work in basic science—by which I mean, in order to get our definitions clear according to the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that which is self-chosen or curiosity-oriented scientific, sometimes called "blue sky", work—are manifold. The practical benefits of the inception of the work are
364
often unforeseeable, although there are many examples which I could cite to show that the return on the investment in basic science has been quite enormous. For example, one can immediately cite such British discoveries as the antibiotics, penicillin and cephalosporins, the magnetron valve, the non-invasive imaging of the human body, and so on.
That unpredictability of outcome, at the time when one begins work, but confidence that scientific work is never wasted and the fact that some of it pays many times over for its cost and also for the cost of other scientific work, was very well encapsulated many years ago by a distinguished American scientist who, when challenged as to what the value of his work for the future was, said: "Damned if I know. But sure as hell they will tax it one day!"
The various objectives of basic research include many things: first, the general advance of scientific knowledge and understanding; and, secondly, the production of well trained lively minded young people, many of whom will be needed in society in the future as teachers, as leaders within science-based industry—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton—and who, because they contribute to knowledge acquisition in their fields, are uniquely alert to developments in those fields which are made outside the United Kingdom. They are therefore ready to enable this country to profit from what is discovered elsewhere. They are the seedcorn from which future harvests will come.
The best places for carrying out such basic scientific work are the autonomous universities or those institutes embedded within them when one has the added benefit that able younger people are inspired to become apprentices in the scientific enterprise simply because they are taught by those who are engaged in research. They are highly sceptical and self-critical and the young scientist becomes imbued with the same scientific and very important attitudes.
As I said at the beginning, Lord Haldane saw these matters very clearly over 70 years ago. He was chairman of the proto-University Grants Committee. Incidentally, I wonder where the chairman of the University Grants Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Chilver, is today; one might have thought that he would have had something to contribute to the debate, or that he might possibly have learnt something from it. What Lord Haldane knew 70 years ago, and what history has subsequently confirmed, is that universities must have money of their own which they can spend as they think best on research, in particular to provide resources in well-equipped libraries and laboratories which can both sustain the work of the young researcher and be the basic infrastructure for those senior colleagues who need extra resources in manpower and equipment for their own researches and which they can win from the research councils in open competition with others.
From those basic ideas of Haldane put forward so long ago, the United Kingdom's dual support system has evolved over the years to its present form. I must emphasise the fact that for many years that dual support system, which this country can take pride in having invented, has worked admirably. But now it is

365
crumbling and this causes dismay in the scientific community. Moreover, as we have heard, it is discouraging to the able young. It makes Britain a less satisfactory partner in international scientific programmes and bodes ill for the future of our country. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to the widespread anxiety in the scientific community about the situation. I can confirm that observation from my own knowledge, but I shall not elaborate further.
The primary cause of that malaise is that Britain has set the limit of funds that it is prepared to provide for those purposes at a level which is too low. It is not in dispute that, expressed either as an amount per head of population or as a percentage of the gross domestic product, it is less than those of the USA and major European countries, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, reminded us. Moreover, even using official deflators (which notoriously underestimate the true inflationary index for scientific research) the trend in the total of the sums available for research from the combined university and UFC resources has been very significantly downwards since 1987. I know that the Government will argue that international comparisons are irrelevant and that we in Britain arrive at our expenditure limits in other more sophisticated—some may say, more mysterious—ways. I remain quite unconvinced that we in this country are right and that all the others—that is, the Germans, the French, the Americans and so on—are wrong. I am worried that a country like ours, with a splendid past record of producing good science and scientists, should be willing, for the sake of a relatively small sum, to surrender its proud place and so disadvantage itself in the increasingly scientific and technologically competitive world which we shall continue to inhabit.
The second reason for the current malaise is that government have chosen at this juncture, of all junctures, to tamper with the delicate balance between both sides of the dual support system by switching money from the Universities Funding Council vote to the research councils so that the latter can pay the indirect costs—or, as most of us understand them, the "overheads"—incurred by universities when research grants are made to their scientists; and which universities were accustomed to meet out of their own block grants. It is said that the effect will be neutral. That is obviously true in the crude mechanical, arithmetical sense; provided that all the money so transferred finds its way back into universities, the university system as a whole will not lose money.
However, what is patently absurd and very worrying is the fact that the principle of transfer and the amount to be transferred were decided before any investigation had been carried out to assess the magnitude of the indirect costs and therefore to know whether there was any problem at all for which such a step could be regarded as a solution. But it has recently come to my notice—and very reliably so—that research councils estimate that the cost of effecting this unwanted change is about £800,000, money which could be better spent, as we have heard in the eloquent pleas which came from the Benches
366
behind me, on much needed studentships and fellowships. Last Friday, in a rare display of agreement, the vice-chancellors voiced their opposition.
No less significant is the fact that our inquiry revealed that this step gave the recently retired chief executive of the Universities Funding Council, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, great anxiety and, moreover, since the establishment of the new style ABRC, which had deprived him of his former ex-officio place on that body, he had no formal locus standi to make his views known in the forum where such matters are discussed. Having myself been, at various times, chairman of the UGC and also of the ABRC (indeed a member of the latter for some 15 years, if my memory serves me correctly) I am at a total loss to know how the latter body can function effectively without top level representation from the UFC and I hope that this defect can speedily be remedied. If it is not, we may have far more of the unfortunate situations I have described. Meanwhile, I am not reassured that such discussions as have gone on between the universities and the research councils have led to any kind of agreement either as to the magnitude of those indirect costs, or as to the advantages and disadvantages associated with such a transfer, and whether safeguards can be built into any new system to protect money from leaking away—I use that fashionable phrase—from the universities where it ought to be placed. In particular I should like to see safeguards which ensure that enough non-teaching resources are available to all the universities to enable them to meet the costs of the research of able young scientists, even in those universities which do not have many research contracts, and therefore have less of that kind of money restored to them. I say that based on many years of knowledge of splendid developments in smaller less prestigious universities. One recalls what everyone sees every day now—the effect of liquid crystals on our lives, which have their origins in a small university which I shall not name for fear of embarrassing it.
I too was one of the small group that saw the Prime Minister on 28th January, and I also was encouraged by the careful attention which he gave to what we had to say to him about science policy. I hope that it is not too much to ask that he, his Cabinet committee and his advisors give some consideration to both the level of overall spending from UFC and ABRC sources on basic research, and as to whether the proposed transfer is justifiable in logic, sensible use of resources or practicality.
1.53 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking for the Opposition in this important and interesting debate, my first pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Porter, on his maiden speech and to welcome him to our deliberations. I was interested in his description of his experience in trying to obtain a piece of laser equipment. That cheered me up a great deal because, after all, he is the winner of a Nobel prize. What he experienced is what people like myself have experienced throughout our academic working

367
lives when we are turned down for almost everything. I speak as the only social scientist contributing to the debate. That is the normal experience. I remember applying for a piece of equipment many years ago. The Social Science Research Council merely told me that I was mad and that it did not give equipment to social scientists. Things have now changed a little. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not obtain his piece of equipment, but it put my experience into perspective.
The noble Lord is a chemist. I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word about Helen Sharman who is orbiting the earth every 90 minutes.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, she is a Sheffield chemistry graduate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was about to say that she is a chemist. I had not realised that she is a Sheffield chemistry graduate. That makes her even more distinguished. She works in food technology and is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. We should be proud of her performance. I shall add a slightly acerbic note. She will not be performing any chemistry experiments while in space, because no funding was forthcoming from any source in the United Kingdom to finance or sponsor the Juno space mission. I hope that those Ministers who decide that the best thing they can do when she lands safely, as we hope, is to be photographed next to her, will bear that fact in mind.
While I am in a congratulatory mood, perhaps I can take the opportunity to congratulate my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her promotion. She and I are of the same vintage—as I suppose. I should call it—but she has far outdistanced all of us who were created peers on that list, and deservedly so.
There are many topics that could be discussed, but I must confine myself to one or two. I should like to start with the definition of R&D. I disagree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I thought his report fascinating. It is overwhelmingly correct in the sense that if we cannot satisfactorily define research and development, we do not know what to measure. If we do not know what to measure we cannot measure. If we do not measure we cannot put any of these matters into any quantitative perspective. What the noble Lord seeks to do is overwhelmingly right. We must take these matters seriously.
I am not saying that the noble and gallant Lord's report--he does not claim this—or the present state of knowledge enable us to come up with a hard-and-fast classification system. There will always be blurrings at the edges, and I shall say a word about that aspect in a moment. That we need to undertake such work and do it seriously is right. In that connection, I shall say something about paragraph 1.35 of the report which states:
"Then: is general concern in industry about the lack of feedback from the DTI"
on the question of data collection. I find that worrying. It is surely an area where one needs all the time to check whether what industry and others are delivering is what the DTI expects to receive and what it believes that it is receiving. There is the major
368
problem of whether the system of data collection is correct. I hope that the Government will take that paragraph seriously.
I shall say a word about the classification of R&D. I understand the difference between basic science and basic research and applied and strategic research and all such matters. It is not because I am ignorant of the natural sciences as opposed to the social sciences, but I find it hard to understand the concept of someone not doing basic research. That has always puzzled me. Whatever applied work one does, one is somehow drawn inextricably into thinking about fundamentals. I have never understood how anyone ever does research without thinking about fundamentals. That relates in particular to the MoD question.
The first article on economics that I wrote was financed by the Office of Naval Research in the United States. I have never found out what it thought that it was paying for, as I have said to your Lordships before. I believed the research to be basic research. If it had been asked what it was paying for, it would have said that it was paying for applied research. That has always led me to need to distinguish what the payer believes he is paying for and what is done. That leads to a further result. Although there are some people doing work in this field, we need more research into what happens in research. It is a difficult subject but we know far too little about what happens from the moment a research contract is awarded until the outputs are delivered.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is chairman of the committee, I can say that I did my share of military service as a member of something called the Army Operational Research Group. I assume that operational research is applied research. I spent a proportion of my time doing theoretical work on games theory, because that is what I found to do. The MoD may be under the impression that it never finances any basic research. My view is that it probably finances a great deal of basic research without knowing or without anyone ever telling it that is what researchers are doing.
More generally, on the value of research and international comparisons, I am aware of all the difficulties of looking at and interpreting ratios, time trends and all of that. It is a complicated matter. I may add that the definitions which apply to R&D apply more generally to investments. The real point on international comparisons towards which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, leads us is that at least they pose relevant questions. Let us assume that other countries spend more of their GDP on R&D than we do. We do not have to say that they are right and we are wrong. We must ask why they do it. That may lead us to the answer that they are right and that we are wrong. If the Germans spend more, do they do so because, for example, they are less efficient than we are? Do we spend less because we are much better at it? Even to say that sounds rather unconvincing to me. Are the Germans spending more because R&D is more productive in Germany? That may be the correct answer, but if so it needs to be examined. The reason for looking at international comparisons is not to jump to conclusions but to ask the right questions.

369
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was right to guide us towards that conclusion.
On the benefits of R&D, if we examine all the economic research evidence rather than specific evidence, putting all the strands together, we get a picture of R&D as overwhelmingly contributing to the economy. If we enlarge the picture to start from basic science, the point holds a fortiori. There is much evidence that innovation is enormously helpful to exports and therefore to the balance of payments. There is not much innovation without R&D and we do not get suitable R&D without basic science. Each part carries on the previous stage. To put it differently, do those who doubt the economic benefits of R&D and basic science, suggest that as concerns the economy we could stop all that and only do it for the sake of our scientific traditions? I can find no one who would logically support that conclusion.
I believe that the case is overwhelming. The report on the science budget brings out clearly that the case that we are funding the science base at too low a scale is overwhelming. To revert to the subject of chemistry, which interests me, reference has been made to ICI. Such a firm ultimately depends on the chemists whom we produce in the country. We shall not have ICI without them and that is why they are important. More generally, pharmaceuticals happens to be one of the industries in which we are world leaders. There are multinationals, but our own firm is a multinational. Without basic university science plus R&D we shall lose that position.
It worries me and always has worried me in everything to do with higher education that we erode the system. The word "crisis" has been used, but there is no crisis. What happens is that 20 years later we ask, "Whatever happened to higher education in Britain?" or, "Whatever happened to science?" It does not come about instantaneously; it happens over time. That is why the scientists who are accused of being boring and going on too long are right to do so. They are right to point to the dangers because those dangers affect our long term future.
As concerns measuring the funding, one of the biggest mistakes the Government made in their period of office was to say, "We will look at the so-called real terms solely in terms of an RPI or GDP deflator". I do not say that the deflator is irrelevant. The RPI measures nothing of value. However, the GDP deflator is more useful and to some degree will measure the value of resources forgone by science. The question is not what the value of the resources forgone was but what could have been bought with the money that the scientists would have been given. There we need a different deflator. The standard decision, which existed until the Government came to power, distinguished real terms in cost terms and real terms in so-called volume terms. We need to revert to a proper deflator to measure volume terms in science.
The reports we looked at have tried manfully but obviously arbitrarily to adjust the deflator by one or two percentage points. There is a broad brush view that somehow science becomes relatively 2 per cent.
370
more expensive according to the GDP deflator. The authors of the report, I believe, would agree that that is quite arbitrary. We do not know whether that is so. There is need in an important area of research—one which the CSO and the Department of Trade and Industry will seriously take on board—for proper price indices. The Government do not have to commit themselves to more resources; they need to know the correct figures in order to debate the subject rationally. That is the plea I put forward. I believe that we ought to put more resources into science, but before reaching that conclusion I wish to know what we are doing.
I am not sure that I shall have many friends in your Lordships' House in what I say next. Of course I accept the value of international scientific cooperation programmes. We know the arguments on division of labour, economies of scale and scope, the need to avoid excessive duplication and the value of the direct exchange of ideas and experience. All those are reasons why I favour international scientific collaboration. Nevertheless, having spent most of my life in university, I think that my colleagues spend too much time on international scientific collaboration and too little on science. They become besotted with international scientific collaboration. I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned the subject—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Porter—but there is a symmetry, a ratchet. We can build projects up but we find ourselves in an incredible battle when we ask whether we need to go on doing something. I am not against international scientific programmes; quite the contrary. I do not believe that they are sacrosanct.
If the Treasury agrees to finance such programmes, it should finance them properly. It should not play silly games, especially with exchange rates. I hope that we do not reach the stage where social science, or more importantly the SERC, operate in the forward exchange market in order to hedge against future subscriptions to projects. If we are going to do it, let us do it properly.
I wish to make two other points. First, in terms of resources, another concern to me and many is what has been happening to salaries of scientists and researchers, and, more importantly, their conditions of employment. It seems to me—I assume this is as true of the natural sciences as it is of economics—that far too many people are on short-term contracts where their working lives are constantly in peril. That also leads to a distortion of research priorities. One ends up saying, "I must find some research money so that X does not get fired" rather than asking oneself what research one wishes to follow. In other words, one is constantly having, quite rightly, to take human beings into account, but that may distort one's research judgments. We must reconsider the question of salaries and career structures.
I believe that the dual support system is the right way forward. One needs to meet the teaching costs in higher education and then the research and scholarship costs for all academics. I still believe in the old-fashioned view that every academic should be a researcher or a scholar. Further, there must be

