Sitting of 5 November 1991

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

    Trafford AHA (Expenditure)
    Mr. Churchill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average capital expenditure within Trafford area health authority at constant prices (a) in the period 1974–79 and (b) 1979–1991.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Using 1990–91 prices, average capital spending between 1974–75 and 1978–79 was £2,526,000 a year. Between 1979–80 and 1990–91 spending was £3,083,000—a real increase of 22 per cent.
    Mr. Churchill: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is not it clear from those figures and from many others that it takes a Conservative Government to deliver the goods to NHS patients and that all the Opposition have to offer are promises which more often than not prove false? Will my hon. Friend congratulate Trafford area health authority and everyone involved in the hospitals there on the excellent job that they are doing and especially on the way in which they have brought down waiting lists?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. All that the Labour party offers is promises and rhetoric; we have delivered an improved health service. My hon. Friend will know in his part of the world of the £2 million new maternity unit, the £2 million mental illness unit and the £4 million geriatric and physio unit—all practical achievements. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, no patient in his area waits for more than two years and there has been a dramatic fall in the number of those who have to wait a year. That, too, is a practical achievement in the health service. It is high time that the Opposition gave recognition to all in the service who have achieved these excellent results.
    Mr. Skinner: When I hear Tory Members speaking about the health service, in Trafford or anywhere else, I am bound to come to the conclusion that they are after family jobs. Why does not the Minister condemn the appointments of spouses of Tory Members and of Members of the House of Lords who pick up more than £5,000 a year for doing a day's work? It is time this scandal was put to an end.
    Mrs. Bottomley: That is a slightly strange remark to make to me. The hon. Gentleman, who is always well informed, may be aware that I have an uncle who was a
    312
    Labour Member of Parliament and in the Cabinet. His wife was the chairman of a health authority and she performed that job excellently for many years. I urge the hon. Gentleman to go to Friern hospital. The reason why I feel so strongly about the care of the mentally ill is because of all that my aunt, Peggy Jay, taught me. No one ever cast smears at her on account of her excellent achievements. Those whom we have appointed were chosen on their merits and because of their strong and unequivocal commitment to our national health service.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that she has just scored a marvellous bull's eye? Does she agree that the Trafford figures show a dramatic fall in waiting lists and that that is a tribute to the efficient way in which the health authority has managed its operating theatres? Does not it also prove, as my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, that the Conservative Government are spending more on the health service and does not it nail the falsehoods repeatedly advanced by the Opposition? We have to go back a little way to remember that in 1976 they presided over the most savage cuts ever imposed on the national health service.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The only time spending on the national health service has been cut was when the Labour party was in power. My hon. Friend is right that management as well as money is what counts. The achievements of his health authority are remarkable. It has one of the lowest rates of cancelled operations in the country. It is organising the service, delivering high-quality care and using manpower and finance to the best possible effect.

    Cornwall Air Ambulance
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reconsider making a Government contribution to the costs of the Cornwall air ambulance in view of its contribution to meeting the target for emergency ambulance call-out times.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): No, Sir. It is for the local management of the service to determine the most effective deployment of resources to meet performance targets.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister will know that those targets can be met only by the air ambulance in my area. Without that ambulance the target set out in the patients charter would not be achievable. Will the patients charter be guaranteed by public funds or is it to depend in future on private charity?
    Mr. Dorrell: The patients charter sets out standards which ambulance services are expected to match. It is for the chief ambulance officer of each area ambulance service to decide how best to match those standards. The hon. Gentleman should note that although the Cornish air ambulance makes a valaable contribution in the county, it has not produced a measured improvement in response times for ambulances in Cornwall.
    Sir Gerrard Neale: May I ask my hon. Friend nevertheless to keep in touch with the health authority in Cornwall? The county is 100 miles long and my constituency is the most sparsely populated area of Cornwall. Many of my constituents live 50 miles from the

    313
    nearest district general hospital. I urge my hon. Friend to keep in close touch to make sure that response times are up to the charter.
    Mr. Dorrell: We shall certainly keep in close touch with the Cornish ambulance service and, of course, with every other ambulance service to ensure that they match response times and put to good use our investment in the ambulance service. That investment has provided defibrillators for more than 2,300 front-line ambulances across the country and carries through the commitment to provide a trained paramedic on each front-line ambulance by 1996. Those improvements in the ambulance service will apply in Cornwall as they apply in the rest of the country.

    NHS Spending
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected capital spending in the NHS in the next three years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): For the future, my hon. Friend will have to await the autumn statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I understand will be made tomorrow.
    Since 1979 we have increased capital spending on average by 4·3 per cent. per year. Labour when in office cut it by an average of 6·7 per cent. per year.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that means that since 1979 there has been a two thirds increase in capital spending compared with a cut of one third when Labour was in power? Is he aware that the North Western regional health authority has a record capital spending programme for next year of more than £100 million and that it includes Bolton's new hospital?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Those dramatic figures are correct. Labour's record on capital spending was lamentable. It was about a one third cut in real terms in capital spending in Labour's last period in office. The North Western regional health authority has a magnificent capital programme for new projects beginning next year and at the head of that programme is Bolton general hospital. That will cost about £37 million in bricks and mortar and another £10 million for equipment. There are also major new projects at Chorley and South Ribble, Iancaster, Central Manchester, Salford, Tameside and Glossop. As I say, the total is about £100 million for next year.
    Ms. Hoey: As the Secretary of State is aware, Westminster hospital is due to close and the accident and emergency department is to move to St. Thomas's hospital. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that capital will be made available in time for the accident and emergency unit to be completed and ready to receive patients when Westminster hospital closes?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Lady knows, the commitment to the new Westminster hospital on the old St. Stephen's site is one of the biggest of all the projects in the national health service. The change will need careful management to ensure that the major gains for patients that will come from it are properly realised. I shall look into the specific matter that the hon. Lady raised.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures sit ill with the, I am sure honourable, argument of the Opposition that we are trying to close the health service? How can we be spending two thirds more on capital equipment? My right hon. Friend must be wrong when he says that we are spending 4·3 per cent. more in real terms on the health service than when we came to office. The Opposition tell half-truths because Labour is the only party which when in office cut national health expenditure.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The previous Labour Government started off with their normal irresponsible pledges which produced enormous inflation and catastrophic cuts to all public service capital programmes. Nowhere did those cuts hit harder than in the health service. Many of those who are now on the Opposition Front Bench were deeply ashamed of that at the time and remain deeply ashamed of it. They are right to be so ashamed.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of hospital trusts.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is increasing independent evidence that the first trusts are proving that bringing management back into the hospitals is already bringing benefits to patients and staff. Waiting times are coming down in most places and staff report improved management and job satisfaction.
    Mr. Kennedy: When the Secretary of State made his recent announcement in the House of the second wave of trust applications and approved in principle applications for the four London teaching hospitals he said that, in the interim, until the review was completed, they would benefit from the advantages that could flow from greater local hospital management devolution. If that is a benefit short of trust status, why is it necessary to force through trust status while encouraging local hospital management and in so doing to bring the assets, the buildings and the personnel out of local health service management? Why is that superior simply to having better efficiency through greater local management?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not difficult to explain. Some of the benefits of devolved management can be achieved without full trust status, but, for local management, one of the major gains of full trust status is full control of capital. That is one reason why hospitals seek it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear on that matter.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the two major hospitals in Kidderminster district health authority have increased the number of in-patients treated over the past eight years by 14 per cent? The health authority, one of the 30 most efficient in the country, is consulting on third-wave trust status because it believes that it can give a better service to patients and local people on that basis. Does not that contrast with the recent comment by the general secretary of the Institute of Health Service Managers on the Labour party's plans for the health service? She said that they were an unworkable mess.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Labour's role in all this is somewhat disreputable. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the recent threats issued by the Labour party candidate in Orkney and Shetland, who said that, by doing this,
    "it could certainly be argued by an incoming Labour Administration that you had contributed to your own redundancy."
    As my hon. Friend pointed out, Labour played a disreputable role in relation to trusts. When I drew the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to a previous threat of this kind, made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), the right hon. Gentleman withdrew it at once. I hope that the Opposition chief spokesman on health matters will withdraw this similar threat today.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State think for a moment about the effects of NHS trusts on the low-paid hospital staff, who are just as essential as medical staff in the running of the hospital? I am thinking of domestics, porters and maintenance staff, who are grossly underpaid and who are suffering badly as a result of administration of hospital trusts and the attempts to break away from the national negotiating machinery.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I would strongly argue that the national negotiating machinery has, over the years, delivered low pay to such people. The increased flexibility of NHS trusts will allow them to pay more where the local markets can afford it and I predict that this will increase the pay of the lower-paid staff in such hospitals. That is why, to the embarrassment of the Labour party, some of the local branches of those unions are beginning to support trusts.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When it comes to Opposition claims about NHS trusts, should not we bear in mind that, two years ago, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was telling everyone that general practitioner contracts would result in less time being spent with patients? That turned out to be untrue, so why should we now believe these spurious scares about NHS trusts leading to privatisation? Is not the truth of the matter that the hon. Gentleman is interested only in using his spurious scares to frighten the sick and the vulnerable for his own party ends?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The scares that the Labour party tried to run on these matters have rebounded on it. I remind the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—he seems not to wish to rise on these matters—that the letter from the Labour party candidate to the trust applicant reads:
    "Were you to do this"—
    continue with the trust—
    "in the face of so much opposition, it could certainly be argued by an incoming Labour Administration that you had contributed to your own redundancy."
    When I drew the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to previous threats of that sort, he wrote as follows:
    "Of course I can confirm that there will be absolutely no action of this kind."
    The hon. Member for Livingston must respond to these scares. Indeed, they are worse than scares, they are threats.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Secretary of State confirm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] If Conservative Members paid attention to the issue they would know that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) repudiated the threat last week.
    316
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the majority of first-wave trusts face serious financial problems? How much will he spend to bail out the first-wave trusts so that they do not end the first financial year in deficit?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the Labour party's chief spokesman on health did not rise to respond to these matters. He should stand up and repudiate the threat in the House.
    The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is completely wrong on the facts. If she wishes to attach herself to the scare, I am delighted. As I have said, she will find that she is completely wrong.

    Rugby NHS Trust
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional patients are now being seen by the Rugby NHS Trust as against last year; and what percentage increase that represents.
    Mr. Dorrell: In the period April to September 1991 6,715 in-patients were seen at Rugby NHS Trust—an increase of 3·7 per cent. over the same period last year.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and cheering response. Clearly it is good news for the people of Rugby and especially for patients attending St. Cross hospital. It represents a fine effort by the management and workers of the hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward is signposted to other improvements in the health service? Will he therefore redouble his efforts to promote NHS trusts while ignoring the ill-founded criticism of Opposition Members, who are prepared to argue more for party dogma than for patient care?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He chose a good day to raise the matter, because only yesterday the hospital opened a new out-patients department. The hospital's track record on waiting lists bears comparison with any in the country, with the number of those waiting for more than two years for in-patient treatment having decreased since June 1990 from 137 to 18. Since the trust has been established we have seen the appointment of new paediatricians, the introduction of new laser technology, a commitment to new surgeons in the general surgery and accident and emergency departments and the continued development of improved accident and emergency facilities in the hospital.

    Patients Charter
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the patients charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The patients charter demonstrates our commitment to providing high-quality services within the NHS which are responsive to people's views and needs. It has been widely welcomed, for example, by the Consumers Association, which said that
    "it is a golden opportunity to put patients first."
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that any Government have introduced a genuine patients charter of rights? Secondly, does he agree that the quickest way to ensure longer waiting lists,

    317
    unreasonable behaviour and hospitals again being run by unions rather than by consultants is for power to be given to the Labour party?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is correct. The structure of open agreements between district health authorities and hospitals gives us, for the first time, a clear way of setting standards, monitoring them and enforcing them. That is a great gain from the reforms. The first step to patient responsiveness is encapsulated in the patients charter.
    Mr. Ashton: Did not the patients charter cost £2 million to publicise and launch and was it not £2 million worth of Conservative propaganda? Have not we heard planted questions this afternoon that have contained carefully worked-out statistic after statistic? It has been a public relations exercise for this week's by-elections. We are in the run-up to a general election and every figure that the Secretary of State has produced today has been carefully worked out and planted among Conservative Back-Bench Members as a publicity stunt, just like the patients charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the importance of the patients charter, as he fails to understand the reforms. It is vital that we get across the fact that under the reforms in the NHS we can now set proper standards of care throughout the country. It is vital that, in the agreements reached next year, we set out what is to be done nationally and locally. That is inherent in the reforms. It is right that every household should know its rights under the NHS.
    The whole operation on the patients charter—the printing and so on—has cost about £2 million. That expenditure is well worth while if it gets across to people the facts about what their rights really are.
    Mr. Cormack: As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and his Front-Bench team are so singularly ill-informed, why does not my right hon. Friend invite them to the Department for a teach-in, when they could be given the true facts and figures? Let them then spread all these lies.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have been trying to brief some Labour Members, especially the London Members. Some of them have been invited again and again to meet the London ambulance service for a briefing other than that which they get from the trade union. They refused to come.
    Mr. Alton: Following the disclosure during the past 24 hours of the outbreak of legionnaire's disease at two Liverpool hospitals, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that an essential part of a patients charter should be the right to know when such outbreaks have occurred? Can he explain why that information was concealed for some weeks in one case? Does he accept that another element of the patients charter in this day and age should be that hospitals are constructed in a way that shows that we have learnt the lessons of the past? Equipment should not be installed if it is likely to give rise to legionnaire's disease.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree that one benefit of the patients charter and, indeed, of the reforms will be the greater availability of information. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to be very careful not to scare people unecessarily. In the first incident, it still has not been shown that the infection derived from inside the hospital. All the necessary investigative and follow-up actions were taken and as soon as the problem was known local general
    318
    practitioners were informed. I have considered the matter and I shall continue to do so, but I do not believe that there has been any dereliction of duty in this important matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a responsible Member of Parliament, would not want to mislead people in this matter.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands regional health authority has just issued a special paper welcoming the patients charter and agreeing to do everything possible to turn rights into realities? Will he add one more right to the patients charter—that of peace and quiet for sick people in hospital? Is he aware that there is a growing practice of allowing unlimited numbers of people, for unlimited hours, to visit patients in wards? That is not conducive to recovery and nor is the practice of children running up and down wards for hours on end. I hope that my right hon. Friend will add that right to his patients charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the steps taken by the West Midlands regional health authority. The issues to which my hon. Friend referred are just those where the health service needs to do a little better on listening to patients' needs. We often receive letters about relatively minor matters that can easily be put right after discussion with patients. I am sure that the hospital that my hon. Friend has in mind will wish to take account of her comments.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Secretary of State explain why the words "patient choice" do not appear in his patients charter? Is it because he knows that his new contract system has reduced patient choice? What does his patients charter offer to the thousands of patients who, through the College of Health helpline, have chosen a hospital with a shorter waiting list, but cannot get into that hospital because their health authorities will not pay for them to be treated there?
    What does the patients charter offer to the woman in Wandsworth who last month found that she could not have her second child in the hospital that she chose for her first child because her health authority has no contract with that hospital? Why should the House take seriously any patients charter that does not give back to those patients the right to choose their hospital—a right that they had until the Government took it away?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Under the old system—the system to which the modern Labour party characteristically wishes to return—there was the freedom of the right to refer to any hospital and that right remains. However, that sort of reference was nugatory because the money did not follow the patient. We are moving towards a system where a choice will be made and that choice will become reality because the money will follow the patient and so enable that patient to be treated. That is what the hon. Gentleman still has not grasped.
    On the matter of choice, the patients charter draws attention to new freedoms and the ease with which people can change their general practitioners, which is a fundamental improvement in freedom. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman still does not understand that the whole drive behind the reforms is to back the general practitioner's decision with money so that choice becomes reality.

    Menopause Research
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the amount of NHS money applied to menopause research.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I regret that it is not possible separately to identify the money devoted to the range of conditions associated with the menopause from the £225 million spent on medical research last year. However, my hon. Friend will be aware of the current work which includes a review of screening techniques for postmenopausal osteoporosis and an economic evaluation of the benefits of hormone replacement therapy.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I understand that the Government are spending somewhat less than £500,000 in that area. Is my hon. Friend aware of the proceedings of the international menopause conference which point out that the number of deaths of women in the post-50 age group from heart attack and particularly stroke is twice as great as the number dying from osteoporosis and 10 times as great as the number of deaths from breast cancer? Does not that mean that we should be putting a great deal more money into such research or is it to remain the Cinderella of medicine for ever?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend identifies why it is difficult separately to identify the sums of money. As she says, associated conditions are heart attacks, strokes and cancer. About £1·5 billion is spent on health research each year. Our new research strategy ensures that we get the best possible value from that and, above all, apply the lessons. However, I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that as long as she remains in the House such research will not be the Cinderella of the health service. There are a great number of excellent projects. Should my hon. Friend happen to be in the Cleveland area, I strongly urge her to go to the South Cleveland hospital to see the excellent work being undertaken there with a bone densitometer.
    Mr. Cousins: Is not the Minister aware that it has been known for some time that four times as many women as men suffer the chronic pain that comes from the loss of movement in and the fracture of hip joints?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not an expert, but does that question have something to do with the menopause?
    Mr. Cousins: You, Mr. Speaker, betray the ignorance of men if you do not understand the relevance of my question. The research has been done for some time and the results have been known for some time, yet still the Government do nothing.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased that there has been a threefold increase in, for example, HRT prescriptions during the past 10 years. We fund to the tune of £1·9 million about 40 voluntary organisations which help spread the message about the importance of HRT and the prevention of osteoporosis. Our recent leaflet on women's health, which has been a remarkable success, also provides information. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. When the research has been evaluated and the screening survey has been completed we will be able to make even further progress in ensuring that the health service is dedicated to prevention as well as cure.

    Income Generation Unit
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the full cost, and staffing details, of the income generation unit; and what are its aims.
    Mr. Dorrell: The income generation unit is no longer a separate entity within the Department.
    Mr. Barnes: Has the income generation unit given advice to trust hospitals and health authorities on the building of private wings? Was such advice given to the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital? What is the difference between building private wings and privatisation?
    Mr. Dorrell: During its existence the income generation union gave a wide range of advice to NHS units. For the expenditure of little more than £250,000 per year we have been able to generate extra funds to support and improve patient care within the NHS rising from £9 million in 1988–89 to £50 million last year. Part of those resources were raised from the sale of NHS facilities for the treatment of private patients. I cannot understand why some Opposition Members—we do not know whether this is the official Opposition Front-Bench policy—appear to believe that profits from private medicine must be preserved for private companies and not made available to the NHS to improve care for NHS patients.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that with the help and advice of the income generation unit, a business man in my constituency has successfully installed private telephones in hospitals in the north-east, paid for by advertising? The only loser from that practice is British Telecom. Some of the profits made from BT telephones in hospitals, which Labour Members appear to think are excessive, can be recouped by the hospital and used to benefit patients.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only does that initiative produce a wider range of services to benefit patients and extra resources for the health service but an improved range of hospital facilities, so that services previously available only to private patients in private hospitals are increasingly available to all patients in NHS hospitals.
    Mr. Rooker: Was the income generation unit responsible for the policy adopted by New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton and the Mayday hospital in Croydon, whereby bedridden patients must hire a television for a minimum of three days at a cost of £1·95 a day—which is about twice the rate charged by high street television rental companies? Is it not scandalous that ministerial offices and the House have televisions provided by the taxpayer, yet bedridden patients who want to watch television to help them to relax must pay?
    Mr. Dorrell: Hospital managers are responsible for providing such services, not any unit of the Department of Health. If the result of the income generation approach is that more resources are released to treat more patients and provide additional resources for their medical care, it does not seem that anyone should have to apologise for that policy.

    Child Welfare
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the aims of the Children Act 1989 with regard to improving the welfare of children.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Children Act 1989 incorporates most private and public law relating to children. It sets out clearly principles for their care and upbringing, and is in effect a charter for children.
    Mr. French: Will my hon. Friend firmly rebut the criticisms made by those who continue to argue that although the aims of that Act are excellent, the funding arrangements to support it are not?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Act was implemented with an unprecedented level of co-operation and collaboration between central and local government and I pay a warm tribute to all those who helped with the delivery of guidance and the legislation's careful framing. The Lord Chancellor's Department and social services departments were involved in the training of 140,000 social service staff last year, when the social service standard spending assessment increased more than at any time over the past 15 years.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the Act cannot be fully effective unless the provision of child psychiatric services is improved? Does she acknowledge the concern that exists about that aspect and can she explain what action the Government intend to take?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There will be an announcement in the relatively near future about the results of the review that we are conducting into arrangements for child psychiatric services. I announced such a review at a conference that I addressed the other day. The traditional pattern of child guidance services is not always adhered to and we must ensure proper integration in hospitals and the community. There has been a substantial increase in the number of child psychiatrists, a great increase in clinical psychologists and an increase in child psychiatric nurses. We must ensure that all staff with considerable expertise work to best effect in collaborating not only with the health services but with social and education services.

    Hospitals, Wanstead and Woodford
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new hospital facilities are available to the residents of Wanstead and Woodford; and if he will make a statement about the funding of further phases of building at Whipps Cross hospital.
    Mr. Dorrell: Phase 1 of the redevelopment of Whipps Cross hospital cost £18 million. It includes a new out-patient department, four operating theatres, a hydrotherapy pool, a new pharmacy, improved sterilisation facilities and three new wards.
    The Forest Healthcare trust is committed to start phase 2 of the redevelopment of the hospital in the next financial year. This will include a dedicated day surgery unit, further expansion of out-patient facilities and two more new wards. In addition, the capital loans fund is financing the development of new facilities for physiotherapy, occupational therapy and other day services for people with a learning disability.
    322
    And finally, the Government's quality initiative is providing £384,000 to finance a new medical day unit at Whipps Cross hospital.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Having given us that excellent news, can my hon. Friend confirm that the commitment to spend £2·5 million on the start of phase 2 of the Whipps Cross hospital development will continue under the new trust arrangements? Can he give any indication about the further funding of phase 2 that will be needed, beyond that £2·5 million?
    Mr. Dorrell: On the establishment of the Forest Healthcare trust, responsibility for allocating capital to the trust passes from the region to the Department. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department will honour the commitment given by the region to provide £2·5 million to get phase 2 under way. For the remaining resources that will be needed, the trust will be competing in the national pool of capital resources that are available to NHS trusts.

    NHS Consultants
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants are on maximum part-time contracts; and if he has any plans to end this practice.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A total of 5,172 hospital consultants in England were on maximum part-time contracts on 30 September 1990. There are no plans to end the maximum part-time option, which has existed since the early days of the NHS.
    Mr. Mullin: On the day on which the Secretary of State gave a pledge to his party conference that everyone would have equal access to free health care, I was contacted by a constituent, Mr. Ronnie Watson, who had been waiting since September 1990 for an appointment with a consultant to discuss a possible hip operation and had just been told that he would have to wait until some unspecified date in 1992.
    Mr. Watson had then telephoned the same consultant in the same hospital and had asked how long he would have to wait to be seen privately. The reply was that he could be seen the following Wednesday for a fee of £45. How can the Secretary of State reconcile that experience, which is being replicated all over the country, with the experience of Mr. Watson?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Even Barbara Castle did not outlaw the arrangement whereby consultants are able to conduct their private practices. The private practice must not in any way impinge on national health service commitments. The patients charter makes it clear that there will be local standards for out-patient appointments, as well as the national standards for general appointments.
    We are seeing steady improvements. I very much hope that the hospital to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be able to consolidate further the remarkable progress that it has made over the past couple of years—a 56 per cent. fall in the number of two-year waiters and a 35 per cent. fall in the number of one-year waiters.

    Pay Beds
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the revenues for pay beds in the NHS in 1990–91.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Total private patient income for 1989–90 was £92 million. Information for 1990–91 is not yet available.
    Mr. Dunn: As the provision of day beds ought to be the responsibility of the trusts, will the Secretary of State take time today to condemn Labour's vicious attacks on those individuals who have been selected to help run the trusts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I join my hon. Friend in deprecating the attacks made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on Anne Parkinson and Sheila Taylor, who have rightly been appointed to serve on trusts. I also join him in deprecating the attack on my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, who has accepted an appointment on a trust. I find it surprising that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen wish to exclude spouses because of whom they happen to be married to when they have good records of public service.
    The hon. Member for Livingston drew attention to the behaviour of previous Secretaries of State in this regard. Would he now like to condemn the behaviour of the last—and I mean last—Labour Secretary of State, Lord Ennals? At the same time as his hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is saying that pay beds are to be driven from the health service and given to private companies, Lord Ennals has taken a leading position as a director of a private healthcare company—while remaining a Front-Bench spokesman on health for the Labour party.
    Mrs. Heal: Is the Minister aware that an Essex GP is calling on national health service hospitals in the Mid-Essex health authority to boost incomes by carrying out privately, in pay beds, procedures that they have effectively banned from the NHS? Does the Minister agree that to increase income from patients excluded from free treatment is not only an abuse of the founding principles of the NHS but a classic illustration of the two-tier health service that his Government are introducing?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Opposition Front-Bench team. I remember that when she came to the House she was, like her leader, a passionate supporter of CND. Their principles have gone by the board. As for the matter that she raises, I welcome the fact that GP fund holders, and all GPs, are doing more in their own surgeries, which cuts waiting lists and speeds patient care. I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Livingston saw fit not to answer the challenge that I laid down to him, just as he has not answered any of the challenges that I have laid down to him today, and that he has also seen fit to put the hon. Lady, on her first outing today, into a rather difficult position.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister personally in favour of a single European currency—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: At this moment, in these circumstances, no.
    Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general support for the emphasis that the Foreign Secretary has placed on the importance of keeping the European Commission out of the nooks and crannies of our national life? Will he, in any negotiations with our European partners, give the highest priority to getting the European Commission under some sort of genuine parliamentary control?
    The Prime Minister: I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend yesterday. One of the things that we shall be seeking to do in the negotiations on the political union treaty is to try to ensure that the Commission—at present under no effective control—increasingly comes under the control of the most appropriate Parliament, in this case the European Parliament.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister acknowledges convergence to be a matter of considerable importance in the development of the European Community, why is it, now that the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry and his noble Friends in the House of Lords have all made cause for new investment incentives for British industry, that he and the remainder of the Government refuse to take such initiatives in order to support this very best way of securing recovery?
    The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, convergence is not just important; it is absolutely vital if there is to be any success whatsoever, or any prospect of a single currency that would not damage the whole of Europe. The most effective way of ensuring that there is investment in this or any other country is to ensure that we have low inflation and the right economic environment.
    Mr. Kinnock: When unemployment has risen by 800,000 in Britain during the last year, when 50 per cent. more companies are in receivership and when manufacturing investment is down by 19 per cent., how can the Government justify taking such a listless attitude to the needs of British industry? Why do the Government refuse to give the same backing to British industry as our European Community competitors give to theirs?
    The Prime Minister: It is not all that many months ago that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House and to people beyond it that the most important thing was to get inflation down from its then level of 10·9 per cent. and to recreate the conditions in which people would feel secure to invest. I agreed with the points that he made then

    325
    and that is precisely what we have done. We are now reaching a position in which growth and investment will reoccur and, as we saw throughout the complete period of the 1980s, there will be a growth in the absolute number of jobs.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister said that it is important to create the conditions for economic and industrial success, will he listen to the CBI which, in its report asks the Government to take proper account of the interests of manufacturing industry instead of pursuing the policies that they are pursuing? After 12 years, is there any hope of the Government ever taking the interests of manufacturing industry properly into account?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to the CBI yesterday, he would have heard the director general say that since the crash of October 1987, real take-home pay is up by 11 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 20 per cent. and manufacturing exports have increased by £76 million for each and every working day.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two essential components for a policy of nuclear deterrence are that one possesses the capability and that a potential enemy does not doubt one's willingness to use it in order to defend oneself? Does he agree that a few weasel words in a newspaper do not constitute a policy of nuclear deterrence, particularly when the leader of that party has stated clearly that he would never use nuclear weapons, even if Britain were under nuclear attack?
    The Prime Minister: I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. The fact that we have had a nuclear deterrent for a number of years has added materially to our security and I believe that we should continue to sustain that deterrent. It is a matter of regret that the Opposition's commitment to that deterrent is not generally accepted. The words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), "If we change to win, we could change when we have won", show that British people will not trust the Opposition with defence policy.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November?
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flynn: Why is the Prime Minister trying to turn the national health service into a family business for card-carrying Conservatives? Why did he appoint two Tory ex-Ministers, the sister of a Tory Minister, the wives of two Tory Members of Parliament and the husband of a Tory Member of Parliament to run opted-out hospitals? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he says that he believes that Conservatives want to use the national health service? They are using it—milking it for their own financial gain.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten that, for example, Lady Callaghan was an excellent chairman of Great Ormond Street hospital and a number of other wives of eminent people in public life have held that position. It is extremely odd that the Labour party should propose that women should be barred from jobs because of their husband's position in public life. Among those whom the hon. Gentleman has maligned is
    326
    someone who has a decade's experience of working in the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a proper contribution to the health service or a proper qualification for the job that she holds, I am very surprised indeed.
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister to list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend anticipate the Chancellor's statement tomorrow to the extent of confirming that funds will be made available to ensure that our armed forces, although smaller, are even better equipped? In particular, will he confirm that conventional submarines will continue to play an important role and that the story broadcast by the BBC last night as a hard fact—that the HMS Upholder class of submarines is to be sold—is completely untrue and without foundation?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm my hon. Friend's last point. We have shown our commitment to better equipment by our recent purchase of the Westland helicopter and our decision to re-equip the Army with the Challenger II tank. Both were expensive but necessary purchases to ensure that our armed forces have the best possible equipment. That is our policy and will remain so. I am bound to say that that does not seem to be the policy of the Opposition. The principal Opposition party is committed to cutting defence expenditure by a quarter, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is committed to cutting it by a half.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister insists that even if the other 11 go ahead he is prepared to reject an agreement on Europe at Maastricht. Will he describe how he sees the future of this country, should he allow that to happen?
    The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly made it clear in the House and beyond that I am working to seek an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and this country. That remains the position. I have set out our determination to work for that agreement and the principles on which the agreement will need to be based. I have arranged a two-day debate in the House so that I may express that clearly and listen to the views of the House. If I judge that the agreement is in the interests of this country I will sign it. If I judge that the agreement is not in the interests of this country, it would not be right for me to sign it and I will not sign it.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: As this is the first Prime Minister's Question Time since the Commonwealth conference, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and positive approach to the issues? Will he confirm that he was not detained or locked up and was widely recognised as the leader of this party—unlike the experience of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) after four years as Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that it was an excellent Commonwealth conference. The Commonwealth

    327
    came closer together than it has been for a long time. There was substantial agreement on changing policies on South Africa, which I much welcome, and there was a warm welcome for our decision to implement the Trinidad terms arrangement, which, if fully implemented by every member, will relieve the poorest countries in the world of $17,000 million of debt.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that just over an hour ago I received a letter from British Mean, which has a factory in my constituency at Falkirk, informing me that 169 of the work force will lose their jobs, not because they are inefficient but because the machinery on which they work is 50 years old? If that is not proof of lack of investment, what is? Is the Prime Minister further aware that those men like their jobs and that, with his help, they would be able to keep them, but he is not prepared to help them? Try telling men in Falkirk that the economy is on an upturn.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is clearly under the misapprehension that I have been Prime Minister for 50 years—not yet.
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: When my right hon. Friend next meets the British Medical Association, will he raise the success of the first wave of national health service trusts, particularly the success story of the South Devon Healthcare trust? In the past year, it has increased the number of patients by 10 per cent., the number of doctors and nurses by more than 50 and reopened two wards. Will he congratulate the BMA
    328
    on its wholesale condemnation of the latest Labour party smear leaflet that has been distributed at the Langbaurgh by-election?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those remarks and to join the BMA in its scathing remarks about the Labour leaflet. The BMA said that the leaflet was in bad taste, and it must be very frightening to the people of Langbaurgh. Like my hon. Friend, I read the report of Labour's latest scare story about the NHS. I hope that people will realise that what Labour is saying is inaccurate. It is a tissue of falsehoods. I hope that people will look at the real record of improvement in the NHS, not the misrepresentations that they get from the Labour party.
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Strang: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the major issue in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election is the widespread public opposition to the application by Foresterhill hospital in Aberdeen to become a self-governing trust? As the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland clearly favours trust status and as the Conservative candidate has come out publicly against it, will the Prime Minister tell the House who he agrees with—his Health Minister or the candidate?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the application for that hospital to have self-governing status has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has an obligation to study that application and to determine whether it is in order. That is what he is doing. When he has done that, he will announce his decision.