371
additional institutional and departmental funding of a dual kind and specific moneys must be provided for the research councils. We should not be doing what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, warned us of, that is, solving a specific crisis in one area by pinching a little of the available money and allocating it elsewhere. We must look at costs systematically.
I strongly support dual support but my main question concerns the polytechnics. It was on Monday, I believe, that we were told that polytechnics are about to become universities, or at least they will call themselves universities. I was rather shattered to read the newspaper reports. If the polytechnics are to go in that direction, we must have some general principles of finance that fund the polytechnics on an equal basis with other institutions. In other words, if dual support applies to the universities, it must also apply to the polytechnics. That is my view. I should like to know the Government's policy.
I conclude by again congratulating all those concerned both with the reports and with the debate today. We have learnt a great deal from the debate but what we all require is not merely a general chat about these matters but some policy and some moves in the right direction. In this case overwhelmingly, moves in that direction mean in the first instance providing more funds for the science budget.
2.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I first wish to extend the profuse apologies of my noble friend the Leader of the House for not replying to the debate. I note happily that he is now in his seat. I also join with all other speakers in welcoming the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, whose reputation came far in advance of his arrival in this House. With respect to all scientists, eminent and otherwise, both in this House and outside, it is not an understatement to say that the noble Lord reigns supreme in the world of science. His knowledge, wise counsel and powers of communication in matters scientific are boundless. It is my privilege to reply to a debate in which the noble Lord has made his maiden speech. I speak with great trepidation as my speech comes at the end of a most distinguished line of speakers. The whole House will look forward enormously to hearing much more from the noble Lord, Lord Porter.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his kind remarks about my promotion. Noble Lords will have to forgive me for sounding a little self-effacing today in replying to such an exciting and stimulating debate. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Shacklelon, out of hospital and in his seat in the House, making contributions to our debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and many other noble Lords have referred to the interest shown by the Prime Minister in this subject. I assure the House that the record of this debate will be reported fully to my right honourable friend and brought to the notice of the Cabinet Committee.
I have listened with interest to the debate on the three reports produced by the Science and Technology
372
Committee. Before commenting on them I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and their committees on their painstaking investigations into these very important subjects. If I may say so, it is an excellent example of the contribution this House makes to national affairs. The Government welcome this opportunity to discuss their findings and will of course be formally responding to the two more recent reports in the normal way.
A number of important points on the individual reports have been made in the discussion and I hope to cover these during the course of my speech. I would first like to set them in the context of the Government's arrangements for funding strategic decisions on science and technology, and hence to answer some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in his concise introduction to this debate. In 1987, in their response to an earlier report by the Science and Technology Committee on civil research and development, the Government noted that Ministers would collectively consider science and technology priorities under the leadership of the Prime Minister—and that the Government would determine in the context of the annual Public Expenditure Survey process their priorities for the contribution which science and technology can make to national economic success while satisfying wider government objectives. Since taking office, the Prime Minister has confirmed that those arrangements will remain in force and has maintained the strong interest shown by his predecessor, as he told the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and others at their meeting on 28th January. Ministers have been considering science and technology issues under his chairmanship, and that will continue.
However, science and technology cannot be considered in isolation. Decisions are firmly set in the context of the annual PES process and the potential contribution to the nation's well-being. That means, quite rightly in my view, that science and technology priorities have to compete with all other demands on government resources. Although we have heard much concern expressed in the debate today, I believe that the Government's record in support of science and technology over the past decade is a good one.
On that note I should like to comment on the first report under consideration today, Science Budget 1991–92, and in particular on the Government's record in support of the science base. When this Government came to office the science budget stood at £329 million. It now stands at £920 million. That represents a substantial real terms increase of 22 per cent., keeping pace with the growth of GDP over the same period. That is a record any government would be proud of. It provides convincing proof of the importance which the Government attach to a proper level of science funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and others drew attention to the fact that the DES supports research through two sources, the science budget and the UFC block grant, which together make up the science base. It has been suggested that public funding of the

373
science base has increased more slowly than funding of the science budget. That may be so, but the difference is smaller than has been claimed.
The problem over science base statistics is that UFC funds are provided as block grants and so the actual spend on research is known only in retrospect. The latest firm figures we have are for 1989–90, when the total science base spend was about 16 per cent. above the 1979–80 level. However, in the two years since 1989–90 UFC recurrent funds distributed on research-based criteria have risen by 10 per cent. in each year, keeping well above inflation.
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, past President of the Royal Society, made a number of important points in his erudite maiden speech. He stressed in particular the importance of supporting researchers at the bench, especially young scientists. I acknowledge that there has been difficulty over new grants this year from the Science and Engineering Research Council. However, in a longer-term perspective there has been a 68 per cent. real terms increase since 1979–80 in the value of research grants made by research councils to higher education institutions, even taking into account the temporary problems this year.
As to the future, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday additions of £15.8 million to the 1992–93 indicative science budget allocations for SERC. Those sums were recommended by the advisory board specifically to support the SERC's grants programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, asked whether that was new money. While a total distribution of funds was announced last November, the SERC's evidence to the Committee was made on the basis of funds already allocated to the council. Hence this is a new allocation to the SERC and should have a significant impact on the grants programme.
I listened with interest to the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham, about the difficulty of obtaining funds from SERC for his laser project. I promise him that I shall draw his concern to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
We must not concentrate on inputs only. The object is to produce good science and good scientists. Proof that the science base in this country is in excellent condition is provided by the scientists themselves. They have continued to carry out first-rate work over the past decade, with the result that in many fields the UK's record in terms of scientific achievements is world class.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to the highly specialised technique of bibliometrics. I can say only that, like other statistics and indicators, bibliometric data should be used only to indicate broad movements and volumes. Attempts to derive conclusions from small changes in soft indicators are inappropriate.
The changes in the dual support system announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science last November will make for the more efficient use of public resources made available for scientific research undertaken by the research councils in higher
374
education institutions. They will make more explicit the funding of research in higher education. They will encourage better management of limited resources. That must be good for the taxpayer and for our researchers.
Perhaps I may now refer to the specific points that have been raised with regard to the reason for the reform. The new arrangements announced in November clarify lines of responsibility between the research councils and higher education institutions. Those changes will take effect in 1992, but there are no plans for further changes beyond that. We shall check to see that funds are not lost to the universities. We shall arrange to monitor the volume of research that councils sponsor at universities. In practice. I do not foresee any difficulty in ensuring that overall the councils maintain at least the present volume of research that they sponsor at higher education institutions. The councils collectively have increased their real terms investment at universities by 78 per cent. since 1979.
The ABRC's 1987 paper, A Strategy for the Science Base, drew attention to the increasing muddle in the operation of the dual support system. We believe that the changes will help to solve that problem by making it much clearer who is to pay for what. With regard to the final point on the dual support system raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, the transferred funds from the UFC will be associated only with the funds that at present provide the dual funding of research council-supported work. There will remain the funds to support other research funded entirely through the UFC grant.
Of equal benefit to the funding of research in higher education will be the new framework foreshadowed in the Government's White Paper on higher education, published earlier this week. This proposes that for the first time there should be a single body to distribute teaching and research funding to the whole of higher education. That should enable scarce resources to be divided both selectively and fairly to those institutions—be they currently universities or polytechnics—carrying out research of the highest quality.
Turning now to the second report on definitions of R&D, the Government's response, published in March this year, expressed full agreement with the Select Committee on the importance of accurate statistics on research and development. They are an essential tool for the setting of priorities and informing all other policy considerations in this field—
a point that was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The widely acclaimed annual review of government funded R&D, published by the Cabinet Office, provides a substantial centrally collated body of information on government expenditure on research and development. Over the years its coverage has been extended and improved. The Government are grateful to the Select Committee for its investigation into the difficult area of R&D definitions and the uses that they serve.
One of the Government's prime concerns is to facilitate international comparisons by using the same definitions as other countries, in this case, the OECD Frascati definitions. The Government have been an

375
active participant in the discussions to improve Frascati and the Select Committee report provided material for its contribution to the international debate. With revised Frascati definitions in the offing, there is little point in making interim changes, thereby eroding one of the most useful qualities of statistical series—the ability easily to make comparisons over time. The Government will consider the use and definition of the term "strategic research"—one of the issues raised in the report—following publication of revised Frascati definitions.
Another question raised in the report—that of the classification of defence R&D—is a complex one. If there had been any easy solutions, we should no doubt have found them by now. The heart of the problem is that the, MoD, as well as funding programmes of research, is a major purchaser of military equipment and consequently engages in programmes for the development of specific items of equipment. Most of such development work is carried out under contract in industry.
The basic criterion for inclusion in R&D under the Frascati definitions is whether the work contains an appreciable element of innovation or novelty. Clearly, there c-.n be considerable variations in the degree of innovation involved within a given development contract and the customer has only limited visibility of the point at which it ceases to be significant. We make no secret of the fact that there is an element of uncertainty here. Nevertheless, Frascati is indeed applied by the Ministry of Defence on the basis of the best cur rently available data.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question as she is going rather fast. Will she comment on the committee's recommendation that defence expenditure should not be combined with civil in the estimates for national R&D; that is, recommendation 2.11?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps, my Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I leave that particular question on the table for the Government's written response to the report. Does the noble Lord feel unhappy about that reply?
Lord Flowers: My Lords, we have had the response on that report.
Baroness Blatch: Then I fear that that is a point that I missed in the brief. I shall make sure that there is a written reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
If I repeat a little of what I said before, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me. We are not complacent about Iris matter. As the government response to the Select Committee's report makes clear—the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, is confirmed in his view—the Ministry of Defence has set in train a number of initiatives directed at narrowing the area of uncertainty, one of which involves a joint study with representatives of industry, and that has begun. I should make one final point on defence R&D. The present studies bear primarily on the classification of government spending rather than on the figures for total national R&D effort. The reason is that the latter
376
are built up from data supplied by those carrying out the work rather than those commissioning it, and applying Frascati to R&D work carried out in-house as distinct from that contracted out is relatively straightforward. Noble Lords may take some comfort from that.
With regard to civil R&D, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is concerned, the report states that we as a nation are investing too little. That is not so. Industry's own funding of R&D increased by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1989. An increasing proportion of UK government funding of civil R&D is through the European Commission's R&D programmes. Through that route UK companies receive levels of funding for collaborative research similar to those received from the DTI.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, spoke of a huge funding gap between basic research and near market research. But much of the Government's financial support for R&D in industry as well as work carried out by the Government themselves is targeted on that strategic area. Better definitions of R&D will help to present a truer picture of UK R&D spend with better international comparisons.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, were concerned about the gap between basic and industrial research. The Government consider that industry should be responsible for funding near market research aimed at producing specific, profitable goods and services. They acknowledge and discharge their responsibility to fund basic science in the research councils, universities and polytechnics. There is a need to encourage innovation in industry, including the transfer of technology from the science base, and the DTI in particular maintains major programmes, including notably the LINK programme of cooperative research, to encourage the vital process of technology transfer.
The third report deals with international scientific programmes. The Government will publish their response in due course so I shall touch now only on the main issues. First, let me deal with those international scientific programmes in which our participation is voluntary. I shall then consider the European Commission framework programme, which requires separate consideration as our financial contribution to it is mandatory. Proposals for major new programmes are usually developed within the international scientific community before being brought to the attention of government. For a given proposal there is almost invariably a clear lead funding body, either a government department or research council, which assesses the proposal in relation to its overall scientific objectives against possible alternative national approaches. The assessment of those guidelines provides advice on assessing the programme and, where necessary, the Cabinet Office co-ordinates interdepartmental interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was concerned about delays in reaching decisions on international projects. By their nature major proposals raise difficult questions for a number of interests and involve major

377
commitments. Powerful national and subject lobbies always urge speedy decisions and tend to exaggerate the speed with which our partner countries reach firm decisions backed by money. In no country, not excluding the United States of America, are hard decisions taken quickly and decisions do not involve solely national considerations. But I agree that there should be no unnecessary delays. As the report notes, there is such diversity in the nature and organisation of international scientific collaboration that no single approach can cover all needs. Flexibility is the key.
The committee's report draws attention to the problem of exchange rate movements in funding international programmes and in particular CERN. The new arrangement for calculating members' subscriptions to CERN have greatly reduced the UK's exposure to fluctuations in the value of the Swiss franc. For European Commission currencies, our membership of the ERM evens out the movement of sterling against European currencies.
The Government welcome the constructive comments on the European Commission framework programme on research and development and are pleased to note the Select Committee's satisfaction with the wide uptake of funds in the UK under the second framework programme. I am confident that this trend will continue under the third framework programme. The Government actively promote UK participation.
The Government note that certain members of the research council felt that they did not have sufficient influence on the European Commission R&D framework programme. I am confident again that that is a minority view. During negotiation of the third framework programme the Cabinet Office consulted closely with the relevant departments—notably the Department of Education and Science—and through them with the research councils.
The Government wholeheartedly agree with the committee that the evaluation of the European Commission's research programmes should be given higher priority. The Government continue to press the Commission at both ministerial and official levels to improve the scope, rigour and quality of its evaluation procedures.
The committee's anxieties on public expenditure arrangements for Community R&D are similar to those expressed in the European Community's Committee's 1990 report on the Community's 1990-94 framework programme. A detailed response on those attribution arrangements was given by my noble friend Lord Hesketh on 28th January. Those arrangements are designed to give an equal basis for assessing UK and European Commission expenditure on R&D.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was concerned about the issue of attribution and the arrangements for the framework programme. I confirm that the Government will address the questions raised on attribution on their written response to the report on international scientific programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, made a request for additional funds in 1991-92. He also asked for
378
compensation for VAT. On additional funds for the current year, it would be inappropriate for me—even in my new position—to anticipate the Government's response to the Select Committee's report.
In summing up, I should like to reiterate my thanks to the Select Committee for three valuable reports which make major contributions to the continuing dialogue on science and technology policy. With learned and constructive criticisms of such force, there is little possibility of the Government becoming complacent in this field.
By their nature, Select Committee reports and debates such as we have had today tend to concentrate on areas of concern. That is normal and healthy. However, it pays to stand back occasionally to take in the overall picture. I should like to balance our considerations today by noting one or two salient points on the current state of science and technology in the UK.
Government support for science and technology in the current financial year will be £5.5 billion; and total industrial innovation science and technology expenditure by Government will be £104 million—a 24 per cent. cash increase on 1990–1. Over this Government's period in this office, the science budget allocation has risen in real terms by 22 per cent. Expenditure on environmental research and monitoring and on R&D into renewable energy sources have together increased over 17 per cent. in cash terms this year.
I believe that these figures illustrate the Government's strong commitment to the vigour of R&D in the UK and that effective mechanisms to direct funds to priority areas are in place and functioning well.
2.35.p.m.
Lord FlowersLords, the debate has been fascinating and somewhat encouraging. There is no need for me to add to it and still less need to try to reply. After all, some of us have yet to try to find some lunch. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part; everyone has done so most effectively. I thank especially our maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Luddenham. His speech was exactly right for such an occasion and we greatly enjoyed it.
I wish to thank in particular, first, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who reminded the House that the situation in the medical sciences is just as serious. If he had not done so there might have been an unfortunate bias in our debate. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who clearly spelt out our anxieties about the future of the dual funding system. Thirdly, I thank the noble Lords who gave support and encouragement to young university scientists whose work has been placed in such jeopardy by the present funding situation. I warmly thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for presenting his two reports so elegantly. He will presently move them himself.
I thank most warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for responding on behalf of the Government. She gave us a little encouragement, for which I am

379
grateful, though not much. We shall examine closely the figures that she gave and the comments that she made n order to see what we can get out of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, encouraged your Lordships' committee to persist in the hope that one day the penny will drop. The committee's members will persist in the hope that it will be a pound that will drop. The £12 million of extra money for which I begged for the year 1991–92 is needed to meet a crisis. It is no good saying that when in six months' time the Government reply to our report they might have something to say about it. By then I fear that the crisis will have passed into something much worse.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

R&D Definitions: Select Committee Report
2.37 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Definitions of Research and Development (R&D) (3rd Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 44).
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in name on the Order Paper.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

International Scientific Programmes: Select Committee Report
Lord Carver Lord Carver rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on International Scientific Programmes (2nd Report, 1990–91, HL Paper 24).
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Highland Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts in Rear Seats by Adults) Regulations 1991
2.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [19th Report .from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations would require passengers aged 14 or more travelling in rear seats of cars and taxis to wear a seat belt where one is fitted and available. It is estimated that this
380
measure will save up to 100 lives and 1,000 serious injuries each year. This would make a major contribution towards achieving our target of reducing road accident casualties by a third by the year 2000.
The benefits of wearing seat belts are well proven and widely accepted. The introduction of mandatory wearing of seat belts by drivers and front seat passengers in 1983 has prevented at least 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries every year since then. The extension of the law in 1989 to children under 14 occupying rear seats has saved an estimated 200 children from being killed or seriously injured in the first year alone.
That is convincing evidence for extending the law again to include adults in rear seats. I am sure many of you will have seen film of simulated crashes with unrestrained dummies in rear seats. Such film shows why we cannot accept the argument that people should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to wear seat belts. Passengers in rear seats who do not wear seat belts risk not only injury to themselves, but in an accident are thrown forward with tremendous force often injuring or killing other occupants of the car.
The consultation exercises that we have carried out, both on the proposal to introduce this legislation and later on the terms of the regulations themselves, have shown an overwhelming majority of responses in favour of requiring rear seat adult passengers to wear seat belts; the police, the motoring organisations, road safety bodies and the medical profession all strongly support this legislation.
As I have said, the regulations will only require seat belts to be worn when they are fitted and available. This principle recognises the practicalities of everyday life. Large families or groups will not be prevented from travelling because there are more people than restraints. Car owners will not be required to fit rear seat belts in cars which do not have them, although I would strongly advise them to have them fitted. Fitting of rear seat belts in all new cars and taxis has been required since 1987 and this means that almost the entire vehicle fleet should be equipped in two or three years' time. As with existing legislation on seat belt wearing, the regulations provide for a number of specific exemptions including exemption on medical grounds.
The penalty for not wearing a rear seat belt when one is available will be a £16 fixed penalty or, if the case goes to court, a fine of up to £100, but I am sure that most people will accept that this is a sensible and beneficial measure and that it will therefore be largely self-enforcing. That is certainly the case in respect of front seat belts where the compliance rate is almost 95 per cent., one of the highest in the world. It is vital that the public should be well aware of any new legislation of this sort and we plan to support introduction of the regulations with a major publicity campaign to increase public awareness.
The regulations will considerably reduce the terrible toll of deaths and serious injuries on our roads and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd May be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
2.43 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Opposition unreservedly support the draft regulations to which the Minister spoke. I compliment the Government on introducing them. The Minister may feel that it is an unusual state of affairs for me to compliment him on anything, but I do so today without qualification. I am more than pleased that he is proposing a substantial publicity campaign; that is a vitally important part of making the public aware of the provisions that we are discussing.
The Minister was right to draw attention to the benefits that have accrued from the requirement to wear front seat belts. There can be little doubt, based upon close examination of the situation by organisations such as the Automobile Association, the RAC, the British Medical Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders—and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety concurs in the view—that this is a measure which is critically important in terms of saving lives and reducing injuries.
The Minister spoke of penalties; in my view the criminal penalties that attach are less important than the civil sanctions that have applied in regard to the non-wearing of seat belts. People who are totally innocent of any negligence by being passengers in a vehicle may nonetheless find that their damages are substantially reduced—between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent.—in the event of a claim being made because contributory negligence attaches to the fact that they may not have worn seat belts.
That civil sanction is perhaps not widely understood. In the publicity campaign which the Minister is about to launch will he take note of that point? Whether someone is fined £100 or less for not wearing a seat belt may be by the way. What is important is that people should understand the gravity of having a substantial claim for damages enormously reduced. From my experience long ago people were caught by surprise that the civil sanction applied. They tended to blame their solicitors. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. It is part and parcel of the task of alerting the public not only to the benefits of wearing a seat belt in the rear of a car but to the critical problems and prejudice which they may suffer if they do not and are involved in an accident.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, both Front Benches are in favour of this measure, which I am sure makes it worth while, although some of us who are more sceptical may wonder. I look for a little advice and help from the Minister.
Perhaps I may begin with a personal account. When I am free and have nothing on my mind, I sit in the front seat of the car and securely fasten my seat belt. I proceed happily and safely to my destination. However, when I have work to do I retire to the back seat without a seat belt. I take out my papers, open them up, read them with some ease, put them back and even write a few notes. I manage to get my work
382
done before I reach my destination. The question is this. Has the Minister yet discovered, and has he communicated to his colleagues, a foolproof and simple way of reading his official papers while travelling between his home and another destination? If he has, would he kindly pass it on to me because I have yet to find one.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will find my question simpler and easier to answer. It refers to paragraph 3 of the regulations. My noble friend enthusiastically maintains—and for once he is enthusiastically supported by the noble Lord opposite—that the wearing of seat belts has been a valuable factor in reducing casualties and injuries. In those circumstances, why do the regulations not apply to a,
"motorcar which is not constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver"?
In other words, why should the regulations not apply to a vehicle where there are more than eight passengers? Is the provision designed to prevent the application of the rule or principle to coaches? If so, why? I have often felt that the fast coaches which operate on our motorways, with their seats close together, are probably more dangerous in the event of an accident than if one is seated in the back of an ordinary car. If we are to apply these rules to the back seat of an ordinary car, it is a little difficult to understand why the Government are not contemplating extending them to coaches, where the danger is at least as great and many people think even greater? Perhaps my noble friend will indicate whether the opinion I have expressed on the reason for paragraph 3 of the order is the right one—it may not be—but if it is, do the Government have it in mind to extend the provision to coaches?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I offer my warm support for these regulations. In doing so perhaps I should declare an interest, being a medical adviser to the Automobile Association. It has been a legal requirement since 1987 for all new cars to be fitted with rear seat belts. Many older cars have them. Now more than half the cars on our roads have these seat belts fitted. About 300 people are killed and over 4,000 seriously injured each year while travelling in the rear of cars. Studies in Sweden have shown that these injuries can be reduced by up to 55 per cent. when rear seat belts are worn. But the very low rate of the voluntary wearing of seat belts in this country minimises the benefits of these restraints.
As the introduction of the law requiring the use of seat belts in the front seat has, as the Minister said, increased the wearing rate to 95 per cent., legislation is obviously desirable. While it is true that it will cause minor inconvenience to some people—perhaps to many—I am sure that that is greatly outweighed by the saving of lives and the reduction in injuries that will result if these regulations come into force.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I warmly welcome the measures so ably moved by my noble friend the Minister. When I was president of the Royal

383
Society for the Prevention of Accidents we were, and it still is, in favour of passengers being restrained in the rear seats of vehicles. RoSPA has been pressing also for the inclusion of a requirement that vehicles which are required to be manufactured with seat belt anchorage but not required to have seat belts fitted should be subject to retrofitment over a period not exceeding 18 months. We were advised that the cost of so equipping a car would be less than the cost of purchasing a mid-range car radio cassette player. We also widerstand that, even with the decline in the number of these cars on the market, there would be a substantial saving of lives, which is conservatively put in excess of 100 people each year, with considerably greater savings in injuries.
The other matter to which we wish to draw attention deals with those who decide not to wear seat belts. We believe that offenders should be subject to a fixed penalty fine of not less than £75 and not £16 as my noble friend has suggested, I believe that that is far too low. 1 warmly support the measure.
2.52 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the fact that I am probably the only speaker who is going to oppose the measure this afternoon should not be taken as an indication of the support the measure has in the country, or even in this House. There are many noble Lords who privately agree with me, but who feel that to come along on a day just before a Recess to speak against it is spitting into the wind. Well, I for one have never been worried about spitting into the wind.
The fact that various organisations as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, support this measure would be of great significance were we a corporate state such as Mussolini's Italy. Since we are not yet a corporate state the views of individual organisations carry no more weight in law than the views of individual people. I am also interested to hear the statistics which the noble Lord gave. I know he gave them in good faith, but, if I may say so, they are suspiciously round-100; 1,000; and so on. Rather more than 10 years ago I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, putting down a Question for Written Answer asking how many people were killed as a result of smoking. Back came the answer from the DHSS-50,000. Within five years that fig Ire had doubled to 100,000. The DHSS is now rather more cautious and only increases that by 10,000 a year. Frankly, that is nonsensical. Either 50,000 was nonsense or 100,000 was nonsense and possibly 110,000 is too. Therefore we must regard these figures with a little caution, bearing in mind that the claims that 201) lives a year are saved by wearing front seat belts are a good deal less than the claims made at the time the original measure went through.
I turn now to a purely practical note, leaving the important matters of principle and morality to the end. Six days ago I tried to highlight the absurdity of applying this law to London taxis operating in built up areas with a speed limit of 30 miles an hour or less. London-style taxis are found not only in London, but in many provincial towns as well. There can be no question of a passenger coming into sharp contact
384
with the driver in the event of a collision. The Minister on the day in question replied that on average 28 people in London were seriously injured in London taxis. As we know, serious injury can range from a simple fracture of the little finger, upwards. That is not necessarily serious by normal definition. I am prepared to bet that a far greater number of people are injured on London buses. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, probably feels the same way. However, there is no question of bus passengers being compelled to belt up. Standing passengers on buses, trains and underground trains are particularly vulnerable. I happen to know someone who not very long ago was seriously injured while standing in a London bus: she was flung against a metal seat. Buses, tubes and trains are by no means accident free. Logically, if one applies this law to taxis, one should apply it to all forms of transportation in London. I am certain that more than 28 people a year are seriously injured playing rugby football or similar dangerous sports. We read that 400 Londoners are seriously injured each year by dogs, not all of them by any means pit bull terriers or other of the breeds which the Government propose to ban.
I pointed out last Friday that the number of lives lost in taxis is minuscule compared with the number of deaths resulting from falling down stairs or from sun bathing, which produces skin cancer, as has now been made clear. Last year 500 men and 600 women died from that form of cancer. On past precedent, applying this regulation to taxis in urban areas will save three lives in every four years—that is to say, three lives in every 2,624,000. Put another way, if taxis in urban areas were exempt, 99.99989 per cent. of the population would still be alive.
The law will in practice be unenforceable. The taxi driver is most unlikely to know the name and home address of the passenger; and in the absence of identity cards, no passenger in his right mind will give his correct name and address to the police. What about medical exemptions for foreign visitors? Will the police be trained to interpret exemption certificates in Spanish, Hungarian, Urdu and Thai, or will an English doctor be called in to issue a separate certificate?
Let us consider the case of two elderly and possibly rather frail, physically or mentally, American tourists being driven from the Hilton Hotel to Shaftesbury Avenue to see a play. The driver does not himself have to wear a seat belt—the Government have failed to mention that significant point. Are taxi drivers dying in droves although they are not belted? I do not think so. The driver gets out to help them to buckle their belts which they are incapable of doing themselves. The taxi crawls up Piccadilly at an average speed of seven or eight miles an hour, which is the average speed at which cars travel in London. It is a hot night and the belts chafe the passengers' necks; both passengers happen to be less than 5'2" tall. On the return journey the driver gets out of his cab in the middle of Shaftesbury Avenue to help the passengers put on their belts. This causes a traffic jam stretching

385
all the way back to St. Paul's Cathedral. It does not bear thinking about. The idea that it will not adversely affect the tourist trade is sanguine in the extreme.
The next objection, which applies to cars as well as to taxis, is both practical and moral. Unless suitable head restraints are fitted in the rear of both cars and taxis, which may of course adversely affect the rear view of the driver, whiplash injuries are all too likely. The consequences of whiplash injuries can be severe in the extreme. I did not think they were until quite recently when a close relation of mine by marriage suffered just such an injury, not in a car but while pursuing winter sports. He was told that he would very likely have died but for prompt medical attention. The effect of the whiplash, if I have my medical facts correct, detached the lining of his artery from the wall of the artery. That is not by any means a totally uncommon consequence of whiplash injuries. Therefore to tell people that whiplash injuries are a small price to pay for avoiding being thrown forward against a front seat will not wash.
On the question of pure principle, there is no mandate for this measure. It did not figure in any party's manifesto at the last election. Secondly, we are not being given adequate time to discuss nor the opportunity to revise this measure, as has been the case with all earlier compulsory seat belt measures. Your Lordships will remember that we spent many hours debating the law making it compulsory for children to wear seat belts in the rear seats of cars. It was vigorously opposed by Lord Bruce-Gardyne from the Conservative Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, from the Liberal Democrat Benches and, of course, from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Erroll and myself.
This measure contradicts earlier assurances given by Ministers when the front seat belt legislation was going through Parliament. In answer to complaints that many passengers found seat belts extremely uncomfortable, the Minister's reply was, "Don't worry, they will always be able to sit in the back seats without having to wear seat belts."
I assume that the Liberal Democrats are supporting the regulations, although none of them has spoken yet. I say that because, when the children's rear seat belt legislation was going through this place, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, acknowledged that the case for imposing compulsion on adults was weaker than the case for imposing it on children. One can understand the Labour Party unreservedly supporting this measure because, with a few brave exceptions—and I can think of a few—the present day Labour Party is essentially anti-individualist and anti-libertarian.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, gave the game away last Friday when he stated that the matter is to do with correct behaviour. That implies shades of the dreadful priggish disease which is sweeping through American universities—namely, "political correctness"—in which anyone manifesting the slightest suspicion of sexism, racism, ageism, heightism, weightism, and so on, is harangued like a back-sliding Chinese peasant in the days of Chairman Mao.
386
It is curious that a Conservative Government should adopt bossy Scandinavian socialist-style dirigisme of this sort. In 1979 the Conservatives claimed to be the party which would return decision-making to the people. If one does that, it implies that one is giving people the right to make mistakes—or what are deemed by others to he mistakes—provided that they do not harm other people, only themselves. To some extent that is still possible. For example, people who sunbathe are allowed to take the slight risk of attracting skin cancer for the transient pleasure of acquiring a tan.
I do not understand why car passengers—provided that they are made aware of the statistics and provided that the driver of the car agrees, because he is, so to speak, captain of the ship—should not be allowed to take the statistically even slighter risk of death or injury for the pleasure of riding in what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, rightly pointed out was appreciably greater comfort. For that reason, I oppose the introduction of these regulations.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, this is an echo of 10 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Monson. is certainly consistent and must be congratulated on that fact, even if I cannot congratulate him on his personal judgment. It may be a matter of constitutional interest to him to know that the great vote in 1981, which concerned whether we should have compulsory seat belts in the front of cars, was a free vote. It was regarded as a matter which touched the liberty of the subject and therefore, as I said, it was a free vote.
We had a tremendous debate on the issue in this House in which I believe the noble Lord took part. We won the debate in this place, amended the Government's Bill and sent it back to the House of Commons. It very nearly did not get the vote on the Floor of the House because leaders on both sides, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, may remember, arranged for the Lords amendment to the Bill to be taken late at night—in fact, it was the night before the wedding of his Royal Highness, Prince Charles—when they thought that the prospect was better for the Government side rather than the supporters of the amendment. However, I am glad to say that my supporters carried the day and we won.
It was certainly a democratic affair. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, cannot complain of any government being magisterial in the matter. I believe that since that time public opinion in general—as we see reflected from all sides of the House—is that that was a sensible thing to do. Indeed, everyone accepted it and within a very few weeks there was about 95 per cent. observance. We have since moved on from one measure to another. This is the final one.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the measure which will make compulsory the wearing of seat belts throughout a motor car, with the qualification that in rear seats it will apply only where seat belts are fitted. They will be progressively fitted in all motor cars and generally worn. They will undoubtedly save a number of lives and prevent many injuries. The figure will probably run into hundreds of lives. The statistics may be modified. They were on the wearing of front seat belts. We now have a figure of