Renewable Energy
3.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's decision to launch the biggest contractual requirement to build renewable energy plant ever announced in this country. This will be achieved through the 1991 Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order.
We believe that renewable energy has an important role to play in helping us tackle the serious threat of global warming. By comparison with fossil fuels, renewable sources of energy produce far less gaseous emissions that harm our environment and some technologies produce none at all.
No Government in history have ever done so much to promote renewable sources of energy and this Government have done so in two ways. The first way has been to invest record amounts in research and development. A record £174 million has been spent on renewables R and D over the past 12 years and a record £24 million has been allocated for this year. The second way—just as important—has been to create for the first time an effective marketplace for renewable energy through the establishment of a non-fossil fuel obligation.
The Government made the initial non-fossil fuel obligation order for renewables last year. The level of that order—102·25 MW declared net capacity—reflected the capacity "secured" by the 75 projects that were then ready to sign contracts. The Government also announced that we intended to make additional renewables orders during the 1990s, to introduce an additional 600 MW of capacity.
The 1991 renewables order—the first of these additional orders—has been laid before the House this afternoon. In deciding the structure and level of the 1991 order, we took into account the need to strike an appropriate balance between diversity of renewable generating technologies and the cost, through the fossil fuel levy, to the electricity consumer. We also took into account the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply and the views of the regional electricity companies.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that the order should have six separate technology bands covering wind, hydro-electricity, Iandfill gas, municipal and general industrial waste, sewage gas and other. These technologies are at different stages of technical and market development, but each has considerable promise for the future.
First, Iandfill and sewage gas are the closest to independent commercial application already. It is important that their energy potential is utilised, and that the methane, a major greenhouse gas which would otherwise be emitted, is not released to the atmosphere. For landfill gas, we have therefore set an obligation of 48 MW. The regional electricity companies have contracted with 28 projects for landfill gas generating stations at a price of 5·7p/kWh.
For sewage gas, we have set an obligation of 26·86 MW. The regional electricity companies have contracted with 19 projects at a price of 5·9p/kWh.
The utilisation of the energy potential of waste materials is also an important part of the Government's recycling initiative and will assist in reducing greenhouse emissions. Future waste disposal strategies are likely to
330
lead to increased incineration and energy recovery from municipal, industrial and other waste. We have therefore set an obligation of 261·48 MW for municipal and general industrial waste generating stations, and the regional electricity companies have contracted with 10 projects, at a price of 6·55p/kWh.
Hydro-electricity is an established technology. We must ensure that its potential is exploited wherever it is sufficiently economic and wherever it is environmentally acceptable to do so. An obligation of 10·36 MW has been set with the regional electricity companies contracting with 12 projects at a price of 6p/kWh.
Wind technology has some way to go before it can become economically competitive. The establishment of a market leading to deployment, together with further research and development, are necessary steps in reducing costs. Hence a separate band with a higher strike price has been set. We have therefore set an obligation that will build up to a substantial level of 82.43 MW. I understand that the regional electricity companies have entered into contracts with some 49 projects, at a price of 11p/kWh.
This will enable the potential of wind farms to be assessed by the planning system in a variety of locations, an important factor if the longer-term potential of wind energy is to be exploited. Preparation of a planning policy guidance note on renewable energy is nearing completion and we hope to go to public consultation on the draft this month. The document will comprise general guidance on planning for renewable energy together with more specific guidance on the environmental impact of wind farms.
For other non-fossil generating stations—in practice, this means other waste combustion plant—we have set an obligation of 28.15 MW, the regional electricity companies having contracted with four projects, at a price of 5.9p/kWh.
Taking all bands together, the order sets an obligation that builds up to 457 MW DNC over the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1998. The contracts signed by the regional electricity companies cover some 122 projects—75 per cent. of which would be entirely new—with a capacity of 472 MW meeting nearly 50 per cent. of the figure of 1,000 MW by the year 2000 which the Government announced in last year's White Paper on the environment. This reflects the high level of response from generators to a major policy initiative. We must also look beyond 2000 to the next century. My renewable energy advisory group will now reassess the 1,000 MW figure in line with our belief that renewables could potentially produce 20 per cent. of our current electricity demand by the year 2025, if they can be commercially deployed.
In addition, 38 renewable energy projects with a capacity of 16 MW will benefit under arrangements announced on 15 May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Two of those projects involve wind power while the remainder are hydro generating projects. Of the total, 14 projects with a capacity of 6 MW are entirely new developments.
The Government will announce in due course their proposals for a further renewables order. Meanwhile, I can inform the House that the Government have decided to explore with the European Commission the possibility of making the next renewables order to set an obligation in respect of a period that would extend beyond 1998. If this were agreed, it would enable the regional electricity

331
companies to offer generators a premium price, financed through the fossil fuel levy, for the additional period covered by the next renewables order.
Through the 1991 renewables order, the Government take a further major step in assisting renewables to enter the commercial electricity generation market, and in implementation of their renewables and environmental policies. I believe that it is the largest requirement to contract for renewables-sourced electricity generating capacity ever to be announced in the European Community.
The 1990 renewables order virtually doubled the amount of renewables-sourced generating capacity that was contracted to the regional electricity companies in England and Wales. The 1991 order virtually doubles that amount again. Together the two orders give some 134 entirely new renewables projects, with a capacity of 540 MW, the opportunity to go forward to commissioning.
I commend the order to the House.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Although the Minister has repeated the words that this is the biggest ever, best ever and largest ever renewables order not just in this country, but in the European Community, is it not the case that even if one adds last year's order to this year's order, one ends up with a figure slightly less than that which was committed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for construction in the first year of its operation in 1948? That is the truth of it. What we have got is a Minister who is full of hype and full of tripe.
Is it not also true that the hon. Gentleman has failed to tell the House—I hope that he will correct the omission—that last year's order approved only some 12 per cent. of the applications that were sent in? Despite the Minister's appearance of keenness, he is turning down the vast majority of applications. Can he tell us the percentage of approvals this year from the total applications? Can he also confirm what proportion of the total megawattage for which he has contracted this afternoon is new capacity?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has still not solved the problem of the elephant and the flea, given that the nuclear industry gets 98 per cent. of the benefits of the order under which he has announced the non-fossil fuel obligation tranche, while the renewable sources get 2 per cent.? Anyone who comes to the House and announces that that 2 per cent. somehow deserves an almighty pat on the back is not living in the real world.
The Minister has been unable to provide the House with any information on how he will get the regional electricity companies, who must buy the electricity, to abandon their obstructive attitude. That attitude has been the despair of many applicants for small windmill developments and small-scale hydro developments.
Far from the Minister's searching to persuade the European Community to allow the Government to do what he claims they want to do—to have the ability to go beyond 1998 so as to offer a higher price for renewables energy—the European Community has practically had to send the airline ticket to him to go over to Brussels to discuss something on which there has been an open-door policy since the original electricity privatisation legislation was conceived three years ago.
The truth of the matter is that the European Community wanted to block any preferential treatment for the nuclear industry, but the Minister insisted on tying the renewables industry to the nuclear industry. That is
332
what has caused the 1998 limit to be maintained. That is entirely the result of the Government's faulty design of their electricity privatisation. It has nothing to do with any obstruction by the European Community. Is it not true that one cannot expect to get any credit for pushing against an open door, especially one that has been open for three years?
It is absolutely hypocritical to hide behind Brussels when claiming that we cannot have longer contract periods for wind power. The reason why the price for wind power is so high at 11p/kWh is simply the product of the crazy structure that the Minister has designed.
Is it not true that the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency—a subsidiary company with no proper legal entity, which is owned by the 12 regional electricity companies and upon which the Government are relying—is disliked intensely by all the people in the renewables industry, because they know that those regional electricity companies, the owners, do not want to buy renewable energy? They do it reluctantly and they do it late, which is one of the reasons why this order, like last year's, was about two months late. Leaving the regional electricity companies in charge of renewable industries is like leaving the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
Is it not true that the renewables industries in this country will not start moving unless we get a Labour Government who will set up a renewable energy agency that will want to do the job and will not have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming? Only then will we start to catch up with Denmark, Holland and other countries, and only then will we be able seriously to exploit the potential of renewable energies in combating the threat of global warming.
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman's last comment should be set in the context of the fact that my announcement today, worth £130 million in terms of premium payments to generators, is 17 times more than the total that the last Labour Government gave to renewable generation. So it is nonsense to posture at the Dispatch Box as the friend of renewables—that has been disproven by history.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was the old and frequently heard red herring about the nuclear option. Time and again his colleagues, along with Members on both sides of the House, have recognised that there is no reason why expenditure on renewables research and development should bear any proportional relationship to nuclear expenditure. Each energy technology requires a different level of investment to carry out the necessary R and D and its development for commercial use.
As for the number of projects that received support, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when projects are proposed a balance must be struck between the diversity of renewables-generating technologies and the cost to the electricity consumer. Two hundred and six projects satisfied the "will secure" tests, of which 122—considerably more than the hon. Gentleman's guess—have contracted. The hon. Gentleman extrapolated from last year's figures—he said that they were so low—the idea that the number in this year's order would be similar. He was wrong about last year's number, and I hope that he will agree that 122 projects contracted out of the 206 that were proposed and which satisfied the "will secure" test represent a tremendous advance for renewable energy in this country.
Dr. Michael Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement, which will be well received in the House and in the country. Not only does it give a massive boost to renewable energies in Britain but it encourages them in Europe and the whole world.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Energy Select Committee on a recent visit to Scandanavia looked at the technology for producing electricity from incineration of waste and from wind power, and that that Committee will be delighted that his technology, in whose development we have been at the forefront, will be encouraged by the scale of its development in this country?
Finally, may I point out to my hon. Friend that waves as well as wind are prominent in this country, especially in the winter? Will he therefore encourage wave energy research as well as wind energy research?
Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and I can give him the undertaking that he sought. Wave energy is under review by a Government steering group that includes independent members. Its work is due to be completed shortly, and interim and final reports will be published early next year.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the granting of planning permission for the Cemmaes wind farm was a significant boost for renewables and an excellent result from the first public inquiry into this type of project. Many of the proponents of the projects in the second tranche of the NFFO recognised that putting such projects in areas of outstanding natural beauty such as national parks was not likely to be successful. So a large number of the new projects announced today for consideration in the second tranche of the NFFO are not in places of outstanding natural beauty. Given that a planning policy guidance note will be available, I hope that we can learn from the first NFFO tranche and ensure that more of the projects that have satisfied the "will secure" tests and been announced today will come to fruition in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Although the Minister's statement is welcome, it shows an extremely belated conversion and is a very timid move. The figures that he has announced show that we shall get only I per cent. of our electricity from renewable fuels. If the Government have a real belief in the importance of renewables, why are Scotland and Northern Ireland exempted from a non-fossil fuel obligation? Given that our European colleague countries are far ahead of us in developing renewables, why do the Government refuse to plan beyond 1998 when European legislation allows such planning? The Government wanted to ring-fence the nuclear industry and found that the European Community rightly held that that was anti-competitive. Real investment is needed in non-renewable alternative fuels, and the Government are only beginning to make an inroad into this vital alternative and far more environmentally sound sector of energy.
Mr. Moynihan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Scotland has undoubtedly the best renewables potential in Great Britain. In parallel with the statement, I announced a number of projects that have been agreed separately. It is important for the renewable energy advisory group, which is currently sitting and is due to report at the beginning of next year, to advise on the future exploitation of renewable energy sources in Scotland. Under the
334
Electricity Act 1989 it is up to the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide how to take matters forward. Northern Ireland is already in the process of drawing up its own NFFO obligation and is receiving assistance from us. I hope that the lessons learned from the first tranche of the NFFO will be carefully considered and extended to further renewable energy production in the United Kingdom.
As for the 1 per cent. point, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement, which made it clear that this tranche alone was so substantial that it made historical the figure of 1,000 MW from renewable energy by the year 2000 and shows that the figure needs to be reassessed in line with the far more realistic appraisal of energy paper 55 which looks towards 2025 and makes it clear that commercially deployed projects would give us the potential to produce 20 per cent. of our current electricity demand by that year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that and recognises that without the statement we would not be on the road to that success.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an order on which there will be a debate. May I ask for single questions rather than multi-questions so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called?
Mr. John Butcher: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent announcement. It provides a major opportunity for sections of British industry which have incredibly good strengths in research and development and engineering skills. I urge my hon. Friend to maintain at good levels the checks and audits on technology so that British manufacturers are given a real opportunity and so that we shall be able to leapfrog our European competitors by providing technologies that are in great demand and environmentally friendly.
Mr. Moynihan: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is vital that projects are environmentally friendly and economically viable. That is why we need constantly to monitor on an audit basis along the lines that my hon. Friend mentions.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that on the criteria that he has announced he has turned down the scheme at Portwood weir in my constituency? There will be considerable disappointment in my constituency about that, first because the River Tame has provided power for mills for well over 200 years and it would be nice if it could continue to provide power in some form, and secondly because the scheme appeared to meet the EC criteria for a grant. It seems odd that the EC is prepared to put up the money for these schemes but the Government refuse to give them the go-ahead.
Mr. Moynihan: Individual projects have not been announced today. They are a matter for the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency, which will today contact each of the contractors by post. In due course I shall write to every hon. Member about the outcome. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about his constituency projects. He will understand that a balance must be struck between effective renewable generating techniques and the cost to the electricity consumer.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend tell us to what extent his programme can be delayed

335
by protracted planning procedures and to what extent, by use of general development orders, he can reduce that risk to the minimum?
Mr. Moynihan: I very much hope that the problem, which is undoubtedly considerable in the wind energy section, of planning applications and the delays in planning procedures will be overcome by the planning policy guidance notes that we are producing. It will also be assisted by recognition of the fact that many of these wind projects were not best sited in the first tranche of the NFFO. They were often sited in aesthetically beautiful areas and there was a lot of local opposition to that. Many of the projects coming through in this tranche are not so sited, so the combination of the two should speed up the planning consideration of these projects which will, I hope, come to favourable conclusions.
Mr. William Ross: Why should Northern Ireland be denied the benefits of this scheme? When does the Minister intend to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that, at long last, the Province catches up with the rest of the country, as we have quite a lot of wind there?
Mr. Moynihan: I have discussed the development of renewables with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. Much progress has already been made this year towards the first non-fossil fuel obligation for Northern Ireland, drawn up by Ministers. I hope that, with our assistance, and with the lessons learned with the first NFFO in England and Wales, the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has outlined will be realised and there will be renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland
Mr. John Hannam: will my hon. Friend ignore the griping from the Labour party and accept our congratulations on the huge boost that he has given to renewable sources of energy? Will he comment on the future of solar cell electricity?
Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that there are tremendous opportunities in solar energy, especially in the long term reaching into the next century. Some opportunities are significant in building design and we need constantly to persuade architects to take those into account when designing new buildings, both domestic and industrial. As Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will know, there is a vital opportunity, which we should grasp, in photovoltaics. I am glad to say that we recently announced a £250,000 investment, working in collaboration with BP, to take forward the search on photovoltaics, so that we are in a position to harness the tremendous potential for solar energy in the next century. It will not be before the next century, but we should invest in research and development now so that we can maximise future opportunities for solar energy.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The country will welcome anything that will increase the use of benign sources of energy, but, given hon. Members' responses to the Minister's statement, does he agree that there is a great need for the reallocation of financial resources a la fossil fuel levy and in relation to the investment that is taking place in nuclear power? The disproportionate balance between research into benign forces of energy and that into nuclear energy is a scandal. The mining industry is paying a subsidy towards this because coal is a fossil fuel.
336
There will be disappointment that the Minister was not more positive about wave energy, and made no announcement about it. He will have to make a better response than his reply to the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) about how he proposes to deal with wave energy, given the treatment that Professor Salter received when he put forward his Salter duck plan, on which the figures were definitely fiddled. We are at the stage when something must definitely be done.
Mr. Moynihan: I think that I have answered the question about the balance between renewable energy research and development and R and D for nuclear energy. Wave energy is of critical importance and the world leader in this is on the Isle of Islay, looking at a near-shoreline device. The project on Islay is already proving highly successful.
The Salter duck project is being reviewed in two places. I have already referred to the steering group. Secondly, it is important that, in close co-operation with my Department, and with my full support, Professor Salter's technology should be assessed in detail and independently. He has agreed to that. I have also steered him in the direction of the European Commission, because this is just the sort of renewable energy project in which it may be interested. I give the hon. Gentleman a clear assurance that we are working closely with Professor Salter; if his project proves both technically viable and economically competitive, it will play an important part in the future.
Mr. Tony Speller: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who did not realise until this afternoon that they were pushing against an open door. I ask him to ensure that many applications are turned down, for good renewable energy does not mean despoiled countryside. I thank my hon. Friend for looking through the range of technologies and for his full range of acceptance. He has not confined himself to one or two technologies. This is a happy day for renewable energies, and Back-Bench Members should be pleased.
Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I am sure that every Member recognises that one of the problems, especially with wind projects last year, was that the environmentalists who were keen for us to develop wind farms were the first to oppose applications when it came to the planning stage. I think that we have overcome that difficulty, and I think that a planning policy guidance note will overcome such difficulties in future. That is essential, because renewable energy research and development and commercial development should be a central part of any energy policy in this country. I intend to make it so.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister rightly referred to the development of Islay of shoreline wave energy. Does he accept that great importance should be attached to offshore wave energy, and that many of us are keen that that should be so? The Government have failed to invest in research and development, and it is not good enough to refer the matter back to the European Commission. A budget of £300,000 in 1991–92 for research is entirely inadequate. Will the Minister admit that the Department was wrong in 1982 when it accepted allegations that were made against the potential of wave

337
energy? Instead, will he enter into a clear commitment—if it cannot be this year, then the following year—that there will be major investment in wave-energy research?
Mr. Moynihan: I hope that the hon. Member heard me correctly earlier when I stated that I was keen to continue to work in close collaboration with Professor Salter and with anyone else who comes forward with potentially commercially viable proposals at this stage, and also technologically acceptable proposals, for wave energy, including both shoreline and offshore devices.
The review that has been carried out by the steering group will be published shortly and I shall ensure that the hon. Lady receives a copy. The purpose of the review is to examine the technologies and to set the parameters within which we can take wave energy forward. The project has not been put on the back burner, and we are not encouraging the Commission to take it over from us.
I suggested to Professor Salter that it would be in his interests, now that we are persuading the European Commission to fund research and development on wave power and other forms of renewable energy, for him to approach the Commission to assess the funding opportunities there. I am not for one moment disclaiming the potential of considerable shoreline and offshore wave energy development in future.
Mr. Peter Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that especially welcome in his excellent announcement is the approving of 10 projects for converting municipal waste into energy? The Government must acknowledge that there is involved a fuel that is far too valuable to dump into holes, thereby causing environmental pollution through methane. Even when there is methane extraction from landfill, only about a third of it can be usefully extracted. The remainder is a potent greenhouse gas.
Mr. Moynihan: I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend. I believe that about half the projects contracted under the general and municipal industrial tranche, to which he referred, have a long-term potential to utilise combined heat and power. The CHP schemes are eligible to contract within the NFFO, provided that non-fossil fuels are used. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that as an additional benefit which will stem from my announcement.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will be aware of the considerable interest in wind energy on the western seaboard of Wales. The potential is there. Can he give an assurance that in considering projects he will take into account the value that they may have to the agriculture fraternity as a subsidiary and auxiliary source of income? Although we must be careful not to despoil the countryside, we must not turn down projects that are acceptable within the local community because of some opposition outside a community. Will the Minister give me the assurance for which I ask?
Mr. Moynihan: I give the hon. Gentleman my full assurance on that matter.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Although I am sure that all hon. Members accept that alternative energy has joined
338
that singular category of motherhood and sliced bread as something that no one can seriously oppose, perhaps I might ask my hon. Friend two questions——
Hon. Members: One.
Mr. Speaker: One, because there is rather heavy pressure.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend has set the ambitious target of 20 per cent. Will he tell us, first, why it is that the thorough analysis carried out by the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems of the United States Congress postulated a maximum target by the end of the century of 5 per cent., assuming zero interest on capital? What has happened to change either the fundamental economics or the fundamental technology?
Finally—if I may, Mr. Speaker—I have just discussed this matter with the Vice-Premier of China. He told me that his country will burn an additional 200 million tonnes of coal by the end of the century. Is it really wise, at this stage, to invest all the research and resources into alternative energies in this country, when the result will be more than swallowed up by what happens on the Pacific rim?
Mr. Moynihan: On the last point, one of the exceptionally important aspects of the research and development work being undertaken into renewable energy is to provide the resident expertise in the United Kingdom with the opportunity to export its technology and world leadership. We have already referred to world leadership in such sources as shoreline and landfill gas. We are second in the world behind the United States and do more than the rest of the world put together. As we develop a pool of expertise, especially for energies that are marginally more efficient elsewhere—I am thinking of solar technologies that are more efficient in Africa than in Britain—we should be able to export that. There is a by-product from the research and development, which is that United Kingdom companies will be able to export in that market.
On my hon., Friend's first point, energy paper 55 to which I referred did not provide for a date at the end of the decade. It said that the renewable energy advisory group is reviewing the target of 1,000 MW by the end of the decade, because, as is clear from today's announcement, we are in a position potentially far to exceed that. We are looking at the next three decades up to the year 2020 or 2025. A number of the technologies that are not yet commercially viable nevertheless warrant research and development support at this stage, especially solar energy and photovoltaic energy. When they are commercially viable, we will be world leaders in that technology. Having seen some of the expertise at BP, I have no doubt that we will be in that position.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Minister understand that his Government's failure to announce the extension of the non-fossil fuel obligation to Scotland signals to Scots that the Government simply are not serious about the development of renewable energies in our country? As the Conservative party is on the point of becoming the third party in a four-party country at the by-election later this week, is it not time that the Government stopped giving Scotland what it does not want—nuclear waste and nuclear energy—and instead

339
gave Scotland what it wants, which is direct encouragement for renewable energies in a country which the Minister himself described as rich in potential for such developments?
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware of the substantial investment in the research and development programme in Scotland on renewable energies. The East Kilbride centre, which concentrates on wind power, will be important in the United Kingdom's development of new technologies in highly exposed areas where the meterage per second of wind speed, especially in Scotland, is considerably higher than it is in the east and south-east of England.
The non-fossil fuel obligation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Under the Electricity Act 1989, it is for him to decide on the methodology for developing renewable energy in Scotland. I have made a clear commitment to the House today that, because of representations from Members on both sides of the House, the renewable energy advisory group will fully assess how best to develop renewable energy from Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's points, together with those made by other hon. Members, will be taken into account.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the fact that there is another statement after this one and that there is such pressure on the debate on the Gracious Speech that I shall have to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.15 pm. I hope to call most hon. Members if they are brief.
Mr. Nigel Forman: As someone who has championed the cause of renewable energy since the mid-1970s, I give a warm personal welcome to my hon. Friend's statement, which I believe to be in exactly the right direction. I just wish that we had done more of it sooner.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fossil fuel levy. Is it expected that that will be the embryo for a carbon tax to pay for more investment in renewable energies?
Mr. Moynihan: The answer to my hon. Friend's second point is no. On his first point, I pay tribute to him, because I know that he has worked assiduously for developments in renewable energy. I am glad that he is so supportive of the important and substantial announcement that we have made today.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank the Minister for this modest death bed penance on renewables. For the past 12 years the Government have behaved like latter day Don Quixotes tilting at windmills and all the other renewables. Is not the most practical step that he could take to help renewables to allow those people working on tide, wind, coppicing and other renewables in the Atomic Energy Authority a separate organisation free from the foolish need to produce short-term profits, allowing them to invest in the advantages of renewables, which are essentially long-term?
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman is right about the siting of the energy technology support unit at the AEA, but he will be aware that the ETSU is a discrete unit working full time on renewable energy. It is highly effective, highly professional and highly regarded and in
340
no way would its organisational change mean that it was any less committed to or capable of working on the types of renewable energy mentioned by the hon. Gentleman from tidal to wave power. I am pleased that he mentioned coppicing and wood as a fuel, because there is no doubt that with the increasing amount of agricultural land at our disposal wood as a fuel, including coppicing, could be an important part of our renewable energy strategy in future. We announced only last week the first farmer co-operative with five farms seeking to develop a market.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement that 28 landfill sites will be used will be widely welcomed in the country as well as, I hope, by responsible organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace? Is not his statement a significant contribution towards the Government's interest in green policies? In furtherance of that, may I urge him to bend his considerable energies towards the development of solar and tidal power?
Mr. Moynihan: We are directing much research and development money towards solar and tidal power. With regard to landfill gas, as my hon. Friend knows, in addition to the schemes that should come on stream as a result of today's announcement, there are some 36 landfill gas utilisation schemes in the United Kingdom, saving 160,000 tonnes of coal equivalent per annum. I would not want today's announcement to go by without underlining how important the contribution of renewable energy projects is to reducing the emissions that lead to global warming, and we should recognise that as an important environmental benefit.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister mentioned methane, but is he aware that in many pits there is methane which could be used but usually is not? Will he draw attention to the National Coal Board's policy of closing pits, because when a pit is closed not only is low-sulphur coal lost in many cases, but the methane is then allowed to find its way to the surface? In Arkwright in my constituency, more than 200 people faced the prospect of an explosion because the coal board allowed the methane to escape. Will the Minister tell the coal board to stop that practice and deal with the methane?
Mr. Moynihan: The coal board never misses an opportunity to study carefully the comments made by the hon. Gentleman in the House, and I am sure that today will be no exception.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the Minister on his personal involvement in bringing about the increased commitment to renewables. Does he agree that his announcement today would not have been possible without the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and could not have been made by a Government in hock to the National Union of Mineworkers?
Mr. Moynihan: That is absolutely correct.
Mr. William O'Brien: Having listened with interest to the Minister's statement on renewable energy and the fact that there has been reference to other sources of power, when shall we have a comprehensive statement on energy policy from the Government? When shall we see the Tory party bringing forward a

341
comprehensive energy policy which will include electricity, coal—primarily coal—and other energy sources? What is the Minister doing about a comprehensive fuel policy?
Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman assiduously continues to attend debates on energy policy, as he has done, he will map together a comprehensive Government energy policy. Today, he will have benefited greatly from hearing exactly what is the Government's policy on renewable energy.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Given that the burning of municipal waste is a major element can my hon. Friend estimate the number of landfill sites that will no longer be needed, and whether an increase in the burning of waste will lessen the problem in places such as Crossways in my constituency, where vast areas are threatened with landfill?
Mr. Moynihan: There will not be the great trade-off that my hon. Friend imagines. It is important that we introduce recycling initiatives that are environmentally friendly; give, where necessary, a reduction in emissions; and generate electricity where the opportunities arise. Equally, Iandfill will continue to be an important part of our strategy, not least because there are more opportunities annually for landfill to be created, as more sand and gravel continues to be extracted and landfill sites filled. However, they are often further from centres of population and a net result is cost rises that make incineration increasingly more attractive where there is competition between the two methods.
Mr. Chris Butler: Do the longer-term contracts that my hon. Friend's statement envisages, which presumably depend on the longer-term view, take the prospects of a Mersey barrage—[Interruption]—any further?
Mr. Moynihan: I am being lobbied heavily by my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I pay tribute to the Mersey barrage company for approaching the project very professionally. We provided additional resources for further studies, because it is important that all aspects are carefully examined—not least the project's commercial viability, technical feasibility, and environmental significance. That work will be completed as soon as possible, not least because, as it is a private-sector, commercially orientated project, its proponents want to ensure that the momentum is sustained—and we will assist them in that.

Bangladesh (Cyclone)
4.16 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on my visit to Bangladesh from 31 October to 3 November. The main objective was to see the after-effects of the cyclone of 29 April, the worst this century, and to assess the progress of rehabilitation.
I did not visit at the time of the initial relief operation, because I did not want to divert local transport and personnel at the height of relief operations. On the visit, I was accompanied by officials and Mr. Michael Whitlam, director-general of the British Red Cross.
With our high commissioner in Dhaka, we visited coastal areas in the districts of Chittagong and Cox's Bazar, including several of the offshore islands where the cyclone damage was worst of all.
It is difficult to overstate the tragic consequences of the cyclone. I visited areas where almost half the population lost their lives. In all, more than 150,000 men, women and children died. On Sandwip island, the villagers performed for me a moving re-enactment of the events of the cyclone and its aftermath.
The psychological effects of the disaster will take years to heal, but the physical work of rehabilitation exceeded our expectations. Schools are being reconstructed, new houses completed, and fishing boats built. Most important of all, the main rice crop, planted after the cyclone, is by all accounts a very good one. The resilience of the people of Bangladesh is heartening.
The progress that I saw would not have been possible without great efforts by the Government of Bangladesh, local and overseas non-governmental organisations, and the donor community. At the beginning of May, Britain gave £6·5 million for immediate disaster relief directly and through the EC. Our aid was handled through NGOs, and it appears to have been most effective in helping to avoid any major fatalities in the aftermath of the cyclone. I also heard warm tributes to the work of the Royal Marines in the distribution of relief supplies.
Britain has since made available a further £5 million for rehabilitation, again through British and local NGOs. During my visit, I announced that, of that, £750,000 will go to the excellent local voluntary organisation, the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, and £500,000 for the further British Red Cross shelter building programme on Sandwip.
Already, British funds have been put to good use, as I saw with projects involving Concern, Help the Aged, and other NGOs. The assistance contributed by Britain's Bangladeshi community was also greatly appreciated. I confirmed our willingness to finance reconstruction items such as bailey bridging and ferry engines from the £15 million commodity aid agreement signed last month. I discussed the lessons to be learned from the relief and rehabilitation exercise with all whom I met, including the Prime Minister, Begum Khaleda Zia, and a wide range of NGOs.
It is clear from my visit that the key features of our approach have been well justified. First, we used NGOs as our channel of assistance, working with the Government of Bangladesh. Secondly, we purchased relief materials in-country, rather than succumbing to the temptation to fly in supplies that all too often prove inappropriate. I have

343
emphasised to all parties the need for good communications and a real partnership between Government and NGOs in Bangladesh to make aid effective—and not just in times of disaster.
I believe, however, that there is more that we can and should do. The donor community should press ahead with the construction of multi-purpose buildings suitable for use as cyclone shelters. We are financing 24 such shelters under our rehabilitation funds, through the Red Cross and through local NGOs. The EC, Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia are also financing shelters. The World bank is preparing a project to cover the balance of requirements. I shall be discussing that with the bank in Washington next week.
More needs to be done on disaster preparedness, notably in regard to radio communications. I am glad to report that the British Red Cross, with its League partners, plans to upgrade the communications facilities of the Bangladesh Red Crescent, which more than proved their worth in this cyclone. We are ready to assist in this, should there be a funding gap.
As on previous occasions, I am holding a post-disaster review of our responses. I want to be sure that, wherever our urgent help is needed next, we are as ready as is humanly possible.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Let me convey to the House the regret expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for her absence. Earlier today, my hon. Friend left for northern Iraq to witness and discuss the problems confronting the hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees who face the grim prospect of winter, and renewed acts of repression by Saddam Hussein. My hon. Friend hopes to address the House about those matters when she returns.
We welcome today's statement. The Minister will recall that it was the Opposition who, on 8 May, asked her to visit Bangladesh. The small amounts of money that she has committed to important work in Bangladesh are welcome, but the £5 million to which her statement referred must be seen against the background of her frank admission to me, on 15 October, that Britain's aid last year, as a proportion of gross national product, had been the lowest ever recorded—I repeat: the lowest ever recorded. That admission at the Dispatch Box sent a shudder through the Government's own Back Benchers.
Is it true that the Prime Minister's recent debt initiative—the write-off initiative—does not cover Bangladesh, the world's fifth poorest country? Why should that be so? Because Bangladesh does not appear to meet the Government's criteria. Will the Minister say clearly whether that is true? The House and the country need to know.
Is it not true that the cost to Bangladesh of servicing its foreign debt is over a quarter of the amount that it receives in aid from all donors? How can Bangladesh possibly rebuild its economy after the cyclone, when it is saddled with such debt obligations? Is it not also true that the Government aid given to this poor country is concentrated disproportionately on large-scale energy and infrastructural communication projects? It has not been focused on poverty alleviation.
Despite some notable projects—yes, promoted by the present Government—still too little Government money has been spent on schools, health networks, farming, small-scale rural projects, fisheries and the formation of
344
credit groups to help the regeneration of economic activity at a local level. To provide funds for cyclone shelters is one thing, but unless the use of such shelters forms part of local community-based programmes, experience suggests that such relief projects can fall into disrepair.
Can the Minister deny that the ODA resisted funding a number of such poverty-focused rehabilitation projects that accompanied cyclone shelter programmes? The next Labour Government will change the emphasis of their aid programme in favour of the poor, and will support programmes of poverty alleviation.
On 8 May, the Minister told the House that she was discussing with her EC counterparts the need for a co-ordinated EC approach to international relief. What has been the result of those discussions? Has that co-ordination been established? Ministers have repeatedly stressed the need for good governance to be a criterion in the allocation of aid. Recognising Bangladesh's commitment to democracy under a newly elected democratic Government, will the British Government now substantially increase their contribution as a reward for meeting the new criterion? If good governance is to be an incentive, surely those who meet the new criterion must be rewarded.
The Minister told the House that the World bank has identified $2·3 billion for strengthening the economy of Bangladesh. Could she comment on what projects she expects these moneys to be allocated to and in what time frame?
On 8 May, the Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about seed aid to help local farmers replenish seed stocks lost in the cyclone. What proposals does she have to help these small farmers, who otherwise face debt or bankruptcy? Has the Minister considered linking the EC's fisheries decommissioning scheme to the aid programme, with the replacement of Bangladeshi fishing vessels in the way advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and me on 8 May?
What consideration is being given to the recent severe river flooding in the north of the country? Will the Minister make a point of ensuring that aid is allocated for rehabilitation in that area, which was badly damaged in the floods of September of this year?
The unfolding tragedy of Bangladesh in the aftermath of the cyclone is of deep concern to the whole House. I hope that the Minister's visit will have reassured the people of that country that the world remains conscious of their plight. The whole House will want to unite in expressing its support for the efforts of the Government and people of Bangladesh in rebuilding their lives and communities.
Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to his Front-Bench post. I am sure that he will bring his incisive mind to his work in public, rather than all the background, unofficial work that we know he has done for so long for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for which perhaps he has not been thanked as much as he should have been by others.
I realise that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley departed today for northern Iraq. I have been only too conscious of the anxieties of the House regarding the problems facing the Kurdish and other Iraqi people. I have been in touch with Prince Sadruddin, who I hope will very soon go to Baghdad to put the very point to Saddam Hussein that is in all our minds today.