387
200. My noble friend said that a thousand injuries a year have been avoided. They are substantial figures. We are talking about human lives. If we can secure the forecast number of saved lives and avoided injuries through the wearing of rear seat belts in motor cars, surely the noble Lord, Lord Monson, despite his arguments, is in favour.
I warmly congratulate my noble friend on being the Minister to introduce the final measure in the cycle. I have happy memories of the great dramas of the past. It is splendid that public opinion has now evolved and there is now general support for what is an entirely practical measure. I congratulate my noble friend and have much pleasure in supporting him.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I take his point that it is desirable to save lives. But does he agree that as many lives could probably be saved by compelling motorists to drive with their side lights on throughout the day? That would not involve any restriction upon individual liberty.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I doubt whether that would make much difference.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the things that I find fascinating, like many other noble Lords who have served in both Houses, is the number of debates where the degree of passion raised seems out of keeping with the issue involved. We see that, whether it is homosexual law reform or car seat belts. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, whose debating qualities are recognised by everyone in the House, moves marginally towards an exaggeration of the infringement of personal liberties involved in the measure. After all, I suspect that every Member of the House has spent many hours sitting in an aircraft, strapped to a seat. Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, but I have never found a problem in eating, sleeping, drinking, watching bad movies and working.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, that is different.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, it is different, but neither do I find any difficulty getting into my car seat and putting on a seat belt. I do it almost automatically. Occasionally, a policeman standing by draws my attention to the fact that I have not done so. I smile sweetly and put it on. I do not see the problem.
The biggest problem, which is why I was pleased to hear the Minister mention the publicity campaign, is that everyone recognises the risk and accepts the intellectual case, against which it is difficult to argue, but has the belief that it cannot happen to them. That is why it is important to have a publicity campaign.
There is no question but that seat belts have an effect. I had a crunch on one occasion. As a fairly large character, I managed to break seven ribs, but did not go through the windscreen, as a result of deceleration. There were other unpleasant effects. There have been many encouraging factors about this brief debate: first, the Minister's policy; secondly, the changes to the law; thirdly, the public relations campaign which will accompany the introduction of the measure; and,
388
fourthly, the solitary, splendid isolation of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has just spoken against the measure.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I stand before your Lordships as a viable statistic. A year ago last February, my wife, my seven year-old son and I were involved in a serious car crash which kept us in hospital for many weeks. What is important about legislation of this nature is the effect it has on the concentration of minds. The mind can be concentrated only by establishing legislation which draws attention to a fact. As we see the cars on the motorways or the small country roads where perhaps greater dangers lie, we must consider all the people in the car and the restraint of as many as possible. Because of this restraint, fortune is on the side of my family and, I am sure, of many other Members of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend must be congratulated for dealing in solid terms with a situation which for a long time has not been properly addressed.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I support the introduction of this legislation. I was a sufferer in that I had a serious car accident on 11th January 1978. Luckily I can remember nothing about it, so I can drive safely again. However, since I lay unconscious in hospital for three weeks, I realise the full implications of not wearing a seat belt. I had to spend four years justifying my actions in the High Court in order to claim damages and I was successful. There were technical reasons why that was so. When I thought of the accident afterwards I recognised that I was not wearing a seat belt because at that time in 1978 cars were not properly designed for belts. Therefore, people were discouraged from buckling them up in an easy fashion.
I see people at the moment not wearing seat belts in coaches, lorries, buses and taxis. To my way of thinking, the back seats of taxis are not designed for seat belts. If we are now considering having seat belts in the back seats of cars, taxis and coaches, much more attention must be paid to the design of vehicles to make it easy for people to wear seat belts.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have been kind enough to support the regulations which I brought forward this afternoon. First, I shall answer some of the points made in the debate and then those made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has been alone in opposing the measure.
The House was interested to hear the personal experiences of my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Ironside: that the wearing of a seat belt helped the former and would have helped the latter. We are pleased to see my noble friend Lord Oxfuird back in his place after another visit to hospital to sort out the problems he experienced after his car accident.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his warm support for the measure. We welcome his support for any measure that the Government propose and look forward to more occasions like this. He made an important point which was reiterated by

389
the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about publicity for the regulations. I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the Kwik-Fit company for running its television campaign at present about the benefits of wearing rear seat belts. We shall mount our own campaign at the beginning of June, running up to the implementation of the measure on 1st July.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made an interesting point about the possibility of civil actions in respect of negligence and damage. I shall look into it. Whether or not it would be right for the Government to attempt to influence the courts in their actions I do not know. It may be possible to point out in some way to people that this could be the result of failing to obey the new law. However, that would require a certain amount of investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, made an interesting point about attempting to study papers in the back seat of a car. In many ways I endorse what he said, but personally I prefer not to attempt to read while driving as I find that rather difficult.
Noble Lords: Oh!
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I meant to say that I find it difficult to read while travelling as a passenger rather than as the driver of a car. I hope noble Lords will not misunderstand me.
Over the years the improved design and fitment of seat belts in the rear of vehicles allows them to be worn with considerably more comfort and with a great deal less loss of convenience than used to be the case. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter touched upon the wearing of rear seat belts in coaches and mini buses; in other words, those vehicles with more than eight seats. Belts are required to be worn where they are fitted; that is to say, to all forward facing exposed seats. However, it is not as yet a requirement for all seats to have rear seat belts fitted. That is because under the terms of the relevant EC directives no manufacturer can be obliged to fit seat belts or anchorages other than to the front seats and all exposed forward facing seats. We have pressed the Commission to bring forward proposals as soon as possible which would require seat belts to be fitted on all seats in coaches and mini buses. We strongly encourage the voluntary fitting and wearing of such seat belts. However, as I have said, at the moment we are held up by circumstances beyond our control.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux considered that we should introduce retrospective fitment. I am afraid the Government do not agree with that view. Such a measure would be unduly difficult to insist upon. As I said in my opening remarks, almost the entire fleet of cars will be fitted with rear seat belts by the mid-1990s. My noble friend also suggested that the fine was too low. That is a matter of opinion. It is the same as the fine for failure to wear a front seat belt.
I am most grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford who congratulated me on introducing these regulations this afternoon. However, it is my noble friend who should be
390
congratulated as he can be considered to be almost the father of seat belt wearing. It was his tireless work which has got us where we are today. As my noble friend said, we are now on the last chapter in the book. My noble friend also answered some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that he was one of many, both inside and outside the House, who oppose this measure. Noble Lords inside the House must speak for themselves on this matter, but as they have not in general spoken against the measure today I trust that that is a fair indication of sentiment. There has been a number of speakers this afternoon and I believe it is fair to say that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, speakers have all been in favour of the measure.
A recent opinion poll by the GALLUP organisation showed support for the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts at some 82 per cent. I know one should not always believe everything that is claimed for opinion polls, but when the percentage in favour of the measure is so high it needs to be taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested we had no mandate to introduce this measure, but I do not believe that that is the case. We have a mandate to improve road safety. This measure is one step in that direction.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is it not better to try to prevent accidents happening in the first place rather than merely try to mitigate the consequences of accidents?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. That is what we are doing. This is only one measure in a series of measures to improve road safety. To prevent accidents happening in the first place we need to build better roads as we are doing—and to make improvements to the design and construction of cars. We shall be pressing for such improvements. The noble Lord suggested that the measure contradicted earlier assurances given at the time when the wearing of front seat belts was introduced, and that this measure was an extension of the nanny state. I certainly do not wish to see the nanny state extended.
However, times change. The success of the measure relating to the wearing of front seat belts has determined that we should press on with this measure. I remind the noble Lord that whatever interpretation he may wish to put on the statistics, despite a 44 per cent. growth in traffic, the number of front seat passengers and drivers killed or seriously injured in 1989 was 16 per cent. lower than in 1982, the last year when seat belt wearing was not compulsory. In the first two years following the introduction of the new law, car occupant casualty victims arriving at hospitals fell by 15 per cent. and admissions fell by 25 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves.
The noble Lord suggested that taxis should be exempt. However, in the case of taxis overall, not just London taxis, casualties among taxi passengers are not insignificant: some 140 people are killed or seriously injured each year. Taxis are not limited to operating in urban areas. Many operate on

391
motorways, to and from airports, for example, along the M4 and clown to Gatwick where high speeds are obtained.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have so strongly supported the regulation. I do not suppose that whatever I say will ever convince the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I shall just have to allow him to remain in the minority.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which may affect a number of us. What happens in the case of those of us who have cars without seat belts on the back seat? Is there any obligation to fit them or to have the car changed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no obligation to fit rear seat belts if they are not fitted compulsorily—as they must be in cars built post 1987. However, if my noble friend were to decide to fit rear scat belts—and I would urge him to do so—I am sure that he will find it most beneficial.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one very quick question. Supposing seat belts ate fitted and someone rather stupidly takes it into hip head to remove them, would he then be breaking the law?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Codes of Practice (Revocation) Order 1991
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, one of the Government's first measures in their step-by-step reform of legislation on the closed shop was to issue a statutory code of practice on the subject in 1980. That code gave guidance on how union membership agreements and arrangements should be operated, so as to obviate the worst excesses of the closed shop. However, a succession of Acts of Parliament, culminating with the 1990 Employment Act, has made all forms of the closed shop effectively unlawful. It is therefore clear that the Closed Shop Code of Practice no longer serves any useful purpose. In the 1990 Act Parliament gave the Secretary of State the power to revoke obsolete codes and I am sure that the House will agree that revocation is the appropriate course of action where the Closed Shop Code of Practice is concerned.
I turn now to the other code of practice covered by the draft order, which is generally known—in so far as it is known at all—as the Industrial Relations Code of Practice This code was published in 1972 to:
"give practical guidance for promoting good industrial relations",
in accordance with the principles of the previous year's Industrial Relations Act.
The industrial scene has, of course, changed enormously in the 20 years since that Act was passed, and the code cannot help but be an anachronism today. Fortunately, much of the subject matter which is of lasting value is available in a more up-to-date form, either in the ACAS codes of practice or in the popular series of ACAS guidance booklets.
That being so, I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that the time has come for the Industrial Relations Code of Practice and the Closed Shop Code of Practice to be revoked. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual clear statement of what the order entails. I appreciate that this arises from legislation already passed by both Houses and that we therefore have little choice but to accept it in accordance with the traditions of the House. Nevertheless, I should like to make a few points.
The order arises from government legislation based in the employment field, although almost all of it is concerned not with employment and certainly not with the intention of strengthening employee rights relative to the employer, but rather with restricting the rights of trade unions. The Government will claim that their legislation has improved the industrial relations climate in this country, citing the diminished number of disputes, although that situation is changing. I believe that, where that has happened, it has had as much to do with threatened unemployment and particularly with the decline of jobs and job opportunities in manufacturing industry as it has had to do with the so-called employment legislation, although that of itself has had a weakening effect upon the power of employees to oppose redundancies and the withdrawal of rights inflicted upon them.
There is little that one can say about the 1983 code of practice which is being revoked as a result of the order. As has been indicated by the Minister, this arises directly from recent employment legislation which has been passed by the House. As to the revocation of the code of practice known as the Industrial Relations Code of Practice, I believe that I am right in saying that it was originally introduced by a Conservative Government. It is now maintained that it is not necessary because, I gather, ACAS codes of practice have rendered it redundant. No one will quarrel with the notion that a code enacted almost 20 years ago needs revision and updating, but to leave it entirely to ACAS seems to me to be mistaken. It signifies that the Government are prepared to bow out of responsibility in that important area.
As has already been pointed out in discussion of the order in the other place, employers' activities could do with some form of guidance as to good practice, which is what codes are all about. The Government often seem to give the impression that all disruptive behaviour in the industrial scene arises from the actions of employees supported by their unions. However, such actions are all too often reactive. The employers take some step which is widely perceived to

393
be unfair and that leads to disruption. The most recent example is the action by Rolls-Royce in relation to the contracts of its employees. I should have thought that that was bad industrial practice by any definition, and it may well be illegal. That may be for the courts to determine, but codes of practice should indicate what is good practice, and that certainly is not.
As I said earlier, I do not like the legislation which the Government have initiated and which has been passed by both Houses. The Government have weighted the odds very much against employees and their unions and heavily in favour of employers, but that has not improved our competitive position or employment opportunities, as current figures show. When we at length have a Labour Government, we shall introduce legislation designed to give a fair and balanced framework of industrial law which preserves rather than destroys individual rights. The Government are gravely mistaken if they think that there is electoral mileage to be gained by flagging up an intention to introduce yet more restrictive anti-union legislation if they are returned for another term. What has already been done is widely perceived as being unfair.
Having said that, we on this side of the House accept that it is not the tradition to oppose orders which have been passed by the other place or orders which are based on legislation already carried by this House. However, it would have been wrong for me to give the impression that we are in any way happy about what has happened. The noble Earl will know that we are not, but, having said that, I offer no opposition to the order.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I share the anxieties of the noble Baroness. It may be that the closed shop code is otiose, but, like her, I am concerned with the revocation of the industrial relations code. Codes have an inherent value in setting and raising standards. They also have an evidential value. Only two days ago I was in an industrial tribunal and was able to refer to the industrial relations code, which is now being revoked. I wonder whether the Government can be so sure that the vacuum which will undoubtedly be created will be filled by the non-statutory ACAS codes.
I ask the Minister whether any attempt was made to bring up to date the Industrial Relations Code of Practice. The message which seems to come from this order is that standards no longer matter or no longer concern the Government. Looking now at the legislation that we have in force in this country, people will see that there is a statutory provision for the creation of codes of practice; but they will also see that that code of practice has been revoked. It is a matter of concern and should not pass without comment.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall attempt to reply first to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and then to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The position on union membership is perfectly clear. No individual can lawfully be refused
394
employment or be dismissed from his employment just because he is or is not a trade union member. Everybody knows the position and there is no need whatsoever for guidance.
The Government have made it clear that a job applicant who is engaged in the basic activities that are a natural part of being a member of a trade union should have nothing to fear. But the Opposition continue to want special recruitment protection.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps, my Lords, the Minister will allow me to intervene. He has just said that the position about trade union membership is absolutely clear. Does that include the situation so far as the Government are concerned in relation to GCHQ?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I think, my Lords, that that is a different point from the subject on the Order Paper today.
The Industrial Relations Code of Practice was published in 1972, as I said earlier, in order to:
"give practical guidance for promoting good industrial relations",
in accordance with the principles of the previous year's Industrial Relations Act.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, acknowledged, the industrial scene has changed enormously in the 20 years since that Act was passed. The code cannot help but be an anachronism today. The noble Baroness believes that the Government should issue a new, more up-to-date code to replace the 1972 code. The Employment Act 1980 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue codes of practice containing practical guidance for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations. Indeed, as noble Lords will be aware, last year the Secretary of State issued a code of practice entitled Trade Union Ballots on Industrial Action, and an updated version has just come into effect. In addition the Secretary of State has announced his intention of updating and possibly revising the code of practice on picketing which was first issued in 1980.
However, I hope that the noble Baroness is not overlooking the fact that much of the subject matter of the 1972 code which is of lasting value is already available in a more up-to-date form. The section of the 1972 code dealing with disciplinary procedures was superseded by the ACAS code, Disciplinary Practice and Procedures in Employment, which came into force into June 1977. Paragraphs dealing with disclosure of information were similarly superseded by the ACAS code, Disclosure of Information to Trade Unions for Collective Bargaining Purposes, which was brought into force in August 1977. Another two sections of the 1972 code were superseded by the ACAS code, Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, which first came into force in April 1978. Other parts, although still technically in force, are now comprehensively covered in the popular series of guidance booklets published by ACAS.
That being the case, the Secretary of State is not persuaded that there is any present need for the Government to issue a new code of practice dealing with the areas covered by the 1972 code. I am sure

395
however that ACAS will continue to give careful consideration to areas in which guidance could usefully be given, whether by code of practice or by booklet.
The noble Baroness referred to the situation in Rolls-Royce. I cannot comment in detail about recent events at Rolls-Royce. It appears that the company took legal advice before sending out dismissal letters and gave individuals their due period of notice. Employment contracts can of course be lawfully terminated at any time by giving the correct period of notice and following any procedures which may be laid down in the contract. In any case, decisions about how Rolls-Royce, or any other company, should remain competitive and meet the challenges of the changing marketplace are for the company concerned. It would be counterproductive for government to try to inter) ere in the commercial decisions of companies. There i5 no reason to believe that the retention of the 1972 cote or the production of a replacement is called for as a result of those recent events.
Baroness Stvar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him to enlighten my ignorance. A code is not legally binding. However, it can be used valuably as evidence at a tribunal. Does the ACAS code have anything like the same force? That is a matter of considerable importance. I do not know the answer.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I was ai3out to come to that point. ACAS codes of practice are statutory codes of practice. I hope that that answers the point.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister say a little more about the Rolls-Royce situation? He said that it was a matter for the employers. We are now referring to good practice. As I understand it, there was no consultation whatsoever. Does he regard that as good practice? Is that not a matter that employers should be advised strongly to have regard to in industrial relations?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I fear that I cannot go further down the road the noble Baroness wishes. I cannot comment on what individual companies do.
I hope that noble Lords are content with what I have said. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1991
3.36 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with permission, I shall take the two orders together. The two orders have been laid under separate powers in the Financial Services Act and are subject to slightly different procedures.
The delegation order has been laid in draft under Section 114 of the Act, which gives the Secretary of State power to transfer certain functions, either in whole or in part, to a designated agency. Under Section 114 no delegation order shall be made unless it is approved in draft by a resolution of each House. Under Section 81 of the Act the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the constitution and management of authorised unit trust schemes, the powers and duties of managers of such schemes and the rights and obligations of participants in them.
The purpose of the draft order before the House today is to transfer to the Securities and Investments Board powers to restrict or regulate the investment and borrowing powers exercisable in relation to certain types of authorised unit trusts. Because they restrict the kind of property in which authorised unit trust schemes may invest, the investment and borrowing powers regulations effectively limit the categories of collective investment schemes which may be sold to the general public.
Powers to make regulations dealing with other aspects of authorised unit trusts were transferred to the SIB in 1988. Last September the Minister for Corporate Affairs announced that the SIB would draft new investment and borrowing powers regulations for certain classes of authorised unit trusts in parallel with developing its product regulation and marketing rules.
The SIB has consulted extensively. Its proposals are set out in its comprehensive proposed regulations for collective investment schemes, copies of which have been placed in the Library. They cover pricing arrangements and scheme particulars as well as the powers which are the subject of the draft order. Those regulations include detailed provisions as to investment objectives and as to the investment limits imposed on each category of fund. They also extend the scope of the existing regulations by allowing funds to employ efficient portfolio management and stocklending techniques.
The draft delegation order covers existing categories of funds and four new categories of funds: futures and option funds, geared futures and options funds, property funds and warrant funds. The new categories of funds are intended to increase customer choice while providing an adequate level of protection for investors. They will also enable managers to utilise the sophisticated facilities now available in London to the benefit of a wider range of private investors.
The Secretary of State is satisfied, as required by Section 114 of the Financial Services Act, that the SIB is able and willing to discharge the functions being transferred and that the detailed proposals will afford investors an adequate level of protection. In accordance with Sections 121 and 122 of the Act, and having regard to a report by the Director General of Fair Trading, the Secretary of State is also satisfied there are no significant competition problems.
The second order, the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1991, has been laid under Section 2 of the Act. Because it extends the meaning of investment for the purposes of the Act it has been laid before Parliament after being made. It would cease to have effect if it were not approved by

397
a resolution of each House within 28 days of being made. The order was made on 30th April and, provided that it is approved, it will come into force on 1st June, with the effect that building society deferred shares will then be an investment falling within the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986.
Most building society shares are similar to interest bearing savings deposits repayable to the investors by the society. Because these shares are in substance deposits rather than risk bearing equity, it is not thought appropriate that they should fall within the scope of the Financial Services Act. Investors are protected by the Building Societies Act and the building societies investor protection scheme.
Deferred shares are a special type of building society share, originally used to capitalise new societies. The concept has now been extended by the Building Societies Commission in two orders to come into force on 1st June. Established societies will be allowed to issue deferred shares to strengthen their capital position in the more competitive and risky market conditions that they face and to give additional protection to their ordinary shareholders.
The first order made by the Building Societies Commission defines deferred shares. They may be repaid only on the winding up of a society after all other shareholders and creditors have been paid or with the prior consent of the Building Societies Commission; and holders of deferred shares are not protected by the building societies investor protection scheme.
The second order specifies a class of deferred share called a permanent interest bearing share (PIBS) which societies may count as part of their capital. PIBS will to all intents and purposes be risk bearing equity share capital analogous to company preference shares and they may be transferred. The Government therefore believe that it must be right to give investors in them and all other building society deferred shares the same protection afforded by the Financial Services Act to investors in company shares.
The effect of the order will be that anyone carrying on an investment business in building society deferred shares, unless an exempt person, must be authorised by the Securities and Investments Board, by a self-regulating organisation or by a recognised professional body and will be subject to rules made under the Financial Services Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that explanation of what is undoubtedly an extremely complicated matter. I fear that I shall detain the House for more than a few moments in order to raise a number of points that are highly germane to the issue. My anxieties relate primarily to the geared futures and options funds—otherwise known by the delicious acronym of GFOFs—and to the warrant funds.
The gravamen of the Minister's case appears to be that the order paves the way for the provision of "an adequate level of protection" as and when the
398
additional funds achieve their unit trust authorised status. Is that right? The Minister is being far too bland, if not complacent, in reaching that conclusion. I contend that, far from necessarily providing that adequate level of protection, the new instruments could well involve investors in additional risks because of the way in which the Government have dealt with the situation. The Minister seems to discount that possibility.
Quite apart from giving the GFOFs and the warrant funds the status of being unit trusts—and I am not satisfied that that should happen—they have not been satisfactorily or properly integrated into the marketing rules introduced by the Life Assurance & Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, LAUTRO. Am I right in supposing that the GFOFs and the warrant funds may be sold in the retail market in the same way as unit trusts? If so, that could mean that small investors, who may not appreciate the risks and the higher volatility involved with GFOFs, being exposed to greater risks. Associated with the question of greater risk is the danger that the GFOFs may prejudice the unit trust industry as a whole.
The unit trust industry is highly respected. On the whole it has worked remarkably well and the Opposition believes that that standing should not be exposed to unnecessary risk. That I fear is what will happen. Why should the GFOFs and the warrant funds be treated alongside conventional unit trusts? Why not treat them alongside investment trusts? That would be far more appropriate. After all, if one examines the Security and Investments Board's own consultative document, No. 49, one sees that the funds are offshore and unregulated. Paragraph 9 of the consultative document specifically poses the question as to whether the unit trust is an appropriate vehicle for investment in derivatives. The reason for asking that question is that unit trusts which invest in derivatives could be perceived as being high risk and could therefore damage the unit trust industry's image.
The consultative document was concerned that a futures and options unit trust might well incur liabilities in excess of its assets with the corresponding risk for investors that they might lose their investment altogether. Those are important issues but were not addressed in another place and have not been addressed today by the Minister.
I believe that the SIB sympathises with the point of view that I express. It has asserted that the only vehicle now available that provides the possibility of a significant tax advantage for collective investment is the authorised unit trust. The real question posed by the SIB is how that vehicle can be best adapted to enable new products to be developed. In addition, the collective vehicles that are available are not regulated by the Financial Services Act 1986. That is an Act which led to massive confusion and monumental difficulties.
Another matter which gives rise for concern is that, despite what the Minister said this afternoon, there has been no proper co-ordination in the way that negotiations have been conducted between the Department of Trade and Industry, LAUTRO and

399
the SIB. In consequence we have two separate consultative documents issued by the SIB. LAUTRO conducted its consultations on the marketing process over a period of 10 days while the SIB did not publish its final proposals until after that. That is an extraordinary way to conduct these affairs. In fact the industry had only one day during which it had before it in a properly documented form the final proposals and the market mechanisms by which they were to be applied. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
The Minister will be glad to know that I raise no complaint about the efficient portfolio management format, the EPM. It is good for the industry that contracts and derivatives should be used to reduce risks arising from the fluctuation of prices, interest rates and cash flow rather than simply leaving that to speculation. That is not due to the Government. It results from the Directive on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities. The directive allowed investment in contracts and derivatives if they were in the format of the EPM. So the Government cannot congratulate themselves on that situation.
There are a number of other matters on which I ask the Minister to offer further explanation to the House when he responds. The first point relates to the initial outlay involved with the GFOFs. It seems that the amour: that may be invested in margins on future contracts or on premiums on options was set initially by the SIB at 10 per cent. Then it was resolved that it should be 20 per cent. That means that at least 80 per cent. of the fund becomes available for direct investment in securities, liquid assets and so on. The second point is that at the same time as the limit of the initial margin outlay is raised to 20 per cent., the rules on diversification are removed. That will lead to a further increase in volatility and risk for the investor. It is critically important that the rules which are still being discussed by LAUTRO should take note of that fact.
In SIB Consultative Paper No. 49 it was suggested that no more than 2 per cent. of the total value of the fund should relate to initial outlay regarding any single derivative contract. No more than 4 per cent. of the total value should be allocated to any single category of derivative contract. That could relate to shares, commodities and so on. Moreover, limits on diversification were to apply, thereby offering a balance against the initial outlay. We now know that all that is to go. What is left is a simple requirement that the fund manager should ensure that investment in derivatives is "suitably diversified". Does not the Minister appreciate that the term "suitably diversified" is likely to lead to enormous problems in terms of legal interpretation? That is a matter which needs to be addressed. I hope that the LAUTRO rules which are still under negotiation will take the point fully into account.
The third point that I raise relates to commodities. The SIB regulations will permit the geared futures and options funds to invest in derivatives relating to the commodities market. These are extremely problematical when it comes to predictions. The fact is that the final SIB regulations have no requirement for funds to
400
diversify their initial outlay into different types of derivative contracts. Therefore one finds that a GFOF could hold the full 20 per cent. in commodities contracts. Bearing in mind the risks attaching to that, is it really sensible that that should be the case?
If one wants experience in the matter one does not need to look further than the United States and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which does not allow that to happen. A person there who wants to follow that particular route can operate in partnership. Why not apply the considerable experience and expertise of the SEC when dealing with the position in the United Kingdom, which is unquestionably far more lax than in the United States?
What would be the situation concerning liability in the event of a GFOF insolvency? The SIB regulations provide that no investor in a GFOF can lose more than his initial investment. But the gearing effect on trading on the margin is that price movements in the underlying asset can have a disproportionate effect. It can lead to the investor owing more on a derivative contract than his initial outlay. The Minister must reply to this point: who is responsible for the liabilities of a GFOF in circumstances of the kind that I have just postulated?
Is it the trustees? Is it the fund manager? Is there a joint and collective responsibility as far as both are concerned? What the Government are doing here—of course I exculpate the noble Viscount from all this—is to eschew any responsibility, simply passing it on to the SIB. They are passing the buck. The competence of the SIB depends on the powers delegated to it by the Government. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The next point I want to raise relates to something called cold calling. The Minister will know what that means. On paper it is prohibited. We know from experience that in practice prohibition simply does not stop it from taking place. It does go on. I know that there are denials, but the experience of many people illustrates that it goes on. The rules relating to cold calling are far too lax. This laxity in the marketing regulations brings the unit trust industry into disrepute.
In conclusion, I would say yes, we are anxious about the nature of investor protection as far as concerns GFOF when it is put on to the market. We do not accept the bland reassurances of the Minister in another place, in particular the reassurances contained in his press release of 30th April when he said that customer choice is to be increased without detracting from investor protection. He is increasing customer choice, but he is detracting from investor protection. In our judgment too much depends on the discretion of the individual manager. One has to take human frailty into account. Not all managers are good managers. In my judgment the Government should think again about this. The reputation of the unit trust industry is far too important to be tampered with in the way now envisaged by the Government. I believe that the measures the Government are seeking to put before us today—or at least some of them are essentially misconceived.
3.57 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Before I answer some of the more detailed points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I should like to say that the points he has made were correctly raised in another place; the Minister for Corporate Affairs answered them. It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is satisfied that there will be adequate investor protection. That is an important point.
I shall now deal with some of the specific points raised. The Unit Trust Association is concerned about geared futures and options funds. There is no requirement on the industry to set up such funds; nor is there a requirement that any investor should invest in them. Investors should be free to choose, provided that they are made aware through clear warnings of the risks involved. The Unit Trust Association's concern is that potentially risky funds should not be marketed as unit trusts and that they should have some other name. The underlying characteristics of GFOFs and warrant funds are those of a traditional authorised unit trust. That is how they fall to be categorised under the Act. I understand that some regard open ended investment companies as offering a more appropriate vehicle for these funds. At present UK legislation does not provide for these kinds of companies. The Department of Trade and Industry are considering the issue and have asked the Unit Trust Association for its considered views on the form any future legislation might take.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned marketing rules. These marketing rules are for the SIB and LAUTRO. In reaching his decision on the transfer of the powers the Secretary of State took into account the broad objectives of the marketing proposals published by LAUTRO on 19th April. The Department of Trade and Industry has kept in touch with with progress. The SIB and LAUTRO understand that the high standards of disclosure and other protections appropriate to the new products must be maintained. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the SIB's proposed marking arrangements will prohibit the cold calling of geared futures and options funds. Moreover, the marketing regimes for these funds will be strengthened to ensure that investors are fully aware of the risk characteristics. In a way the firm will be required to make clear the degree of risk involved, the potential volatility and the way this affects the return to the investor if he decides to cancel. The SIB and LAUTRO are aware of the need to act swiftly and surely if any breaches of the marketing arrangements are suspected.
The SIB consulted widely on increasing the initial outlay from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. It concluded that by increasing the level to 20 per cent. wider diversification will be achieved together with a potential of lowering volatility. Comments received by the SIB suggested that detailed diversification requirements could force managers to invest in areas in which they did not have full expertise. The SIB proposal is for a simple requirement that the manager should ensure that investments are prudently
402
diversified. This will, like other duties imposed on the manager of a fund, be monitored in the first instance by the trustees.
The noble Lord asked what will happen if things go wrong. The investors compensation scheme would compensate unit holders who are private investors if they are owed money by the manager or the trustee and the firm has gone into liquidation and is unable to pay their claim. A claim cannot be met, however, if it relates to a failure of an investment or a failure to meet or match a guarantee given or representations made.
There has been close co-ordination at every stage, including on the proposed LAUTRO marketing rules. In the light of the concerns of the Unit Trust Association, LAUTRO extended its consultation period well beyond the end of March.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he will appreciate that he has not been in a position to respond to a large number of the points that I have made. I do not blame him for that. He rather anticipated that in any event. I ask him to ensure that, after reading my remarks, he responds in writing to the various points that are still outstanding and perhaps even put the reply in the Library because I think the matter is of more general interest than to me alone.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am happy to give an assurance that I shall certainly respond to the points that I have been unable to cover in detail today and that I shall put a copy of my reply in the Library.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No.2) Order 1991
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Smoke Detectors Bill
4.2 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Home Office fire statistics show that in recent years about 700 people have been killed in fires in the home every year and that another 10,000 have been injured. Fires involving textiles, upholstery and furnishings account for the majority of those deaths and injuries. Many of them might have been avoided if an early warning of fire had been given while there was still a chance of escaping from the premises. This is the purpose of smoke detectors.
The term refers to a device which sounds an alarm when the presence of smoke is detected. The simplest