345
As for this statement, in total £11·5 million is not a small amount. It is in addition to more than £50 million in the annual aid programme that goes to Bangladesh. To answer the hon. Gentleman's comments about Bangladesh and the Trinidad terms, I thought that he would know that Bangladesh is not rescheduling its debt; nor is its debt service ratio as high as for countries that are eligible for the existing Toronto terms. This Government have long since written off Bangladesh's aid debt. We provide all aid on grant terms to Bangladesh and will continue to do so.
The hon. Member for Workington spoke more generally about health, family planning and farming. Our aid programme is taking account of needs in such matters. We have found a valuable link through the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee; and we have ensured that, where we can gain the Government's agreement to engage in such projects, we shall do so. I spent a good deal of Sunday talking about such projects with members of the Government, including the Minister of Health and Family Planning, whom I pressed hard on doing more in the areas of health and population.
Our Government have turned our minds to the community development aspects of shelter projects and we have included those in our aid to BRAC through the British Red Cross and Red Crescent programme. It is true that some projects do not meet the criteria upon which we have to insist, but that does not alter the fact that we are fully engaged, and will continue to be so, in community-based development projects.
In terms of the European Community's approach to international relief, at an informal meeting in July, I proposed various solutions, which were accepted by my colleagues. We had not at that time received a paper from the Commission. There has been debate within the Commission about this, and it will be discussed again at the end of the month in the Development Council. We shall respond on good government, and where a country, Bangladesh or otherwise, makes progress, we shall respond as generously as we can.
Next week I shall be discussing with the World bank to what projects it intends to give aid. We have already given seed aid to Bangladesh to help in the aftermath of the cyclone. We have also offered assistance to the Rangpur area in the north-west which has suffered from flooding. However, the harvest there is expected to be good. The staff of the British high commission who visited the area last week have told me, as have the non-governmental organisations in Bangladesh, that there is not a famine. However, I have made it clear that we shall assist in that area if the Bangladeshi Government wish us to do so.
We have done a great deal to set the scene for the future, to ensure that there is much more protection for people in the event of future cyclones. I intend to see that that work continues to be done by us and all other donors.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a worthwhile visit in the wake of such an apalling disaster, and on the sizeable amount of money that we have given to assist Bangladesh. Can she develop a little the ideas about improved international co-ordination, especially UN co-ordination, in terms of preparations for possible disasters and the implementation of an effective strategy once disasters have struck?
Mrs. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. Since we and the Germans proposed the plan, which is now endorsed by our partners in the European Community and the UN, we have had nothing but encouragement for the idea of a UN disaster supremo and a worldwide system for disaster response co-ordination that we envisaged from the beginning. However, it seems clear that the current Secretary-General of the United Nations will not appoint such a person, as he is coming to the end of his time in New York.
We have made it clear to all our partners in the UN, particularly in the Security Council, that we believe this to be a matter of the utmost urgency. We believe also, with fellow donors in the OECD committee, that we can cause a swift arrangement to take place. In the meantime, we are all ready to do what may need to be done before we achieve the UN disaster co-ordination that we all think is necessary.
Sir David Steel: Does the Minister recall that, during the overseas development debate last year, she interrupted my speech when I was complaining about the lack of progress towards the United Nations target of 0·7percent of national product? She said:
"The Government have always accepted the target in principle. We cannot stipulate a timetable, but we shall work towards it as fast as we reasonably can".—[Official Report,14 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1264.]
Does she therefore share my party's disappointment that, whatever effort is being made in Bangladesh now, it is coming out of a smaller pot because we have moved away from the target that she promised last year instead of towards it?
Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, and 86 per cent. of its people live below the poverty line. Does the Minister accept that we welcome the steps that she has taken and join in congratulating the nongovernmental organisations on their work since the cyclone disaster?
The Minister said that the Government were contributing to the construction of 24 essential concrete shelters to prevent Bangladesh from again being ravaged by cyclones, which are inevitable. Clearly, 24 shelters are nothing like enough. The right hon. Lady says that she will discuss the subject with the World bank in Washington next week. From her own discussions with the Bangladesh Government, how many shelters does she conclude will be required, and how optimistic is she that they will be constructed before a disaster strikes?
Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when I spoke about resources at a previous question time. I made it clear that the average percentage of gross national product spent on aid in recent years was about 0·3. There were fiscal fluctuations, and at the end of 1990 certain bills were held over to 1991. We work on financial years, not calendar years. Therefore, although I am disappointed by the figure, I shall not allow it to deflect us from close targeting and the proper concentration of aid on the poorest countries, of which Bangladesh is certainly one.
The number of shelters that are needed depends entirely on what type of shelters are constructed and where they are placed. That is why we said that, under our rehabilitation fund and with the British Red Cross and local NGOs, we shall press ahead with the construction of

347
the 24 shelters that are required. The European Community, to which we contribute, Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia are financing shelters. The World bank is also preparing to finance other shelters and community institutions to act as shelters. We are a major contributor to the World bank.
Although the cyclone was much more severe than in 1970, fewer people lost their lives. The problem is not only the number of shelters that are available but persuading people to use them. Earlier today, I examined the possibility of constructing shelters that take cattle on ground level and people above. To a Bangladeshi family, although it may not seem so to us, losing their cattle is almost as serious as losing a child. We have been working on the wider considerations and have been seeking to persuade other donors to be conscious not only of the need to construct many shelters but to try to tackle the whole problem. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I shall take his words ringing in my ears to Washington next week.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on her efforts in this extremely difficult situation. Bangladesh is a sad country, because it attracts so many natural disasters. There seems no way of providing enough to prevent a cyclone, flooding and the many diseases that occur in that part of the world. I wonder whether it is realistic to build shelters rather than to try to move the indigenous population from the more dangerous areas. I know that many Bangladeshi people are fishermen, but it seems that, potentially, they will always be in danger. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will persuade the United Nations to do what it can.
Mrs. Chalker: There is a treble problem, the first part of which is the rapid increase in the population. Although the population has fallen from an average of seven children per family in 1970 to five, it is still very high. There are estimated to be about 110 million people in a country with little land space, much of which is exceedingly low-lying.
The second problem is that this low-lying land is extremely fertile. Fisherpeople go out into the bay of Bengal, and the area also attracts farmers and others. The water acts as a magnet, causing overpopulation in the region, and there are not sufficient inland areas to which people can go. People tend to gather in low-lying areas. The numbers of people involved cannot be moved forcibly.
Community buildings are necessary, anyway. If they can be used as cyclone shelters as well, a double purpose will be fulfilled by building them. We cannot tackle just one problem and provide cyclone shelters. As our aid programme is increasingly doing, we must concentrate our efforts not only on providing an infrastructure and sufficient power, but, more particularly, on alleviating poverty and instituting health and population programmes, on which we now concentrate.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will welcome the right hon. Lady's statement on the progress that is being made towards the rehabilitation of these terribly devastated areas around the bay of Bengal. I am sure that there will be great appreciation of the right hon. Lady's tribute to the people of Bangladesh and to the Bangladeshi people here who are contributing to relief efforts. I am sure that her tribute to the work of the NGOs will also be greatly appreciated.
348
As I think was clear from the right hon. Lady's remarks, rehabilitation is only one stage in what needs to be done. Ahead lies a massive programme to take measures under the World bank's flood action plan to mitigate the effects of a repetition of such disasters.
We should like some assurances from the right hon. Lady. First, we should like an assurance that the world community has been fully apprised of the priority that must be given, within aid programmes, to flood prevention and cyclone disaster plans. Secondly, we should like an assurance that the Government of Bangladesh now give greater priority than they did in the past to long-term coastal defence and cyclone protection measures.
Mrs. Chalker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I wish to reassure him that, in addition to the work that we shall continue to do to protect people from cyclones, we are heavily engaged in the Bangladesh flood action plan—four projects are being worked upon by Britain alone. The conference here in December 1989, which I chaired, took other aspects of that plan forward. We wish to ensure that all donors maintain the action which has been taken. We are, of course, encouraging the new democratic Government of Bangladesh to support all those measures, but it will take time for them to be quite as active as we would wish.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: As someone who has been very interested in Bangladesh over many years, I wish to offer my right hon. Friend warm and generous congratulations on the factual excellence of her report. The coastal stretch between Chittagong and Cox's Bazaar is screaming out for large-scale civil engineering works. Britain could play an important part in providing such a facility.
Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Having spent more than a day flying over the coastal region between Chittagong and Cox's Bazaar, all the islands and some of the inland areas, I am well aware of the lack of infrastructure. Several local community groups are involved in rebuilding boats, and it may be that we can better help through that approach and others, rather than by providing masses of concrete. We are considering the problems. As I said, we shall provide bailey bridging and ferry engines, which will help considerably in the short and long term.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister may recall that, on 8 May, I urged upon her the need to provide immediate assistance to the fishing communities that were so badly devastated. I was therefore pleased to hear her mention the assistance given to the fishing communities. Will she confirm that that assistance has taken the shape of appropriately constructed vessels and gear? Can the majority of those fishermen now continue with their fishing? Has any of this assistance gone into building onshore facilities for the fishing communities?
Mrs. Chalker: I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last question about onshore facilities. The activity which I saw when we were in the area between Chittagong and Cox's Bazaar shows that fishing has taken off once more. Every time we went near a small port, we saw boats being built. There was much activity. I am glad that we and other donors can help.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. I hope that the House will understand if I give precedence to those hon. Members who are not seeking to speak in the debate.
Mr. Ian Grist: As the population of Bangladesh is due to grow by more than 30 million by the turn of the century, will my right hon. Friend say what was the response of the Minister of Health and Family Planning in Bangladesh when she rightly raised the issue of population measures?
Mrs. Chalker: I am glad to say that I had a better response than I expected. I have made it clear to Minister Yussif and his officials that we are fully prepared to help not only with child care issues and population planning but with contraceptive supplies. I shall keep my hon. Friend and the House informed as we make progress on this issue, as I am determined that we shall do.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that western aid in the past has shown an over-emphasis on capital projects which have had little impact on the overwhelming majority of the very poor people of Bangladesh? Is it not now clear that we should emphasise more the need not just for shelter but for solid and substantial housing, which will ensure that there will be fewer casualties the next time a cyclone hits the area? After all, if the cyclone had hit the United States or Britain, 150,000 people would not have died.
Mrs. Chalker: In reviewing the past few years of the Bangladesh programme, it is clear that we have been doing more and more to alleviate poverty and to provide the type of projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Without a decent infrastructure and sufficient power, poverty alleviation projects—however good they may be in themselves—will not have the desired effect. A balance is required in any aid programme. Bangladesh needs power, and we now concentrate all our power work on efficiency. That means not new stations but efficient production by and distribution from existing stations. The balance in the Bangladeshi aid programme is coming right. We are never unaware of what needs to be done to alleviate the dreadful distress facing so many Bangladeshi people.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend see the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union disarmament conference in March last year, which called
350
on all nations to use their military forces in disaster relief action? I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that, in Portland, the Royal Navy regularly trains for disaster relief, and that we have an excellent record, especially in respect of the Kurds and Bangladesh. What efforts has my right hon. Friend made through her Department to encourage other Governments, especially Governments in these areas with large armed forces, to deploy their forces when disasters occur?
Mrs. Chalker: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I have always encouraged the use of forces in disaster relief. Some of the training given in this country will be an integral part of the training that my special people will get in the future. It is true that the Bangladeshi armed forces performed well after the first few days. They helped a great deal and were greatly assisted by the United Kingdom and United States forces who went specifically to area.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister is obviously aware from her visit to Bangladesh that it is a desperately poor country with a hard-working population. Will she reveal a little more about her discussions during her visit on the question of debt write-off which may be offered to the Bangladeshi Government in the future, on ways of increasing the earnings of Bangladesh from exports and especially on commodity prices? Bangladesh, like many other poor countries, is stuck in the bind of high interest rates and low export prices, which leads it further into debt. Unless the debt crisis is resolved, the poverty of Bangladesh is likely to continue for a long time.
Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I said earlier. The British Government have long since written off Bangladesh's aid debt, and we provide all our aid on grant terms. Bangladesh is not rescheduling its debt, and its debt service ratio is not as high as that of other countries that are eligible for the Toronto terms and, therefore, for the Trinidad terms. Although that may be so, we have done a great deal to try to encourage the export earnings and we will continue to do so.
The most important point is to give the goods of the developing countries access to the developed world, which is why the round of talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade is so vital. In the fibre sector, the Tootal company in Bangladesh has made great strides in recent years, and there is much to be gained from further work of that type.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 October].
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]
  Question again proposed.

  Debate on the Address

    Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities
    Mr. Speaker: In view of the late start which was clue to the two statements, it will be necessary to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I also ask those who are called before that time to limit their speeches to about that period in the interests of their colleagues.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Even Front-Bench Members?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope so.
    4.51 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The title of the debate on this day on the Queen's Speech has traditionally been "Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities", words which sit rather more easily in the Conservative vocabulary than in the socialist lexicon. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will tell us at length what his proposals are on rights, and whether such rights should be enshrined in a charter or in a Bill. In the past, he has expressed enthusiasm and lack of enthusiasm for both.
    I hope that he will also touch on responsibilities. It is an axiom of Conservative belief that a stable society can derive only from the acceptance of responsibilities as well as from the declaration of rights. Over the past 12 years, this Government have introduced a number of measures to ensure that people fulfil their basic responsibilities, especially towards their children. Through the Criminal Justice Act 1991, parents can now be held more directly responsible for criminal acts committed by their children. We have also ensured that fathers will not be allowed to walk away from their financial responsibilities, because fatherhood is for life.
    We have encouraged responsibility at a local level by developing the network of neighbourhood watch schemes, now 92,000 nationwide. We have encouraged more people to come forward as school governors through our education legislation. We have given council tenants the right to own their own homes, a hugely successful policy. Home ownership increases people's sense of responsibility.
    In the Queen's Speech, we are further extending and increasing rights. First, there are the rights of parents to have more information about how their children are performing in school. Secondly, there are the rights of consumers, involving bringing the powers of the regulators of the utilities up to the level of the strongest. Thirdly, in the Asylum Bill, we are extending new rights of appeal.
    352
    Fourthly, we are increasing the right of people to own shares in the denationalised companies for which they work.
    Let me also remind the House that we have extended the rights of trade unionists to participate in the affairs of their union, and we have given individual employees the right not to have to join a trade union if they so wish. We have given every employee the right not to strike unless there has been a ballot beforehand.
    In our proposals for the citizens charter, we are giving rights to people to ensure that the public services which they get are provided efficiently. The victims charter sets out for the first time the rights, the entitlements and the expectations of those who have been victims of crime.
    We have improved and protected the rights of suspects in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We are now examining where the proposals there can be extended from tape recording to video recording. We have announced the establishment of a prison complaints adjudicator in the prison service.
    I am obliged to the Opposition for choosing this area for debate because it allows us to remind the country of the rights that we have created, of the freedoms that we have protected and of the responsibilities that we have enhanced.
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: When the Home Secretary considers further extensions of rights, will the Government consider extending the rights of occupational pensioners in so far as they are protected by the Occupational Pensions Board, which is a public body, and will they especially consider protecting the rights of the 35,000 pensioners of Lucas Industries who do not get the full pension allowed by the Inland Revenue? Yet the company is about to milk the pension fund by £150 million. Those pensioners need to have their rights protected, because the company has not paid a penny piece into the fund for the past six years. Where in this catalogue of rights are the rights of those people to be extended by strengthening the powers of the Occupational Pensions Board to stop the actions of companies such as Lucas?
    Mr. Baker: I will certainly draw what the hon. Gentleman says to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Social Security. I will look into the case. I was not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    I was making the point that we have extended many new rights during our term in office. Those rights have enhanced the freedoms and responsibilities of our people.
    Since 1979, this Government have given the highest priority to expenditure on law and order. Expenditure on the police has risen by 67 per cent. in real terms since 1979, which has led to an increase of 15,000 uniformed officers and 12,000 civilian staff. We are pround of this record and we intend to continue it. Next year, there will be a further 1,000 uniformed police officers.
    Compare that to the miserable record of the previous Labour Government. They cut expenditure by 3 per cent. They left the police forces of our country 8,000 under establishment. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member of the Cabinet which approved that. He cannot shrug off his responsibility and he cannot take refuge in his usual complacency. He was one of those who sat round the Cabinet table and agreed cuts in law and

    353
    order expenditure. The reason why he and his colleagues did that is that Labour's heart has never been in law and order. The Labour party marches to different tunes.
    In his lengthy article in The Observer four weeks ago, the man who is the shadow Home Secretary did not once mention law and order. He did not mention the police or the prevention of crime.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: Did it have a good restaurant guide?
    Mr. Baker: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is too easy a target for such a pointed jibe. In his party conference harangue, which lasted for half an hour, only three paragraphs—10 per cent. of his speech—were on law and order. That shows the low priority that he attaches to these important issues.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I hope that the Secretary of State takes the subject seriously. Does he agree with Peter Nobes, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, that there has been a doubling of almost every crime over the past 10 years? Does he agree that the chief constable makes a good request when he asks to have back on the beat the police who have been taken away from us because of poll tax capping? What is the Secretary of State going to do about it? It is all right to have a knockabout and a jest, but people in my constituency and in West Yorkshire generally are in danger every day because of the Home Secretary's irresponsibility.
    Mr. Baker: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady has said. One of the most effective ways in which the increased number of police officers which I have announced can be used in the next year is on the beat. Our civilianisation programme means that jobs that are done now by uniformed officers can be done by civilians which releases even more uniformed officers on to the beat. As hon. Members will know from visiting their local police stations, it is now quite common to find that the people working in the reception area where the public come in are now civilians. That allows the uniformed officers who normally work there to work on the beat. That is not one of the issues that divides us. Lots of things do divide us on law and order, but it is commonly understood that we all want more policemen to be out on the beat because the public find their presence reassuring.
    I was making the point that when Labour and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook were in office, they showed a total indifference to these problems. I want to be fair to the Labour party, because I must not accuse it of having no ideas or policies on law and order.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Baker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in just a moment.
    The Labour party has specific policies that have been published in copious and interminable publications such as "Meet the Challenge, Count the Change". I give the Labour party full credit for having policy ideas.
    The Labour party believes that the police should be accountable to police authorities consisting of elected councillors only. In a recent opinion poll, the public were asked their reaction to that, and a whole 8 per cent. agreed
    354
    with that Labour policy—what a ringing endorsement. The Labour party has another policy that is nearly as popular—to make local councils responsible for crime prevention. It proposes giving them a duty, rather than a power, to do so. Once again, the opinion poll revealed what the public thought of that proposal. This time, a whole 3 per cent. supported that policy. On the other hand, 60 per cent. of those polled believed that the police together with local neighbourhoods should be responsible for crime prevention—which is the Government's policy.
    There is another policy that the Labour party has worn like an albatross around its neck for the past seven years. It wants to abolish the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. How does that sit with the public? In the same poll, that Labour policy won the endorsement of 3 per cent. of the public. Only 3 per cent. of the British people supported that long-standing Labour party policy. Yet again the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has dealt his party a losing hand. It is little wonder that, when the right hon. Gentleman displays his hand, his colleagues throw up theirs in alarm.
    Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend mentioned the status of police authorities. Is he aware that, in the county of Bedfordshire, which is Labour-controlled, some of the money directed from my right hon. Friend's office to the police authority—specifically designed to increase police numbers to strengthen the police force in the county—has been siphoned by the local authority into other areas? The police did not receive the full allocation of moneys that my right hon. Friend intended that they should have. Is such action rare, or is my right hon. Friend aware that that might have happened elsewhere?
    Mr. Baker: It is not a rare case. Certain other authorities where Labour has been in office for some time have not allocated the same priority to spending on law and order as other authorities. My hon. Friend has given us a good example and I am sure that he will make the most of it to his constituents, because law and order should be given the highest priority. As I said earlier, law and order is not the highest priority for the Labour party.
    Mr. Ron Leighton rose——
    Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
    The Labour party's failure to make law and order its highest priority was illustrated last weekend when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had the opportunity to set out his policies on law and order.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman rose——
    Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
    The right hon. Gentleman wrote an article for the New Statesman and Society in which he returned to his familiar theme of attacking the judges. He said:
    "There is no doubt that the character and position of the judiciary is in urgent need of change."
    How will that happen? Who will appoint the judges? Will they be appointed by the Labour party's national executive? After all, it is appointing candidates up and down the country. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is the biggest deselector of Labour candidates. Now he wants to be let loose to deselect judges. That is equivalent of the politicisation of the judiciary. That is the prospect held out to the electorate by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Leighton: I know that we are near to a general election, but would the right hon. Gentleman please remember that he is not the current chairman of the Conservative party, he is the Home Secretary? We do not expect such a flippant presentation, we expect something rather more serious. If he is claiming that law and order is close to his heart, why have we had so little law and order in the past 12 months [HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve years."] of this Government? Why has crime doubled in that time?
    Mr. Baker: We have been in office for a little longer than 12 months. We have been in office for 12 years and we intend to be in office for much longer.
    I have attempted to set out some of the differences between the Labour party and the Government on law and order and it is entirely legitimate for me to do so.
    Crime prevention is an important matter. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to the crime figures. He should be aware that the Home Office is spending £15 million a year on crime prevention schemes. As a result of our safer cities programme, we already have schemes operating in 19 cities. Hon. Members will be aware of the other projects that we intend to launch. Fourteen drug prevention teams have been established through our drugs initiative programme.
    It is essential to reduce car crime, which now constitutes nearly 30 per cent. of all recorded crime.
    Mr. Michael Shersby: Although the measures that the Government have introduced are welcome, does my right hon. Friend agree that they will not reduce auto crime until we have a system under which juvenile offenders can be locked up? At the moment, a small number of those offenders constantly reoffend. Without such a system, some of those who are bailed, and bailed again, constantly reoffend.
    Mr. Baker: The Home Office will complete a research project about reoffending on bail in a matter of days and we will publish the results. That project will draw together the experience gained across the country.
    In several public statements, I have made it clear that, when young offenders appear before the courts, the magistrates should think carefully before granting them bail. I shall go no further than that because it is not for a member of the Executive to instruct or to pressure i n any way any elements of the judiciary. However, the courts must be aware of the dangers that exist if some young accused hooligans are not committed to custody.
    Earlier this year, I published a Green Paper about juvenile custody. We do not have enough places for secure accommodation for juveniles, and some authorities have closed them down. Many Labour authorities believe strongly that no one under 16 or 17 should be committed to custody in any circumstances. That view is not shared by the Conservative party. The policy advocated by some Labour authorities is one of the reasons for the Green Paper, in which I state that we need more secure accommodation for juveniles.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities were made available for secure accommodation in Leicestershire but that they were voted down by the Labour and Liberal parties?
    Mr. Baker: That is one example, and I have heard of other Labour authorities that have specifically reduced or eliminated secure accommodation. The sad fact that one
    356
    must face is that there are some juveniles below the age of 16—soon it will be below 17—who must be kept in secure custody: for example, those who commit severe crime. We do not want to lock up hundreds of thousands, but there are some juveniles who must be held in secure custody because of the seriousness of their crime. It is regrettable that in some parts of the country Labour authorities have closed such accommodation.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose——
    Mr. Keith Vaz: Which authorities?
    Mr. Baker: Leicestershire.
    Mr. Vaz: That is a hung council.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).
    Mr. Lofthouse: Did I understand that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that more young people should be locked up? Although no one condones crime, surely it would he better policy to find such youngsters some work.
    Mr. Baker: We will produce a consultation document, before Christmas I hope, that deals with the roots of criminality and what leads youngsters, principally young boys, into crime. The hon. Gentleman will find that it contains many positive proposals to try to ensure that those youngsters do not set out on a path that leads inevitably to custody.
    The House is aware that, three weeks ago, the Cabinet agreed to my proposal that a new offence should be introduced to deal with joyriding—the House will appreciate that that crime should not be known as "joyriding". That offence will deal with the crime of stealing a vehicle without the owner's consent when that offence is aggravated by damage or dangerous driving.
    Mr. Eric Martlew rose——
    Mr. Baker: I have given way a great deal and I should like to proceed with my speech for a while.
    It would not be enough just to increase the penalties for taking and driving away from six months to two years. The new offence needs to be carefully defined to hit the mischief of damage and injury associated with the theft of the vehicle.
    Since I made my announcement lawyers in the Home Office have been working on the definition of the new offence so that it will be tough and effective. The Bill is now being drafted and I can assure the House that it will be introduced as soon as it is ready. I am glad to hear that the Labour party has agreed that that Bill should go swiftly on to the statute book.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Baker: No. I shall give way in a moment.
    Our campaign to reduce car crime goes much wider than the Bill. The House will be aware that I have spoken to motor manufacturers to persuade them to fix more secure locks on their cars, to introduce burglar alarms and also to invent a device that immobilises a car when someone has broken into it. I have had two meetings with

    357
    the manufacturers, the second much more positive than the first. I can assure the House that I want progress on these matters.
    I have also spoken to the insurance industry. Within the past month its members have made significant changes to their policies in respect of theft from and of cars. Owners will bear a share of the loss. Those fitting certain protective devices will get a reduced premium. The premium for cars that are the favourite targets of young thieves will be much higher.
    I want to say a word about our support for the victims of crime. We have given them a great deal of support and an entitlement to that support. There are now 360 voluntary local schemes providing help and support to the victims of crime. In 1986, only £136,000 was being spent on this programme. That has risen this year to £5·4 million, and next year it will increase to £7·3 million. We have also published a victims' charter which sets out in detail the advice and support available to victims.
    Mr. Martlew: In March this year I wrote to the Home Secretary on behalf of the Cumbria police authority asking him to ban the sale of skeleton keys, which are a major problem in the north-west. They are used in crime and can be bought for as little as £50. A Home Office Minister replied that he did not intend to take any action against the free sale of such keys. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be doing something practical instead of waffling on like this.
    Mr. Baker: Following the hon. Gentleman's representation I discussed it with the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose members said that in their experience skeleton keys were hardly ever used in crime—but that other devices were. They did not say that I should take this action.
    Mr. Paul Flynn rose——
    Mr. Baker: I have given way a great deal and I must pursue my arguments now.
    Since the House last debated the Queen's Speech, Lord Justice Woolf has produced his report on the riot at Strangeways. In a White Paper I announced the acceptance of virtually everything in that report. We have introduced the largest measure of reform of our prisons this century. Many of the improvements are already in hand.
    The House will know that I announced that slopping out, which is a degrading practice, should be eliminated by December 1994. This was faster than Lord Justice Woolf recommended. Already the building and plumbing programmes for that are well in hand.
    Many other changes are also being introduced. They include the number of extra visits that prisoners have from their families. I know that that concerns many hon. Members. Pay telephones are being provided throughout the prison system. The training of prisoners is being improved. Education opportunities have been improved and increased so that prisoners have a chance of learning a skill which will encourage them to lead non-criminal lives when they are released.
    Since 1987, the number of prison officers has increased by some 4,700, an increase of 27 per cent., at a time when the prison population has fallen by about 3,000. I am glad
    358
    to tell the House that next year we will increase the number of prison officers by a further 1,600. To staff the new prisons which are coming on stream, we are recruiting and training prison officers at the unprecedented rate of 2,500 a year.
    I am also glad to tell the House that tomorrow we shall be awarding a contract for the private management of the new Wolds prison in Yorkshire.
    The House will also know that in the Queen's Speech we announced that there would be a Bill creating the new offence of prison mutiny, which will carry with it a maximum sentence of 10 years. We will also increase the penalties for aiding and abetting escapes to a maximum sentence of 10 years.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister explain why, 18 months after the Strangeways riot, 760 prisoners are still being held in police cells in the Greater Manchester and surrounding areas? Is it not time that these people were held in proper prisons instead of these degrading circumstances?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has come in right on cue, because I want to deal with that matter now, as the House would expect me to in a debate of this kind.
    We are about a third of the way through the biggest ever prison building programme, which is going to increase the number of cells over the next two or three years by several thousand.
    Unfortunately, at the moment—I agree with the hon. Gentleman about this—we have far too many prisoners in police cells—about 1,800 a day. This is fairly close to the maximum that the police can deal with. It should not be the duty of police officers to look after prisoners in police cells.
    The reason for this is the unprecedented surge in the prison population over the last few months. There are 3,000 more convicted and remand prisoners than the experts predicted. This has occurred at a time when some prison accommodation is out of use as a result of the Strangeways riots, and it bears particularly heavily on the Greater Manchester force. Over the course of the next few months many more places are becoming available.
    The present problem is exacerbated by a number of industrial disputes in our prisons. I am glad to say that disputes at Pentonville and Wakefield have been satisfactorily settled. Threatened industrial action at Birmingham and Brixton has been suspended. We are doing everything we can to resolve the disputes at the other prisons. I do urge the Prison Officers Association to take to heart the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf about industrial action. The population of a prison should not be determined by the Prison Officers Association.
    To assist with the pressure before Christmas, I have decided that the new young offenders establishment at Brinsford, which is just north of Birmingham, should be brought on stream early. That will allow us to stop using the prison at Brockhill for young offenders and instead keep it open on a temporary basis to hold adult prisoners.
    If the prison population continues to rise, we will have to consider calling upon the assistance of military personnel on a temporary basis. I do not judge it necessary just at this moment to do so, but this is a subject which I will hold constantly under review.
    The Asylum Bill is one of the most important in the Queen's Speech. Many people are now leaving their own

    359
    countries, and claiming to be political refugees. We have a proud centuries-old tradition in our country of welcoming those who have a genuine and well founded fear of persecution. We will continue to provide refuge for such people, but we cannot accept the abuse of this tradition.
    The purpose of our Bill is to distinguish quickly, fairly and openly between the genuine applicant and the bogus applicant. Genuine applicants will be allowed to stay, and indeed will have the right for their families to be reunited with them. Bogus applicants should be returned to the country from which they came.
    The Opposition motion calls for rights. The Labour party will therefore welcome our Bill, which creates two new rights: a right for all applicants to appear before a tribunal, which some applicants do not have today, and a further right of appeal to a court of appeal, which also does not exist today. It is recognised across the whole of Europe that action on these lines has to be taken. Every country in Europe is taking similar action.
    I was therefore astonished when, at the Labour party conference, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook stridently promised to oppose this Bill. I will remind the House of his words. He said of this Bill:
    "I make this absolute promise. We shall fight that shameful proposal in Parliament with the ferocity that comes from deep and abiding contempt that it could ever have been considered and put before us."
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am fully behind my right hon. Friend, but did I understand him to say that everyone will have a right to go before a hearing? On 2 July he said in the House:
    "The Bill will provide for accelerated handling of clearly unfounded cases. An adjudicator will be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim."—[Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 167.]
    Is that still true?
    Mr. Baker: As I said in last week's press release and as the immigration rules and the rules issued by the Lord Chancellor stipulate—I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate these matters soon—the Bill will attempt to shorten the determination process to three months. The decision by immigration officials of the Home Office will take a month, and there will be eight weeks after that for the appeal process. Some manifestly unfounded cases may not go to appeal. It is up to the adjudicator to decide that.
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: A moment ago, the Home Secretary said that every applicant for asylum would have the right of appeal to a tribunal. I see the Under-Secretary nodding at that. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the House about a fast track procedure under which some applicants would be sifted out immediately and would not have the right of appeal—at least not the right of audience in an appeal or representation in an appeal. The adjudicator would deal with the papers there and then. If that is the case, the Home Secretary's statement of a few moments ago is wrong.
    Mr. Baker: It is not the case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the papers that I issued on Friday. Every refugee applicant will have the right to go to the adjudicator, who will decide.
    Mr. Hattersley: A moment ago, the Home Secretary said that every applicant for asylum would have the right to go to an appeal tribunal, and his hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) rightly picked him up on the point. If that were the case, the Bill would be very different from the one that is being presented. The hon. Member for Lancaster rightly said that what the Home Secretary called the fast-track applicant will go not to a tribunal but to an adjudicator with no new evidence.
    Mr. Baker: Even today, some claims are manifestly unfounded. Some applicants arrive from Canada claiming refugee status. There are a few each month. Every refugee applicant will have the right to appeal to the adjudicator. That was set out in our papers last week. Opinion polls over the weekend showed 80 per cent. support for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's determination to oppose the Bill shows an abiding contempt for the feelings of ordinary voters, including no doubt many in his constituency.
    It is not for me to offer helpful advice to the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall do so: when in a hole, one should stop digging. Only a week ago, the right hon. Gentleman appeared on BBC Radio's "The World this Weekend" and dug with the vigour of a navvy. First, he pooh-poohed the idea that the number of those claiming asylum was continuing to rise. He said:
    "I only admit there will be some few—not very many—but a few, who will apply bogusly."
    If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, he is in the most solitary position in Europe. His attitude betrays staggering complacency.
    I shall give him the figures of refugee applicants for the past three months. In August, there were 3,300; in September, there were 3,500; and in October, there were 4,400. The problem is not getting smaller; it is growing. If the right hon. Gentleman were responsible for the matter, we are assured that today he would be doing exactly nothing about it. His hallmark on this issue is complacency and indolence. He needs to stir himself.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend says that we are to continue our tradition of offering a haven to refugees. It is important for him to define a refugee. During the recent troubles in India, many of the people who came to this country and who said that they were refugees from oppression by the Indian Government were proposing various forms of armed or violent protest against that Government. Are they to be defined as refugees? That was a real issue during the troubles in the Punjab and had a real effect on Wolverhampton.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In accordance with practice, the Home Secretary is required to reply before giving way again.
    Mr. Baker: The definition of refugee is laid down in the United Nations convention. I do not think that it is possible to change that definition. A refugee is defined as someone who suffers from a well founded fear of persecution, and the process has to determine whether such a fear is well-founded. That determination process is carried out by the Home Office and the adjudication tribunal.
    Mr. Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aim of the Bill is to protect the rights of the British people and make those rights more important than the so-called rights of bogus refugees?
    Mr. Baker: The purpose of the Bill is to distinguish between the bogus and the genuine refugee applicant.
    The problem affects the whole of western Europe. I was at a conference in Berlin on Wednesday that was attended by ministers of the interior for the Twelve and for the countries of eastern Europe. Several parts of Russia and the new countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were also represented. They were all very alarmed by the prospect of substantial movements of people. This year Germany expects to receive applications amounting not to 50,000, which is the rate approached by the United Kingdom, but 250,000 non-German speaking refugees. The Germans say that they cannot absorb that number, and country after country is saying the same. Hon. Members will be aware of the unpleasant aspects in political debates in some countries in Europe. I am taking action which I am sure is responsible and necessary.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary confirm that his adviser on race matters, the Commission For Racial Equality, have made representations to the Government that their proposal to withdraw legal aid from applicants would leave the Government in breach of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976? In order to override that, they intend to introduce a statutory instrument.
    Mr. Baker: I do not accept that interpretation. As I made clear in July and as the Lord Chancellor made clear, the provision of green form legal aid will be withdrawn when other services are available, but not until then. The House will appreciate that the Government provide funds for green form legal aid and for the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, a body which represents refugee applicants at the initial process of determination and at the tribunal hearing.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Baker: I shall do so for the last time.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to condemn the campaign that is being mounted in some sections of the popular press? That campaign is racist in intent and is against the interests of people who are seeking asylum from situations of great danger. The Home Secretary is promoting his Bill by saying that people who are fleeing from political or social oppression do not deserve to come here and do not deserve political asylum. Because of his fast-track methods, such people may well be returned to face even greater danger to themselves and their families in the countries from which they have come. The proposed legislation undermines the principles of the 1951 Geneva convention.
    Mr. Baker: That is absolute rubbish and I expect the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to condemn it as such. That is not the purpose of the legislation. I am not prepared to condemn the various newspapers which have written about this subject in a responsible way. There is genuine concern about this problem. The Opposition pooh-pooh the matter and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that it is not really a problem and that the
    362
    numbers are going down. He would do nothing about the problem, and that is why he is unsuited to hold the office of Home Secretary.
    I have tried to show the real gap between Labour and the Conservative party and Government on matters of law and order. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is happy to describe himself as a socialist on many occasions, although the advice from Mr. Mandelson is to drop the word. Only last weekend, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "For socialists, constitutional reform is not an end in itself. It was one of the ways by which a more equal society can be created."
    It is clear to the right hon. Gentleman that for him the banner of rights and freedoms that he would wave represents a very different set of outcomes from those in which Conservatives believe. For the Opposition, the subjects of this debate are strictly for the realm of rhetoric. The rhetoric of socialism claims to enhance rights, but the practice of socialism invariably extinguishes and restricts peoples' rights. The rhetoric of socialism talks of freedom, but the practice of socialism involves the restriction of personal freedom.
    People will not give up lightly what they have gained under this Government, and they will not easily embrace a creed that has been rejected by so many nations in recent years. I am glad that at the next election the choice will be between conservatism and socialism. Nowhere will the difference be more marked than in the attitudes towards law and order.
    The Labour Government neglected and cut resources for law and order, and the right hon. Gentleman sat at the table agreeing to those cuts. We have shown our commitment to law and order as a major issue. It is what concerns most people. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that indolence, sloth and complacency are not enough.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: There is only one thing to say about the Home Secretary's speech: I have heard more intellectual contributions from Lord Waddington on the subject, and I never believed that I would make that statement about anyone holding the office of Home Secretary.
    Let us return to a serious discussion of the subject before us. Inevitably, two aspects of the Gracious Speech have focused special attention on the Home Office. They are the inclusion of the Asylum Bill and the absence of any commitment to action against what we still—inappropriately—refer to, as the Home Secretary did today, as joyriding.
    The absence of the joyriding Bill, to use the misnomer adopted by the Home Secretary, is not the only surprising omission. The legislative programme should have included a criminal justice Bill to prohibit conviction on confession evidence alone, to bring some consistency into a chaotic sentencing policy and to give statutory rights to the victims of crime. The programme should also have included a Bill to deal with the crisis in our prisons, by implementing at least part of Lord Justice Woolf's report. Above all, the Gracious Speech should have included a crime prevention Bill.
    Today, we debate a legislative programme that could have been proposed only by a Government who have no purpose other than hanging on to office for a few more

    363
    months. Extraordinarily, the Queen's Speech does not even include the usual platitudes, promising, in the words of last year's speech; that the Government would
    "vigorously pursue their policies in fighting crime."
    This is the first Queen's Speech for 20 years not to make such a general promise. I can only assume that the words were left out because an assurance "vigorously" to continue "fighting crime" would have raised only a horse laugh when offered by a Government with a record of this Government on this subject. They preside over the fastest increasing crime rate in our history.
    At the beginning of his speech, the Home Secretary went to some lengths to compare what life on this subject was like under a Labour Government in 1979 with what it is like under a Conservative Government now. He failed to make only one comparison—that on crime rates. That is hardly surprising, as the crime rate has doubled in the 12 years since the Conservative party was elected on a promise of law and order.
    The Home Secretary excused the appalling record on law and order by saying that, for every year since the war, the crime rate has increased by 6 per cent. on average. So it has, but last year the crime rate increased by 18 per cent.—three times the average—and the Home Secretary had nothing to say about that, and not a single mention of that subject appears in the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that, under the Labour administration, police pay was on a disastrous slide and policemen were leaving the force in record numbers? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what he is saying?
    Mr. Hattersley: I can make three points. First, it is not true that police officers were leaving the force in record numbers. Secondly, the report on police pay which led to police being properly paid and allowed public forces to expand was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and me during that Labour Administration. Thirdly, we did not need as many police officers when the crime rate was 50 per cent. of what it is today. The Home Secretary will not focus on the fact that, after 12 years of Tory administration, the crime rate has risen and there is not a word in the Queen's Speech about how the Government propose to deal with that.
    There is the repeated, and inevitably broken, promise to regenerate the inner cities, but the Prime Minister arid the Home Secretary have been explicit in rejecting the connection between crime and deprivation, so that is nothing to do with contributing to more peaceful streets and safer homes. The Government, who have failed to combat crime, have, judging by the Queen's Speech, given up the battle altogether.
    The Home Secretary has at his disposal the framework—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should have a brief pause in the hope that the Home Secretary will begin to listen to the debate. The Home Secretary will have at his disposal the framework of a crime prevention Bill—the Morgan report, prepared by a working party in his Department, which sets out a series of practical measures which, were they implemented, would reduce crime. They include better street lighting, more secure pensioner flats and bungalows, the demolition of derelict property and a social programme aimed specifically at unemployed and
    364
    disadvantaged young people—a programme which the Home Secretary despises, but which everybody else regards as central to the fight against crime.
    The Morgan report echoes and repeats the essential elements of the crime prevention programme set out by the Labour party two years ago, including proposals that local authorities should be given specific responsibility for crime prevention. The proposal that the Home Secretary chose to scoff at is a proposal from his Department. Furthermore, it has already been adopted by the progressive and most successful local authorities.
    The Home Secretary always represents Labour local authorities as failing in their duties on crime prevention. I say "always", but it is not quite always. On 30 October, the Home Secretary issued a circular boasting about the success of the safer cities project and he listed four local authorities that he thought were particularly to be commended for their action in this sector. He mentioned four schemes that he thought were a paradigm that other local authorities should copy. They are a reduction on domestic burglary on a housing estate in Wolverhampton—Labour; a reduction in crime in car parks in Nottingham—Labour; the introduction of a new security system in central Birmingham—Labour; and the improvement in home security in pensioners' housing schemes in Lewisham—Labour
    Every one of the examples of a good crime prevention policy was from Labour local authorities, but today, in a trivial way, he scoffs at them. He must understand that the legislation that we want to involve local authorities in crime prevention is intended to bring the laggard Tory authorities up to the level of the Labour authorities about which, on other occasions, the Home Secretary boasts.
    These proposals should have been backed up by a real increase in resources and in police manpower. I repeat what the Home Secretary ignores but cannot deny—there is not a chief constable in England or Wales who believes that his resources are sufficient for the task that he is required to perform. There has been an increase in numbers over the past 10 years, but the obligations on the police have grown far faster than the resources.
    Let me remind the House of some of the new tasks imposed on the police. For example, there is the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, highly desirable, but highly complicated. They have also to enforce the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Road Traffic Act 1991, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Football (Offences) Act 1991. There is also the supervision of remand prisoners in police cells, neighbourhood watch, the arrest of visitors who overstay their visa date and the massive increase in crime itself. All this has imposed an enormous extra burden on the police, and the increases in manpower have done nothing to match these new tasks.
    Because of those new tasks—I quoted only a few of them—police forces are more overstretched than at any time this century. Let me tell the Home Secretary what the chief constable of Cleveland told me last Wednesday. He estimated that over the past two years, his resources had increased by 3 per cent., but his obligations had grown by 30 per cent. He also said that it was no good the Home Secretary announcing a higher establishment; higher establishment levels were of no use or interest to him, because his authority did not have the money to employ the additional policemen.
    I offer an even more startling example from Derbyshire, an authority which Conservative Members enjoy deriding.