403
types are battery operated and cost as little as £6. Installation is very straightforward and the Home Office has produced a guidance leaflet for householders on their selection, installation and use. Recently mains power versions have also become available, some of which also have a battery back-up. There is some evidence that householders can overlook the need for the regular replacement of batteries in battery-operated detectors, particularly when they are not themselves responsible for the original installation. Mains power detectors may therefore prove more reliable. The additional cost of installing mains power smoke detectors in a new house or flat is estimated to be £30 to £40 per unit, although in an existing dwelling the cost would be higher. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that all new dwellings have smoke detectors installed at the time of their construction. It does not attempt to cover existing dwellings.s
Quite apart from any argument about how far Parliament should go in requiring householders to take measures to protect themselves in their own home, it is very difficult to envisage how any legal requirement relating to existing dwellings could in practice be enforced. However, in the case of new dwellings, there are already requirements which are aimed primarily at the protection of health and safety in the building regulations. The Bill is intended to operate in parallel with those requirements.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 provides that the person who in the course of his business constructs dwellings is guilty of an offence if such dwellings are not fitted with smoke detectors which make adequate provision for the early detection of the outbreak of a fire. Therefore, it is the builder who has to meet the requirements. The Bill does not place any obligation on the subsequent purchaser or on the owners or occupiers of existing houses. Clause 2 would enable that requirement to be relaxed if there were any particular reasons for doing so. For example, there might be problems in a case where an historic building was being converted for residential use.
Clause 3 provides for the Secretary of State to approve; and issue guidance as to the fitting of smoke detectors. There are similar provisions relating to guidance on building regulation requirements in Sections 6 and 7 of the Building Act 1984. It would clearly pot be appropriate to include all that material in this Bill. Experience of building control has shown that a better and more flexible system of control can be ach eyed through the use of short, functional requirements and approved guidance documents than by setting out lengthy and detailed requirements in regulations.
Under Clause 4, local authorities would have the duty to enforce the Act. They already have the duty to enforce building regulations. The other clauses are ancillary and similar to existing provisions relating to building regulations in the Building Act 1984. Like the 1984 Act, the requirements of this Bill will apply only in England and Wales. That is because Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legislation relating to building control.
404
It may be said that this is a modest measure because it applies only to new dwellings. However, it will demonstrate Parliament's concern on the subject in a practical way. Moreover, as the housing stock is being renewed at a rate of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. per annum, the effects of a measure of this kind will soon mount up. It may also be suggested that we should leave the Government to deal with the matter. I am aware that proposals have been put forward for the revision of the relevant provisions in the building regulations. ut decisions on those proposals have not yet been taken.
The Bill provides us with the opportunity to register our views on the importance of installing smoke detectors in new dwellings without cutting across what the Government are doing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Wade of Chorlton.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is normally the case with Private Members' Bills, the Opposition as such do not express a view on the merits of the Bill. Therefore, any observations I make will be my own rather than those of the Labour Party. However, I have been consulted by, and have consulted with, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which will be heavily concerned in the implementation of the Bill should it become enacted. It is only right to tell the House that the association is very much in favour of the Bill in its present form. I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in particular, that an advisory group has been set up consisting of building control, fire authority and housing officers in metropolitan authorities. If the noble Lord is in agreement, the group would be very glad to talk about the Bill with him and make suggestions for improvement. I, too, should be happy to participate in that process if he wishes me to do so.
Of course, the Bill is very different from the one which first appeared before another place. It has been greatly modified in that the original Bill covered all dwellings, not just new ones. I understand that the Bill went through another place without debate. It was tagged on to the end of a number of Private Members' Bills. It deserves a little more attention because there should be additional protection against smoke and fires. That should start in respect of new buildings.
I have a number of specific points, some of which are for the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and some of which seek information from the Government as to their attitude towards certain aspects of the Bill, although I appreciate that they will be officially neutral on the Bill as a whole. Clause 1(1) provides:
"A person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, constructs or arranges for the construction of a dwelling".
That appears to exclude self-build. I am puzzled as to why that is the case. Given that the standards of self-build housing might not be as high as those of professionally built houses, there might be even greater necessity for smoke detectors to be installed in

405
self-build houses. I should be interested to know why that exemption has been put in and whether it would be insisted upon if it were challenged.
Clause 1(3) suggests that the fine should not exceed level 3 on the standard scale. That is £400. People employed in the local authorities think that that is low and that the figure should be more like £2,000 which is the level 5 fine. These days £400 is a minimal amount.
Clause 2(1) provides that an authority—presumably the building control inspectors—may give a direction dispensing with or relaxing the requirement for smoke detectors. It might be as well to involve the fire authorities as well as the local authority in that aspect of the matter. Local authority building inspectors are capable of covering the point made by the noble Lord about historic buildings being converted for residential use. The building is one thing: the likelihood of that building being subject to fire is another. That is an area in which the fire authorities are expert and where consultation with them could be valuable.
In their other functions, building inspectors have rights of entry to enforce their powers. There is no provision for rights of entry for building control inspectors under the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider whether it might be appropriate to bring this part of their new duties into line with their existing powers.
My next question on Clause 3 is for the Government. The clause starts by saying that the Secretary of State may issue guidance. My question is: will he? It is no good saying "may" unless the Government say that while they do not oppose the Bill they are prepared to issue guidance. Similarly on Clause 3, there are precedents, especially in relation to gas boilers, for there being not merely guidance in respect of installation, but also instructions for users. Gas boilers can still be dangerous. If one is installed, instructions for users are mandatory. That may well apply to smoke detectors. I am thinking about battery-operated smoke detectors where the replacement of the battery from time to time may be important.
Again on Clause 3, it may be appropriate for there to be reference to standards covering for instance the definition of smoke detector. We need to consider whether the standards to be applied shall accord with a recognised British standard and if not, the advisability of including a recognised British standard within the Bill.
My final question to the Government concerns Clause 6(3) at the end of the Bill which provides:
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
Can the Government give any guidance as to when they are likely to bring the Bill into effect, if it is passed by this House? From a personal point of view and that of those involved in such matters in local authorities, the Bill is welcome. It does not seem to us to be perfect, but it is certainly a move in the right direction.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as we discuss this Bill the death of four young children in a fire today is very much in our minds. I repeat, as did the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, that by convention the Government remain neutral on Private Members' Bills. This Bill is no exception to the convention. However, on behalf of the Government I make the following comments.
The Government fully endorse the use of smoke detectors in dwellings. While we recognise that they are no substitute for the normal personal vigilance which is needed to prevent fires from starting, they can provide an early warning in the event of a fire breaking out. Such a warning can save lives by giving those inside the home a better chance of escaping. To promote the voluntary installation of smoke detectors in dwellings, the Home Office have devoted substantial resources to educational and publicity programmes aimed at bringing the life-saving potential of these devices to the attention of the public. These programmes have achieved considerable success and we have seen the proportion of dwellings where alarms are installed increase from 9 per cent. to 40 per cent. over the past four years.
There are requirements in fire precautions and health and safety at work legislation which ensure that smoke alarm systems are installed in many non-domestic premises. There are at present no equivalent requirements relating to dwellings. We are, however, already consulting on a proposal to include such a provision in the building regulations. There has been a considerable amount of support for this proposal, but it forms part of a wider review on which decisions are unlikely to be announced until the autumn.
The building regulations apply only to new building work, and it is sometimes suggested that there should be legislation to require the installation of smoke detectors in existing homes as well. The Government have a natural, and I believe proper, reluctance to legislate to require householders to take special measures to protect themselves in their own homes. But the overriding problem is that any such legal requirement would effectively be unenforceable. It would involve giving enforcement authorities the power of entry into private homes on an essentially random basis. Such powers would be unacceptably intrusive. Enforcement would also require a large and expensive army of inspectors, and all the supporting bureaucracy that goes with it. As I have said, however, the Government are fully in sympathy with what my noble friend said about the desirability of encouraging the use of smoke detectors in dwellings.
Turning to specific questions, I said on the timing of the main Bill that we should hear more in the autumn. On the issue of guidance, since this is a Private Member's Bill, it would be appropriate to wait for the Bill to progress to a further stage and see its shape as it goes through the processes of the House. If appropriate, the Government will consider guidance.
On the miscellany of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we have sympathy with some of them. We shall discuss them fully with the promoters of the Bill before the Committee stage. We

407
have already had discussions with the NHBC and the Bill's Promoters about reducing confusion concerning implementation of the measures. It seems to us important that as much as possible be worked out before the Bill passes its Committee stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take advantage of what the Minister said to ask her and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, whether we can be given guidance as to when the Committee stage is likely:o be reached. Perhaps the noble Lord will respond when he winds up.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, can answer that point, as I am afraid I cannot. The Government are fully in sympathy with the Bill and all that has been said about the appropriateness of smoke detectors in new buildings. The Bill represents a small but practical measure which is consistent with the measures that the Government are already considering. The Bill has our support.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his support of the Bill. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for giving the Bill government support. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for offering to help in discussions with some of the outside bodies which are interested in this Bill. I shall take up that offer so that we can work together to make this a successful Bill that suits everyone concerned. As the noble Lord is aware, this is a Private Member's Bill which has been brought forward by a Member of another place. I know that it is his intention to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
I cannot answer the point about timing that the noble Lord raised, as I understand that that has not yet been settled through the usual channels. However, it is our understanding that the Bill will be enacted as soon as possible. As my noble friend said, it is hoped that the Bill will be on the statute book by the autumn to coincide with other building regulations which will be brought forward at that time.
The noble Lord raised one or two points which I shall try to respond to. As he said, at the moment the provisions of the Bill do not apply to self-built houses. However, all properties do of course come under the building regulations, whoever builds them. As the noble Lord suggested, this is a point that could be further considered. However, one also has to consider how far the law should protect from his own follies someone who wishes to build his own house.
The noble Lord referred to the fine. The Bill proposes a fine of about £400 to £500. The noble Lord suggested that it should be £2,000, but I believe the fine proposed in the Bill is correct. Perhaps that is something that we can review in the light of the noble Lord's comments. The noble Lord asked about the fire authorities. I can assure him that people would not be able to get around the regulations very easily. However, it is intended that the fire authorities will be consulted on this matter.
408
The noble Lord referred to the right of entry. The Bill is no different to other statutes in this respect. The provisions in the Bill come into force during the building of new dwellings. It will be the duty of the authorities concerned to ensure that all the requirements of the Bill are fulfilled. Once the building is completed and handed over to the purchaser, the purchaser has no legal responsibility for these requirements. The smoke detectors will be subject to the normal British standards. This matter is mentioned in a pamphlet which has already been issued by the Home Office. Further pamphlets will be issued to all the bodies concerned as guidance. I believe I have answered the points raised by the noble Lord. I am grateful for the support he gave to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sunday Entertainments (Video Supply) Bill [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Shops Act 1950]:
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("supply") and insert ("letting on hire").
The noble Viscount said: To save the time of the Committee, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as they all deal with the same point.
I am glad to say that following the Second Reading debate in the House there is no difference of opinion between my noble friend Lord Newall and myself on the main point, which is that the Bill should deal only with the letting on hire of videos and not with the selling of videos. The four amendments all cover the same point, by two different methods.
Amendment No. 1 in my name simply substitutes for the word "supply" in line 9 the words "letting on hire". That is simple and straightforward. The problem arises because the definition of "supply" in the Video Recordings Act 1984, as set out in Section 1(4), reads as follows:
"'supply' means supply in any manner, whether or not for reward, and, therefore, includes supply by way of sale, letting on hire, exchange or loan; and references to a supply are to be interpreted accordingly".
Following Amendment No. 1 through, that would mean deleting the word "supply" in line 9 and substituting "letting on hire" and then deleting the words "'supply' and" in line 10, as set out in Amendment No. 2. On line 11 the plural would be

409
changed to the singular—"have" to "has"—as my noble friend Lord Newall has stipulated in Amendment No. 5, with which I fully agree.
The alternative method is that proposed by my noble friend in Amendment No. 4, in which he gives "supply" a different meaning from that in the 1984 Act, restricting it to supply by way of letting on hire. That would have exactly the same effect as my Amendment No. 1. However, it is confusing that the word "supply" has two different meanings in connection with videos.
The problem in relation to Amendment No. 1 arises with the use of the word "supply" in the Title of the Bill. If it were not for that I should undoubtedly say that I preferred my version unequivocally. However, I appreciate that there is a problem because of the inclusion of the word "supply" in the Title of the Bill. Nevertheless, Amendment No. 1 seems to me to be much the more straightforward and much the easier amendment to adopt. I believe that it would result in less confusion in the future.
That only goes to show that the effect of the Bill is to increase the anomalies in relation to Sunday trading rather than to decrease them. I echo what my noble friend the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Reay—and I said at Second Reading, namely that we did not believe that dealing with the matter piecemeal was the right way forward. Nevertheless, that is the proposal at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I spoke on the Bill at Second Reading when I said everything that I wish to say on the topic. The Opposition Front Bench is by convention neutral on Private Members' Bills and we are neutral on the whole question of Sunday trading. My stance on the amendments must consequently be neutral. My attitude must be that of the concerned but disinterested spectator, though I shall be actively interested to know the Government's attitude to the amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked me to give the Government's views I shall be happy to do so.
The Government's position on the whole Sunday trading issue was explained by my noble friend Lord Reay during the Second Reading debate on this Bill to which my noble friend Lord Brentford referred.
We do not believe that the way forward lies in seeking to make fresh amendments to the fifth schedule to the Shops Act 1950. Our policy remains to try to assist those on both sides of the Sunday trading argument to reach agreement on proposals for legislation which are practicable, enforceable and capable of commanding widespread support both in Parliament and in the country at large. With regard to the amendments to the Bill, we are content to leave the question of acceptance or rejection entirely to the Committee to decide.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Newall: In principle, I have no problem with the amendment. It is entirely in line with my Amendment No. 4, which says exactly the same thing in a different way and gives effect only to the hire, not the sale, of video cassettes on a Sunday. In many areas it is that vital trade—not the sell through market—that is being damaged by the Shops Act 1950. My noble friend's amendment, which seeks to remove the word "supply" and insert the phrase "letting on hire", is similar to my amendment. However, although they would have the same effect via a different route and would remove the word "supply", I do not think that that is appropriate. As my noble friend said, the word "supply" is in both the Long Title and the Short Title. Although I have no argument with the amendment basically, it is cleaner and stylistically better to retain the word "supply". I therefore hope that he will not press his amendment any further.
Viscount Brentford: I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Newall has said. I have said everything that I had to say. I do not accept that the wording is cleaner because it gives the word "supply" two different meanings in the same context, which seems to muddle and make dirty rather than cleaner. However, in view of the title, I suggest that the way forward is probably as he has suggested. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("recording") insert ("by a shop whose floor area does not exceed 1,500 sq.ft.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6, standing in my name, as the two go together.
As I understand it, the main aim of the Bill is to permit the local video establishment to let on hire videos on a Sunday. In principle I do not disagree with that as it fits entirely with the rest principles which I support and which provide for recreation on a Sunday. The object of the two amendments is to provide for that smaller local shop, rather than the larger, warehouse-type establishment, to be open for the letting of videos.
One of the problems with the Bill is that there is no scope in it for introducing any employee protection on Sundays for those who work in the shops. Again, therefore, it is an incomplete measure. There are examples of Government-drafted legislation providing for that on Sundays which I should have liked to see incorporated. However, they were not relevant to the Bill, which simply inserts a new trade into the fifth schedule to the Shops Act.
>Limiting trading to the smaller shop—1,500 square feet is quite substantial; there is nothing particularly magical in that measurement—means that the trading will be lawful for those smaller establishments, which may therefore have better personal relationships between the employer and the employee. That provides, so far as I can envisage that it is feasible, protection for the employees who in theory may not have to work on Sundays, but who in practice are made to do so when they do not wish to. This factor

411
again shows the danger of piecemeal amendment of the law. I should like to reiterate that a new Government Bill is needed as soon as the Government's consultations on the subject are completed.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that those consultations are proceeding swiftly. I have not yet received an invitation to talk to the Minister concerned. I hope that she will act more quickly to pursue these consultations so that the law, the enforcement of which is deteriorating fast, will be changed speedily. It is for that reason that I beg to move this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may give a general response to this amendment by saying that the setting of any particular figure in this context is bound to be arbitrary. It could quite possibly lead to shopkeepers taking steps to bring their premises artificially within the limit set, for example, by temporarily closing off part of their shops. We are also inclined to draw attention to the possible difficulties to which this approach may give rise when the question of enforcement is considered. Since we are, in the context of this Bill, concerned only with shops which trade in one particular category of merchandise, I accept that it might not be too difficult for local authorities, which are the enforcers of this particular law, to determine in the first instance which shops in their districts may qualify for the exemption from the Bill, if amended. However, local authorities would still thereafter have to monitor premises on a fairly regular basis in case any additional floor space were subsequently brought into use.
We can therefore see that there are certain difficulties associated with any attempt to try to prescribe by law that only shops with a floor area which is below some specified upper limit may open for the serving of customers on Sundays.
Perhaps I ought also to mention that, to comply with the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986, which implemented a European Community directive, references to floor areas in Bills of this kind ought now to be expressed in square metres rather than square feet.
That aside, I can assure my noble friend that the discussions to which he referred are being continued by my right honourable friend and, if he has not yet received an invitation from her, I see no reason why he should be totally despairing.
Lord Newall: I am very glad that my noble friend the Minister is in agreement with what I too feel. However, I have some additional comments. One reason for resisting the amendment is that the British Video A3sociation cannot agree that the hiring of video cassettes on a Sunday should be restricted to shops of 1,500 square feet. The extra qualification and restriction would do nothing to the measure that we propose. The size of a video rental shop is determined entirely by the number of customers who come in and the amount of business that it handles. It is only that which expands or reduces its size. In many country areas the shops are very small. In towns the vide
412
rental shop is often not in the high street but in some other area which is more suited to where the residents live.
This Bill is designed only to legitimise the rental of video cassettes on Sunday. It does not at all have the effect of enabling large high street stores to open. The space limitation would not affect the opening hours of other stores because the Bill applies only to video rental. I do not believe that any employee problems are likely to arise, because we are not dealing with large numbers of employees but often with owners who in many instances run the shops themselves. Moreover, opening on Sunday would not put pressure on any other high street shops to open on a Sunday because they are not next door to the video shops.
With this Bill we are trying to achieve the deregulation of outdated legislation which discriminates between Sunday entertainment businesses. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would add an unnecessary restriction to what is widely perceived to be a much desired alteration in the law. After all, cinemas and theatres are not restricted on Sundays by their size of audience. It is not possible to predict what future trends there may be in shopping hours or retail patterns. This caveat might soon become very outdated and a totally irrelevant piece of legislation.
It is difficult to say exactly how many video rental shops have a floor area of over 1,500 square feet. However, the guess that I make with the help of those who know better than me is that there could be well over 1,000. There seems no reason why larger shops, in particular those in London which supply only rented videos, should be ruled out by means of this amendment. None of them is a department store. The largest video rental shops are dedicated simply to video rentals.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 6, in the name of my noble friend Lord Brentford. I believe that there is a flaw in it. It refers to "inspecting and purchasing goods". The Bill has nothing to do with purchasing any goods. It refers purely to rental of videos. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Brentford: In view of what has been said, while reserving the right to reconsider the matter at a later date, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 10, after (" "supply" ") insert ("means supply by way of letting on hire").
The noble Lord said: We have discussed this subject and have aired it quite satisfactorily. My noble friend Lord Brentford and I agree on the principle. That is the way that we shall go ahead. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is entirely consequential. It perfects the wording. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

"Non-Pop" Music Radio Station
4.43 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the procedures announced by the Radio Authority for the provision of a "non-pop" music national commercial radio station.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Unstarred Question arises from the deep anxiety that we on these Benches have that the new Radio Authority has drawn up the licence specification for the first independent national radio channel too narrowly and bureaucratically. It has imposed unnecessarily heavy financial conditions to the detriment of the range of choice and quality which should be available to listeners.
The background to the problem lies in the recent Broadcasting Act with its excessively free market, highest-bid provisions. These are worse for radio than for television. It is significant that there is no Becher's Brook of quality to be surmounted for radio as there is for television. Perhaps more significantly, the shadow Radio Authority, unlike the shadow ITC, made no apparent effort during our proceedings on the Bill to have such a provision inserted. Radio has long suffered from being in the shadow of television when broadcasting policy is debated. We on these Benches did our best to correct that imbalance during the proceedings of the Bill in this House. However, we had only limited success.
The choice of the first national commercial radio channel to compete with the BBC is an exciting and important event. INR1 was to be the flagship of the new radio system. In Committee on the Broadcasting Bill, the noble Earl emphasised that the new national channel should not be allowed to become non-stop pop simply because such content might be the most profitable way of exploiting the channel. Your Lordships provided some innocent entertainment for the nation by trying to define pop music. The House was assisted by the noble Earl's memorable description that it was something that went "thump, thump, thump". He was particularly insistent on the third thump which no doubt indicates his personal, deep in-built sense of rhythm.
Thus was formed the famous definition of non-pop to be found in Section 85(2) (a) (ii) and (6) of the Act. The section provides for:
"a service which consists, wholly or mainly, in the broadcasting of music which, in the opinion of the Authority, is not pop music".
The authority was left with the admittedly far from easy task of interpreting the Act.
In the summer of last year there were a large number of potential applicants; approximately 39 registered an interest with the shadow Radio Authority. Many hoped that the authority would
414
encourage a wide range of innovative and creative ideas which, subject to the hazards of the bidding process, would allow listener choice to be enriched.
That appeared to be the hope of the Home Office last summer. On behalf of the then Minister, David Mellor, the Home Office sent a letter to Mr. Anthony Field, the chairman of Heritage Broadcasting on 21st August last year. The Home Office stated:
"The sort of service you have in mind would certainly appear to broaden the range of choice for listeners and on the face of it there seems to be no reason why it should not feature among the contenders for a licence".
But the kind of service that the applicant had in mind has been effectively ruled out by the Radio Authority developing an interpretation of the Act which, in my judgment, is narrow, mechanistic and bureaucratic. There is no doubt that it has excluded a number of applicants with interesting and innovative ideas.
The phrase "mainly music" contained in the Act is defined by the Radio Authority as being a minimum—I emphasise the word "minimum"—of 75 per cent. "non-pop" music, leaving only 25 per cent. for speech possibilities, in each three-hour period. Why on earth could not the phrase have been interpreted flexibly as meaning a majority of non-pop music—"majority" can reasonably be defined as mainly—the time period being a day rather than three hours? That would have allowed more varied programming. "Diversity" is interpreted in terms of the Act as requiring a mixture of different artists or composers in any six-hour period. Again, I am puzzled about why the period is six hours.
Both those restrictions would make it difficult, for example, properly to cover the Edinburgh Festival, which my local radio station, Radio Forth, has done so well, or to co-operate in the sponsorship of a long opera. Such restrictive interpretation of the Act has been compounded by penal financial conditions which seem designed for those with the longest purses in the bidding process and to encourage increased pressure for cheap programming.
Directly attributable to the Treasury is the auction bid money which I notice that The Times today estimates as perhaps running at around £5 million, plus a 4 per cent. levy on all the revenue that the channel generates either from advertising or sponsorship. In addition the Radio Authority demands an application fee of £10,000 and an annual licence fee of close to £1 million, despite the fact that it has discretion under Section 87(4) of the Act to,
"specify different fees in relation to different cases or circumstances".
A combination of a greedy Treasury and a greedy regulatory authority is the worst of all worlds and a poor lookout for broadcasting quality. It is little wonder that the Radio Authority found that its original deadline of April did not produce a credible response and had to be extended. Report has it that there was a great deal of rushing around to encourage the three applications which emerged yesterday from the original 39 hopefuls.
I am deeply saddened by the whole situation. I have my own reasons for being proud of the standards of commercial broadcasting in this country. The

415
independent television network was able, over the years, to match the BBC in programme excellence and to carry off all the great international prizes. Some of us fought hard to see independent radio put on equal terms with the BBC by being allocated national channels. We hoped that, as with ITV, INRI would then match the BBC with its own distinctive programming of quality. Instead it looks as though we shall end up with wall-to-wall recycled music; one more record shop of the air.
The Radio Authority appears to feel that it will have done its duty and widened choice if the kind of records on INRI are different from the pop records on the other channel. But good radio is much wider and deeper than that. It concerns a great deal more. It is not only about music, recorded or otherwise; it is about programmes about music. In addition to music it concerns programmes about books, the theatre and other lire-enhancing leisure pursuits.
I do not want to comment—indeed, I am not in any position so to do on the three applicants who have come forward. However, I profoundly hope that the Radio Authority will feel that it has a duty to do a little more than simply pass on the highest bid to the Treasury, and that even at this late stage and with its own interpretations, it will do what it can to encourage the emergence of a first Independent National Radio channel which will be of some distinctive quality and character. We hope that it will not be just another easy listening station, this time on a national scale. That would be to squander a great new opportunity to add to the range of British broadcasting.
I conclude by asking the noble Earl the question I tabled originally. Are the Government satisfied with the procedures announced by the Radio Authority for the provision of a non-pop music national commercial radio station? If so, we shall be interested to hear what the government defence is of the behaviour of the authority.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for raising this subject this evening, for asking this Question, and for the fact that it is timely. As he said, the applications had to be in by yesterday. I preface my own remarks by declaring an interest as a director of London's jazz radio station, Jazz FM. That interest is in a local radio station and one which, among others, receives support by virtue of revenue derived from its coverage of a specific area of the country.
All the existing commercial stations which make up the independent radio network are the result of an orchestrated approach to the expansion of broadcasting in this country. Orchestration, planning, regulation—call it what you will —is the natural balance required of a system that also imposes artificial limits on ownership and where market entry is also restricted by a limited delivery system—that is to say, the total amount of frequencies available. The
416
new lighter touch regulatory environment is a welcome change, but it remains essentially an orchestrated approach.
I see nothing in the licensing of a non-pop independent national radio service which is inconsistent with the practice of planned expansion. The service serves two important purposes. First, in the face of limited frequencies, the public interest is served by avoiding undue duplication of formats. That is something I dealt with during the discussion on the Broadcasting Bill. Secondly, the commercial interest is served by ensuring that new licensing delivers to the independent sector the means by which it can attract listeners from the BBC who are so vital to its advertising growth.
The existing independent radio network already challenges the BBC extremely effectively in those formats represented by both Radio I and Radio 2. That leaves the audience attracted by Radio 3 and Radio 4, still as yet without a significant challenge on a national basis from the commercial sector. The two formats represented by Radio 3 and Radio 4, and particularly Radio 4, can be extremely expensive to produce. In the case of Radio 3 it may have a limited audience. For that reason alone both the Government and the Radio Authority were correct in my view to see the opportunity of national radio as being one of giving significant audience coverage to formats that would otherwise be difficult to sustain on a local basis.
The scramble to use the national radio opportunity of pop and rock formats is what gave rise to the non-pop definition and no doubt resulted in the rather clumsy attempt to enshrine it in the Broadcasting Bill. I have some sympathy with those charged with translating the now famous definition of my noble friend Lord Ferrers of "thump, thump, thump" into statutory language. I cannot help but think that asking such a silly question deserved the silly answer that it got. It was those seeking to circumvent the non-pop specification who gave rise to the necessity of definition. Most sensible people clearly understood what was meant and the effect that was sought. The formats covered by the pop umbrella were essentially ones which could expect to be maintained in local markets and therefore need not be dependent on a national platform for their viability.
If the response to the advertisement of this first national licence has been less than fevered (we have heard that there are three applicants) it is not because the Government were at fault nor that the Radio Authority did anything other than what was required of it. The only factors that can be said to have dampened enthusiasm must have been the prevailing economic climate, the high cost of transmission and the most unwelcome attempt by the record industry to impose royalty rates of an eye-watering magnitude and on a broadcasting industry which had already suffered from a heavy burden of royalty payments. These may be increased in some cases by as much as 20 per cent. Although a concessionary rate will be applicable to INR for the first four years, it could mean that the new station might have to find an extra

417
£1 million. It is also possible that the Performing Right Society might try to follow PPL, possibly involving a further £1 million.
It is fair to point out that the Radio Authority could have modified its requirement of universal coverage and thus reduced transmitter costs. However, it will no doubt feel that it had good reason to insist on a network of over 20 transmitters. What, in contrast, is unforgivable is the assault on our radio industry by the predominantly foreign record companies, which is both vicious and on a scale every bit as unpleasant as I and other noble Lords warned this House it would be during our deliberations on the Broadcasting Bill. It is nothing short of scandalous that this country permits these record companies to frustrate government policy in this way. I only hope that the Copyright Tribunal which now has to deal with this problem dismisses PPL's claim with all the contempt that it deserves.
With respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is wrong to imply misjudgment by the Radio Authority, if that was his intention. The authority acted in accordance with the Broadcasting Act in pursuit of both the public and commercial interests. I am sure that it is right to leave the principal challenge to BBC radio's pop format in the hands of existing local radio companies. I urge the authority to continue to see the opportunity of independent national radio as being complementary to the existing commercial system and not competitive. The competitive challenge should be the one of commercial radio versus the BBC.
5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we should have some sympathy for the Radio Authority and the position in which it finds itself today. The authority has been placed in a most unenviable posture by the Government with their determination to ensure vigorous market competition, while at the same time being very uncertain and vacillating about the very nature of the product which is on the stall.
Last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has said, there were said to be nearly 40 consortia interested in bidding for the three channels on offer. Yesterday, when the FM channel bids were closed after a month of what we would call extra time, only three runners actually appeared at the start line. One can hardly say that this represents a crescendo or a passionate commitment to the subject; and one might be forgiven if one thought that the present situation is characterised by a deep and slumberous apathy, a disinterest, a lethargy illustrated by a great yawn of boredom. That is a pity. However, it is surely the direct consequence of the Government's failure to do either one thing or the other. To follow their own ideology, either the Government should have legislated clearly to ensure that a viable market with an identifiable product was created, or they should have allowed crude market forces to rule and simply allowed a general music franchise to go to the highest bidder, regardless of quality. The Government have fallen quite literally between two stools. We on these
418
Benches—and in particular my noble friend Lady Birk —throughout all the stages of the Broadcasting Bill have emphasised always the importance of quality control and quality performance.
The rock on which this enterprise has foundered is that terrible phrase, "wholly or mainly non-pop". Is there not an inherent absurdity in defining something by saying what it is not? The music for this channel. whatever it may actually be, must not be pop—whatever pop is. It was distinguished at one stage from rock music, and your Lordships may well recall the problems that this posed for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he spoke on 16th October 1990. I shall quote him, because I think what he said was important. The noble Earl said:
"It has been argued that rock music is not the same thing as pop music. I do not know whether it is or is not. But I do know that it would be an odd result—and not, I am sure, what your Lordships intended—if a rock music or similar application were able to win the licence for the non-pop service. Apart from the fact that that would be a perverse outcome, the result would also almost certainly be that two of the new national services were not genuinely different from each other, given that a rock or pop-based service will be well placed to win the third, unrestricted licence".
He went on to say:
"We are not saying that a rock-based proposal will not be eligible for any national radio licence. It would in fact he well placed to bid for the one out of the three licences for which eligibility is unrestricted. All we are saying is that a rock or pop-based application should not try to pretend to be eligible for a licence specifically designated as non-pop".—[Officia/ Report, 16/10/90; col. 752.]
I read that carefully the day after he said it and I have read it again since. The noble Earl makes his meaning very clear. But such argument in such detail must surely be guaranteed to have deterred investors and entrepreneurs, unless they had been promised vast profits, from working it all out. They calculated that the profits were not vast, and quite clearly they declined the invitation to puzzle out what the noble Earl and the rest of us had tried to define for them. They did not bother to compete—and who can blame them?
This piece of social engineering, however worthy its motives, has failed, and it has clearly been seen to do so. The enterprise has perished; the patient has died. A post mortem would seem to be indicated to ascertain the reasons for this very public decline and fall. I would suggest just three. First, the stringent restrictions of the Broadcasting Act were narrow, ideological and, above all, unclear. The Government wanted a commercial rival to Radio 3 or Radio 4. What is now clear is that that will not happen. Whatever else the FM channel will give us, it will not give us kontakions by Stockhausen or madrigals by Gesualdo. Secondly, the definitions laid down by the Government but left to be interpreted by the Radio Authority were absurd. We recall—and we have done so this afternoon—the noble Earl describing pop music as "thump, thump, thump". It has been pointed out to me by my noble friend Lord Carter that if he had added one other "thump" and given it the appropriate emphasis, "thump, thump, thump, thump", he could have given us the opening of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