    365
    The police authority in Derbyshire has recently been the subject of what is clearly an adverse report from Her Majesty's inspector of police. I do not know how many Conservative Members who study these matters know what the inspector said. In paragraph 2.35 of his report he stated that not enough money was spent on the police in Derbyshire because the authority
    "has chosen to spend precisely the amount determined by the standard spending assessment for the police."
    The complaint against Derbyshire is that the money spent on the police was what the Government required the authority to spend.
    In paragraph 8.10, the inspector stated that plans to recruit extra officers in Derbyshire were abandoned
    "as a result of community charge capping."
    It is the Government's funding programme which must, and does, bear the brunt of the blame for inadequate policing. The Government go into their dying months without any proposals to match resources to obligations and, therefore, to mount a real assault on crime.
    Nor do the Government, as the Home Secretary made clear, pathetically, have any proposals for constitutional reform. The debate on the role of Parliament, the method of voting and the power of the Executive has passed the Tory party by. In every other party, there are healthy debates on these matters. There are healthy discussions between all the other parties.
    The sole Conservative contribution to the discussion on the constitution and its necessary reform has been a press conference. It was called in August with the specific purpose of announcing that the party had nothing to propose on the subject and nothing to say about it. It seems that our matchless constitution is incapable of improvement. That has been the policy of the Tory party from Wellington to Major. Even so, constitutional change will come, leaving Conservatives as outdated on the government of Britain as they are on Britain's role in Europe.
    The next Queen's Speech will announce a legislative programme that will include devolved government for Scotland—a Scottish Parliament. It will include also a freedom of information Bill, but that will be only the beginning.
    Mr. Keith Raffan: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that a Labour Government would introduce a devolution Bill for Scotland, but what about Wales? Why has Wales been left out? Will he tell us when a Bill for Wales would be introduced if the Labour party were returned to power?
    Mr. Hattersley: If I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman, I could have given the waiting Principality the information that he seeks 10 seconds earlier. I said that devolved government for Scotland and a freedom of information Bill would be only the beginning. Comprehensive constitutional reform is essential to the re-establishment of genuine democracy, and that must include devolved government for Wales and the English regions.
    In the summer, the chairman of the Tory party——
    Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: No, not at the moment.
    Mr. Kilfedder: What about devolution for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has got it, but does not want it.
    In the summer, the chairman of the Conservative party, in a moment when he euphorically believed that there would be a November election, said that the policy of his party was to trust the people. The Labour party is prepared to trust the people so much that it proposes constitutional reform that will protect them from autocratic and insensitive central Government.
    Of the Bills that the Government are prepared to risk, we shall support the Charities Bill. The Home Secretary did not, I think, mention that measure during his introduction of what is a slim programme by any standards, and we might have expected him to mention every item within it. We support the Charities Bill. We believe that it is important to reinforce the public's trust in registered charities. The Woodfield report made it clear that to achieve and justify their trust it is necessary to make substantial changes to charity law, and we certainly intend to co-operate in bringing about those changes.
    As well as the Charities Bill, the Government have found time for what I suppose could be described as two major Bills. The first measure concerns the new offence of prison mutiny. It is a promise to the Tory party conference that the Home Secretary did not subsequently forget. The Conservative party has been over the ground of prison mutiny before. A White Paper—Cmnd 9920, which was published in 1986—examined the case for creating such an offence and rejected it. The Home Secretary of the day told the House that there was no case for such legislation. If I ask what has happened since then to change the Government's mind, I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will reply, "Strangeways."
    Let us consider the relevance of the proposed Bill to Strangeways. At the time of the riot I supported—I still do, against the background of a good deal of criticism from both sides of the House—the sensible and moderate action that was taken by the Government. I should have known that sooner or later a Conservative Home Secretary would want to make an obeisance to bone-headed opinion in the Conservative party.
    Let us recall what happened when the riot took place at Strangeways. Desperate men were on the roof trying to set the prison on fire. The Home Secretary told us that some of them were made even more irrational by a gross misuse of drugs. The ringleaders were serving life sentences for murder. The Home Secretary told us that some had attempted to murder other prisoners. Only those attending a Tory party conference could imagine that such men would look at one another round the chimneys on the top of Strangeways and say, "Hang on a minute, we've forgotten the prison mutiny Bill. We had better go straight down and surrender to the prison governor."
    It is clear that Lord Justice Woolf could not imagine such a fantastic situation. At the Home Secretary's invitation, Lord Justice Woolf examined the prison system and the prison service, but did not propose the introduction of a new offence of prison mutiny. Instead, he proposed a programme of practical reforms. These included reforms to tackle overcrowding, to ensure the speedy resolution of grievances and to establish the efficient management of the service.

    367
    We welcome the end of slopping out and the increase in visiting, and support and congratulate the Home Secretary on those grounds, but the right hon. Gentleman's response to most of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations was a series of half-promises and commitments to take action at some future unspecified date. One essential recommendation—a precise statement of every prisoner's obligations and rights—is to be tested in a pilot scheme, which will not even begin until 1992–93. Another major recommendation—a firm limitation on prison numbers and a duty on the Home Secretary to report to Parliament when the total has been exceeded—was ignored. We must therefore presume that it was rejected.
    The prison system is in chaos. It is caught in a vicious circle. Judge Tumin said that Brixton was unsafe because it was overcrowded, and that the overcrowding must be ended at once. That was his recommendation. Overcrowding itself, however, has prevented the recommendation from being implemented. Brixton prisoners were supposed to be removed to Belmarsh, but the number of remand prisoners in police cells has meant that transfers have had to be postponed.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hattersley: I see that the Minister of State is shaking her head. If she reads the ministerial reply to the debate on London policing that took place a week last Monday, she will find that the Under-Secretary of State told me—this is in Hansard—that the Belmarsh transfer had been postponed because of overcrowding in London police cells.
    Despite that background, the Home Secretary makes no attempt to solve the crisis. Instead, he attempts to deflect attention from his failure by provoking confrontation with prison officers and introducing the generally pointless prison mutiny Bill. The Bill will do no harm to anything or anybody except the right hon. Gentleman's reputation. We shall therefore see it through, with whatever improvements and amendments we are able to introduce against the barrage of unthinking support that I expect for the Home Secretary.
    The House will recall that the Brixton fiasco was blamed by the Home Secretary on junior civil servants, none of whom, it seems, are to be the subject of disciplinary action. I was one of the few participants in the prison debate who did not call for the right hon. Gentleman's resignation. I was chivvied and chased from programme to programme by journalists of every sort, who thought that I was negligent in my duty in not demanding that he should go. I have no doubt that the House will hear some of my hon. Friends echoing the opinion that it was a failure on my part not to demand his resignation. Not only were everybody in the media and most people in politics demanding his resignation; even the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) was critical—and when he is critical, the Government must be in a terminal state.
    I said—and I repeat today—that the Home Secretary's failures should result not in his resignation, but in his staying in office for the few remaining dying months of the Government to clear up the mess that he had made. Even today, I do not altogether give up hope of his beginning that task. He knows that it requires a great deal more to put the prisons right than a prison mutiny Bill. That Bill
    368
    will be written off by history as just another one of the placebos intended to see a beleaguered Home Secretary through his party conference. It will join the short sharp shock and the electronic tag in the graveyard of gimmicks that mark the last resting place of failed Ministers.
    The prison mutiny Bill has not yet been presented to Parliament, yet it was announced in the Gracious Speech—and quite right, too. Why, then, was the measure designed to deal with joyriding not included in the Gracious Speech, whether or not it was ready for presentation? Its omission has been explained in two conflicting ways. Some Ministers said that it was regarded as appropriate for private Members' legislation; others said that the Government would introduce the Bill when was ready. Both excuses are patent nonsense, although at least on this occasion we were spared the Home Secretary blaming the mistake on junior officials in his Department. The truth must be that the Government had no intention of proceeding with the Bill until the public outcry on the day of the Gracious Speech.
    I want to make the Opposition's position absolutely clear. Three years ago, the Government decided that car theft should be dealt with summarily in magistrates courts and be subject to a maximum sentence of six months. The Opposition supported that proposal, and we still do. Were we to revert to previous law, the courts and the prisons would be swamped. More important, a large number of young men who should not be sent to prison would receive custodial sentences. However, that being said, there is no doubt that the change in the law—which I repeat we supported, and for which we take as much responsibility as the Government—has resulted in a severe problem. It is a severe problem for the police, for car owners, and especially for residents in areas where cars, once stolen, are driven recklessly and dangerously.
    I can best illustrate the problem for the police by again repeating what I was told last week by the chief constable of Cleveland. He said that, because of the Attorney-General's guidelines and the attitude of the Crown prosecution service, it was often difficult even to get a car thief to prison. In Cleveland, such offenders can be cautioned as many as seven times before being charged. Attempts are now being made to identify young men—some of them might more properly be described as children—who are likely to become constant offenders. Initial attempts are being made to divert them from their activities.
    The Home Office has led the way in one sense. Its Standing Committee on Crime Prevention reported on the examination of 4,500 young men guilty of car theft who were required to undertake a special training scheme. Of the 4,500 so required, only 100 offended a second time. That is an essential first step—diverting the first offender from reckless irresponsibility and dangerous practice. We want the Government to promote many more such schemes, backing them with an obligation under the law.
    I have no doubt that, for those who continue to offend, prison must be the final sanction. If the Government were to introduce a Bill which first backed the non-custodial sentences, but stipulated prison as the punishment for constant or aggravated offences, the Opposition would support it. I look forward to having a more constructive and concise explanation, in the near future, of what the Government really intend in that area.
    I come now to the Asylum Bill, and I wish to make it clear immediately that, if the Bill's purpose was what the

    369
    Home Secretary unctuously pretended, and what the Gracious Speech suggested, no one would oppose it. No one wants or would be prepared to support the entry of bogus asylum seekers, and the fraudulent applicant must be rejected. However, the genuine applicant fleeing from persecution must be given sanctuary. That is our obligation under the 1951 United Nations charter, but if the Bill becomes law in its present form we will no longer adequately fulfil that duty.
    Mr. David Nicholson: rose——
    Mr. Hattersley: I must get a little futher on with my speech, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman in mind.
    Mr. Nicholson rose—ߞ
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman need not get excited, as I will not forget him.
    Some of the proposal's supporters will be interested to learn what the Gracious Speech actually says about the Asylum Bill. Apparently, the intention is no more than to enable applicants for asylum to be dealt with quickly and effectively. That is the version to be submitted to the European Court of Justice and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. If that is the Bill's only purpose, why does the Home Secretary attempt to make the country's flesh creep with stories about 7 million Russians moving west? That is what the right hon. Gentleman told the Tory party conference. Even here, addressing a far less gullible audience, he came close to warning us that 7 million Russians were moving out of the Soviet Union towards the democracies of the west.
    The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that this year 117 Russians have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom and he may want to tell us—and I shall give way immediately if he were to be gracious enough to grant me the audience that I seek—[Interruption.] I shall go throught the whole passage again for the Home Secretary's benefit. It is well worth repeating. Speaking to the Tory party conference——
    Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) is constantly interfering with Ministers.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It is hardly for me to interfere with Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), but I am grateful for the activities of the PPS. It was clear from the Home Secretary's speech that he did not understand the provisions of the Asylum Bill, so anyone who can impart that information to him as the debate proceeds is to be welcomed.
    The Tory party was told by the Home Secretary that 7 million Russians were preparing to move west. Last year, 117 applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. Which figure does the Home Secretary think is the most realistic estimate of what will happen next year—117 or 7 million? The Home Secretary sits there, knowing that he conjured these figures out of the air with the aim of worrying people about a potential problem that is the grossest exaggeration of the position that this country faces.
    Mr. David Nicholson rose——
    Mr. Hattersley: I want to avoid the hon. Gentleman having a heart attack, so I shall give way to him.
    Mr. Nicholson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am in the best of health. A week before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed the Conservative party conference, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party would try to
    "revive its flagging fortunes with a squalid appeal to racism."
    How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that appalling remark? Was he referring to the Asylum Bill, which is supported by 80 per cent. of the electorate? Is he therefore attacking that 80 per cent? In view of his remarks about my right hon. Friend resigning, should not the right hon. Gentleman resign today?
    Mr. Hattersley: Had I not been aware of the facts from my hard experience, I would have known them today when the Home Secretary endorsed the front-page leads that appeared in the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun three weeks ago. I do not believe that anyone who did not have the most squalid attitude to these matters could have done anything other than condemn those three front-page leads. If any further evidence of my assertion is necessary, the Home Secretary provided it today.
    Mr. Shersby: Leaving aside whether it is 7 million Russians or 117, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a serious problem facing Britain—a sophisticated racket which is resulting in a substantial number of bogus asylum seekers coming to Britain, running this year probably at the rate of about 1,000 per month? Is not that a problem which needs addressing by both sides of the House?
    Mr. Hattersley: Of course it is a problem, but it is a different problem. I have made it clear that I do not wish to see and would not allow in the bogus asylum seekers. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), not here today but usually assiduous in her attendance at these debates, has been pressing the Government to take legal powers to punish severely the agents of bogus asylum seekers and immigrants. The Government will not do that. I would, because the people who make money out of the misery of such poor people should be prosecuted with the greatest possible severity. I want to tackle the real problem. My complaint, as I propose to go on to show, is that the Home Secretary is not tackling all of the real problem and is trying to frighten the country by overstating it.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend concede that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and the fines on carriers of people into Britain who are subsequently not admitted have encouraged the growth of unscrupulous agents all round the world, enabling them to make a great deal of money out of the misery and sorrow of some poor and desperate people?
    Mr. Hattersley: Clearly, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act is not working. A number of things are happening. One is that unscrupulous carriers and agents are letting people in despite that Act if such people underwrite the fine that they might be required to pay. That is abominable and should be stopped. Many carriers

    371
    are not paying their money to the Government and, as I understand it, the Government are not finding out how much they owe or making them pay.
    British Airways is coming to see me tomorrow to complain that, first, it is treated as an immigration official, which it does not want; secondly, it does not believe that it is capable of carrying out the task, making the point, which the Home Secretary does not understand but BA does, that someone escaping from a tyranny is unlikely to have queued in the capital of that tyranny outside the British high commission or embassy in order to get papers; and, thirdly, thanks to the absurd Act which is not working, every legitimate passenger on BA is required to pay more for his ticket in order to enable BA to pay the tax. The Act is a farce and a fiasco, but it is not the main principle to which I take such great exception.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if he had responsibility for these matters he would dispense with that Act?
    Mr. Hattersley: I would go for the people organising the trade. Just as I would go for drug traffickers more than I would go for drug addicts, so I would go for immigration traffickers more than I would go for immigrants. The Home Secretary's failure is that he will not go for the root cause; he just goes for the easy answer and the easy policy.
    Mr. Baker: Other countries are introducing legislation on exactly similar lines. Some countries already have it and other countries are about to have it. At the conference that I attended last week in Berlin, one of the clear declarations of all the countries that attended was that they should bring in such penalties. The right hon. Gentleman must tell us clearly whether he is in favour of the common carriers' liability remaining or will he take the legislation off the statute book? Yes or no, please.
    Mr. Hattersley: The question is not susceptible to being answered yes or no. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that I have said that we shall improve a measure which is at the moment unjust and ineffective by attacking the people who do the trafficking in illegal immigration. That is how the matter should be dealt with.
    I want to deal with the central issue of what the Home Secretary still claims to be his attitude of wanting no more than a fairer and faster system of asylum application adjudication. If that is all he wants, why did he talk in Blackpool of the alternative to his Bill being an open gate policy? He knows that to be untrue. Why did he speak of millions of asylum seekers wanting to come to Britain? He knows that to be absurd. The idea of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and Romanians flooding into Britain is preposterous. By confusing the problem facing Britain with the problem facing Germany, he is simply pandering to prejudice.
    I make it clear that I believe that the Foreign Secretary is right to insist that we apply our own system for the examination of asylum seekers and the control of immigration. We believe that, within the Community, border control must be a national responsibility, and we shall support the Home Secretary in that. Our situation and the situation in Europe are different. [Interruption.] I hear the Home Secretary crying, "Good," but it is the Home Secretary who pretends otherwise. While the Foreign Secretary is in the Hague saying that our immigration situation is different from that in Europe and
    372
    we need to have our own regulations, systems and border controls, the Home Secretary is in England talking about 7 million Russians, Poles, Czechs, Turks, Hungarians and Romanians.
    We are firmly on the side that the Home Secretary has rejected. The immigration situation in the United Kingdom is special to us and the distinction must not be blurred by the pretence, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State on Friday, that people will walk across the borders, the normal way of seeking asylum. No one will walk across the borders into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Browne: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
    Mr. Hattersley: How do I know? I simply say that I do not believe that the principles set out in the Gracious Speech—speed and justice—are the Home Secretary's genuine intention.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: No.
    Were speed and justice the Home Secretary's only intention, he would have proceeded quite differently. He proposes to withdraw legal aid, the green form scheme, from asylum seekers, and that proposal is intolerable. It is made no less so by his apparent attempts to bully the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service into taking sole responsibility for the representation of refugees—a responsibility which it has already made it clear it does not want to discharge. A man who fears imprisonment, torture and death should be allowed and is entitled to the lawyer of his choice.
    Similarly, the proposed changes in the appeal system are equally intolerable. Let me now explain to the Home Secretary what they are. We want to see applications processed more quickly, but the fast track system is a simple denial of justice. Applicants refused under the fast track procedure have, in effect, no real appeal at all. They are rejected by an official. They are allowed what is misnamed an "appeal" to an adjudicator, but there is no personal appearance, representation or new evidence; there is just a re-reading of the original papers, and that is a mockery of justice.
    The Home Secretary claims that any other system, a judicially respectable system, would take an unacceptable amount of time. But the general council of the Bar has offered discussions in the belief that a speedy and just appeal system can be devised. Why does not the Home Secretary even now take advantage of that offer?
    Last Friday, discussing the matter, as reported in The Times, the Under-Secretary of State made what I can only describe as a shameful admission. He said that the new scheme would exclude some genuine asylum seekers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) rose———
    Mr. Hattersley: I should be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman refute that.
    Mr. Lloyd: That was not a point that I made at the press conference. I did not say that the measures in the Bill might lead to genuine refugees being sent home or not being able to get here. That was a misrepresentation in the report.
    Mr. Hattersley: If the Under-Secretary of State gives me that assurance, I am pleased to hear it. Since it was in The Times, the paper of record, I hope that we shall see a letter from him in that paper tomorrow or the day after making it clear that its distinguished correspondent, Mr. Philip Webster, got him diametrically wrong. I am delighted to hear what the Under-Secretary says and astonished that Mr. Webster, for whom I have such regard, could have made such an error.
    If all that the Home Secretary wants is speed and justice, why above all else does he propose to penalise asylum seekers who demonstrate in Britain against the Government who persecute them? I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman while he answers me this question. Does he really mean that if Kurds in Britain, refugees from Saddam Hussein, march to their embassy to protest against Saddam Hussein's enormities, their chance of asylum will be reduced? Whether or not that is what the Bill says, does the Home Secretary really mean that to happen? The right hon. Gentleman remains in his place, and he will understand why we reacted to his attitude with what I rightly described as contempt.
    If the Bill passes into law, as we must assume that it will, despite our opposition, we will introduce a proper appeals system and restore the right to legal aid. That will ensure that the genuine asylum seeker is not turned away, and will restore the reputation that Britain has enjoyed for 500 years as a country that accepts refugees as a moral duty, in the understanding that we benefit from the acceptance of those refugees' citizenship.
    The Home Secretary and the tabloid newspapers that he avidly supports choose to confuse asylum with immigration. They are distinct issues. No one I know wants the open-door policy on immigration about which the Government whisper. Primary immigration into Great Britain is over for ever, but I believe that the country wants a more compassionate attitude shown towards those immigrants who want particularly to join their families in this country. They are a small group, but we act against them in a way that prejudices the lives and happiness of British citizens.
    I believe that the country would support the reunion of husbands and wives, and I cite a case as evidence of the Government's callous disregard for some British families. I draw the Home Secretary's attention to it again, having already done so in correspondence.
    The man in question is a British citizen whose wife has for some years lived abroad. He now suffers from a disabling and possibly terminal disease, and is almost blind with cataracts. His solicitor suggested in the application for his client's wife to join him that by her coming to this country, a net saving in public funds would be achieved—because although the wife would qualify for benefit, the husband would require less expensive hospital care.
    The husband's application was refused, and on appeal the adjudicator stated that he believed that allowing the man's wife into the country would produce a saving in public funds, but since to do so would result in an extra charge on one area of public funds, the law did not allow the application to proceed. However, the adjudicator recommended that the Home Secretary use his discretion and, out of compassion for the man and common sense in respect of public funds, allow the applicant's wife to enter this country. The Home Secretary refused to use his
    374
    discretion in that way. I do not believe that there is a family in the country who would regard the Home Secretary's decision in that case as anything but wrong.
    Mr. Dicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: Certainly not. On no account.
    Mr. Dicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman scared to do so?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am terrified out of my wits of what he might say.
    The Home Secretary's decision lacked not only compassion but common sense. It could only be based on the principle that people should be kept out at all costs. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify such a decision? How can he justify many of the absurdities and enormities that flow from the existing regulations? I am not sure that the country or even the Home Secretary is aware of them. Does the Home Secretary appreciate how farcical they have become?
    A British citizen living in Britain does not have an automatic right to be joined in this country by his wife, but a German, French, Belgian or Dutch citizen living in Britain does. A British citizen living in France, Belgium, or Germany has an automatic right to be joined by his wife. That is because we are required by the Community to act with common sense and decency towards its citizens, in the way that it acts towards its own citizens—but we are not required to act with common sense and decency towards our own citizens. In immigration matters, our own citizens are in an inferior position to those of the rest of the Community. It is no use the Home Secretary looking bewildered again, because all that is true. The fact that he does not know it is indicative of the right hon. Gentleman's entire attitude to the job that he does.
    Let me astound the Home Secretary again. I tell Irish people living in my constituency not to take British nationality, for by doing so, they will sacrifice rights that they currently enjoy, because EC nationals in Britain have more rights than British citizens. That is palpable nonsense. The new Government must end the absurdities that cause so much pain and hardship—changes that will result in a small increase in immigration but an enormous increase in human happiness.
    The absurdities that I described confront British citizens. It is our intention, by our charter of rights, to guarantee equal treatment to British citizens of every race and colour. The charter will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race or gender, and will reflect the simple truth that the establishment of rights must be reinforced by the creation of real opportunities. It is no use telling a low-income mother that every job is available to her and leaving it at that. She can take only a job that offers flexible hours, and only if nursery facilities are available for her children while she is at work.
    It is the understanding that, for millions of British men and women, freedom will not become a reality unless there are greater resources that teaches us that equality and liberty go hand in hand. Those are the twin aims of the Labour party, and they will be the twin aims of the Government who introduce the next Queen's Speech.
    6.16 pm
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It must be admitted by all fair-minded persons that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is a very good

    375
    performer. He usually puts on a good show, but as most of us who study these subjects know, it is mostly show. It is not very impressive stuff to those of us who follow it closely—and if public opinion polls are anything to go by, the British people are not very impressed by Labour's law and order programme.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made a strident attack on the Government's prison programme, but he hopes that everyone has forgotten that a Labour Government, with him as a member of the Cabinet, slashed the prison building programme, and did nothing to stop slopping out and other stinking aspects of the prison regime. The right hon. Gentleman was also scathing about the present crime figures, but hopes that everyone has forgotten that Labour backed the miners against the police during the miners' strike, thoroughly demoralised the police, and insulted the judges. Labour's incompetence in handling law and order matters was one of the prime reasons why the last Labour Government fell.
    The right hon. Gentleman totally ignores also a factor that any reasonable observer would concede. Given that there are now 16,000 more police officers and effectively 26,000 more on the beat, of course more offences will be detected. Given also that such a high proportion of the population have telephones, that the police are more caring in dealing with offences against women, that greater consideration is shown by the courts, and that women are encouraged to report domestic or other types of assault, of course crime figures will increase. Given that an individual cannot claim insurance unless he can prove to his insurance company that he reported the matter to the police, of course crime figures will rise. So was the right hon. Gentleman telling us the whole truth, or was he putting on an act? If public opinion polls on Labour's law and order policies are anything to go by, the country certainly knows the answer to that question.
    The right hon. Member jested about the prison mutiny Bill, saying that no prisoner would be deterred. We had a very good laugh. But if no one is ever deterred, why do we need criminal offences at all? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe at all in the power of deterrence? Does he think that it plays any part in the criminal system? This is the man who thinks that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is wrong, and ought not to be on the statute book. What credibility can there be fo r such a man, and such a party, on matters of law and order?
    The Gracious Speech addresses three particularly important aspects of law and order. It will be widely welcomed except,—of course, by Labour. First, it is clear that something must be done to limit the number of bogus asylum-seekers: those who are certainly not in any fear of prosecution, but who pretend to be in order to jump the immigration queue.
    How does the right hon. Gentleman explain to constituents who want their families to be brought into this country, as is their right under the immigration laws, but are held up by those who seek to jump the immigration queue? How, for that matter, does he explain to constituents who ask him why he has not helped them to obtain council housing that their problem is being caused by asylum-seekers whose aim is also to garner the advantages of a not ungenerous social security system?
    As the world explodes socially, and as masses of people migrate from country to country, we shall all have to man our defences; otherwise we shall be swamped by the sheer weight of numbers of people, of every colour, who will
    376
    enter our countries. Half a million applications for asylum are expected this year by the European Community. Last year, Germany received a quarter of a million such applications, and the number of applications received by our country has risen from between 3,000 and 4,000 to between 50,000 and 55,000 over the past two years.
    People have only to claim asylum; then they can lose themselves in the community for a year or two—or three—while their claims are thoroughly checked by efficient and committed immigration authorities. By that time, of course, it is too late to send them home. When they are found, it turns out that they have married, had children and done good works in the local church: in such circumstances, it is almost impossible to reject them. Moreover, three out of four do not land in Britain as terrified, impoverished, homeless outlaws; they arrive on ordinary visitors' permits, with no mention of fear of persecution, and refer to persecution only when their time as visitors runs out. It is therefore not surprising that, according to official estimates, 75 per cent. of such applicants are bogus.
    This great humanitarian nation will always offer sanctuary where it is needed, as it has always done in the past. Nevertheless, we got fed up with being taken for a ride by those who exploit our good nature. The proposals in the Bill will do something very sensible: they will speed up the decision process, promote greater efficiency and, by not raising false hopes, lessen distress for thousands of people.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: it would be ridiculous to have 30,000 lawyers paid out of the legal aid fund every time an appeal was made. Let me add, however, that if that system is not to prevail, we need to fund the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service—or some other independent advisory body—far more adequately. That must be done if the human rights of people with whom we are, of course, constantly concerned are to be protected properly.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, according to the official view, 75 per cent. of applications for asylum were bogus. I have heard no Home Office Minister say that. If it is true, why have 90 per cent. of those who have applied in previous years been allowed to stay?
    Mr. Lawrence: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is very difficult to send back a person who has been in this country for two, three or four years, and who has settled into a community. That would mean saying, "You must go back to a country with which your ties have been completely cut. You will distress your wife, your children and the rest of your family." Very few Home Secretaries, however hard-hearted, could face that. Very few could refrain from saying, "All right—on humanitarian grounds, we will allow you to stay." That is the simple explanation.
    Let me ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers it remotely likely that most of the people who come here not from the place of first asylum—and not proclaiming themselves to be in fear of persecution—but on a visitors' permit to study, can possibly and conceivably be in genuine fear of persecution on their return.
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take it from me that, whatever the reason for not sending back asylum-seekers, it is not the reluctance of the Home Office to send men out of this

    377
    country because they have lived here happily and peaceably for three or four years. I can provide him with long lists of people who had exactly that experience. The immigration rules are constantly interpreted in such a way that men and women who have been here for some years—overstayers—are sent back. Whatever the reason for the phenomenon, it is certainly not the one cited by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Lawrence: I do not accept that. In my experience in my constituency, more have been allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons than have been sent back; and people have been sent back only if those humanitarian reasons are not very strong.
    A few weeks ago, someone came into my surgery and said, "I am an overstayer: I suppose that I will have to be sent back." I said, "I think so." I arranged for him to go to the police station—as he was quite willing to do voluntarily—but he will become a statistic on the ground that he was sent back. As he had not settled here with a family, there was no humanitarian reason for him to be allowed to stay.
    Secondly, something must be done to prevent people from rioting in our prisons and walking out of them. The prison authorities seem to have had inadequate facilities, laws or organisation to stop the appalling troubles that occurred last year, when the Home Office was made to look a bit silly.
    Many years ago, I dealt with a case in which three prisoners climbed over the wall at Brixton prison. For many years, the wall was not raised to stop prisoners leaving, and since then others have done the same. Surely a prison service that does not improve its own perimeter security needs some attention.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Some years ago, a dear old lady knocked on the large gate at Lancaster castle and said, "Do you realise that there are sheets hanging out from the top floor of the prison, and two men have just shinned down them?" Lancaster is now secure, and it is an excellent gaol; but that shows that such escapes can easily happen.
    Mr. Lawrence: I know what is secure: the population of Lancaster, who live under the care and governance of my hon. Friend, who speaks for that city so frequently and well in the House.
    There was even talk in the newspapers of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary having to resign because people were walking out of prison. That, of course, was ridiculous; in other respects, my right hon. Friend has been a most effective Home Secretary. In any event, in this Bill he is taking the right action. The new offence of prison mutiny will carry a sentence that will make potential mutineers think twice—and their helpers, too. We always forget the helpers, but it is those who help who are often deterred by such sentences—even if the prisoner, in the heat of the moment, is not. The measure will be good for all of us: the taxpayer, the police, the prison officers and, in the long run, the prisoners themselves.
    Thirdly, for a long time action has been needed to deal with the unsatisfactory state of charities in Britain. More people would give to charity if they were confident that their money would go to the charity concerned. The Bill will reduce fraud by strengthening the powers of the
    378
    Charity Commission, and by improving the financial management of charities. It will also reduce the amount of money—a fair amount—lost to the Exchequer, because some organisations call themselves charities without doing much charitable work. Charities are very big businesses, involving £15 billion a year. It is in the interests of everyone, giver and receiver, that these businesses are more efficiently run.
    The so-called anti-joyriding Bill is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, but I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for making it clear that he intends to do something about it. If that is the criticism to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was alluding, I agree fully with him—that the Bill should not be called an anti joyriding Bill. It is not joy that is created when young people steal cars and kill other people. That is death riding. We ought to call it a death-riding Bill. Young people might then feel that it was less attractive to engage in such an appalling activity.
    There are many more law and order matters for which no time can be found before the election, so the Queen's Speech said nothing about them. However, I confidently expect that we shall have at least five more years after the next election to deal with some very difficult problems. We shall have to think less about a larger police force and more about a more efficient police force—better managed, better trained and better organised. The report of the independent Police Complaints Commission, submitted last week to the Home Secretary, about the West Midlands police authority makes dismal reading. Something will have to be done about such management.
    Our prisons need to be made more efficient, healthy and cost-effective. That embraces not just the privatisation of prison escort services, which is cheaper and takes some of the burden off the hard-pressed prison service, but the privatisation of prison buildings. There are excellent examples of that working well in the United States, of which we ought to take cognisance.
    There ought also to be an expansion of the pilot scheme for privatising remand prison centres. Remand centres cause the most severe pressures on the prison service. There is not the slightest reason why those who have not yet been convicted of any crime should not be housed in privately run, decent, modern and healthy prisons. There would be less justification for letting persistent offenders out on bail to offend again while on bail—a considerable problem now—if there were more decent places to which to send them, whether private remand centres or private bail hostels.
    Finally—only because this has to be a short speech—something has to be done about the appalling miscarriages of justice which seem to be coming to light on an almost weekly basis. Why do they occur? Usually because police officers lie, or forensic scientists come to false conclusions, or eye witnesses make mistaken identifications, or vital witnesses are not available or are not called or make a mess of their evidence at the trial. To prevent future miscarriages of justice, an end would have to be put, as far as possible, to such occurrences.
    How do we do that? Human nature being what it is, it will probably be impossible to stop some police officers inventing confessions, or planting incriminating evidence when they believe the suspect to be guilty but have insufficient honest evidence to put before the jury.
    The opportunity for wrongdoing has been greatly reduced since the 1970s, when most of these miscarriages

    379
    of justice took place. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is now on the statute book. It lays down strict criteria for the production of police evidence and for the protection of suspects, breaches of which are liable to ensure the exclusion of their evidence. The new technology can detect dishonest note-taking. Above all, interviews with suspects are tape-recorded, which makes it almost impossible for the police to invent confessions at the police station. Eye-witness errors are being guarded against by newer and stronger warnings to juries to require the most stringent proof of identification. The DNA technology, coupled with improvements in the quality and availability of forensic services, should further help to reduce what are, after all, human errors.
    A new, practical postgraduate vocational course for training barristers is in operation now, to help to sharpen the cross-examination weapon, one of the best yet devised for protecting the innocent. If a jury mistakenly convicts, despite these improvements, the matter goes to the Court of Appeal, which has the power to quash a conviction or order a re-trial. Those powers, which are very limited, have not been fully exercised in recent years, and they ought to be. A new look is being taken at the extent of the Court of Appeal's powers.
    Once an appeal has been considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal, the next stage for correcting mistakes of fact lies with the Home Secretary. The process by which he refers cases back to the Court of Appeal gives people the wholly wrong idea that political considerations may enter into the matter. It would therefore be much better if the power to make reference back were handed to a small "ombudsbody" of former judges who understand the legal rules, perhaps supplemented by non-lawyers. That body would need resources to enable the investigation of matters which might change the picture earlier presented to the courts.
    If, in addition, the Court of Appeal could overcome its reluctance to interfere with the jury's verdict on principle, the chances of perpetuating any miscarriages of justice that might have slipped through the new, improved safety network would be much reduced and public confidence restored.
    The conviction of the innocent is only one kind of miscarriage of justice. The other is when the guilty are acquitted. While media attention has focused on the conviction of the innocent, we shall all be just as concerned about the acquittal of the guilty. The guilty, when set free, often commit more crimes.
    At first sight, it looks as though the inquisitorial system on the continent would be very much worse than the adversarial system that we have here. These matters are being looked at by the Runciman royal commission. Even now it is applying its mind to the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the two systems. I hope that it will make more proposals that lead to the avoidance or the reduction of both kinds of miscarriage of justice.
    It was unfair of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to complain that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said nothing about these matters. Although the Conservative party would have loved to come forward with proposals on the miscarriage of justice—it would have been an excellent part of our programme in the forthcoming election manifesto—most responsibly my right hon. Friend took the only proper course: to refer all
    380
    these matters to the Runciman royal commission. When it reports, we shall then, in an objective and independent frame of mind, be able to proceed much more sensibly.
    When we do, we shall have to address all the problems that the report reveals and the ways in which to deal with them, in the next Parliament. I hope that we shall be able to do so in such a way that public confidence is restored in our criminal justice system—which, I am sorry to say, has received a bit of a knock in recent years. That was not the Government's fault. The occasion for many of those knocks occurred before this Government came to power. It is only under this Government that those miscarriages of justice have come to light, and they have been properly dealt with.
    6.37 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having been given the opportunity to take part in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) gave us the benefit of his legal experience. I pay tribute to the Home Office for the way in which it dealt with immigrants who came to Northern Ireland. According to my understanding and knowledge, those who were sent back were those who had avoided the due process of immigration and had kept others out. I pay tribute to the fairness of the Home Office in dealing with the cases that have come to my attention.
    The right hon.Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has left the Chamber, seemed to be aspiring to be the next Home Secretary, but he appears to have forgotten that there is a land frontier between the United Kingdom and another nation. Some of those who travelled across that frontier were illegal immigrants. The right hon. Gentleman served as a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, but his knowledge of what goes on in Northern Ireland is rather strange. He refused to give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). I was utterly amazed to discover that the right hon. Gentleman thought that the hon. Member for North Down did not want devolution.
    I agree with what was said about joyriding. We do not have "joyriding" in Northern Ireland; rather death, destruction and tragedy are the result of young folk indulging in the habit of taking other people's vehicles and running around in them for all sorts of purposes.
    I must put on record again in the House the fact that, although the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has granted the UDR Four the right of appeal, it would appear that the Crown solicitor is still withholding information from the defence. Apparently, the Crown is not required by law to provide such information. That is a miscarriage of justice. Four people, having served their community, have been confined for some seven years and now find that their right of appeal is being hindered by some legal technicality or misinterpretation of the law.
    I suspect that tensions concerning rights, freedoms and responsibilities have been with us since the earliest days of humanity. The Old Testament has enshrined rights and responsibilities. The apostle Paul in I Corinthians 9 said, "Have we no rights?" He was prepared to forgo some of his rights, but I contend that the state is required to defend those rights for the benefit of its citizens.
    I welcome the concept of a new charter of rights. Reference has been made today to the rights of victims. I should like to think that such rights will be dealt with

    381
    speedily. Tragically, from experience, I have discovered that Government Departments have not been speedy in dealing with the rights of victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I suspect that higher amounts of compensation have been paid to those who have been allegedly ill-treated by the state than to the victims of terrorism in the Province.
    The idea of patients' rights sounds excellent but, having read the press and listened to what is going on, I suspect that the idea promises much but will deliver little. There are already signs that the rights are to be so qualified as to become ineffective. For example, it is said that no one should be on a waiting list for longer than two years. However, the little word "normally" is slipped in, so that it can be argued that there are extenuating circumstances. The "Yes, Prime Minister" syndrome seems to be working in Government Departments.
    Seven years ago, while I was visiting Togo, the chief of Porto Seguro proudly showed me a walking stick presented to his ancestor by Queen Victoria to mark the emancipation of slaves in 1832. Some think that the abolition of slavery occurred in 1807. That might have been so in this nation, but it was not the case throughout the empire. Even in 1832, slavery was abolished only within the old empire. It was as late as 1970 that Muscat and Oman abolished slavery.
    Amidst the challenges of human rights, including hunger in 1991, slavery remains, in the opinion of many, the single biggest human rights issue. When people in this nation argue against a minimum wage policy, it would be salutary for them to remember that there are hundreds of domestic slaves in this country who are grossly underpaid. Child prostitution flourishes in the world, involving an estimated 5 million children. At a recent anti-slavery function, it was revealed that there are some 50 million bonded labourers, many in India and Pakistan. Such issues should concern the House and its Members when we are talking about rights, responsibilities and freedoms.
    We should stress responsibilities. One person's meat may be another person's poison. For example, we have been thankful for the improvement in the quality of our air with the development of clean air zones, but we must not be complacent. Many still claim the right to indulge in smoking, but they have a responsibility to care for those who may suffer from respiratory conditions. Secondary smoking has become one of the nation's killers. Now, faced with the curbs on tobacco advertising suggested by the European Commission, the tobacco barons and their advertising colleagues are striking back. They do so all in the name of freedom.
    Life is more precious than profits, and the right to life is the most precious of all rights. I speak as a representative who came into the House as a result of the murder just 10 years ago of the then Member for Belfast, South. Thousands have been denied the right to life in Northern Ireland and Great Britain as a result of a body of dedicated terrorists seeking to impose their will upon the nation. It is long since past the time when Her Majesty's Government should take political and security decisions that would deny success to terrorists.
    The visitors from the media who make great play on occasional visits to Northern Ireland about so-called human rights abuses would serve humankind better by
    382
    dealing with those who trade in human life—our greatest right. I know that the House is aware of the monstrous depravity manifested in my constituency on Saturday when a hospital was attacked by those who, through their elected spokesman in west Belfast, complain bitterly about so-called cuts in the health service. They have now left a hospital needing to be replaced as well as depriving people of their lives. The damnable hypocrisy of such people should be exposed by the media instead of spending time trying to blackball the upholders of law and order in the security sevices in Northern Ireland.
    The House has applauded the spread of democracy in eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and even China and Africa, yet the United Kingdom Parliament continues to enforce upon the people of Northern Ireland bureaucratic and unaccountable government. Some 148 unelected and unrepresentative quangos spend £1·5 billion of the nation's money. The Leader of the House continues to thwart the will of the people and the recommendation of the Procedure Committee by refusing to bring to the Floor of the House a motion to set up a Select Committee for Northern Ireland.
    I do not pretend that that would solve all our ills, but, I argue for the right of Northern Ireland to be governed as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and for its Members of Parliament to be given a proper role in scrutinising the Northern Ireland office. I know that there are some in the House who say that, if we take part in more debates, we may have a greater impact. I have often sat here with colleagues trying to participate in major debates, and I know of the difficulty and despair as we are called back by the Northern Ireland Office and others to deal with issues that should be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
    I recognise that there are some Northern Ireland Members who do not often grace the House with their presence. They have been arguing over the weekend that we should not have a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that it was no substitute for devolved government. I admit that more needs to be done to restore accountable democracy to Northern Ireland, but a Select Committee would be a welcome move in the right direction.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East does not attend as regularly as he might. He may prefer to be a big fish in a small pool, but I believe that he and others could be more involved if they were given a role in this place.
    In a recent broadcast, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) showed lamentable ignorance of the process of Select Committees. He said that a Northern Ireland Select Committee would be out of sight, out of mind, and that issues would be debated upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House. He overlooked the fact that the Defence, Home Affairs and Health Select Committees are sitting. Their fine work means that hon. Members in the Chamber are better informed to fulfil their role of scrutinising the Government.
    It is a shame and tragedy that there is no Northern Ireland Select Committee and that the Northern Ireland Office has run its own empire irrespective of the views of hon. Members. When will Bills such as those in the Gracious Speech be applied to Northern Ireland other than by an Order in Council, which does not allow us to debate and amend the legislation?

    383
    Select Committees play a pivotal role in modern Westminster practice. It is time that the Northern Ireland Office was similarly scrutinised.
    6.51 pm
    Mr. Michael Stern: With the exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth), the debate has concentrated on the rights, duties and responsibilities of the Home Office. I should like to consider other aspects of that theme that are affected by the Gracious Speech.
    First, and perhaps foremost, is the concept of the extension of rights and freedoms under the citizens charter, to which the House will return time and again. At this stage, I wish only to commend to the House the new approach to the enshrining of individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms by that mechanism.
    I should like to concentrate on a matter that has not been mentioned, but where the rights and freedoms of individuals are as much affected as they ever were by changes affecting law and order and the Home Office. The Gracious Speech refers to a Bill that will radically transform planning procedures. I should like to use an example in my constituency to show how individual rights can be drastically altered and individual freedoms drastically curtailed without some of the processes being observed.
    Last year, the Civil Aviation Authority advised the Secretary of State for Transport that an extra runway would be needed to serve the south-east—I emphasise "the south-east"—by the year 2005. One of the 10 options identified by the CAA was to use about half the runway capacity at Filton. By no stretch of the imagination can Filton be considered part of the south-east.
    More than 40 years ago, Filton was considered for development as a commercial airport, but it was decided that the airport for the region—not the south-east—should be Bristol Lulsgate, which I am told by its management is still capable of considerable development. Forty years later, that decision, which drastically affects virtually everyone living in the region, is being reconsidered not because of any sudden growth in unsatisfied demand for air traffic to the Bristol region but simply because London and the south-east are not prepared to accept the traffic consequences of the airline movements that that region generates.
    In the intervening 40 years, traffic patterns have adapted to prevailing airport space. Housing has been built around Filton to an extent and density that, on its own, would prove a barrier to airport development anywhere else in the world. The environment of the Severnside region has begun to be valued at its true worth, and the consequences to public health and living standards close to a major airport are beginning to be better understood.
    When we consider the effects on the environment, which can only be considered under the heading of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, the answer to the noise of a major civil airport is not just double glazing—people appreciate the opportunity to sit in their own gardens. The so-called new quieter jets are by no means quiet if one's home is at either end of the runway. It is noticeable that, when one of the rare military aircraft lands at Filton, all work in neighbouring schools has to stop.
    384
    The Severn estuary is regarded in Britain and Europe as a major area of environmental excellence that requires protection. The right to enjoy the environment is an aspect of individual rights and freedoms that is only beginning to be explored, not only in this country but in the rest of the world. Yet that environment would be within the pollution footprint of a commercial airport at Filton.
    If the airstrip at Filton did not exist, there would be no question of building it in the heart of the green belt, yet without any let or hindrance it is open to a Department to identify that airstrip as an area that is capable of producing untold misery for many thousands of people. Nowhere else in the world would housing development of the nature and extent that has taken place around Filton be permitted so close to a commercial airport. It has been reliably estimated that 25,000 houses would be directly affected by such an airport.
    It can be argued that the planning process, even as it is proposed to be amended, is capable of dealing with such objections, but I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is not sufficient. A committee called RUCATSE—Runway Capacity To Serve the South-East—is eliminating nine out of 10 proposed airfields for the south-east of England. It will eventually make one or, at most, two proposals, and only then will my constituents have an opportunity to argue why their lives should not be disrupted, why their property should not be damaged and why their environment should not be made considerably worse by a planning process that will already have largely decided the issue by the decision to limit the consideration to one or at most two major places. It would not be so bad if the region I represent were to benefit from these proposals, but their purpose is to eliminate traffic congestion in a different part of the country.
    I suggest—this is my reason for raising the issue under such a broad heading as rights, freedoms and responsibilities—that the actions of Government, which are under consideration in the form of the citizens charter and the various other charters that will emerge, need to address the extent to which people may be adversely affected by governmental decisions that are not open to public discussion from day one.
    The reference in the Gracious Speech to accessibility to planning decisions, moving away from the non-consideration that frequently applies in dealing with private Bills to more matters being considered by local inquiries, is a major advance which is to be commended. Under the considerations that lead us to debate today the rights and freedoms that will be established by the citizens charter, we need also to consider how we can develop those rights and freedoms much earlier in the planning process.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that, between now and 9 o'clock, speeches must not exceed 10 minutes.
    7.1 pm
    Mr. David Young: I watched the Home Secretary on television addressing the captive audience of the Conservative party conference on the subject of joyriding. That tough speech was perhaps only equalled by the deafening silence in the Queen's Speech on that subject. "Joyrider" is just a euphemism for a potential killer in a car. Between 1 September and 30 October, 12

    385
    youngsters died because of joyriding—some were the children slaughtered in Liverpool, some were the people who had stolen a vehicle.
    Car theft is not a new phenomenon. Some of the causes are the social deprivation and hopeless unemployment resulting from the Government's policies. That must be set against the concepts laid down by the Government—that the main thing in life is instant material satisfaction and that an individual should seek his own advancement, no matter what the cost to the community and to ordinary people. The real casualties of joyriding are people in the community: the law-abiding citizen whose vehicle is misappropriated; the nurse who comes off a late shift to find her vehicle gone; the disabled person whose car is stolen or vandalised; the lad who is trying to hold on to a job with unsocial hours, having experienced years of unemployment, and who finds his means of transport taken; and the member of a family who is slain because of joyriding.
    Yesterday, I sought information from the senior police officer covering Bolton. In 1990, 3,235 cars were stolen compared with 3,764 in 1991—an increase of 16·4 per cent. The detection rate was 26·4 per cent. in 1990 and 37·2 per cent in 1991—an increase of 10·8 per cent. Even on those figures, the criminals are showing a comfortable dividend.
    When I talked to the police, they said that their problem was not detection but the person who repeatedly offends while on bail or the person who has been caught and let off and who reoffends—the habitual offender. Each of the nearly 4,000 cars that are stolen represents a personal tragedy in one way or another, either to the family who own the car or to the families of those who are killed. It is about time that we gave some thought to the victims in my constituency who suffer because of joyriding.
    I ask for a credible and effective deterrent. I am in favour of rehabilitation, but there must be custody for someone who reoffends. That is better than having children slaughtered in the streets by a high-powered vehicle that is out of control. The real casualties are my constituents, many of whom are not well off. They abide by the law, but their vehicles may be misappropriated or damaged.
    Now I turn to the Asylum Bill. No one argues that there is not a problem because of the number of alleged refugees, but I quarrel with the Government's plan to remove legal aid. It may be that a lawyer cannot represent someone during an immigration appeal, but it is a poor immigration appeal if a case is not prepared properly. Legal advice is a key factor in providing justice.
    I come from the area where a high proportion of the population orginally came from overseas. I am well aware of the excellent job done by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, but it is neither geographically placed—it has no office in my constituency—nor legally resourced to advise on or to prepare cases. The removal of the right to legal representation—which is what happens if legal aid is abolished—will prejudice not the person who tries, without justification, to get into this country but the person who needs to do so for the sake of his and his family's safety. A law on such terms will not be in favour of better immigration procedures but will be a blow against democracy and for those repressive Governments who make people flee for their lives.
    386
    I find it difficult to understand that in this country, the mother of democracy, we should take rights from genuine refugees in the hope of providing a fast track to get rid of people who wish to come here for safety. This approach is no help to me in a community which for a long time has successfully sought to build a multiracial society. Whatever one may say, those most affected by this proposed legislation will come from the non-white races, and that lesson will go home to every multiracial community as discriminatory.
    I also find it reprehensible that we are using the airlines to do the job of the immigration service. People who work abroad for the airlines are trained to deal with tickets; they are not trained to survey immigration documents. By introducing the change, the Government are doing no favours either to the airlines or to the passengers, the cost of whose tickets will increase. More than that, the Government are doing no service to the legitimate refugee who may find that he is deprived of his life or his future because, in the interests of no longer interviewing people properly, he is refused at the point of entry. For all those considerations, I ask that the proposal be reconsidered.
    Many of us come from constituencies like Bolton, that have successful multiracial societies. When the subject of immigration is emotively raised, it appears that the intention is to target those who come from the third world and from nations whose skin colour is different from ours.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. James Hill: I will concentrate on one or two local matters which fit in neatly with the debate. In the Gracious Speech, the Queen said:
    "My Government will continue their fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. They will vigorously pursue their policies to combat drug trafficking and misuse of drugs, nationally and internationally."
    I have been sounding out the Government on the idea of introducing legislation to isolate solvent abuse and glue sniffing. These days, there are many other substances that youngsters can sniff and with which they can kill themselves, not realising the great danger. A doctor who is as concerned as I am about the problem said that such youngsters virtually drown in their own blood because they destroy the tissues in their lungs. There is a terrible second danger, because the youngsters may destroy their thinking capabilities—their brain cells—and they will be reduced to vegetables.
    I have said that the problem should be put on a higher plane even than smoking. We had a very able private Member's Bill in the previous Session which sought to prevent tobacconists from selling tobacco substances to youngsters under the age of 16. It is pretty easy to identify cigarettes and it is pretty easy to put up warning notices in tobacconists' shops. It is pretty easy to make tobacconists answerable in terms of their scrutiny of various customers. The Bill was excellent and went through with all-party support.
    I propose an even more serious Bill. In a hardware shop there may be 20 or 30 different canisters that can kill. There is no real warning on the cans. They must be marked with an easily identifiable emblem, whether a skull and crossbones or red for danger all over the can. The cans must be isolated from the normal shelves. The person in the shop must identify the need for the substance. If a youngster wants three or four tins of a substance, the proprietor should be on the alert. Perhaps the Government

    387
    will take up that proposal, or if any hon. Members are lucky in the private Members' ballot, they may take it up. If I were lucky, that is what I would do.
    My second point does not concern joy and death riding, although I realise that it is a terrible new sport. In the vast estates in my constituency, I have been trying to combat gang warfare. There are gangs of youths who terrify all. I do not want to overstate the problem, but I have been informed that they have been able on several occasions to smash a supermarket that was kept open to 9 pm for the convenience of the shoppers in the area. I made a call on the supermarket last week. It now closes at 6 pm and there was no one in the supermarket except a cashier who looked—and I hope that I am not doing her an injustice—terrified. The gang has made a whole row of shops there put up steel shutters and it is destroying an excellent facility.
    A Mr. Sheath, whose name appeared on the front page of my local newspaper, was terrorised by a gang when his car was smashed and windows were smashed. He called the police and the police did what they could, but they do not have the numbers to organise constant surveillance during the hours of darkness. We all know how difficult estates are in the summer when the children are off school, but they are even worse in the winter when the children gather. We all know of children's playgrounds that have been ripped apart. We all know of gangs gathering round the homes of old-age pensioners. We know that when we are canvassing it is a litte difficult to get people to come to the door at night, not because they are terrified of us, but because they are terrified of coming to the door. I had to make that point clear. Some people, certainly the elderly, live in great terror in certain parts of our cities.
    I was heartened when the Home Secretary said a t the conference that he would provide another 1,000 police. I said in an open letter to my local paper that in Southampton, we should have 250 more. Normally we apply through the Hampshire chief constable for about 50 and generally, after a Solomon-like decision, we get half that number.
    The crucial point that I am trying to make is that such youngsters must be apprehended and must be dealt with by sentencing and not by bail. The overstretched social services, the probation service, the police, the parents who cannot control some of those youngsters, the teachers in the schools and everyone, including the Member of Parliament and the councillors, must work together to find a solution, otherwise some of the estates could become no-go areas in which the old get out during daylight and everyone gets back home before dark. There must be a firm process of law and order.
    I was rather dismayed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), although I realise that he has to face several ways on these emotive issues. He seemed to have a namby-pamby and softly, softly approach to the necessary law and order. We cannot allow our citizens to be persecuted after dark, and a firm Home Secretary has to make the right decisions and fight his corner with the Treasury.
    We are told that there will be a new penalty of six months to two year. I hope that it is not bail, bail, bail and then perhaps six months and then perhaps two years. All hon. Members are conscious of the fact that criminals are getting younger. Some of the children's courts do not
    388
    know how to deal with them. At the end of the day they go on bail and, unfortunately, they go on to commit exactly the same crime.
    It should be much more difficult to get into cars and more alarm systems must be fitted. If one pays the price for an expensive car, it must have the best security that the manufacturer can fit. If insurance companies grade their insurance policies according to a car's security system, I am sure that motor manufacturers will seek to introduce better systems. I visted the motor show at Earl's Court the other day as a guest of the Association of British Insurers. That association now offers a vast number of insurance bands—about 14—and some will offer cheaper insurance if one's car is less likely to be damaged because of suitable security.
    I am keeping my eye on the clock and I believe that I have about three or four minutes left.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has six seconds.
    Mr. Hill: I just want to say a few words about the Asylum Bill. That legislation had to come. We all know that more and more refugees of whatever category will come to Europe. We must have a structure to enable those refugees to be given a fair hearing. That structure should not allow economic refugees——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
    7.21 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Among the rights that it is important to debate in the Chamber, perhaps the democratic rights of the citizen are among the most important.
    Many observers of the debate will find it strange that it has been devised that, as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats on Home Office affairs, I am entitled to speak for 10 minutes only in a debate lasting the whole day. That is a reflection on the failure of the procedures of House of Commons to recognise the strength and support that the party to which I have the honour to belong enjoys in the country. I hope that they will be amended soon and in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure.
    It cannot be said that we live in a democracy simply because an Act of Parliament prescribes from time to time that the Prime Minister must call an election. The art of governing in a democracy involves listening. Democracy is a dialogue, not a series of barked commands issued from time to time by the Government and ended only by changing the tenant at No. 10 Downing street.
    Most of the failures of the Government, and theree are many, can be traced directly to their unwillingness to listen. The centrepiece of the Gracious Speech, the introduction of a new local government tax, would have been wholly unnecessary if the Government had listened to the case against the poll tax. The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) would not be looking for new ways in which to give London a voice if he had listened to the clear voice of Londoners who opposed the abolition of London government in 1986. Today, Ministers might not be crying foul at those who question their commitment to the national health service if they had listened to the outcry, even from their own Back Benchers, against the introduction of charging for eye tests.

    389
    I ask Conservative Members to recall that it was Edmund Burke, one of their heroes, who said:
    "In my causes I have known and, according to my measure, have co-operated with great men; and I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations of those who are much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business."
    The Home Secretary stands head and shoulders above his colleagues as the Minister who does not listen. He is the Minister who did not listen to Judge Tumin who warned that Brixton could not safely contain high-security prisoners. He was the Minister who turned a deaf ear to the High Court, when it had forbidden the deportation of a refugee from Zaire, and prayed in aid sovereign immunity. He is the Minister who has announced that he will withdraw legal aid from asylum seekers in this country. In response to my intervention, he made it clear that he has no intention of listening to the Commission for Racial Equality, which has pointed out that that proposal contravenes the Race Relations Act 1976.
    We shall have other occasions on which to debate the Asylum Bill at length and I hope that I will not be so confined in my remarks on that occasion as I must necessarily be today. The Bill is deplorable and disreputable and it will almost certainly cause us to be dragged before the European Court of Human Rights. It is certainly a violation of our international obligations under the United Nations convention of 1951. It denies asylum seekers the proper right to be heard and have their cases duly considered. The Bill will rob them of the right to independent legal representation, which is a grave injustice.
    The other matters with a Home Office content referred to in the Queen's Speech are minor compared to what might have been included. The proposal on prison escapes is simply a smokescreen to cover the Home Secretary's negligence in the Brixton case. Violent prisoners are, of course, already subject to the full rigours of the law. The Home Secretary, by introducing such legislation in the dying days of the Government, is simply misguidedly diverting attention from the inadequacy of his response to the Woolf committee's programme for prison reform.
    In the few weeks before the Maastricht conference, I ask the Home Secretary to raise with his colleagues the possibility of strengthening our protection against racial discrimination in this country by seeking an amendment to the treaty of Rome that would state clearly the Community's competence to legislate against such discrimination.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to seek to protect our citizens who live abroad within the Community by calling for a directive that will outline measures to combat racial discrimination. I ask him to support freedom of movement within the Community for all permanently settled third-country nationals, giving them the same rights as EC nationals with regards to employment, establishment and family unity.
    The time has come for the Home Secretary to recognise that our citizens' rights are bound up with those who live in other parts of the EC. Some other countries that have not legislated on this matter should do so. Unless there is such legislation—I believe that it should result from an initiative of the Community—citizens will not enjoy the protection to which they are entitled.
    390
    It is not only the Home Secretary who is responsible for the rights or the abridgement of rights that the Government have perpetrated during their term. The Foreign Secretary, in his discussions with China, has abandoned the provisions of the joint Sino-British declaration of 1984 that guaranteed that judges from overseas jurisdiction could be appointed to the Court of Final Appeal. That international obligation, enshirined in the Basic Law, has been abridged by an agreement announced on 27 September. That agreement will curtail the right to appoint foreign judges, so our citizens in Hong Kong wil be exposed to the whim of the Beijing Government in the Court of Final Appeal, notwithstanding the Government's alleged support of human rights in that colony.
    Other Ministers have also opposed the protections available under the law. The Secretary of State for Employment is currently seeking to oppose the Equal Opportunities Commission, which is seeking to protect women's rights as part-time employed people. The Minister is relentlessly pursuing through the courts the idea that equal opportunities legislation, although it is, by the admission of British judges, discriminatory, should not apply to part-time women workers.
    The Government have an appalling record on rights. I wish that it could be said that we could look to the alternative, to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), with any degree of optimism, in the hope that he would show himself more sensitive to these matters. But he reaffirmed his position in an extraordinary article in this week's New Statesman and Society—that the adoption of a Bill of Rights with enforceable protections in our courts was to be postponed beyond the achievement of a socialist utopia. If he were at the levers of power he would be no more sensitive than a Conservative Minister. It was noticeable today that he would not answer the question about carriers' liability, although he was pressed to do so. The House will have drawn the conclusion that he has every intention of keeping the obnoxious legislation in place and using carriers as immigration officers. Had it not been so, he would have taken the opportunity to deny it.
    Until the House is prepared to adopt as superior law fundamental rights against which we can strike down legislation that curtails the freedoms and rights of citizens, we shall fail in our obligation to protect the citizens of this country.
    7.31 pm
    Mr. Iain Mills: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke of dying stages. If he wants to play undertaker, I suggest that he looks at the ashes of his own party, not at the vigorous programme proposed in the Queen's Speech. We look forward eagerly to many months of debates in Committee on some of these important measures.
    Mr. James Wallace: Can the hon. Gentleman say that with a straight face?
    Mr. Mills: Absolutely. I still look forward to it after 12 years. I quite enjoy Standing Committees and discussions with the statutory Liberal Democrat spokesman, who rarely appears—but we are kind to him when he does.
    The Queen's Speech introduced several important measures. I fought in the early 1980s with my right hon.

    391
    Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) on trade union legislation, and the right not to strike and the new legislation that we propose are vital.
    We have increased police establishments. There are arguments over resources, but efficient police authorities can cope. The West Midlands authority will cope, having achieved much through civilianisation and putting more policemen on the beat.
    The right hon.Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talked about devolution and constitutional reform. His party apparently wants us in a federal Europe with a centralised bureaucracy under which we would be dictated to by non-elected people in Brussels. Yet the right hon. Gentleman talks about devolving power to Scotland, Wales and the English regions. That is illogical. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, will ask her right hon. Friend to comment on that lack of logic when he returns. It defies logic to want devolution in this country and centralisation in a federal Europe.
    Halloween has just taken place. Perhaps, in a Home Office debate, we should consider it for the future, especially the trick or treat phenomenon. I do not believe that this is a Government problem, but it is one with which communities are having to deal. On Saturday morning constituents came to my advice bureau telling me that pensioners in bungalows in Chiswick Green had bricks hurled through their windows—presumably that was the trick because the pensioners had not given a treat. Other pensioners in my usually well-behaved constituency had eggs thrown at them.
    I cannot propose any real solutions yet. Perhaps there should be more national publicity warning older people in sheltered accommodation that young people who knock on their doors may cause them some harm. Perhaps greater parental control is the answer. Why are these young people out at that time of night indulging in these tricks?
    I represent an area that includes the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international station. All three have the biggest car parks in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe, and they are filled with luxury cars that are vulnerable, due to their design, to what my hon. and learned Friend the member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and I agree are death riders.
    Luxury cars in these huge car parks near the M6 are vulnerable targets. The thieves deliberately choose the highest-powered models and spray slogans on the back, such as "Chase me, Charlie", to get the police involved. They then go up to another part of my constituency, Chelmsley Wood or Castle Bromwich, where there are many walkways. There they perform high-speed runs. There has been one fatal accident and there have been many other serious ones. The death riders go to the end of the walkways, stop and run off. It is extremely difficult for the police to chase them without going in for the same sort of speeding. The fantastic Ford Cosworth and the BMW 7 series are the favourite models to steal, and the police have no chance of keeping up unless they too indulge in dangerous driving.
    I seek an assurance from the Minister that the penalties that we shall propose against this vicious and dangerous crime will be severe so that they act as a deterrent. Solihull and Birmingham magistrates have told me of their
    392
    frustration when prosecuting these young offenders because of the difficulties of imposing stiff enough penalties under current legislation.
    Earlier this year, I tabled a parliamentary question, to which the Minister replied that the Home Office had no plans at present to increase the maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment for taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. He said that, when those who have taken a car are convicted of reckless driving, they are liable to as much as two years' imprisonment, or five years if they have caused a death. What are the Government's intentions? I was worrried about their absence from the Queen's Speech, but I am delighted to have confirmation from many sources that the Government are to introduce a severe penalty.
    Like most Conservative Members, I have been a committed European. What concerns me is that the removal of "Economic" from the title European Economic Community and the apparent delight on the part of Monsieur Delors and others at that fact both have a real impact on the affairs that we are discussing tonight.
    I am worried about the effect of a federal Europe on our home affairs policies. I am speaking not just about immigration but about many other issues of policy. The Bill fairly to assess refugees who seek asylum is wholly justified. How would a federal Europe encompassing foreign and defence policy without NATO and the Americans allow us to provide for the protection of our people and formulate domestic policy on rights, freedoms and responsibilities? Are those things to be negated by means of a great bureaucratic dream of a socialist republic?
    We must maintain our national sovereignty on all key issues. Before the referendum on Europe, I worked to make sure of an economic Community. Why have we left the single market and the economic Community apparently to seek what eastern European countries are now rejecting—central bureaucratic control? They are rejecting that with joy and moving towards freedom and individuality—which raises the question of access to a totally federal Europe of people from other European Countries.
    7.41 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to discuss rights, and stress that the one about which I am most concerned is the right of my constituents not to have their lives marred by crime. Britain needs more police. My constituency certainly needs more. Yesterday, I went to see the newly appointed chief constable of Greater Manchester to plead with him to provide more police in my constituency. Of course he would love to be able to provide more police in my constituency and in the rest of Greater Manchester, but that cannot be done because of the Government's failure to provide money to increase establishment.
    I was delighted to hear that tomorrow's financial statement will propose money for an extra 1,000 police. I hope that that is true. Although 1,000 extra police sounds impressive, Greater Manchester would get about 50. When that number is divided among all the areas of Greater Manchester, my constituency might receive one extra policeman for three or four days a week.
    I do not want to dwell too long on resources. The Government could have done much to improve rights at

    393
    no cost. We are all proud of the fact that we live in a democracy, but we cannot call it a genuine democracy if we deny people the information that they require to make decisions. It is tragic that the Queen's Speech contains no proposals for a freedom of information Act. Democracy is about much more than elections and votes. It is about having informed debate and, where possible, reaching consensus. There is not much point in asking people to vote every four of five years for a man in a grey suit or a dark suit, for someone with or without hair or for someone wearing a rose or a primrose. We must give them the information on which to base a decision. We will not have genuine democracy until we have a freedom of information Act.
    I have often argued that it would be dangerous for the House to support a Bill of Rights which merely transferred power from Parliament to unelected judges. However, we are now in difficulties because we have signed the European convention on human rights, which means that we have a second-hand Bill of Rights providing very slow justice. That is unsatisfactory. We must search for a way to produce an effective Bill. I welcome the fact that the National Council for Civil Liberties has advanced a peoples charter with mechanisms which do not remove the sovereignty of Parliament but nevertheless try to enshrine rights. I hope that my hon. Friends will look carefully at those proposals.
    The Data Protection Registrar deals with computer records, but it is a scandal that there is no system to control paper records. The police national computer No. 2 was brought into operation in the autumn without checks or safeguards. In 1978, the Lindop committee said that a national computer system for police records would have to separate factual information from criminal information and supposition. That has not happened and the Home Office does not seem to think that there is a problem. There is a major problem because, if there are 40 million records on the police national computer, it is high time we had a proper mechanism to control it and to allow people access to it. After the activities of the West Midlands serious crimes squad, it is essential to have proper safeguards for confessions on which people are convicted.
    I shall now return to the subject of policing in Greater Manchester. The Minister of State, Home Office has not been particularly fair to the House in her answers to questions about what has happened in the aftermath of Strangeways. As she knows, I have tabled many questions and I have had an Adjournment debate. I received repeated assurances from Ministers that they are dealing with Greater Manchester's problems about looking after prisoners. The situation is now worse than it was immediately after the Strangeways riot. There are now 760 prisoners from Greater Manchester in police cells. Only 300 of them are in Manchester police cells; the other 460 are scattered around the country. Eighteen police forces now hold prisoners who would normally be in prison.
    The Minister has been to Greater Manchester and knows that some of the cells in which people are being held are totally inadequate and unsatisfactory. That has been going on for 18 months and I understand that it has cost the Home Office £27 million. Probation reports cannot be prepared and solicitors cannot see prisoners effectively
    394
    when they are being held in police cells. The system is unfair to the prisoners and their families. Some convicted prisoners have served the whole of their sentence in a police cell. That cannot continue. Although the Home Secretary addressed the issue when I intervened, he has not come up with a satisfactory solution.
    Strangeways has created another problem for Manchester police. A substantial number of officers have spent the past 18 months interviewing prisoners and collecting statements. Soon they will have to appear in court and present their evidence. That work means that those officers have not been on the beat in my constituency and in other Greater Manchester constituencies dealing with crime. The Government should have provided extra resources to take account of that.
    I shall now deal with car thefts—so-called joyriding. I welcome what Stockport police and others have accomplished through vehicle watch. Perhaps they could take the scheme a little further and consider having three number plates on cars. The additional one would contain a vehicle watch number and it would be removed by the owner when he leaves the vehicle. The car thief would then have the problem of having to provide a third number plate. It might not stop sophisticated criminals, but it would certainly stop many kids who are tempted to take cars.
    I urge the Government to be careful and not to rush through a joyriding Bill. Their rushed legislation on dogs turned out to be worthless. It has involved the police in much more administration and has given little benefit.
    Policemen in Greater Manchester who have to chase criminals who have committed serious crimes increasingly have to go to places where the criminals have rottweilers, Staffordshire bull terriers or other such dogs. It is not very nice tip-toeing up to the door to canvass, or just to put a leaflet through it, but police officers who know that they have to go into the house quickly to try to apprehend a criminal are put off by the knowledge that such vicious dogs are behind the door. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has made no useful impact. I hope that the Government will not go through a public relations exercise on joyriding that will do nothing to solve the problem. This is a complex problem, which needs effective legislation.
    In the debate on liberty and rights, we should emphasise that the first thing that a civilised society should have is an informed democracy in which people can make decisions based on genuinely free information. Once we can do that, we have to ensure that we confer on the people we do not like the same rights and privileges. That is extremely difficult. Too many of the policies in the Queen's Speech take away rights—for example, those of asylum seekers—and assume that other people can be subject to a different quality of life from that which we want for ourselves.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Chris Butler: Crime cannot be cracked and freedom cannot be guaranteed by the hard clamp of the law alone. With 5 million notified offences every year and only 40,000 prison places, prison cannot be the only answer. Nor can the harshness of punishment be any guarantee of rehabilitation. When convicts were transported to Australia in the last century and still

    395
    rebelled, their flesh was sometimes flogged off their backs to the extent that their shoulder blades shone like polished ivory, yet they still reoffended.
    Our criminal justice system must be the long stop when homes and schools have failed to socialise individuals. Individuals are first taught respect for other individuals in the family unit, and if the family is weakened or derided, as it has been all too often since the 1960s, it cannot be surprising that there has been an increase in the blind selfishness of criminality. The permissive society has so often become the uncivilised society.
    Many single parents are single parents through no fault of their own. Sometimes, it is a result of a personal tragedy. The majority of them strive courageously to bring up their children well, but I cannot help thinking that it is a handicap when a key archstone of the family unit is missing. When we came to power in 1979, the illegitimacy rate was 10·6 per cent. It has nearly trebled since then, to 28 per cent., which represents a social time bomb of nuclear proportions.
    In some areas, single motherhood has almost become a local industry. It is embarked upon in order to obtain a council home and an independent income. All too often, these incentives seem to outweigh the long-term trap of dependency and relative poverty. The United States experience shows that things can get even worse. Broken families have become so common that whole neighbourhoods have become sinks populated by a violent under-class. Some United States politicians have developed a theory of "bridefare", in which fathers are forced to assume their responsibilities, even to the extent of being provided with workfare employment if they try to shuffle off their financial responsibilities on to the taxpayer. That is not a bad idea.
    In education, we are still reaping the whirlwind of the 1960s. The louts production line in education must be stopped. Adventure methods, ill-discipline, a scorn for competitiveness and the "anything goes" attitude of the 1960s are all taking their toll. The British Institute of Management undertook a wide-scale survey of its members, in which they repeatedly said that school leavers were incompetent in mathematics, reading and writing. Those are the basic educational skills, as basic as the moral respect of one person for another. I hope that the new fleet of school inspectors will look at moral education as a priority.
    If homes and schools are not made into the mechanisms of socialisation that they should be, our crime wave will continue. In the meantime, we must tailor law and order and strengthen it so as to maximise our protection. Therefore, I welcome the Bill against death racing, because that crime epitomises the selfishness of the lout.
    I wonder how many of those death riders are already on bail. The Avon and Somerset police say that half the people arrested for car crime or burglary are on bail for another offence. In Warrington, 72 people arrested over a two-month period were already on bail. The chief constable of Cheshire is concerned about these bail bandits. He says that 10 per cent. of all criminals arrested are already on bail. In Bristol, that figure reaches 35 per cent. One Northumbrian youth admitted to 274 offences while on bail and the Northumbrian police believe that there would be 5,000 fewer offences per year if bail were more restricted.
    The head of the Avon and Somerset police says:
    396
    "I am under pressure to reduce crime, but the law as it stands is tying one hand behind my back."
    Chief Inspector Brookes of the same force says:
    "It is devastating to the morale of officers to spend hours and hours, sometimes days, dealing with the same offenders only to find them coming back again and committing more crime and to receive more bail."
    The chief constable of Northumbria says:
    "The right to bail has to be graduated. You would not let a mad animal loose—you would lock it up."
    Too often, magistrates have released supposed offenders on bail in the teeth of police opposition. There have been suggestions of a separate offence of committing a crime while on bail. The United States has an offence of habitual criminality. Perhaps that is the way for us to go.
    Police magazine of August 1991 highlighted the danger for us when it said:
    "the small group of offenders who, in every area, account for almost all the domestic burglaries known to the police…are being arrested, and they pass in and out of the police hands with almost monotonous regularity…The bail scandal is a microcosm of what is bound to happen as this Government's policy of 'punishment in the community' takes effect…It's the criminal who takes the liberty. It's the community that takes the punishment."
    That is it. There is a link between the rise in crime and the number of persistent offenders, and it must not be ignored. If Government policy is to recycle these persistent offenders back into the community, ultimately the public will say no, and the policy will collapse.
    Prison has the role of punishment and deterrence where the processes of socialisation have failed. It also has a legitimate role in containment. Police magazine of March 1988 summed it up when it said:
    "Any sentencing procedure which allows the persistent offender to go on offending is a contradiction of the judiciary's first duty—to protect society."
    That should be our first duty as legislators as well.
    8 pm
    Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) typifies Conservative Members on both the Government Front Bench and their Back Benches. When there is a success, they will take the credit for it; when there is disaster, they claim that they are not responsible. Unfortunately, many of the problems that are caused by young people are the result of the Government's policy failures. In many instances these are Thatcher's children, and the Government should take responsibility for their actions.
    Crime is increasing in Cumbria, including my constituency. The area does not have inner-city problems and there is still a good quality of life, which we are trying to preserve, but last year crime in Cumbria increased by 36 per cent., one of the highest increases in the country. That had much to do with the Government's policies, and I see nothing in the Gracious Speech that will help to alleviate the problem. The Government are running away from crime prevention and I suggest that we should be talking more about prevention and less about what we do when we catch criminals. Surely it would be better if crime were not committed.
    The Government believe in free market economics even when we talk about crime prevention, and the people are paying the price. They realise that when their bills come through the letter box. The cost of house insurance has increased by about £100. The rate of burglaries has soared in Cumbria as it has everywhere else. Are we seeing the privatisation of crime prevention? The cost of insuring a

    397
    car has increased by £100, or perhaps by £200, yet insurance companies are making massive losses because insufficient attention is being given to crime prevention.
    If anyone had walked down the street where I live 10 years ago he or she would have seen no burglar alarms. Today, about 90 per cent. of the houses have alarms. The owners of the other 10 per cent. have large dogs. It costs £250 or even £500 for a good burglar alarm system, and then there is the cost of installing security lighting and security locks. Many citizens are paying about £500 a year to prevent criminals from entering their homes. Surely it would be more sensible to place an extra £10, £20 or £30 on poll tax charges to enable more policemen to be recruited to reduce the crime rate.
    That is not the Government's way. They believe in the free market. They say, "Let the people look after themselves. If they cannot do that, that's too bad." Those who suffer from crime are, in many instances, not middle class or rich but the poor. Poorer people can ill afford to be robbed or in other ways to be the victims of crime.
    The Government do not discuss providing any extra assistance for crime prevention. The Home Secretary ridiculed our proposals to give more crime prevention powers to local authorities. The responsibility for crime prevention that is with the police should remain with them, but the police will never give priority to crime prevention because they are always busy trying to solve crime. We need, therefore, to adopt a new approach.
    A good doctor friend of mine did not believe in health education. He said, "If you give me an extra £10,000, I will save an extra three or four lives." If we give the police more money, more police officers will be employed to catch more criminals. As I have said, the police will not make crime prevention a priority. That is why we must give local authorities a role.
    We must plan and design with a view to reducing crime when we build houses and estates. We must take crime into consideration. There is a well-designed shopping precinct in my constituency, St. Nicholas Gates, which is in a residential neighbourhood. Unfortunately, the design did not take into account the activity of boy racers, who made the life of the nearby residents intolerable. The boy racers were carrying on until 3, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. It has now been decided, after a great deal of fuss, that the precinct will have gates. If gates had been part of the design at the beginning, the boy racer problem would not have arisen.
    I understand that building regulations will have to be altered to take account of smoke detectors and fire regulations. Surely some emphasis should be placed on ensuring that there is general security, so that there are fewer burglaries and fewer crime-related problems.
    Many public car parks are not manned and are not illuminated. They present opportunities for car thieves and great worries for many women, who are terrified to enter them in the dark. Surely car parks should be manned and floodlit. That would reduce crime.
    We believe that car manufacturers should improve the security of their products, and I understand that the Home Secretary has entered into serious discussions with them. There should be legislation to ensure that the manufacturers have a minimum security standard. There are minimum safety standards and we should introduce
    398
    security standards. Such legislation would mean that no motor car manufacturer would be at a disadvantage. That would be a positive approach to crime prevention. As I have said, crime prevention does not rest with catching criminals.
    The Government have many reasons to be disgusted with themselves. They have created an underclass, which the hon. Member for Warrington, South mentioned. There was no talk of it 12 years ago. We may have had a working class, and we were proud of it, but there was no underclass. The Government have created a society which is devoid of the social qualities which we once knew, and they should not be surprised if there is an increase in crime. Their policy of dividing the nation between the rich and the poor has had its consequences. We must not make excuses for criminality, but perhaps that is a reason for what has happened.
    Some of the most hardened criminals are those who left school and went to find their place in the labour market during the first Tory slump. Police officers will say that those people are the most hardened criminals, but we must do something to try to help them. If they are using violence, intimidation, firearms and weapons generally, however, they must be locked away, and in many instances for long periods. Decent citizens should not have to tolerate the anti-social behaviour that terrorises so many in urban areas and, in some instances, rural communities.
    We need a policy for the future that will start to eliminate poverty, which is the breeding ground for crime. The Governemnt created the swamp and we have to face the consequences.
    The process of justice needs to be quickened. The granting of bail has been criticised, but one of the reasons for it is the overcrowding of prisons and police cells. People cannot be kept in prison because our system of justice is too slow. Surely those who have been on remand for many months must have been insulted when an actor took a newspaper to court because it had accused him of being boring. Surely we should be doing something more productive with our courts than using them to deal with such trivialities. Similarly, many of those who have suffered industrial injuries must have been insulted by the action to which I have referred. I am sure that if the allegation of being boring were to be directed to politicians, there would be many law suits. The complainant received £50,000, which suggests to me that there is something wrong with our society.
    Carlisle, and Cumbria generally, needs more police officers. We are asking for them. There are problems in rural areas as well as urban areas. When the police committee asks for 24 additional constables, I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that they should be recruited and appointed. In the past, the area has done extremely badly.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. David Porter: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the early stages of what will probably be the longest general election campaign in modern times. Even so, this is a shortened Session, and as we must wait until next year for the start of a fourth Conservative term in office, we must now get on with the measures contained in the Gracious Speech.
    In considering rights, freedoms and responsibilities, we must consider the choice already afforded by Conservative

    399
    legislation. It is freedom of choice built on the view that it is individuals—not big brother, bureaucrats, councillors or even Members of Parliament—who know best. Whether individual voters, parents, taxpayers, travellers or patients, it is the individual who counts.
    There is to be an offshore safety Bill. It is a relatively modest measure which should enjoy a trouble-free passage because it is welcomed by both sides of the offshore industry. I will not make a Second Reading speech now, but simply say that a safety culture built around individuals and the operating companies' involvement and responsibilities is the only way to ensure the safest possible working environment.
    In education, extended parental choice has been a marvellous idea put into practice effectively. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's tackling of the vested interests in education and the Government's push to put children first—individual children, which means putting parents alongside them—is to be applauded. Local management of schools, giving parents more information, and the assessing of schools, children and teachers have all been good ideas.
    I sound one warning note about individual choice—it works in towns where parents can be given a choice of schools, up to the physical capacity of a school, but in rural areas that choice may be only theoretical. In many country areas there is no choice of school, doctor or pub. However, bearing that in mind, freedom of choice is best stimulated by exposing schools to some element of market discipline.
    One of the themes of the 1990s that we can identify for ourselves—although what history will make of it we must wait and see—is the concept of government by charter, with the underlying idea that poor public service can be remedied by better management held by force and compensation to higher performance standards. One journalist in the Evening Standard last week likened the rain of these "whingeing charters", as he called the current spate of them, to confetti. I take the view that the charters go in the right direction. I suppose that any idea that catches a mood and a time will have many fathers. I know that my right hon. Friend and the Downing street team, the socialists with their council contracts, and the Liberal Democrats because they know a good bandwagon when they see one—and they must have seen one, because not a single Liberal Democrat is present—all claim to have sired the citizens charter concept.
    In fact, the truth can now be told. It was not Downing street, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats who sired the citizens charter—it was me, at least in the parliamentary sense. In May 1989 I first introduced a ten-minute rule Bill—the Public Service Contract Bill—which sought to establish minimum standards of public service with automatic compensation for failure. Of course, that Bill is now confetti, but it focused on local authorities, the Post Office and British Rail. Matters have moved on since then and those ideas are now very much on the agenda, and I am delighted by that.
    Something that is not on the agenda, and that is disappointing, is a commitment to privatise British Rail quickly. There is a simple statement of intent in the Gracious Speech, but of itself that is not enough to stimulate a lumbering giant like British Rail into market-style change. Unless we can achieve that, the travellers charter will, at best, be only half-hearted.
    400
    When I think of the misery, the frustration and the anger caused to my constituents on the east Suffolk line, I despair. When the promised sprinters were not delivered on time, when the fares increased in proportion to the decline in reliability, when children are stranded because trains have broken down, when Conservative-controlled Suffolk county council subsidises the late night train, and when central Government grant for British Rail goes up, yet the service is still like a lottery, I despaired, I despair, and I will continue to despair until we give individuals, travellers, employees and taxpayers a real incentive to make it work—the freedom to succeed in the private sector.
    All that leads me to British Rail Bills, and the fact that only now are we talking about ditching the procedures of 150 years ago. That is symptomatic of our failure sometimes to move on. The dawn of the railway age brought in that bizarre, cumbersome process of private Bills for new and altered rail lines and other works. I speak as an hon. Member who has served time on four such Bills during the four years that I have been in the House—the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, and the London Underground Bills Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, I can speak of the experience when four hon. Members sit in quasi-judicial godliness hearing the arguments for and against.
    We are all familiar with that quaint parliamentary phrase, "It may be for the convenience of Members", and then some information is imparted that is often for anything but the convenience of hon. Members. Sitting on a private Bill Committee is in practice, if not in theory, designed for the maximum inconvenience of Members, especially when the learned counsel are paid by the hour—at least, it feels like that—or by the ream of Committee paper. Of course safeguards are necessary for the environment, for local residents, for local communities and for the right to a decent quality of life, so I warmly welcome the transport and works Bill, which will defend the safeguards but speed up the decision process.
    On the proposed council tax, I have just one point to make on the theme of individual freedom. The basis of the tax—a two-person household—is wrong; it should be one person. If it must be two, the 25 per cent. reduction for one is insufficient. In addition to the single people who choose to be alone, there are many hundreds of thousands of widows, widowers and unmarried people who do not choose to be alone, but are. They should have a 50 per cent. reduction if the tax is to be as fair as it needs to be.
    I have not homed in on the word "rights" in my remarks. We used that word a great deal in the 1960s, when I had shoulder-length hair and many of my colleagues had even some hair. It is a word that trips too lightly off many tongues—often the tongues of those demanding rights without considering, in the same breath, the responsibilities. The theme of today's debate shows something of Labour party values. It promises the people the earth and excites them with talk of rights; it pays lip service to freedom and choice and to freedom of choice, and then it lets someone else have the responsibility of paying for it.
    I support the programme in the Gracious Speech. I do see it not as the fag end of an old Parliament, but as the threshold to continuing non-socialist government in this country
    8.15 pm
    Miss Joan Lestor: I want to refer to the Asylum Bill and to some of the comments made by the Home Secretary. The Guardian has nicknamed the Bill the national humbug Bill. Unless the Home Secretary or the Minister can answer a few questions, that nickname may remain.
    I am not surprised that the number of people seeking asylum in this country or elsewhere has increased. We all know that repression, war, political persecution and many other matters in various countries throughout the world have now been forced to the forefront. The Home Secretary did not answer the question: what is the point of this country's encouraging people to resist that sort of persecution and to stand up and fight for their rights if, when things get too hot for them and they want to become political refugees, we say, "You can't come here, we don't want you"?
    The Home Secretary and the Minister must know that, if someone is fleeing persecution or political oppression, that person does not have his documents with him. He does not run back and say, "Where is my passport? Where is my visa?"—[Interruption.]I wish hon. Members would not mumble when I have only a few moments to make my speech. Such people are caught in a terrible trap. If they try to falsify their documents, as many do, they are excluded.
    If the Home Secretary is over-zealous in not allowing entry to someone who he believes is not a genuine refugee, and actually sends back a genuine refugee either to roam the world looking for somewhere to live or to persecution and possible death, he must face the reality of life for such people.
    Next Wednesday, the Princess Royal will meet refugee children seeking asylum at the centre at Heathrow airport. She will later attend a seminar. She, more than most people in this country, knows something about refugee children and the problems facing them. I do not know whether she will be accompanied by anybody from the Home Office. I hope that she will, and I hope that that person listens to and understands the suffering and the plight of those children.
    There are no special provisions in the Bill to deal with unaccompanied refugee children, but that does not surprise me. In June last year, the Refugee Council put forward proposals for a new voluntary agency to provide care and assessment for children newly arrived in this country. Although, in fairness, the Home Secretary whispered to me behind the Chair that discussions were taking place, the council is still waiting for a reply. At that time, we were talking about 30 to 50 children a year, but in August and September last year some 170 children fled from the fighting in Eritrea and their arrival in this country brought into sharp focus the appalling lack of resources, knowledge and skills that local authorities need to look after the children properly.
    A Refugee Council survey of 17 local authorities revealed that 25 children were held in detention by the immigration service. It is disgraceful that a child should be detained in that way and I want an assurance from the Minister that that practice has now ceased.
    Seventy children had to wait up to three months for a local authority to respond to their needs, many being moved more than three times in that period. A substantial number of them had no contact with people of their own culture and language during that time.
    402
    Those children were sent to Britain by loving families and friends who were anxious that their children at least should escape to a better future, free from the traumas of war and persecution. They arrived in Britain frightened, confused and lonely, and they look to us to do something for them.
    We should not forget that, when war broke out in Britain, hundreds of our children were sent to Canada and elsewhere to escape the traumas of war. We have not yet ratified the convention on the rights of the child, but I hope that we shall. We are a signatory to the convention on refugees, but the convention on the rights of the child gives children the right to escape the oppression of war and its consequences. I hope that we shall honour that.
    Because of the exceptional leave arrangements, those children were denied the right to be united with their families. We owe it to them to provide them with safety. We need a properly funded care agency to co-ordinate plans for their future. They need an expert allocated to them on arrival to act as an independent advocate, someone who can promote the rights of each child. They need to have their cases dealt with quickly and fairly.
    The Government must recognise their responsibilities in the matter to local authorities through increased financial support for projects which can benefit refugee children such as day care, housing and language classes. They must also recognise their responsibility to the international community and especially to the third world through adherence to the spirit and letter of the United Nations convention on refugees and the convention on the rights of the child. Above all, they must recognise their responsibility to the children who experience the traumas of war and separation from close family only to be met in Britain by suspicion, inflexibility and a lack of compassion.
    I hope that the Minister will explain why there is no mention of those children in the Bill, since that is what the Refugee Council understood it would deal with. I understand that the feedback from the Department of Health has been positive, but the Home Office said a short time ago that the Refugee Council would have to wait for the thorough review of the asylum procedures which has resulted in the Bill.
    As the Bill does not address the problem and it is crucial that Britain should consider it, will the Minister give an assurance that a positive response to the Refugee Council's proposal is on its way and that we will be taking seriously our responsibilities to the world's refugees who are children?
    8.22 pm
    Mr. John Browne: Two of the most fundamental of human rights are the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal. Those two fundamental rights are enshrined in clauses 1 to 4 and in clause 5 of article 14 of the United Nations international convention of 1966 to which Her Majesty's Government are a signatory. That convention applies to both civil and political trials.
    Political show trials follow a classic structure. First, they are preceded by a secret inquisition or inquiry, at which the prosecution case is established. The accused is then paraded in front of the public for a sham trial, in which the accused is not permitted any of the normal rights of defence. The prosecution holds sway and the jury is fixed.

    403
    What is typical of almost all show trials is that there is no mechanism for appeal. That, in itself, is a breach of one of the most fundamental human rights enshrined in clause 5 of article 14 of the United Nations convention.
    We are accustomed to thinking that political show trials happen only in foreign countries under regimes such as those that existed in Nazi Germany or communist Russia. The fact is that they do happen, very occasionally, even in our own country. The late Lord Boothby was subjected to one before the war, and one was slipped past the nose of the House on 7 March 1990. It is important that the House and country know something of what happened.
    The accused was charged with no crime, just technical errors. He was therefore given none of the legal protections that the law normally affords to all those accused.
    In examining my case, the Select Committee on Members' Interests systematically denied me almost every basic human right to natural justice. All its sessions were held in secret. None of the evidence was heard on oath. The onus of proof was placed squarely on the accused.
    Contrary to Standing Orders of the House, I was not allowed even to attend and therefore to hear the evidence of the complainant or any other witness. I was therefore unable to cross-examine any witness in person.
    I was specifically denied the authority to call witnesses in person for cross-examination. No representation was allowed to the accused. I was given no rights of discovery in order to put stolen documents selectively submitted against me into proper context.
    No statute of limitations was imposed, with the result that great injustices were done by the vague but heavily coaxed recollections of witnesses of events some seven to 12 years earlier. Time pressures were allowed to affect the evidence sessions.
    No prosecution case was ever made for me to answer. I was therefore given no structure and no knowledge of what points were considered important by the Committee. It was a vast case, involving some 20 companies over a period of some 12 years.
    I was allowed to make no verbal defence to the Committee, but merely to answer almost 1,000 rapid-fire questions put by 11 prosecutors at random during long sessions. No declaration of interests was demanded of members of the Select Committee regarding their own relationships with witnesses. No requirement was made of members even to attend the evidence sessions on matters upon which they would vote.
    Despite that catalogue of injustice, I was allowed no appeal. Again, that was in direct violation of article 14 of the United Nations convention.
    The subsequent debate in the House was also subjected to quite deliberate and finely engineered pressures of injustice. In particular, there was no official Government-sponsored motion of clemency offered to Members upon which to vote. From the outset, hon. Members were encouraged in the normal parliamentary manner to follow the Leader of the House and vote for his amendment, thereby upholding the prestige of the House.
    I was allowed to make not a speech but only an uncontroversial statement which the House was to hear in silence. I was therefore given no opportunity whatsoever to defend myself in the debate and was specifically denied the ability either to question or to challenge the speeches and interventions of other hon. Members in the debate.
    404
    The speeches of the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Select Committee in particular were seriously misleading, but went unchallenged.
    Despite all that, the tone of the debate was for clemency. However, the vote of the House was along strictly party lines and was fixed or whipped with the Government operating a payroll and informal Whip. We had the spectacle of hon. Members, despite the pretence of a free vote, not being free to vote according to their consciences even in a judicial vote upon a fellow Member.
    Finally, to rub salt into the wound, the House changed the rules retrospectively immediately after my sentence. However, there was no mechanism for appeal against that judgment. Again, that is in direct violation of the United Nations international convention.
    Here, for example, I ask the House to consider the dreadful implications of the undeclared interest of a member of the Select Committee. Sitting in judgment over me was a member of the Select Committee who was a friend of Mr. David Leigh, the chief complainant, and had a close working relationship with him, with an implied pecuniary relationship.
    None of that was declared either to the Select Committee or to the House. In columns 935 and 936 of Hansard, the hon. Member even resisted the declaration. That Select Committee member pressed me very hard about a libel case that I had out against Mr. Leigh on the Sama and Chidiac affair. The libel case was sub judice——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am obviously listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I know that he feels strongly about the way in which he has been treated, but he is now getting close to casting aspersions on other hon. Members. If he intends to do so, can he assure me that he has given those hon. Members notice that he intended so to do?
    Mr. Browne: At the end of the previous parliamentary Session, I signed early-day motion 1210 drawing particular attention to the matter.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he has given personal notice that he intended to make these remarks this evening.
    Mr. Browne: Only by means of the early-day motion.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then I must ask the hon. Gentleman to move on to other matters and to leave that one. He has had a good run on that point.
    Mr. Browne: I was referring of course to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is identified in early-day motion 1210.
    My unintentional transgressions resulted in no financial gain to me, harmed no one, and neither influenced nor changed any Government policy. I was, however, subjected to a sustained denial of human rights and to deliberate injustice.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to respect my judgment. He is now casting serious aspersions against other hon. Members. I am glad that he was frank with the Chair in admitting that he had not given notice of his intended remarks to the hon. Members concerned, and accordingly he must desist from that line of argument.
    Mr. Browne: I respect your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was offered a guarantee, described more fully in

    405
    early-day motion 1211 of the last Session, that I would not be punished by the House in any way, provided that I stood down from my seat. That offer was entirely unconstitutional, in that it sought to deny to my constituents the right to vote for or against their sitting Member of Parliament at the next general election. Worse still, it was a grave abuse of judicial power.
    The House was grossly misled throughout that political show trial. I place on record the fact that I do not hold the vast majority of Back Benchers to blame in any way, for they voted and even spoke in complete ignorance of what was happening and of the facts.
    The deliberate injustice of a political show trial still exists, even in our country.
    I have submitted a formal appeal to my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, in the hope that they, as honourable gentlemen, will move quickly and decisively in investigating my case and will bring it back to the House in Government time, so that such a thing will never again happen to another right hon. or hon. Member, as it happened to me and to the late Lord Boothby.
    I hope that my right hon. Friends will respond positively to my request that the United Nations convention be allowed to operate freely in our country.
    8.31 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: A subject mentioned only briefly in tonight's debate is that of constitutional reform—or as I prefer to describe it, the break-up of the Westminster system. Tonight's debate falls on the anniversary of another attempt to blow up the Westminster system, but I stress that it is my intention to change it by democratic means and the force of argument, and by no other method.
    Our debate concerns in part the question of freedom, whose definitions include autonomy, self-government, and independence. By those definitions, the Scottish nation remains unfree while we debate freedom in the context of the Queen's Speech. Scotland remains neither autonomous, self-governing, nor independent. It could have chosen otherwise. The Scottish people could have opted, of their own free will, to remain part of the unitary Westminster state and of the indivisible whole that is the union of the United Kingdom. They have long had the perfect political vehicle for doing so, and it is called the Conservative and Unionist party, whose Members of Parliament form the majority in the House, and which is now the only political force in Scotland that still stands for the status quo.
    The freedoms that the Tories offer come wrapped inside the Westminster state. They are the freedoms to choose private medicine, benefit from the assisted places scheme in private education, and personal tax cuts. They offer the freedom to say, "I'm all right, Jack", provided that is done under the Tories and under the Union Jack of the Westminster state.
    Where is the evidence that the Scottish people want those freedoms within such a political state? It cannot be found in the opinion polls, which regularly show that a huge majority of Scottish people oppose the Conservative and Unionist party and are in favour of some form of autonomy, self-government, or independence. Neither can
    406
    the evidence be found in the results of the last general election. Although this may be painful for Government members to recall, they represented nothing less than a wholly unambiguous rejection of the status quo.
    The evidence cannot be found in the parliamentary by-elections held in Scotland since 1987. Whatever else might be said about the constituencies of Glasgow, Govan, Glasgow, Central, Paisley, North or Paisley, South, they can hardly be described as ringing endorsements of faith in the Westminster state. The Conservative candidates in all four by-elections polled just 10,000 votes from a total of 110,000 cast. The other 100,000 votes were cast against the principles for which the Government stand.
    It may be argued that Glasgow and Paisley are not representative of the whole of Scotland. They certainly are not representative of those parts of Scotland that the Tories claim to represent. However, what about the constituency of Kincardine and Deeside, which has traditionally been a Tory seat in a traditionally Tory and prosperous part of Scotland, having little unemployment, and situated well outside Scotland's central belt? It is precisely the kind of seat that should be susceptible to Tory scaremongering about a Scottish Parliament dominated by Strathclyde, yet there is little comfort for the Unionists in Kincardine and Deeside.
    The latest opinion polls from that constituency scream out a message that must be heard even within these walls—that by majorities of three and four to one, the voters there intend to support parties that are committed to radically reforming the Westminster state and to establishing a Scottish Parliament. Soon the Unionists will be reduced to the third party in a four-party country and a political irrelevance, and they are on course to becoming an even greater irrelevance after the next general election.
    Where is there any recognition in the Queen's Speech of those political realities in Scotland? It recognises that freedom is bound up with acceptance of national identity and the right of small nations to self-determination. The Gracious Speech commits the Government to settling the Palestinian problem and therefore to recognising the inherent right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Similar recognition is extended to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
    The Government promise to work for democratic institutions in central and eastern Europe, and even to help build a democratic society in South Africa. They pledge their support also to national self-determination and democratic institutions everywhere in the world, except in the United Kingdom and Scotland. One searches the Queen's Speech in vain for any reference to Scottish freedom, Scottish democracy, or Scottish nationhood. The Queen's Speech is silent on all three. That cannot be right, and neither can it be defended—for the Government's defence is non-existent.
    The Government begin by telling the Scottish people that we do not know what is good for us; that autonomy, self-government, and self-determination are bad for us and for our country. It does not seem to matter that we vote time and again for some form of Scottish autonomy, because the Government say that the Scottish people do not know what we are about and that they know what is best for us. That is the worst kind of imperialist and colonialist arrogance, but sadly it is typical of the Government who have dominated the House for the past 12 years.

    407
    We are told also that the elected national parliament that we seek will be just another layer of bureaucracy between the people and the kind of country that they want. The Government ignore the 10,000 Scottish Office bureaucrats who are wholly unaccountable to the Scottish people's elected representatives. A Scottish parliament will not create an additional layer of bureaucracy, but will make accountable to the Scottish people an existing level of bureaucracy that currently does not answer to them. In doing so, it will extend the fabric of democracy in our country.
    We are told that the democratic forums created in Scotland outside the formal Westminster structures are not democratic. Ministers describe as self-appointed the Scottish Constitutional Convention—a body that contains the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament. I t also ranks among its numbers representatives of all Scottish local authorities, all of whom were individually elected by the Scottish people, Scottish political parties, Churches, trade unions, and other Scottish bodies. Yet they try to tell us that that convention is self-appointed and undemocratic.
    We are expected to believe that democratic legitimacy rests with the Tory rump here in Westminster—a rump that holds less than one seventh of Scotland's parliamentary seats, and controls not a single council or local authority in Scotland; a rump that cannot even find enough Conservative Back-Benchers to staff the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The Government who are responsible for that undemocratic debacle have the nerve to lecture us in Scotland about democracy, freedom and the rights of our people.
    Dealing with the Asylum Bill, the Home Secretary described my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as harbouring an abiding contempt for the views of ordinary voters. He advised my right hon. Friend as follows: when he found himself in a hole, he should stop digging. Let me ask the Home Secretary which party harbours abiding contempt for the views of the Scottish voters, and which party is digging itself into an ever-deepening black Scottish hole. It is not the Labour party; it is the Conservative and Unionist party, which refuses to listen to the democratically expressed views of the Scottish people.
    Ministers would do well to heed their own advice, and to stop digging themselves into an ever-deepening Scottish hole. They would do well to begin to climb back into the daylight of mainstream Scottish political life from which they have been excluded for so long. They will have to understand something that they are beginning to understand already in a European context: that political unions depend on the consent of the parties to those unions. If that principle applies at European level, it must be said to apply equally at United Kingdom level.
    The survival of the United Kingdom depends on the consent of the Scottish people to the union that created it; that consent in turn depends on constitutional reform, and, specifically, on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Unless that is forthcoming, the Scottish people will withdraw their consent from the union that this House represents.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. Keith Raffan: The issues for debate today are rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), I wish to address them in the context of constitutional reform of the future government of Wales, at both local and national level.
    It may be thought that my party would be wise to approach all matters relating to the reform of local government—its functions, format and finance—with considerable caution. It is now widely accepted on both sides of the House that the reform of local government structure during the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was an unmitigated disaster. This time we must get matters right, and get them right once and for all.
    Because of the political necessity of replacing the poll tax, and of doing so before the general election, we are, in my view, dealing with local government reforms the wrong way round—indeed, in reverse order. Surely it would have been more logical, and would have made more sense, to start with functions and internal management, then to go on to format and structure, and finally, move on to the vexed issue of how to finance the new structure with its revised functions. That would have been the common-sense approach; but, sadly, political necessity has dictated otherwise.
    The Gracious Speech refers to the introduction of legislation to establish a review of local government structure in England, but makes no such reference to Wales. The Principality is not to have an independent local government commission, the reason ostensibly being the virtually unanimous view in Wales that unitary authorities are desirable.
    It is true that the local authority associations are divided. The Assembly of Welsh Counties wants a commission, whereas the Council of Welsh Districts does not. Despite that, I am not sure that the Government are wise not to set up such a commission in the Principality. By not doing so, they open themselves up to the charge that Wales is not receiving equal treatment with England; their action also goes against the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who said on 25 June:
    "We will not repeat the errors of the 1970s. Then, local views were ignored when local government boundaries were redrawn. That must never be allowed to happen again. Under our proposals, we intend to give local people the opportunity to say what sort of structure suits them best. So there is no question of central Government dictating how local government should be organised."
    Those are sensible words, but, in Wales, central Government will dictate how local government should be organised.
    Yet it must be desirable for the new structure to command as wide a consensus as possible, so that future Governments do not continually tamper with it. That is why I believe that we need an independent local government commission for Wales, as in England, to take evidence, encourage informed debate, do justice to what are, indeed, complex issues and so reach objective, independent conclusions.
    The number of authorities and their boundaries must be decided independently. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for his assurance that the local government boundary commission will draw

    409
    up the boundaries for the new authorities in Wales, but the commission must have complete freedom to create coherent local authorities. The building blocks for those authorities should not be limited by the Welsh Office to existing district council areas. Community council areas make more sensible building blocks and would give the commission more flexibility to create coherent, integrated authorities.
    Obviously, the local government boundary commission will have to consider a wide variety of views. It would have been much easier for the commission if it had had at its disposal views collected, collated and analysed by an independent commission.
    Unitary authorities will not be fully effective without an all-Wales tier to discuss major infrastructure, transport, strategic planning and other all-Wales issues. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, constitutional matters are discussed within our party; indeed, half the Welsh Conservatives in the House have said that they are in favour of some form of devolution.
    Issues such as the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which I am delighted to see included in the Gracious Speech,and a Welsh language Bill, which I am sad to see has been excluded, could be discussed much more fully by an all-Wales tier. We need such a tier to respond to the distinctive needs of the Principality and its people. So far, the Government have opposed such a tier, on spurious grounds.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) looks astonished. I have expressed such views in the House before. Perhaps he is not here very often; if he listens, he may learn a little.
    The Government have opposed a Welsh assembly on the spurious ground that the Secretary of State's position in the Cabinet might be somehow threatened as a result. It will be threatened only if the Government want it to be. In the week of the Conservative party conference, the party chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), said that the Government were now considering a new voice for London—a Londonwide strategic body to address Londonwide issues such as environmental, economic, planning and transport problems. I would agree with such a proposal, but if such a body is needed in London, it is needed just as much in the Principality.
    At a fringe meeting at the same party conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said:
    "If there is one core belief which we all share, it is surely a rejection of centralisation and a firm belief that the source of Europe's strength has always been the diversity of its peoples."
    That is the source of Britain's strength, too. If we reject centralisation in Europe—here I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East—we should also reject it here in the United Kingdom.
    The supreme irony is that, in the European context, the Government are determined to resist the centralisation of power in Brussels at any cost; yet, in the United Kingdom context, they will defend such centralisation in Whitehall as sacrosanct.
    Mr. Stuart Randall: Vote Labour, then.
    Mr. Raffan: It is not just the Labour party that proposes devolution. Many other parties do. Indeed, my party proposed devolution way back in the late 1960s—almost before the hon. Gentleman was even thought of, and certainly before the present policy of his party was thought of. He may wish to refer to the declaration of Perth, and the Scottish devolution policy that the Conservative party then very wisely proposed I am only sorry that it was not accepted.
    In Paris in September, the Prime Minister said:
    "We must heed the way the world is moving—towards more decentralised, more accountable structures."
    My right hon. Friend was, of course, right; but what is applicable to Europe is also applicable here at home.
    8.48 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The Gracious Speech refers to the implementation of the citizens charter. I doubt whether all the measures contained in the citizens charter will be implemented. In particular, I doubt whether the railways will be privatised in this Session.
    The citizens charter is based, in part, on schoolboy humour, which befits something that is put forward by the Prime Minister. Its name apes the people's charters of 1838, 1842 and 1848. The citizens charter has been linked to some extent with the socialist tradition. It is even printed in red, or perhaps puce. It carries the slogan "Raising the Standard". It must have been lifted from the famous phrase
    "We will raise the scarlet standard high."
    This schoolboy humour technique puts all these things together; they are supposed to be part of the Prime Minister's wish to foist upon us a classless society, built upon the principles to which he adheres. Good fun is intended by pinching socialist traditions and turning them on their heads. However, the joke falls flat when we examine the content of the citizens charter rather than its glib presentation.
    Before I deal with the charter, I shall refer to the tradition upon which it is intended to be based and which it is trying to subvert—the people's charter of the 19th century, which was very much concerned with rights, freedoms and a responsible society.
    The charter contained six points, the first being universal male suffrage—an ideological slip. The suffragettes added to that the notion of female enfranchisement. The notion that the right to vote should be extended to all males and therefore to most families was a fantastic breakthrough.
    The charter's second point was that there should be secret ballots to ensure that the franchise was exercised freely. Two attempts were made to ensure that the House of Commons was more representative of the people than hitherto—first, the ending of property qualifications for Members of Parliament and the payment of MPs. During the early days of the Labour party in Parliament, the make-up of Parliament began to alter due to those changes.
    Another point in the charter was that constituencies should have equal electoral districts to overcome the remnants of the rotten boroughs. The final point—never fully implemented—was that there should be annual Parliaments, annually elected. In 1911, there was a move in the direction of more regular Parliaments, when the septennial convention was changed. Provision was then

    411
    made for elections to take place within five-year periods. Recently, the tradition has grown up of elections every four years. However, the Government have found themselves in difficulties over that. They have therefore pushed themselves into a corner. The Parliament Act has therefore had to be brought into operation.
    What have today's "pretend Chartists" done to the rights that were fought for by the original Chartists`' They do not seem to be too keen to hold elections on a regular basis. Even more seriously, however, the Government have undermined the basic principles contained in the 19th century charter—the universal male franchise and, with it, the equality of electoral districts. When redistribution takes place it can take place sensibly only if there is a full and universal franchise.
    We know, however, that I million people are not on the electoral register. According to an official survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, that represents 2·5 per cent. of the electorate. People in Scotland first began to disappear from the electoral register. That pattern was repeated in England and Wales, but it has not been repeated in Northern Ireland. That is due to the introduction of the poll tax. According to the citizens charter, there are to be charters for patients, parents, tenants, job seekers and the social services. However, there is to be no charter to enfranchise people and to ensure that they have the right to vote. That should worry Members of Parliament. The electoral register is in a ghastly state.
    What do the Government intend to do between now and the general election to ensure that the missing 1 million return to the electoral register so that there is full enfranchisement at the next election? People died in this country so that the franchise could be extended. People have died in Russia and the Eastern bloc to achieve universal suffrage. They are dying in South Africa to achieve the same objective. We should ensure that there is complete enfranchisement.
    What about the citizens charter? What are the six grand points that will stand comparison with the charter of the 19th century? Will people wish to struggle and die for the citizens charter? Does it contain anything that resembles the six points in the 19th century charter? I am afraid that it does not. It is based upon principles that are to be found on page 5 of the citizens charter. It refers to the fact that there will be more privatisation. There is no mention of the national health service, but reference is made to British Rail and London Buses. The buses are to be deregulated. Deregulation in my constituency led to massive petitions about the inadequacy of the bus services in Barrow Hill. Deregulation is to be extended to London. The citizens charter states that there is to be wider competition. The Post Office letters monopoly is to be destroyed. The advantages of the economies of scale within the postal service are to be destroyed due to the competition principle that the Government put forward at every opportunity, whether that principle is relevant or irrelevant.
    The citizens charter also states that there is to be additional contracting out, with services bought from the private sector. That is to apply to the NHS, already seriously destabilised by many of the Government's actions. There are to be even more agencies. Fewer questions about public services will be asked in the House because those services will be shunted off to other bodies.
    412
    No direct answers will be given to those questions. More and more destruction of local government provision will take place.
    I do not have time to talk about the remaining points of the charter that will destroy many of the existing provisions in this country. However, I can simply say that the fourth point is that there will be more performance-related pay. The fifth point is that there will be published performance targets, and the sixth is that the standards achieved will be published. I could criticise each of those points in the same way as I criticised the first three. If we are to have charters, they should be based on solid traditions and should not subvert previous charters in the way that this one does.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected at 9.20 pm. I hope that the three hon. Members who wish to speak will agree to divide the time between them.
    9 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: In the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), I welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech to extend competitive tendering. I welcome also the measures to extend privatisation to British Coal. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friends will examine carefully all the arguments put to them about the privatisation of British Rail. We have heard at Question Times and in previous debates about the unsatisfactory situation facing passengers and those wishing to use British Rail for freight. Some Conservative Members and other hon. Members need to be convinced that a measure of privatisation would improve passenger and freight transport.
    I welcome various measures in the Gracious Speech, which I regard as an extension of the citizens charter. I welcome particularly the charities legislation. The southern regional office of the Charities Commission, which extends over an area from Cornwall to Sussex—a generous definition of the southern region—has just been established in my constituency. When it was opened by Sir Philip Woodfield, who was responsible for the report on the work of charities, there was concern about whether a measure to implement the report would find its way into this year's legislative programme. I am delighted that it has done so, and I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends success in trying to improve the supervision and financial management of charities, enabling the Charity Commissioners to concentrate on their supervisory role and ensure that only deserving causes receive charitable status.
    Following my earlier exchange with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I must say that I welcome the Asylum Bill. British citizens need to have their freedoms and rights guaranteed against inflows of people who are not refugees or asylum seekers.
    I welcome also the suggestion that joyriding is to be made an offence. As far as I am aware, joyriding has not occurred recently in my constituency, but I know that people there have been killed through reckless driving as a result of alcohol. There is a problem of car theft in my constituency, and I welcome the measures to prevent that.
    Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Nicholson: Time is limited.
    I welcome the measures to extend rights in education. The Somerset college of arts and technology in Taunton is looking forward to the freedoms and opportunities it will obtain under the legislation for further and higher education which will transfer further education and sixth-form colleges from local education authority control. I welcome particularly the proposals that were debated yesterday—I tried to intervene during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—to extend the parents charter in schools.
    It has become clear to me locally that an annual written report on the progress of children is highly desirable. Sometimes parents are not aware that their children are not performing well at school until they receive a written report which exposes the problems. I welcome the fact that schools will be inspected frequently, that a short straightforward summary will be available to parents and that an action plan from the governors will be sent to all parents explaining how they will tackle problems pointed out by the inspectors.
    Housing has not been debated extensively today. There is a case for extending the citizens charter to the exchange arrangements for housing to give people the right to know within a certain period whether they are accepted for exchange or, if they are turned down, what the reasons are. People should have the right to receive regular progress reports on where they are in the queue.
    My local authority and many other efficiently run Conservative-controlled or until recently Conservative-controlled local authorities in southern England are experiencing considerable problems with waiting lists, because of the shortage of accommodation. I hope that the various nods and winks that we here have recently seen from Ministers—and which building employers' organisations have observed—about changes to allow councils to use more receipts from council house sales will be translated into action because that will be of much importance in the run-up to the general election.
    I applaud my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's endorsement of the philosophy and style of Stanley Baldwin. This country needs a period of quiet and caution, which Baldwin typified in the 1920s and 1930s. I am conscious that, in moving the Loyal Address, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) paid tribute to Leo Amery, who vigorously criticised Baldwin for not using his power effectively enough. No one who has sat through debates in the past four years or has studied the politics of the past 10 years would say that those who have held power have not used it.
    I said in the debate on freedoms, rights and responsibilities a year ago that there is a case for rather more caution and care in implementing the power that is wielded here. I am glad to see the assurances in the citizens charter and from the numerous statements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that that is how he intends to use his power.
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his excellent opening speech, particularly the way in which he stressed
    414
    that law and order is a top priority of the Government. His speech was in sharp distinction to that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who made it clear that more immigration is the top priority of the Labour party. All he said on law and order was that the police should be put under the control of local councils. That has rightly been rejected by the public, who remember what happened to the police when Labour was last in power—their numbers were reduced and their morale sabotaged.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be interested to hear that I recently conducted a survey of opinion in my constituency. Not surprisingly, law and order emerged as the top issue. In the summer recess, I had six meetings with many constituents who were anxious to know what could be done to improve law and order. Meetings were attended by as many as 160 people, who made it clear they are fed up with high and persistent crime and particularly with gangs of juvenile delinquents. There is seen to be a problem with bored youth and I hope that our proposals on the local management of schools will help to deal with it.
    I know that a Home Office working party is studying the causes of crime, but I should like to invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to visit Bolton to see the police station on a Saturday night and to meet our 14-year-old Houdini who has committed more than 140 crimes while supposedly under the care of the local authority. The police are fed up with arresting juvenile delinquents and returning them to the care of the local authority.
    I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that some new initiatives are needed. A reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled says:
    "My right hon. Friend is exploring what more can be done to develop policies for reducing the number of crimes committed by young people." [Official Report,24 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 580.]
    The Home Office should open a branch in Bolton so that it can see what is happening and become involved.
    What would that branch do? For a start, there are 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in Bolton. The police say that they do not have the resources to supervise and organise them, so why does not the Home Office have a branch in Bolton to supervise and direct the efforts and energies of the people involved in those schemes? That would give the Home Office direct involvement in crime prevention. If it opened a crime prevention shop, I am sure that those premises would have many callers with all sorts of suggestions about what should be done to reduce crime.
    Such a branch could also advise on setting up local action groups. That was suggested in the Home Office report "Safer Communities", which was published during the summer. It said that local action groups should be encouraged. Let us have someone on the ground who can advise local communities what they can do. Perhaps the Home Office could also encourage the recruitment of special constables. The police force does not seem to give every encouragement to the idea of recruiting more specials.
    The police in Bolton have told me that more research should be carried out. They would like the Home Office to fund a study by Manchester university into many of the causes of crime, especially into what happens with bail offenders. I believe that a report on bail offenders will be published tomorrow.

    415
    The police in Bolton would like the research study also to look into the issue of juveniles having the right to silence. The subject of unruly youngsters needs to be considered. Mr. John Watson, who has responsibility at the town hall for crime prevention, does not think that offenders should be released until they have shown proper remorse. That would certainly be a new line on youth custody. Many offenders who come out of youth custody centres go back in—I believe that recidivism is 80 per cent. If we did not let people out until they showed proper remorse, perhaps the rate would not be as high.
    The courts, not social services, should decide what is to be done with unruly youngsters. At the moment, social services say that they can take care of those youngsters, but those people merely commit more crimes. The absconding level is far too high. A police survey in the neighbouring county of Lancashire showed that last year 950 people absconded from care. I do not know the figures for Greater Manchester or Bolton, but I am sure that they would be even higher. That matter was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in an Adjournment debate on 16 October.
    I am in favour of stiffer sentences and unlimited fines being imposed on those who repeatedly commit car offences. With corrective courses, people would be encouraged to do something positive with their time instead of committing more offences. Recently, someone set light to five vehicles in one night—I do not know whether it was our friend Houdini, released from social services. That 14-year-old has already fathered one child, perhaps more.
    Conscious of the time, I should like to wind up. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the idea of having a branch of the Home Office in Bolton. I do not have time to speak about other possibilities for that branch, such as involvement in immigration control and in issuing the new driving licences, with photographs attached. I am sure that there would be plenty of work to keep it extremely busy.
    9.13 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, wish to compliment my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the measures which were announced in the Gracious Speech to improve the prospects for law and order. We know that we will never get far into a debate on those terrible twins, law and order—"Laura and Nora"—before we hear of the single parent, the mother on her own who, according to the mythology, is responsible for many of the problems in our society—not least all the unruly children who are constantly blamed for many of the problems.
    I do not believe that there are many men in this place who believe in anything other than immaculate conception. We never hear about the fathers of these children. We never hear talk of ways to control the promiscuity of males in this place or outside it. All we hear about is irresponsible young women who produce children who then run around the streets stealing from cars and stealing from shops. We are given to understand that it is that small group of women who cause all the problems.
    It is salutary to remind ourselves that there are more than 10—I think that it is more like 100—males in our prisons for every woman. There are well under 1,000 women in prison, and the number of those who have committed serious crimes can be counted almost on the
    416
    fingers of one hand. I wish that we could say that for the male population. To suggest that, with the male population largely controlling our society, women are somehow responsible for all the law and order problems is not only insulting, but ridiculous. On behalf of Sharon and Tracey in Essex, and on behalf of all the other women who are frequently insulted and who are held up as loose-living women, I say that the law and order problem is a problem of males.
    While talking about that subject and while talking about young women, who often bring up children on their own, we should not accept the criticism that we always get from the Opposition—that all the problems are somehow down to capitalism, the profit motive and market forces. Quite the contrary: it is the welfare state, introduced with the best of motives, which is largely responsible for taking away from individuals their responsibility for their actions and for bringing up their children.
    The welfare system rewards unsocial behaviour, if that is what one says about women who bring up children on their own, because it gives them benefits that trap them in that position. In many ways the system does not allow them to get out of that situation because, if they want to work and help themselves, they are penalised for doing so. That is the first aspect of the welfare state that contributes to the problems of women raising children on their own.
    We then have the system of destroying the private landlord in our society, which has led to the establishment of low-income estates where people of comparable incomes are herded together. The children in those conditions, often because their mothers—and sometimes fathers—are not very well off, are often left in groups on their own for long periods. That does not happen because the parents want it, because they often have to go out to work to help support the children. What such families need is a helping hand with places for those children to go and things for them to do. My solution would be to enable such people to pay for more help and child care, either before the children go to school or when they come out of school and need more supervision. It is possible for us to construct policies that will enable individual parents to obtain such child care and to pay for it themselves.
    We then have the problems of our state education system. Many of our schools are no-hope institutions in which children feed on each other, learning bad behaviour and feeling that while they are in the school, there is not much point in trying to behave and to learn because the curriculum does not cater for their lifestyle or their needs.
    The attitude towards women and responsibility needs to be looked at carefully. Most women would like the freedom to be able to take more responsibility on their own shoulders. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, shares my concern that we should do more to assist women who want to go to work, not to pay for tights or lipstick, but to help to contribute to the family income and to be independent. I hope that my party will introduce policies that will enable more women to do that. They could contribute through their own earnings to nurseries or creches, or for child minders before school, after school, or in the school holidays. All those are intimate problems for women in our society which is often not appreciated in the House.
    I would like us to have policies that give women the freedom to shop when they need to. The Opposition are very backward-looking on the issue. They do not want shops to open in the evenings and at weekends when

    417
    women can go shopping. We need such freedom for women. We need support for the opening of shops at times other than between 9 am and 5 pm, when many women are at work and cannot use them.
    Women would also like the freedom to go to the doctor's in the evening and to do all sorts of other things such as taking the kids to the dentist. Such activities require a much more flexible society so that women have more freedom to avail themselves of such services. That would make life easier for women. It would not make them more irresponsible, but would enable them to take on more of the responsibility for raising their children. Child rearing is part of women's nature and they do not need any lectures about it from this place.
    This debate is about rights, freedom and law and order. As a woman, I get sick and tired of the idea of men handing down rights to women. It is a matter of giving us this and that to keep us quiet. Women represent half of our community and they contribute a good 75 per cent. to the running of our society. They raise the children and they see that all you chaps get your shirts washed and ironed and that there is dinner in the oven. By and large most children in our country are brought up decently and nicely. We should remember that when we go on about the problems of children in the streets.
    I want policies—I am sure that my party will introduce them—that increasingly reflect the needs of women so that they have the ability to make choices for themselves. The rights of women should not be handed down to them: they should be an integral part of our society. When women can take on more responsibilities—because we have made that possible—we will hear less of the type of condemnation, which always features in such debates, of women, particularly single ones, who are held responsible for so many of the problems in society.
    Let us always remember that, for every child who is brought up by a single woman, there is a man out there who has shuffled off his responsibilities. It is to the great credit of the Conservative party that it has been the first to introduce a Bill to pin such fellows down and make them contribute, as they rightly should. I look forward to the day when we have genetic fingerprinting so there will not be any argument from men as to who is responsible for raising the child.
    9.21 pm
    Ms. Jo Richardson: Today, a number of my hon. Friends have expressed their regret at some of the omissions from the Queen's Speech. However, I was riveted by the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who welcomed a measure that he thought was in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that it will highlight his constituents' day when they read the record of the debate and learn that their representative cannot read. I hope that he will study the Queen's Speech.
    I remind the House that we have had a debate on rights, freedoms and responsibilities for many years. In many respects, we all regret that, because we had all hoped that, one day, the Government would see the light and get the balance right when distributing rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Sadly, we still have to keep on reminding them.
    418
    It is about time that the Government accepted their responsibility for all sorts of things—for example, the rising unemployment levels, the rundown of the health service, the lack of measures to reduce homelessness and the failure of their economic policy to generate growth and investment to end the recession so that we can build a better Britain.
    The fundamental difference between Conservative policy and philosophy and our own is at its sharpest when we talk about freedoms. The Government have eroded our freedoms dramatically. Power has been concentrated in the Cabinet and in the hands of the Prime Minister, with very few checks and balances.
    Public confidence in the judiciary is at an all-time low—hardly surprising, considering recent miscarriages of justice such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six cases. Now doubts have been cast on the justice meted out to the Tottenham Three, and who knows what other cases will come to light? I have an interest in the case of Sara Thornton, and I hope that at some stage the Home Office will relent and review that case. It is grossly unfair that she should have been sentenced to life having been provoked by her partner over a period into killing him.
    The Government have been responsible for much of the secrecy surrounding many of their policies. They attempted, for instance, to suppress the publication and reporting of "Spycatcher". This Government instigated the raid on the BBC to confiscate the Zircon tapes. They badgered and bullied the broadcasting service to stop the showing of "Real Lives" and "Death on the Rock". This Government removed the right to belong to a trade union from the workers at GCHQ, and they abolished the democratically elected Greater London council. That is a sorry record of the erosion of civil liberties and the curtailment of freedoms.
    As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary emphasised, a Freedom of Information Act which we would introduce would go a long way to improving all our freedoms. We should have, and we will have, a right to know. Devolved government in the form of Scottish and Welsh assemblies and regional government will make for much more open government than we have had in the past 12 years.
    The only freedom that the Government appear to understand is the freedom of the market even though it has so patently failed to deliver enough housing, child care or training. The Opposition understand—Conservative Members appear not to—that there can be no freedom without equality, and equality is underpinned by rights.
    The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to more genuine equality for women. I hope that the Government will listen to some of what she had to say and enshrine it in law.
    Most women are not convinced by the Prime Minister's new role as the champion of women's rights, not least because he was the first Prime Minister in 25 years to fail to appoint a woman to his Cabinet. He claims that there are women "poised in the wings". If so, why not invite them in? Why wait until after a general election? There are women Tory Members on the Back Benches now, so why not appoint them? That would be a good move—but far be it for me to advise the Prime Minister on that point.
    The Prime Minister also says that it is a disgrace that there are not more women on public boards. Since he became Prime Minister he has had a chance—his predecessor had a chance, too—to increase women's

    419
    representation on such boards, but between 1985 and 1990 we know that their representation rose by a dismal 0·3 per cent. What a record! The Prime Minister has suddenly discovered this problem and intends to put it right——
    Mr. Maclennan: Would the hon. Lady have supported the resignation of the Home Secretary over the escapes from Brixton? That would have enabled space to be cleared.
    Ms. Richardson: No, I would not.
    Women are not convinced by the Prime Minister's conversion. It is all very well to discuss with industry the promotion of women to board rooms and senior managerial positions, but in general women see that, if the Government do not tackle low pay and unequal pay and provide some help with child care, women will not in any sense be equal or have any kind of equal rights. There is no point in merely asking industry to promote equal opportunities policies. Many such policies have to be enshrined in a legal framework to ensure that employers implement them.
    As the hon. Member for Billericay said, the lack of child care is an enormous obstacle to women's participation in the work force. The Prime Minister believes, that employers should provide it or that women should be able to afford it. That leaves out of account many millions of women in low-paid and under-valued jobs. Any not ion of the Government playing a role in increasing the provision of child care seems to escape the Prime Minister.
    I was at the recent launch of Opportunity 2000, an excellent initiative by Business in the Community. The Prime Minister was quick to claim the credit for abolishing the tax on workplace nurseries. He failed to shoulder the responsibility, which Government should shoulder, for imposing the tax in the first place. He also failed to acknowledge that there are other forms of child care which should form a list of options available to women to enable them to combine their home and work responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister said that over half the population
    "go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase."
    He again failed to acknowledge the part that he could play in reducing the odds which are stacked against women and shackle them in the way that he described. The Government have pursued policies which have added to and certainly not loosened women's shackles.
    Instead of providing a legal framework, the Government have blocked the legislation that is on offer to them. For example, they have argued against almost every EC directive which would have improved women's poor position in the work force, increased their opportunities and given them increased freedom to work. They have blocked directives on parental leave, on part-time workers and on maternity rights. They have removed the right of women who work in small firms to return to work after childbirth and, by changing the law, they have blocked the right of married women on employment training to claim child-care. They have removed the right of women to have child-care costs taken into account when claiming income support, and they have prevented those women from having the freedom to take up part-time work to improve their incomes.
    The Queen's Speech mentions the Government's intention to enhance competitive tendering for local authority services. If the Government are serious about promoting equal opportunities, I challenge them to
    420
    reintroduce contract compliance, which they outlawed and which provides genuine incentives and practical advice to firms that wish to follow equal opportunities policies.
    Many hon. Members spoke about crime. I place firmly in the Government's lap the responsibility for failing to tackle crime. The fear and the reality of crime constrict many people's lives. The British crime survey shows that many women are afraid to go out alone at night. A disturbingly high number, particularly of elderly women and women from ethnic minorities, are scared to go out during the day as well. Effectively, that means that women of all classes, sizes, shapes and backgrounds are prisoners in their own homes.
    I am sure that hon. Members have talked to constituents, many of them young women with children, who say bitterly that they feel trapped in their environment and dare not go out at night, even to have a cup of tea with a friend. That is a serious situation, for which the Government must take some responsibility, because they have not introduced policies to correct it. They promised a crackdown on crime, but crime has doubled. With the crumbling of housing estates, and hostile city centres and a dirty, rundown transport system that has reduced the numbers of guards, conductors and station staff, the growth of crime has been fostered. We must not lose sight of the fact that such decay contributes to crime, and that is something that the Government acknowledge.
    The Government have failed to provide us with a comprehensive crime prevention strategy that includes tackling the causes of crime. When we come to power next year, the Labour party will start to reduce poverty and deprivation and begin the regeneration of our cities. We shall encourage local authorities to introduce safe lighting, improve public transport and promote effective partnerships between the community and the police. That will be a real start on reducing the level of crime.
    I could talk about many more rights, but the last one that I shall mention is the right to a decent home. I am surprised that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech about increasing house building or about plans to get the homeless into a home of their own, thereby giving them a right that they do not now enjoy. I believe, as I am sure that other hon. Members do, that one of the basic rights of every individual is that to a place to live. While we live in a society in which many millions of people, for all sorts of reasons but mostly because of the lack of decent housing on offer, are homeless, we are denying them the basic right to live decently and properly.
    The Government have been talking about taking measures against squatting. Nobody approves of squatting, whether it is in privately or publicly owned property, but the fact is that the majority of people who squat do so because they have nowhere to live. Therefore, the Government would be creating an offence that is not based on the person's intentions. We must look at these things in the proper perspective.
    The Government insist every year that we have a proper balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, and they are now littering the country with charters that outline the rights of individuals. Unfortunately, citizens have fewer rights and fewer real freedoms than ever before. At the same time, the Government heap responsibilities upon them with which they cannot cope. These are the responsibilities of finding a home, of finding a job without proper training, of keeping a job and of paying a mortgage, which some people can no longer afford. The

    421
    Government believe that it is right to heap all these responsibilities upon individuals, and the Labour party believes that there should be some backing and support from the Government rather than leaving responsibility solely with the individual and the family.
    We believe that everyone has the right to be treated equally and fairly, with decency and respect. When we have a Labour Government—as I have said, 1992 will bring one—we shall embark upon the road of giving every citizen the dignity that he or she deserves.
    9.41 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The title of the debate—"Rights, freedoms and responsibilities"—obviously offers opportunities for participants heavily to focus on their own point of view. It is not surprising that the debate has followed that pattern in true form. On the whole, Opposition Members have tended to concentrate on rights while my right hon. and hon. Friends have concentrated on freedoms and responsibilities as well as on rights. I would say that the acquisition of rights and the exercise of freedoms in any democracy automatically entails the necessity of individuals to shoulder responsibilities. With that in mind, I want to take up the various issues that have been raised in the debate.
    The issues fall into five different subjects—citizens' rights, prisons, the crime of joyriding as we have loosely described it, political asylum and women and womens' rights. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put before the House the various rights that they would like it to consider. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who I am sad to say is no longer in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) are looking for a change in the way in which our democratic processes are exercised. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) set out what a putative Labour Government might give, for example, to hon. Members representing parts of Scotland or Wales, or even Northern Ireland, if such an Administration were ever to be elected.
    I have to remind hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies that they have not done too badly under a Conservative Government for the past 12 years. Considerable amounts of public money have gone into Scotland's coffers. The opinion polls have not responded with an admission, as it were, of the Government's generosity. I suspect that England's generosity will be recognised a little late when those who represent Scottish constituencies discover that it is easier to manage with the helpful hand of Government than on one's own. I suspect that the same warning should be given to those colleagues who wish to have the same sort of devolution brought in elsewhere.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) concentrated on different aspects of the citizens charter. It is interesting that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton on housing were somewhat reflected by the remarks of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) when she replied to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. Their observations
    422
    should be noted by my ministerial colleagues in the Departments which have housing responsibilities. I undertake to draw that to their attention.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made an interesting point. He had looked closely at his constituency, which is a microcosm of what happens across the country, and it was no surprise to me when he said that law and order featured highly in the concerns of his constituents. I suspect that they feature highly in the concerns of everybody's constituents. It is something that any Government or any Member of Parliament would be foolish to ignore.
    My hon. Friend cited some good examples of matters that he believes to be worth pursuing. I am glad to note that there are 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in his constituency. It is an excellent record, to which many of us should aspire within our constituencies. He spoke of the importance of special constables, so he will be glad to hear that we are encouraging an increase in their numbers. I very much liked his idea of a crime prevention shop, and I shall certainly discuss that with my colleagues, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State at the Home Office.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West made an important point about his local airport.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke about the Chartists and drew an interesting parallel with the citizens charter. I do not share his gloomy view. He must know only too well that our citizens charter will give back power to the people who use public services. It will put the citizens, not the bureaucrats, first. It will make and measure the public standards that the individual has the right to expect. The rights of users of public services will be set out clearly and concisely.
    The hon. Gentleman should not fear the other measures that the citizens charter will bring forth. More competitive tendering will, as it has in the past, improve the quality of public services. It will certainly make a considerable difference to the individuals who receive those services. I know that the hon. Gentleman has considerable interest in franchise and enfranchisement. We do not have any plans to force people to register or, indeed, to vote. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would find a great deal of resistance to any such measure, were he to introduce one.
    I do not want to omit any hon. Member who has contributed to this debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) will understand if I do not comment on his speech. It is important to draw it to the attention of hon. Members, but I can go no further than that.
    I was a little surprised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's attack on the prison mutiny Bill. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that deterrents are an important aspect of the criminal justice system. Without them, where would we be in trying to maintain any form of criminal justice? It is an important Bill, which also incorporates further offences relating to people who abscond or who mistreat and maltreat prison property. Again, that is something about which we feel strongly.
    I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Woolf report, which was published earlier this year—and which we spent a great deal of time studying—has resulted in my right hon. Friend bringing forward a White Paper that accepts virtually every one of the report's recommendations. It is a bit rich of Opposition Members to criticise the

    423
    Government's track record on what has happened to prisons. We inherited a disgraceful prison estate. It was in a filthy, decrepit and ruined state. The previous Labour Government made no investment in the prison system. We have had to invest billions of pounds in order to improve the prison estate.
    Under no circumstances would we want to leave such an inheritance for those who have to go into the prisons and we have no intention of doing so since we nave a programme based on the Woolf recommendations which we shall pursue in order to improve not only the prison estate and the prison buildings but the regimes within the prisons. Those improvements are set out clearly in my right hon. Friend's White Paper and we shall look forward to completing that programme in the next 10 years. It is important that, quite apart from the Criminal Justice Bill in which measures are being taken to ensure that those people who need not be sent to prison can do purposeful community service, we should also look carefully at what happens to those people who have to go to prison.
    The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talked about the number of people in police cells. My right hon. Friend clearly said that he does not welcome the current situation. It is not one that we wish to see continuing. A number of things can be done about that and those steps are being taken quickly and treated seriously.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister told me all this at Easter when she promised me that the numbers ccontained in police cells in Greater Manchester would go down during the next six months. In fact, the numbers have gone up. What can she do tonight to convince the police officers of Greater Manchester who look after the prisoners in police cells that the situation will not continue for another 18 months?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I accept and I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's criticism. Contrary to all the predictions of the experts and statisticians, we have seen an unprecedented surge in the number of people entering custody. That, I think the hon. Gentleman will accept, is not something that one could easily handle in a short period. A substantial amount of prison estate will be coming into operation in the next two or three months which will alleviate the great difficulties that the police are currently experiencing in Manchester. I should put it on record that we are grateful for the assistance that the police have given us in this matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of taking note of that.
    Joyriding is an important matter to which a number of hon. Members have drawn attention. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) and my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), for Taunton and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) have touched upon that unpleasant crime. I give the House the categorical assurance that a Government Bill will be introduced to deal with that as a matter of urgency.
    It is important that we increase the penalties for taking vehicles without consent when that offence is aggravated by damage or dangerous driving. We are considering a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment and an obligatory disqualification where appropriate. It is
    424
    important that that message is clearly understood by all hon. Members. I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have brought the matter to our attention.
    The subject of asylum was of great interest to many hon. Members, not least to the hon. Member for Eccles. (Miss Lestor). I emphasise again that there is nothing in the Government's proposal that is detrimental to the interests of genuine refugees in Britain. The new appeal rights and faster recognition of their status represents clear benefits for genuine refugees. At present, as has been acknowledged by Opposition Members, there are those who manipulate the system and evade the normal immigration controls. It has to be said on behalf of all residents in Britain that that is detrimental to all who live here and we cannot allow it to continue out of genuine fairness to those who have settled in Britain within the law.
    There can be little doubt that that is an important measure and it is in no way the alarmist measure that Opposition Members were at pains to try to portray it as. That is a scandalous thing to do. The hon. Member for Belfast, South said as much, and the hon. Member for Eccles raised a point about refugee children.
    There is a problem with children who arrive in the United Kingdom on their own. If parents are granted refugee status, their children will automatically share it. However, if children arrive by themselves, they must go through some process or another, as would any asylum seeker, regardless of their age. They will be taken into care and looked after by the social services. I hope that that information satisfies the hon. Member for Eccles. We should see fewer such cases, and eventually none at all, at immigration centres.
    Some children who arrive in the United Kingdom with adults are abandoned, and are found wandering around the airport. They must be fed and given shelter as a matter of urgency. Children form only a small percentage of those seeking asylum. Over the past two to three years, they numbered about 200 out of a total of 85,000 asylum seekers. We are examining the Refugee Council's recommendations and will consider them with the Department of Health. Equally, we are examining the convention on the rights of the child, as the hon. Member for Eccles wants us to do.
    The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) was encouraging about the Operation 2000 launch that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended last week, at which he gave his blessing to a considerable initiative by the private sector, in which 60 blue chip companies committed themselves to examining targets for women and ensuring that women achieve a better place in business, receive the correct training, and are encouraged to climb the ladder and to go through the so-called glass ceiling.
    I refute the hon. Member for Barking's claim that Britain's progress with women's rights is not as good as elsewhere in Europe. The Government have been taking seriously their responsibilities in relation to European directives. We have negotiated on each of the points that the hon. Lady mentioned, and are working hard to ensure that directives do not impinge on or impair the hard-fought battles that women have won in respect of their employment.
    It is important to note that Britain has the highest number of working women in the European Community. Admittedly, most of them work part-time, but that is because they want to do so, because that happens to fit in

    425
    well with the domestic responsibilities that a substantial number of British women prefer to have. Opposition Members should recognise that women are working slowly but sensibly towards the benefits that they want to enjoy, and that they do not want to be subjected to the patronising and paternalistic attitudes that are adopted by some socialists, who would tell women, "This is what you must do." That point was sensibly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
    As to the eternal argument we have about women making their mark in Parliament as elsewhere, I will say to Opposition Members that the way in which they will get more women Members of Parliament is to work hard to ensure that 50 per cent. of Members of Parliament are women, rather than just the one or two who must be positively discriminated for, so that they are selected as candidates. Hon. Members should remember that, for 11 out of the 12 years of Conservative Government, we have had a woman Prime Minister. They should also remember that, out of 14 women on the Conservative Benches, four are now Ministers of State—one of the highest ranks in government. That is a good record.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Funeral Expenses
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  10 pm
  Sir John Hunt: I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter that was first brought to my attention at my constituency surgery on 6 July this year. That morning I received a call from Mrs. E. M. Serbey, an elderly widow living in Hayes, in my constituency. She told me of her distress that her claim for a social fund payment to meet the funeral expenses of a Mr. William H. Newlyn had been rejected.
  Mr. Newlyn, who was disabled, had been a lodger at Mrs. Serbey's home. When he died, she paid for his funeral out of her own pocket and out of the goodness of her own heart, simply because no one else would take on the responsibility. It therefore came as a great shock to her when she was subsequently informed that her claim for reimbursement of the funeral expenses had been rejected by the Department of Social Security—a decision which, I concede, was later upheld on appeal.
  The problem, and the complication, is that, although Mrs. Serbey was in receipt of community charge benefit both before and after the date of the funeral, and continues to be so entitled—and thus eligible for funeral payment—it seems that, owing to an oversight, she failed to complete the reapplication form for the benefit when it was sent to her by Bromley council in August last year. As no form had been received by Bromley council by 11 November, her claim expired.
  Mrs. Serbey's benefit payments were then not restored until 14 December. There was thus a gap of approximately a month, during which Mr. Newlyn's funeral took place. The crucial point, as I see it, however, is that Mrs. Serbey remained technically entitled to community charge benefit throughout that period. As far as I am aware, that is not in dispute.
  I therefore wrote to the Minister on 9 August, setting out the facts of the case and asking whether, in view of the special and unusual circumstances, a payment to Mrs. Serbey could be authorised to cover the funeral costs. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who replied, was sympathetic to Mrs. Serbey's predicament, I am afraid that her response was otherwise negative and disappointing. She declined to make the ex gratia payment for which I had been asking.
  It was at that point that I decided to pursue Mrs. Serbey's claim by means of an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, she is being pressed for payment by the funeral directors, Messrs. J. and R. Killick, who have shown great patience but who are now understandably anxious for their account in the sum of £803 to be settled.
  As a result of an act of kindness, Mrs. Serbey is being subjected to very considerable stress and anxiety. She assures me that she has no other way of raising the sum of money involved. Moreover, she tells me that she is having sleepless nights because of her worries about how the money is to be found. I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose kindness and consideration in these matters is well known to the House, to redress what I regard as a great unfairness and relieve the anxieties of an elderly widow living in my constituency.
  10.5 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) for the clear and measured way in which he has set out the case for his constituent. He is well known for his sympathetic attitude to cases such as this, and he has stated Mrs. Serbey's case in a very compelling way. It is an unfortunate case. When these problems arise, they are usually combined with grief and worry for the person concerned. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituent in her bereavement and the subsequent difficulties she has faced.
  There is no dispute between my hon. Friend and me as to the facts of the case as he outlined them. There are, however, two important points that I wish to make clear now. First, Mrs. Serbey's claim is still the subject of an appeal that has been adjourned, pending further information which is being obtained from the London borough of Bromley.
  Secondly, and in parallel with that, one of the members of staff from the district office of the Benefits Agency who is dealing with Mrs. Serbey visited her recently to see whether it might be possible to help her further immediately. The visit was arranged because Mrs. Serbey's circumstances have changed since her original claim. The final outcome is still not settled, but I can assure my hon. Friend that officials are doing everything that they can to help his constituent in her present difficulties.
  I will, if I may, briefly set out the background to the Government's general policy and arrangements for help with the cost of funerals. My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a series of different arrangements. The original death grant was a fixed sum benefit, introduced in 1949. Only those who had paid the relevant contributions were eligible. The death grant was eventually abolished in 1987. Then there were exceptional needs payments and later single payments to people who received supplementary benefit. The payments made special provision for a small number of low-income households which had responsibility for the funeral of a close relative.
  After 1987, those schemes were replaced by the current social fund funeral payments scheme. In my view, it has a number of important and valuable features. It provides a more effective way to target resources than the previous schemes. At the same time, it has extended the range of people on low incomes who are eligible for help. The move to include people on family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, as well as those on income support, has meant a significant increase in the number of low-income groups who receive real help with the cost of a funeral. It is a self-indexing scheme. No longer do we have to set an amount and uprate it by some index. Because entitlement is to the cost of a simple funeral, as the cost of funerals rises, the sum to which those people are entitled rises automatically.
  The other point, which is of significance in the case of Mrs. Serbey, is that it is a regulated, not a discretionary system. It is not up to adjudication officers to use their discretion. If the regulations are followed, a person who qualifies will receive a funeral payment.
  In general, the scheme is working well. There were almost 50,000 awards in the last financial year, costing about £30 million. The average cost per funeral was just over £600. Over a third of these awards went to people
  428
  who were not on income support but on one of the other benefits, usually housing benefit, but in the case of Mrs. Serbey it was community charge benefit.
  No matter how well a scheme works—I believe that the scheme is working in a sensible and sensitive manner—there will always be difficulties for some individuals, and that is the case for my hon. Friend's constituent. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, Mrs. Serbey was not awarded a funeral payment, because she was not receiving a qualifying benefit at the appropriate time—her qualifying benefit was community charge benefit.
  As I have said, I regret that there is a limited amount I can say about this case at this time, as there is still an outstanding appeal against the decision of the adjudication officer. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail prior to the outcome of that appeal. This appeal has been adjourned until further information is obtained from the borough which is responsible for the award of community charge benefit. As I have already said, our local office is trying its best to see whether there is any other way in which they can help Mrs. Serbey.
  The main reason why the problem arose—there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself on this—is that, for a brief period, Mrs. Serbey did not claim community charge benefit. However, as my hon. Friend said, there was no lack in her underlying entitlement to the benefit. I am always sorry when someone loses by claiming too late, benefit to which they might have been entitled. The Department and the agencies do everything possible, through forms, leaflets, freeline services and other methods, to alert people to the benefits available and the time limits for claiming them. Local social security offices, citizen's advice bureaux and other organisations cooperate with us in trying to achieve that.
  However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is for the individual concerned to ensure that they have claimed all the benefits appropriate to their circumstances. In this case, the benefit is administered by the local authority. As I understand it, the authority sent a reminder to Mrs. Serbey to renew her application, but no such renewal application was received.
  Our social security system must be tied to precise dates of claim and time limits. If claims were not linked to precise dates or there were no time limits, it would be possible for people to assert their right to a particular benefit some considerable time after the event. In many cases, it would be impossible to decide whether the entitlement conditions had been satisfied. The extra administrative burden involved in deciding such cases could undermine our ability to pay benefit promptly to those making their claims on time.
  I am satisfied that the local office is doing its best to assist Mrs. Serbey. I am satisfied that the information available to her is adequate and that she is being closely advised. Until the outcome of that work and the outcome of her appeal are known, there is little more that I can add. I reiterate my understanding of and sympathy for my hon. Friend's constituent in her difficulties and my hope that they will be resolved swiftly.
  Sir John Hunt: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response. Can he give any indication of when the result of the appeal is likely to be known? This matter has been hanging over Mrs. Serbey for so long that it would be helpful to know when the result is likely to be known.
  Mr. Scott: I must be careful, because these matters are decided by independent adjudicating authorities. Before the weekend, the local office delivered to Mrs. Serbey a form for a fresh application. It was hoped that she would sign and return it to the person who delivered it. That was
  430
  not possible. The sooner she can return it, the sooner the matter might be resolved by the adjudicating authorities in, I hope, her favour, but I cannot guarantee that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by, for, or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Law Officers since 11 July 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  One such survey has been carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department since 11 July. This was an exit survey conducted in a sample of courts on the northern circuit by the north west legal services committee. It was commissioned in May 1991. and it was undertaken on various dates during the summer. In the survey the public were asked to answer a number of questions on the quality of the service and facilities that had been provided for them in the court.

  No national public opinion survey has been conducted by any of the departments for which I am responsible since 11 July 1991. No records are held centrally of any local surveys that may have been conducted by area staff of the Crown prosecution service, and such information could be acquired only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by the Lord Chancellor's Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans to carry out any television advertising campaigns during 1991–92, nor any individual publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give separate figures for spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the Lord Chancellor's Department, excluding staff costs, are as follows:14

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £

  £

  £

  £1

  Television advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Radio advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Newspaper advertising

  15,000

  3,967

  50,242

  4,900

  Other promotional material

  32,500

  31,208

  77,968

  69,550

  1 Estimated.

  Figures for the budget for 1992–93 will not be available until after the autumn statement and after budgets have been finalised.

  The breakdown of the amounts spent on respective areas and the amounts spent for the previous years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but the total expenditure, including staff costs, was:

  £

  1984–85

  135,730

  1985–86

  176,613

  1986–87

  148,020

  1987–88

  137,001

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor's Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  The Attorney-General: Total expenditure on press and public relations excluding staff costs is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  5,180

  1985–86

  13,253

  1986–87

  23,282

  1987–88

  34,500

  1988–89

  34,159

  1989–90

  33,616

  1990–91

  136,960

  1 As revised

  The revised 1990–91 figure was lower than anticipated because the Lord Chancellor's Department was not required to contribute to the Children Act publicity to the extent originally envisaged.

  The amounts spent between 1979 and 1984 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The estimate for 1991–92 is £63,450. This includes the Lord Chancellor's Department press office's additional responsibility for departmental leaflets, the increased cost of publicity to explain the role of the courts and the judiciary, to expand public understanding in areas where new legislation is proposed or implemented, or law reforms considered.

  Figures for the budget for 1992–93 will not be available until after the autumn statement and after budgets have been finalised.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The following surveys, carried out by my Department since 11 July 1991, include questions to individuals about their opinions:

  Evaluation of the DOE "Wake-Up" leaflet.

  Monitoring Housing Management Performance in Housing Associations and Local Authorities.

  Survey of Household Budgets and Housing Costs.

  Evaluation of Block Action.

  Development Work for 1991 English House Condition Survey: (a) Dairy System (b) Pre-pilot.

  National Survey on attitudes towards Environmental Noise (fieldwork in progress).

  Energy Efficiency Campaign—Creative Development Research [Stage 1 and Stage 2] (jointly sponsored with the Department of Energy).

  Evaluation of Energy Efficiency Campaign (jointly sponsored with the Department of Energy).

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the total expenditure by the Nature Conservancy Council on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93;

  (2) if he will give separate figures for spending by the Nature Conservancy Council on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have asked the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material;

  (2) if he will give separate figures for spending by the Ordnance Survey on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93;

  (3) what was the total expenditure by the Ordnance Survey on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I will ask the Director General of Ordnance Survey to reply to the hon. Member on behalf of his organisation.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Department of the Environment, (b) Ordnance Survey, (c) the Nature Conservancy Council and (d) the Countryside Commission during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the
  16
  commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has carried out no television advertising during 1991–92 and has no plans to do so.

  I gave the hon. Member information regarding my Department's expenditure on publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 on 1 July 1991. The advertising company Collett, Dickenson, Pearce and Partners has been selected to undertake strategic and creative work for the joint campaign with the Department of Energy to promote home energy efficiency. The public relations firm Maxima has been selected to carry out promotional work for the campaign. The campaign begins today and is intended to run for at least three years.

  I will ask the Director General of Ordnance Survey and the chairmen of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission to write to the hon. Member replying for their organisations.

  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In May 1989, deliveries of a leaflet explaining the community charge were made to 19 million households in England. In January 1990, my Department sent leaflets to 1·6 million businesses giving details of the new business rate. In February 1991, a leaflet explaining the dangers of radon in houses and inviting householders to take advantage of free radon testing was delivered to 660,000 households in Devon and Cornwall.

  From time to time, samples of the Department's publications are sent directly to interested bodies for information.

  Local Authority Pension Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to equalise female contribution survivor benefits within the local authority superannuation pension scheme.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Regulations are being prepared to amend the local government superannuation scheme to provide equal survivor benefits. Subject to the necessary parliamentary procedures, the regulations will come into force as soon as possible.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the standard spending assessments for each education and social services authority for(a) education and (b) social services functions for the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, together with a description of how those standard spending assessments were constructed.

  Mr. Key
  Standard spending assessments—SSAs—replaced grant-related expenditure assessments—GREs—in 1990–91. The education and social services SSAs for each relevant local authority in England are given in tables 2A, in £s million, and 2B, £s per adult, of the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1990/91" and the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1991/92".
  17
  The method used to calculate these SSAs is set out in "The Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England)" and "The Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England)". The 1989–90 GREs for education and social services are shown in table C.3.1 of "The Technical Handbook of Grant-Related Expenditure 1989–90" and the method of calculation is described in "The Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1989/90". All these documents are in the Library.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Black pool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Thames House, Millbank
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether planning consent was sought by his Department from Westminster council prior to building the eight-storey block between the arches of Thames House, Millbank.

  Mr. Yeo
  Planning consultation under DOE circular 18/84 took place between the Property Services Agency and Westminster city council between September 1989 and November 1989. On 9 November 1989, Westminster city council confirmed that it had decided to raise no objections to the proposals put forward, in respect of both listed building consent and planning consent.

  Sports Clubs (Rates)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many non-profit making sports clubs in England applied for rate relief for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 and as a total over the same period; and how many of these clubs were granted rate relief of(a) 25 per cent. or under, (b) 25 to 50 per cent., (c) 50 to 65 per cent., (d) 65 to 90 per cent. and (e) 90 to 100 per cent.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available. However, the results of a recent departmental survey, based on returns received from 81 per cent. of local authorities, reveal that more non-profit making recreational clubs received more relief in 1990–91 than in 1989–90, the last year of general rates. The table shows the number of properties occupied by non-profit making recreational clubs receiving relief in the two years and the percentage amounts of relief given.

  Year

  Number of properties receiving relief

  Number of properties granted relief of:

  less than 20 per cent.

  21–50 per cent.

  51–80 per cent.

  more than 80 per cent.

  1989–90

  8,500

  300

  5,200

  1,100

  1,900

  1990–91

  10,200

  700

  3,900

  2,800

  2,900

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Right to Buy
  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take on the performance of Lambeth in processing right-to-buy applications.

  Mr. Yeo
  Lambeth is one of several London authorities where large numbers of tenants have experienced delays in the processing of their right-to-buy applications and who have thus been denied their statutory rights. The performance of all London authorities is monitored annually, and the poorest performers are required to submit monthly reports. In March 1989 the Government introduced procedures which enabled tenants to have rent counted as advance payments towards purchase of their home if sale was delayed. Through this measure, the tenant gains some recompense and the authority loses part of the receipt on sale.

  Following these measures the number of delays in monitored authorities has fallen dramatically, from 15,457 in March 1989 to 3,712 in September 1990. Most London authorities now have only a handful of cases, if any, where tenants are being delayed in the exercise of their statutory right. Only two authorities are still subject to monthly monitoring—Lambeth and Hackney.

  Lambeth accounted for 40 per cent. of the total cases delayed in London in September 1990. On the basis of the most recent return, Lambeth still has 843 cases out of time, which is three times as many as the next worst authority. Not only are right-to-buy applicants continuing to suffer, but Lambeth tenants and residents as a whole pay for this inefficiency through the receipts forgone on delayed sales. This is clearly unacceptable. On 29 October I therefore invited the leader of Lambeth council and his senior relevant officials to meet me to discuss this situation and what needs to be done to bring Lambeth's right-to-buy performance to an acceptable level.

  Local Government (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his proposals for extending the requirement for compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am today publishing "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services", in order to start the process of consulting widely on the Government's proposals for clarifying and extending the requirement for compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services. The citizens charter underlines our belief that the widest possible application of competition will bring benefits to the local taxpayer and the consumer. The consultation paper, therefore, seeks to tighten up on anti-competitive behaviour so that private firms have a fair chance to compete for local authority contracts, and explains how we propose to extend compulsory competitive tendering to a wide range of professional and technical activities. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure by the Countryside Commission on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.
  19
  Mr. Heseltine
  I have asked the chairman of the Countryside Commission to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

TRANSPORT

  Transpennine Road Crossing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now proposes to publish the report on the consultation on a possible transpennine road crossing.

  Mr. Chope
  As soon as possible.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The spending by my Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year and the estimated spending in 1991–92 is as follows:

  Television

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  1979–80

  4,141

  62

  105

  1,532

  1980–81

  3,502

  336

  129

  1,737

  1981–82

  3,615

  6

  410

  1,457

  Topic

  Commencement date

  Duration

  Company

  Child road safety

  —cycle helmets

  23 April

  3 weeks

  Miller and Leeves WAHT

  —driving speeds

  21 October

  3 weeks

  DMB and B

  Drinking and driving

  3 December

  4 weeks

  DMB and B

  The following publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 have been or are being carried out in 1991–92:

  Topic

  Commencement date

  Duration

  Company

  New rear seat belt legislation

  1 June

  4 weeks

  Miller and Leeves WAHT

  Drinking and driving

  1 July

  4 weeks

  Miller and Leeves WAHT

  Coastal safety

  —

  Ongoing

  None

  Transport and the environment

  6 July

  Ongoing

  None

  Safety on the Move exhibition programme

  —

  Ongoing

  None

  Road Traffic Act

  15 August

  Ongoing

  None

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total expenditure on the Department's press and public relations office since 1984–85 is as follows:20

  Television

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  1982–83

  2,319

  98

  816

  1,415

  1983–84

  4,655

  22

  334

  1,488

  1984–85

  1,723

  207

  476

  2,873

  1985–86

  70

  858

  834

  4,026

  1986–87

  72

  520

  738

  4,489

  1987–88

  2,310

  50

  140

  3,010

  1988–89

  1,867

  110

  365

  3,367

  1989–90

  1,930

  233

  982

  3,289

  1990–91

  3,122

  145

  833

  3,962

  1991–92

  3,414

  306

  794

  5,053

  Detailed decisions have not yet been taken on expenditure by media for 1992–93, but the overall figure is expected to be approximately £9·5 million.

  The increase in expenditure this year is largely due to the child road safety campaign; other major areas of expenditure include campaigns on drink driving and rear seat belts.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following television advertising campaigns have been carried out or are planned by my Department in 1991–92:

  £

  1984–85

  339,426

  1985–86

  354,393

  1986–87

  363,446

  1987–88

  389,473

  1988–89

  437,950

  1989–90

  451,214

  1990–91

  517,905

  11991–92

  565,336

  21992–93

  590,776

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  21
  These figures cover the overall costs of running the press office, calculated using the ready reckoner for staff-related costs.

  Before 1984–85 the information division was a common service of the Departments of Transport and the Environment and the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No.

  A12
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement detailing his plans for the future of the A12 trunk road in Suffolk in respect of dualling and bypasses; and the latest timetable for each section.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposals to upgrade the A12 in Suffolk north of Ipswich to a two-lane dual carriageway have been split into five schemes. The latest timetables for each section are as follows. The whole programme of improvements should be completed by the end of the decade.

  (1) Martlesham to Wickham Market:—Preferred route decision Autumn 1992.

  (2) Wickham Market to Saxmundham Bypass:—Publication of draft orders Summer 1992.

  (3) Saxmundham Bypass dualling:—Publication of draft orders Spring 1993.

  (4) Saxmundham Bypass—South of Wrentham:—Preferred route decision late 1993.

  (5) South of Wrentham-Kessingland:—Preferred route decision late 1992.

  Barrow Crossings
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had over the Health and Safety Executive decision to take away barrow crossings at stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate supports British Rail's decision to remove barrow crossings from locations where they are no longer needed because of the risk of unauthorised use which presents a safety hazard, particularly at unmanned stations and at those where there is third rail electrification. A few letters have been received from people who formerly used them.

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish an updated version of table 7.18 of chapter 7 of the 1990–91 to 1992–93 public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1007, extending the series there up to date.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures are published in table 1 of "National road maintenance condition survey. Report on the 1990 survey". A copy is in the Library. Figures previously published in Cm. 1007 have been revised following a review of the way the index is calculated, carried out in particular to ensure that the cost weightings used take account of current maintenance practices.

  Bypasses (Compensation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of claims for compensation for noise and disturbance arising from the construction of(a) the A696 Woolsington bypass and (b) the A1 Newcastle western bypass; and how many of those claims had been settled by 1 October.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of claims under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 received in respect of the A696 Woolsington bypass and A1 Newcastle western bypass are 104 and 550 respectively. None of these claims had been settled by 1 October.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department regularly commissions surveys. A list of all surveys is maintained, but it is not possible to identify easily from this list those surveys which include questions of opinion. The answer on 11 July 1991 to the hon. Member referred to 101 surveys of all types reported to the Department's survey control unit in 1990. A further 69 have been reported since and I am sending a list of these to the hon. Member.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Some officials came to Blackpool to discuss departmental business and then left.

  Channel Tunnel
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated number of(a) private cars and (b) lorries entering and leaving the channel tunnel portal at Folkestone from the Eurotunnel shuttle service in (i) 1993, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 2003.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest available figures are contained in a report published in August 1990 by the cross-channel traffic group. The report provides estimates of the total number of cars and goods vehicles using the tunnel on an average annual day. The table shows the figures multiplied by 365:

  Cars

  Goods vehicles

  1993

  3,176,595

  547,500

  2003

  4,352,990

  888,045

  No estimate was made for 1998.

  Vehicle Air Bags
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has undertaken to examine the feasibility of introducing air bags into vehicles for safety purposes.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is currently studying the experiences of USA and Canada in the application of air
  23
  bags, in both research conditions and production vehicles. Information from this study will be considered in the development of proposals for an improved European standard for vehicle occupant protection in frontal impacts.

  There is no restriction on the introduction and use of air-bags in cars in the United Kingdom. It would not be sensible, however, to make fitment compulsory in the absence of an agreed European standard. Meanwhile, seat belts, which are both effective and cheaper to fit than air bags, will remain the main secondary safety feature in vehicles in the United Kingdom.

  Disabled Rail Passengers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it part of British Rail's quality of service objectives that all British Rail stations are fully accessible to disabled passengers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail already does much to make its network accessible to those with disabilities. I expect BR's commitment to improving the existing arrangements to be set out in the forthcoming BR passengers charter.

  Casualties killed in road accidents in London: By age and sex: 1979 to 1990

  Age 0–15

  Age 16–59

  Age 60 and over

  All ages2

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  1979

  Greater London

  37

  18

  55

  260

  71

  331

  113

  100

  213

  410

  192

  602

  Westminster/City of London

  —

  —

  —

  14

  3

  17

  7

  2

  9

  21

  5

  26

  1980

  Greater London

  41

  16

  57

  234

  59

  293

  110

  95

  205

  388

  170

  558

  Westminster/City of London

  1

  —

  1

  5

  6

  11

  5

  3

  8

  11

  9

  20

  1981

  Greater London

  30

  14

  44

  235

  60

  295

  104

  88

  192

  374

  163

  537

  Westminster/City of London

  —

  —

  —

  11

  5

  16

  2

  1

  3

  13

  6

  19

  1982

  Greater London

  39

  14

  53

  240

  74

  314

  87

  80

  167

  377

  176

  553

  Westminster/City of London

  1

  —

  1

  11

  3

  14

  3

  3

  6

  15

  7

  22

  1983

  Greater London

  38

  14

  52

  219

  61

  280

  100

  97

  197

  366

  175

  541

  Westminster/City of London

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  8

  3

  8

  11

  8

  13

  21

  1984

  Greater London

  32

  15

  47

  237

  54

  291

  93

  104

  197

  390

  181

  571

  Westminster/City of London

  1

  —

  1

  11

  5

  16

  4

  8

  12

  18

  15

  33

  1985

  Greater London

  31

  5

  36

  218

  60

  278

  100

  76

  176

  351

  142

  493

  Westminster/City of London

  —

  —

  —

  9

  3

  12

  4

  4

  8

  13

  7

  20

  1986

  Greater London

  20

  8

  28

  238

  62

  300

  106

  78

  184

  372

  148

  520

  Westminster/City of London

  1

  —

  1

  14

  4

  18

  3

  4

  7

  18

  8

  26

  1987

  Greater London

  23

  10

  33

  207

  52

  259

  86

  74

  160

  319

  137

  456

  Westminster/City of London

  —

  —

  —

  16

  4

  20

  6

  5

  11

  22

  9

  31

  1988

  Greater London

  30

  13

  43

  188

  55

  243

  77

  60

  137

  310

  136

  446

  Westminster/City of London

  1

  —

  1

  10

  4

  14

  3

  2

  5

  15

  6

  21

  1989

  Greater London

  34

  9

  43

  196

  46

  242

  77

  74

  151

  328

  132

  460

  Westminster/City of London

  3

  —

  3

  6

  4

  10

  5

  2

  7

  14

  7

  21

  24
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with British Rail over the funding of disabled access to stations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The funding of access to stations for disabled people is not considered as a separate issue. Rather, British Rail is expected to take account of the needs of people with disabilities whenever it plans the modification or refurbishment of stations.

  Road Fatalities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were killed and how many people were injured in road accidents by age group and sex in(a) the Greater London area and (b) central London in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is given in the tables. It is given for the years 1979 to 1990 only, as information for earlier years is not readily available. It is possible to break down the information only to the level of London boroughs. Data for the greater London area are for all the London boroughs, while figures for the cities of London and Westminster are given separately to cover central London.
  25

  Age 0–15

  Age 16–59

  Age 60 and over

  All ages2

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  Male

  Female

  Total1

  1990

  Greater London

  20

  7

  27

  176

  39

  215

  83

  56

  139

  300

  108

  408

  Westminster/City of London

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1

  10

  2

  5

  7

  12

  7

  19

  1 Includes sex not reported.

  2 Includes age not recorded.

  Casualties injured1 in road accidents in London: By age and sex: 1979 to 1990

  Age 0–15

  Age 16–59

  Age 60 and over

  All ages3

  Male

  Female

  Total2

  Male

  Female

  Total2

  Male

  Female

  Total2

  Male

  Female

  Total2

  1979

  Greater London

  5,069

  3,061

  8,170

  26,449

  12,563

  39,067

  2,753

  3,171

  5,935

  37,183

  20,594

  58,076

  Westminster/City of London

  142

  111

  255

  2,090

  1,111

  3,207

  237

  265

  502

  2,771

  1,684

  4,484

  1980

  Greater London

  4,764

  2,666

  7,480

  25,274

  11,967

  37,320

  2,806

  3,091

  5,917

  35,451

  19,411

  55,238

  Westminster/City of London

  126

  77

  204

  1,927

  991

  2,921

  233

  230

  465

  2,532

  1,470

  4,023

  1981

  Greater London

  4,580

  2,548

  7,193

  24,555

  12,112

  36,738

  2,597

  2,976

  5,589

  34,226

  19,220

  53,837

  Westminster/City of London

  130

  87

  222

  2,029

  1,008

  3,044

  226

  223

  449

  2,617

  1,477

  4,129

  1982

  Greater London

  4,711

  2,667

  7,378

  27,527

  13,486

  41,013

  2,813

  3,172

  5,985

  36,884

  20,424

  57,308

  Westminster/City of London

  138

  68

  206

  2,209

  1,111

  3,320

  245

  248

  493

  2,798

  1,582

  4,380

  1983

  Greater London

  4,574

  2,486

  7,060

  24,537

  12,651

  37,188

  2,657

  2,989

  5,646

  33,514

  19,149

  52,663

  Westminster/City of London

  125

  72

  197

  1,977

  1,101

  3,078

  232

  259

  491

  2,497

  1,559

  4,056

  1984

  Greater London

  4,597

  2,567

  7,164

  24,524

  12,724

  37,248

  2,613

  3,129

  5,742

  33,659

  19,641

  53,300

  Westminster/City of London

  126

  82

  208

  2,064

  1,064

  3,128

  238

  257

  495

  2,637

  1,546

  4,183

  1985

  Greater London

  4,145

  2,357

  6,502

  23,206

  12,306

  35,512

  2,459

  2,923

  5,382

  32,050

  18,926

  50,976

  Westminster/City of London

  140

  71

  211

  1,998

  1,051

  3,049

  222

  225

  447

  2,564

  1,462

  4,026

  1986

  Greater London

  3,943

  2,323

  6,266

  23,257

  12,738

  35,995

  2,381

  2,859

  5,240

  31,774

  19,316

  51,090

  Westminster/City of London

  117

  72

  189

  1,917

  985

  2,902

  197

  224

  421

  2,445

  1,409

  3,854

  1987

  Greater London

  3,581

  2,240

  5,821

  22,475

  12,749

  35,224

  2,182

  2,593

  4,775

  30,140

  18,858

  48,998

  Westminster/City of London

  88

  70

  158

  1,901

  951

  2,852

  183

  205

  388

  2,355

  1,352

  3,707

  1988

  Greater London

  3,631

  2,330

  5,961

  22,628

  13,016

  35,644

  2,243

  2,695

  4,938

  30,400

  19,268

  49,668

  Westminster/City of London

  105

  72

  177

  1,948

  956

  2,904

  181

  204

  385

  2,424

  1,344

  3,768

  1989

  Greater London

  3,850

  2,422

  6,272

  23,895

  13,748

  37,643

  2,286

  2,699

  4,985

  32,045

  20,274

  52,319

  Westminster/City of London

  117

  66

  183

  2,054

  954

  3,008

  181

  203

  384

  2,584

  1,371

  3,955

  1990

  Greater London

  3,864

  2,408

  6,272

  23,273

  13,598

  36,871

  2,284

  2,686

  4,970

  31,399

  20,064

  51,463

  Westminster/City of London

  101

  72

  173

  1,871

  856

  2,727

  150

  163

  313

  2,328

  1,229

  3,557

  1 Excludes those killed.

  2 Includes sex not reported.

  3 Includes age not reported.

  Crash Cushions
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will adopt the draft CEN specification for the use of crash cushions in the United Kingdom as soon as possible.

  Mr. Chope
  Working group 1 of CEN technical committee TC226 is preparing draft standards coveting terminology, performance classes, testing methods and test acceptance criteria for vehicle safety restraint systems, including crash cushions.
  26
  Further examination is taking place of the required testing criteria for crash cushions. This will delay the preparation of the draft standard covering performance classes for this type of device.

  When these standards are agreed, the United Kingdom will consider their adoption.

  Edinburgh-Aberdeen Line
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to electrify the Edinburgh-Aberdeen railway line.
  27
  Mr. Freeman
  It is for the British Railways Board to determine investment priorities within the funds made available to it by the Government. It is not for Ministers to tell BR when a specific project should be brought forward.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 15 July 1991.

  Mr. Renton
  No public opinion surveys have been carried out by my office since 15 July 1991.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rights of the Child Convention
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Considerable progress has been made towards ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We hope to be in a position to ratify in the coming months.

  Western Sahara
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest position regarding the United Nations efforts to secure a solution to the problems of the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A ceasefire in the territory took effect on 6 September. A referendum on the future of the territory, envisaged in the United Nations Secretary General's plan, is scheduled for January 1992. The United Nations mission supervising the referendum—MINURSO—has been deployed. It is now drawing up a list of voters. The United Kingdom is contributing to the cost of MINURSO and has provided 15 military observers.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 1 July at column 24 and 11 July at columns 421–22.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on advertising and other promotional material for the years 1979–80 to 1990–91, latest estimates for 1991–92 and budget provisions for 1992–93 are:

  FCO Diplomatic wing

  FCO ODA wing

  £

  £

  1979–80

  100,266

  214,739

  1980–81

  116,532

  145,697

  1981–82

  162,998

  207,964

  1982–83

  229,711

  135,506

  1983–84

  205,247

  252,691

  1984–85

  149,932

  234,050

  1985–86

  160,535

  271,084

  1986–87

  335,754

  228,347

  1987–88

  195,000

  351,000

  1988–89

  289,184

  689,631

  1989–90

  395,842

  1,066,447

  1990–91

  926,610

  902,000

  1991–92

  638,000

  1,031,000

  1992–93

  1,063,000

  1,057,000

  These figures cannot be disaggregated to identify the medium used without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:
  29

  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on press and public relations from 1983–84 to 1990–91, latest estimates for 1991–92 and budget provisions for 1992–93 are (£ million)

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Payments to Central Office of Information for overseas information material and related activities

  17·4

  18·8

  18·3

  18·7

  19·2

  18·3

  18·1

  15·7

  12·3

  12·0

  Other information services

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·7

  0·9

  0·9

  3·3

  5·8

  4·8

  4·9

  Running costs of Diplomatic Wing Information/News Department

  1·8

  1·4

  1·9

  1·9

  2·0

  1·8

  2·4

  3·6

  4·1

  4·3

  Running costs of ODA Wing Information Department

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  Costs of information staff at overseas posts

  12·4

  12·8

  13·6

  14·6

  17·6

  17·5

  18·8

  23·2

  24·8

  25·9

  Total

  32·8

  34·1

  35·0

  36·1

  39·9

  38·8

  43·0

  48·7

  46·4

  47·5

  Figures for the period before 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the United States Government about joint efforts to promote and monitor observance of human rights in Vietnam and the implications for Her Majesty's Government's policy on repatriation of the boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain in close touch with the United States Government about the situation in Vietnam, and welcome the recent Vietnamese reaffirmation that no Vietnamese migrant returning to Vietnam will be persecuted. The Vietnamese have also agreed to continue to facilitate the monitoring of conditions of all returnees to Vietnam by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  One such poll has been conducted.

  Diplomatic Missions (Parking Fines)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish up-to-date figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by each diplomatic mission in London in the first six months of the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payments.

  The total of 3,000 for the first six months of 1991 represents a 22 per cent. reduction from the figure of 3,842 for the same period in 1990. It compares with nearly 67,000 in the first six months of 1984 before publication of the 1985 White Paper. We welcome this further reduction in unpaid parking fines that has been achieved during 1991 and appreciate the co-operation of diplomatic missions since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall
  30
  continue to monitor carefully the level of unpaid fines and bring pressure to bear on diplomatic missions to reduce this still further.

  Unpaid Parking Fines

  Diplomatic Mission

  January-June 1991

  January-June 1990

  Saudi Arabia

  194

  176

  Soviet Union

  167

  171

  Kuwait

  165

  100

  UAE

  140

  104

  Poland

  115

  344

  Cameroon

  110

  96

  Israel

  92

  62

  Greece

  80

  70

  Pakistan

  78

  120

  Morocco

  78

  87

  Thailand

  77

  67

  China

  74

  57

  Turkey

  73

  49

  Korea

  71

  74

  France

  69

  53

  Jordan

  62

  55

  Bulgaria

  61

  52

  Ghana

  59

  20

  Sudan

  51

  110

  Nigeria

  47

  29

  Egypt

  44

  133

  Oman

  42

  31

  Cote d'Ivoire

  41

  105

  Zambia

  38

  68

  Canada

  35

  27

  Brazil

  33

  27

  Portugal

  33

  34

  Iraq, Interests Sec.

  32

  77

  FRG

  30

  41

  Cyprus

  30

  60

  Barbados

  27

  25

  Yugoslavia

  27

  70

  Guyana

  26

  11

  Brunei

  25

  47

  Tanzania

  25

  5

  India

  24

  74

  Gambia

  23

  24

  Hungary

  22

  58

  Spain

  22

  61

  Guatemala

  22

  9

  Gabon

  22

  13

  Bahrain

  21

  7

  Romania

  20

  31

  Italy

  20

  21

  Zimbabwe

  19

  20

  Sierra Leone

  18

  30

  Tunisia

  18

  13

  Bangladesh

  18

  27

  Uruguay

  17

  18

  Jamaica

  15

  25

  Algeria

  15

  21

  31

  Diplomatic Mission

  January-June 1991

  January-June 1990

  Yemen

  14

  12

  Ethiopia

  14

  12

  Finland

  13

  9

  Chile

  12

  10

  Honduras

  12

  9

  Malaysia

  11

  65

  Venezuela

  10

  7

  Malawi

  10

  5

  Myanmar

  10

  7

  Zaire

  10

  12

  Liberia

  10

  18

  Vietnam

  9

  12

  Iran

  9

  0

  Togo

  8

  5

  Panama

  8

  2

  Cuba

  8

  14

  Japan

  7

  18

  Czechoslovakia

  7

  16

  Trinidad

  7

  5

  Peru

  7

  1

  Bolivia

  7

  2

  Austria

  6

  9

  USA

  6

  8

  Uganda

  5

  5

  Somalia

  5

  9

  Mongolia

  5

  8

  Mauritius

  5

  13

  Lesotho

  5

  8

  Eastern Caribbean States

  5

  2

  Sweden

  4

  2

  South Africa

  4

  1

  Seychelles

  4

  25

  Paraguay

  4

  7

  Lebanon

  4

  5

  Belgium

  4

  11

  Australia

  3

  4

  Syria

  3

  0

  Singapore

  3

  4

  Norway

  3

  9

  Luxembourg

  3

  3

  Indonesia

  3

  16

  Fiji

  3

  0

  Argentina

  2

  0

  Mozambique

  2

  0

  Philippines

  2

  19

  Papua New Guinea

  2

  0

  Netherlands

  2

  3

  Iceland

  2

  8

  Bahamas

  2

  0

  Mexico

  2

  3

  Swaziland

  1

  1

  Sri Lanka

  1

  4

  Nepal

  1

  1

  Malta

  1

  0

  Ireland

  1

  6

  Ecuador

  1

  7

  Costa Rica

  1

  0

  Qatar

  0

  111

  Angola

  0

  55

  Denmark

  0

  2

  Senegal

  0

  8

  Antigua

  0

  0

  Tonga

  0

  1

  Afghanistan

  0

  2

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  Botswana

  0

  3

  Belize

  0

  0

  Nicaragua

  0

  11

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  Kenya

  0

  12

  Grenada

  0

  0

  El Salvador

  0

  0

  Dominica

  0

  4

  Colombia

  0

  0

  Benin

  0

  0

  32

  Diplomatic Mission

  January-June 1991

  January-June 1990

  International Organisations

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  13

  24

  Cocoa

  3

  3

  INMARSAT

  1

  0

  IMO

  1

  0

  EC

  1

  0

  WEU

  1

  0

  UN

  0

  0

  Coffee

  0

  1

  Sugar

  0

  0

  3,000

  3,842

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Private Health Insurance (Tax Relief)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the estimated level of deadweight on tax relief for private health insurance;

  (2) what is the total cumulative cost of the tax relief for private health insurance;

  (3) for each year of the scheme's existence, what is (a) the number of people receiving tax relief for private health insurance, (b) the number of these that are pensioners and (c) the cost per pensioner for whom the tax relief has been claimed.

  Mr. Maude
  Of those cases benefiting from tax relief for private medical insurance in 1990–91, the proportion not previously covered by this form of insurance is not known, but is thought to be relatively small. The estimated cost of the relief in respect of 1990–91 was £55 million and for 1991–92 is expected to be about £60 million.

  In 1990–91 relief was available in respect of about 330,000 contracts covering about 600,000 people aged over 60. The revenue cost per insured person was about£90.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the full cost including revenues forgone to the Exchequer of every extra 100,000 unemployed people in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Mellor
  A rise of 100,000 in unemployment is estimated directly to add around £305 million to benefit expenditure in 1991–92 and £325 million to benefit expenditure in 1992–93 as shown in table 24 of the DSS Departmental Report, Cm 1514. Estimates of the effects on tax receipts and public finances