419
The absurdities produced by the definition are well summed up in Richard Morrison's article in The Times today, which I commend to your Lordships. He says:
"As things stand, it will be allowed to broadcast Elvis Presley's. 1956 hit 'Heartbreak Hotel' but not his 1961 'Are you lonesome tonight?'. Domingo's `Nessun dorma' may be played; Pavarotti's may not".
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way on a point of information. That may have appeared in The Times but it is totally inaccurate. I speak as the chairman of the Radio Authority. The licensee who wins the licence for this non-pop station can brcadcast 25 per cent. of the music time as pop music. He can therefore broadcast both Pavarotti and Domingo and anything he likes of Elvis Presley.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I must accept the noble Lord's correction. He knows more than any of us about this matter. I hope that he will also take the opportunity to correct Mr. Richard Morrison on this and on another matter to which I shall come in a moment.
The third point on which I think we might meditate is that in this case the price was not right. Subject to the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, Mr. Morrison said:
"To 'win the licence, the bidder must pay a £10,000 application fee, a £1 million licence fee collected by the Radio Authority … and make a cash bid, which could be around £5 million paid annually to the Treasury, in addition to 4 per cent. of all advertising and sponsorship revenues. Then it must forfeit an estimated 15 per cent. of revenue in copyright and royalty fees (which have just been raised considerably for commercial stations). Add to all that approximately £4 million in transmission costs and a minimum of £3 million spent on marketing the station in its first year".s
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his confirmation of that.
The price was obviously extremely high, which must have acted as a deterrent to a number of people who would otherwise have made useful and good bids. The Broadcasting Bill, as we remember it in its passage through this House, was intended to ensure diversity, quality and choice. Alas, the FM channel will provide none of those. It will not be able to mount a credible challenge to BBC Radio 3; it will be at best a pale shadow of a watered down version of an imitation of Radio 2.
Let us hope that the Government will admit that this experiment has gone off at half cock and be prepared to profit from their experience by going back to the laboratory bench and starting all over again.
>5.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I thought that we might have an interesting debate of this nature; indeed, we were not disappointed. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, could not avoid resuscitating the feelings of disenchantment which he expressed so graciously and most sincerely about 12 months ago when we discussed the Broadcasting Bill. But I dare say that even the iob1e Lord was not quite sure about what he was going to say today, until yesterday evening; nor was I. I that because, until that time, none of us —that is, including the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont,
420
the chairman of the Radio Authority, who I am delighted to see is present today —could have known for certain what applications there would be for the non-pop licence, the closing date for which was 5 o'clock yesterday evening.
We now know that there are three applications, despite the gloomy predictions of some dismal Jonahs that there would be none; and despite the gloomy predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that we should all go back to the drawing board and start again. I am bound to say to him that that was a particularly unhelpful suggestion, but I accept it in the way that he said it. He seems to have forgotten that there were actually 39 letters of interest for the licences. Some of those who expressed an interest earlier will no doubt want to apply for an AM licence or for either the speech-based or the unspecified third service.
There never has before been a national radio service in this country run on a commercial basis. Those who want to run such services have not had the opportunity to do so. We have removed the unnecessary barrier. But, of course, it is for the market to determine what it wants to do. I readily accept that we do not yet know whether these three applications will all fulfil the requirements for a national radio station set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990. However, we do know that there are entrepreneurs who want to rise to the challenge and who are prepared to take the opportunity which independent national radio offers.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asks whether we are satisfied with the procedures which were announced by the Radio Authority for the provision of a non-pop music national commercial radio station. I am bound to tell him that the short answer is, yes. The slightly longer answer entails appreciating what the Government's objectives were when we introduced the provisions which govern independent national radio in the Broadcasting Act, which passed through your Lordships' House last year and to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was a notable contributor.
There is, at the moment, the potential for three new national radio services—one on VHF, and two on medium wave. We felt that it was right in principle that these should be made available to anyone who wishes to offer a national radio service and who believes that he can thereby establish a viable business. But, the economics of radio being what they are, we realised that it was likely, unless we did something to regulate the programming format of the new channels, that all three stations could end up by being stations which would provide what is colloquially called "pop-music".
We felt that national radio stations ought to be used to cater for a range of national tastes and interests. I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing to do. While we did not think that it would be sensible to try to lay down in great detail what each of the new stations should offer, it seemed to us to be very important to ensure that there was a broad framework within which these stations should all be able to operate.

421
We decided, therefore, to require that one of the stations should be predominantly speech-based; that one should offer music which was predominantly not pop music; and that the third station would be unrestricted in its content, and could easily be a "pop" or a "rock" station. To the connoisseur of these niceties—what one might call the "aficionados",—I can tell your Lordships that there is a marked distinction between the two. We do not think that those classifications impose major restrictions on entrepreneurs who wish to provide a service, and that was not our aim. The non-pop station, for example, could be a classical station. It could be a light classical station. Or it could be, although the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, would not like it, an "easy listening" station. But the important thing is that it should not be just another pop channel. It is interesting to see that those bids which have been submitted for the non-pop channel cover each of those three musical styles.
The non-pop station could build up a substantial audience nationally and it could be a major force in radio broadcasting. We did not accept the fairly pessimistic scenario that no station, which operated along those lines, could ever be viable. We believe that it could be.
The Radio Authority issued an invitation on 11th January to apply for the non-pop music radio licence which will use the VHF frequencies. The original closing date for applications was to have been 22nd April, but the authority decided to put that date back to yesterday, 22nd May, because of the announcement by Phonographic Performance Ltd of the revised rates of charges for the use of records by radio stations. That inevitably affected the business plans of potential applicants.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn made a blistering attack on PPL's pricing structure. He described it as excessive. During the Bill's passage we realised, as did the MMC, that some of PPL's practices amounted to an excess use of monopoly power. One of them was clearly the needle-time restriction. That is why we took steps to ensure that that restriction could not be unilaterally imposed. We all recognise that PPL has a right to make a fair charge for the use by radio stations of sound recordings. The central issue is how to determine what is to be a fair practice. The Act makes provision for the Copyright Tribunal to adjudicate where there is a difference of opinion.
My noble friend said that his amendment might have solved the problem. I recall him tabling a number of amendments on the subject during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. They came at an inconvenient time of night, and they were inconveniently complex. They would not have prevented PPL from adopting its proposed pricing policy. The amendments were designed essentially to govern the way the Copyright Tribunal considered cases. I am satisfied that the Copyright Tribunal will be able to assess the issue on its merits within the statutory framework that we have devised. Your Lordships will of course be aware that there is provision for the tribunal to award costs
422
against one of the parties in any case brought before it. The right course is for the tribunal to proceed to consider the merits of the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, suggested that the Radio Authority was being unnecessarily rigid and bureaucratic in requiring the non-pop station to consist of a minimum of 75 per cent. of music in each three-hour period, and, of that music, 75 per cent. to be non-pop. But the Act itself requires that the service should consist "wholly or mainly" in the broadcasting of music which is not pop music. I doubt whether the requirements of the Act could be said to be fulfilled if substantially less than 75 per cent. of the channel's output was not music.
As it is, the channel would in any three-hour period have to play at least two and a quarter hours of music. The remaining three-quarters of an hour could be devoted to speech or to advertisements, or to a combination of the two. I do not believe that that format would be unduly restrictive. Those, who wish to offer a service with substantially more speech content, would perhaps be better advised to apply for the speech-based channel which will be advertised in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested that the Radio Authority was also being restrictive in its interpretation of the internal diversity requirement. The Radio Authority has said that that requirement could be satisfied if, as a minimum, in any period of six consecutive hours, the work of a number of different artists and composers is broadcast.
That does not seem a particularly rigorous requirement. Indeed, there are many who argue that it does not go far enough. I do not believe that the Radio Authority would penalise any licensee who might occasionally play music from a single composer over the whole of, say, a six-hour period, provided that, elsewhere in the schedule, there was compensating variety. Clearly, those who have bid for the non-pop licence do not themselves regard these requirements as unnecessarily prohibitive.
Some people have suggested that the Radio Authority should have done more to encourage bids for classical music stations. So far as the Government are concerned, we have never said that the non-pop station should be a classical station, although my right honourable friend Mr. Mellor—who has now left the exalted position of being the Minister in charge of broadcasting in the Home Office and has moved to the even more exalted but more detached rostrum of Chief Secretary to the Treasury—made no secret of his own personal hope that it would be. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, expressed the same hope.
The Radio Authority had and has no power to specify the format for the station, except to rule on the amount of pop music which could be played on the non-pop station. Nevertheless, I note that one of the bids from Classic FM is for a popular classical musical channel, and that the UKFM bid proposes to offer popular classical music in the evening.
Concerns have also been expressed at the prospect of pop music being allowed to be played on the non-pop station. I remind your Lordships that the Act does not say that there should be no pop music on the

423
non-pop channel. It merely requires the service to consist wholly or mainly in the broadcasting of music which, in the opinion of the authority, is not pop music.
We then come to the problem of what is pop music. Rather like an elephant, it is difficult to describe, but you recognise it when you meet it. We included in the Act, for the sake of clarification, some guidance as to what constitutes pop music. It was never intended to be an exclusive definition and the Radio Authority has itself decided to add to the further definition. The authority has indicated that the non-pop service would satisfy the statutory requirements provided that 75 per cent. of the music which is played on the channel were to be music other than pop music. By simple translation that means that 25 per cent. of the music can he pop music.
The definition of pop music therefore helps to indicate not what specific type of music should form the majority of the musical output of the station but what type of music could form a minority of the musical output. It has no greater significance than that. Some have suggested that the definition of pop music, which has been adopted by the Radio Authority, is somewhat bizarre. I am bound to say that I do not think that we shall ever find an exhaustive definition which would succeed in separating all pop from non-pop music.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me a question? What would happen if there were litigation and a judge had to decide whether it was pop music or not, whether it had gone over the 25 per cent and all the other matters? It is rather sketchy, according to what we have heard from the noble Lord. I hope he understands my point, I may not have made myself clear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely understand the point. T le answer is: leave it to the judge. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, recalled, as did the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that I had ventured to suggest that a simple, understandable and fairly realistic definition of pop music might be "thump, thump, thump". The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, rightly said that it was not "thump, thump". But the noble Lord Morris, was quite wrong. It is not "thump, thump, thump, thump"—four thumps. If that had indicated any Beethoven symphony, I think it ought to have been the Fourth Symphony, not the Fifth since there were only four thumps.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way? I did not suggest that he used four thumps, I know perfectly well that he used three. I pointed out that if he had one extra thump and accentuated it in a particular way, he would have given us the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth, not the Fourth symphony.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite so dumb, I realised that. I suggested that it ought then to be called Beethoven's Fourth Symphony. Be that as it may, the parliamentary draftsman considered that it would not provide a sufficiently legal and watertight definition. I
424
thought my noble friend Lord Colwyn went a little over the top when he said that if one asks a silly question one will receive a silly answer. Frankly, the question had to be asked, and I thought the answer was a smashing one on the whole.
I have a sneaking suspicion that my definition is probably just as good as any other. But the definitions which have been placed in the Act and which the Radio Authority has adopted are intended to be a little more specific and dignified even if they have lost a little colour in the process.
I readily concede that any attempt to define the indefinable is unlikely wholly to succeed. But I remain of the opinion that some common sense attempt has to be made in order to provide a degree of guidance if the non-pop station is to be properly distinguishable from the third, unspecified, channel.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was concerned about the licence fee which is set by the Radio Authority. No one likes paying licence fees. Everyone always says that the fees are too high. If one is paying the fee, one is usually justified in holding that view. However, the Radio Authority is required to become self-supporting as quickly as possible. At the same time the authority is anxious to spread the burden of its charges fairly between all its different licensees. It has, therefore, drawn up a tariff which sets fees on the basis of the number of listeners which the relevant service could reach. As more services are licensed over the next few years, the Radio Authority may be in a position to review, and even to reduce, its fees.
As regards the costs of the service, one of the main aims in the Broadcasting Act was to give the station operators greater control over their running costs. They are free to determine their programming and studio costs, and they have a large say in the station's transmission arrangements. Any complaints about royalty payments which are imposed by Phonographic Performance Ltd. or by the Performing Rights Society are a matter for the Copyright Tribunal to settle.
The Broadcasting Act provided for the first time an opportunity for the development of independent national radio services. It was quite an exciting new venture. It has had problems, as any new venture does. However, we did not then claim that the companies would be successful, and we do not do so now. That is not the business of government. However, we wish to ensure that they are given the chance to be successful. We see no reasons why they should not be successful. In the last analysis of course it is for the owner of the station to provide a service which is consistent with the Act's requirements and which attracts listeners. The service will exist for its listeners, and it is they who will be the judges of whether it succeeds or fails.
As your Lordships rise for the Whitsun Recess, I conjure up a vignette of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, walking along a beach with his Sony Walkman tuned in to Radio 3 while longing to have it tuned in to an independent national radio station. He has that look of glassy eyed detachment which always seems to accompany those who use these instruments

425
of modern technology. It is completely incomprehensible to others who hear a somewhat disembodied, sepulchral twittering which emanates from the earphones of those machines. That will be a lovely vignette of the noble Lord to retain over the Recess.
It is with a sense of sorrow that I realise that the end of this debate is the last chance for us to hear my noble friend the Chief Whip use those well-toned and well-honed words which it is his privilege to use in adjourning the House before a Recess. We shall miss hearing him pronounce them on future occasions.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.

River Usk Barrage Bill [H.L.]
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-eight minutes past five o'clock.

  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: NUMBERS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: NUMBERS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: CRIME
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: CRIME
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: RECALLS FROM LICENCE
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: RECALLS FROM LICENCE
  BRITISH CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS
  BRITISH CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS
  MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS FROM INCOME SUPPORT
  MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS FROM INCOME SUPPORT
  WANDSWORTH AND GREENWICH, REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT
  WANDSWORTH AND GREENWICH, REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT
  DIOCESE OF LEICESTER: SUNDAY SCHOOL PROVISION
  DIOCESE OF LEICESTER: SUNDAY SCHOOL PROVISION
  URBAN REGENERATION: CITY CHALLENGE PROJECT
  URBAN REGENERATION: CITY CHALLENGE PROJECT
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES INVITED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR PILOT "CITY CHALLENGE" PROGRAMMES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES INVITED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR PILOT "CITY CHALLENGE" PROGRAMMES
  THE GULF WAR: DAMAGE TO VETERINARY AND AGRICULTURAL STORES
  THE GULF WAR: DAMAGE TO VETERINARY AND AGRICULTURAL STORES
  THE GULF WAR: DAMAGE TO NON-MILITARY TARGETS
  THE GULF WAR: DAMAGE TO NON-MILITARY TARGETS
  THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS
  THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS
  THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DEPORTATIONS
  THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DEPORTATIONS
  A.1 NORMAN CROSS JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME
  A.1 NORMAN CROSS JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME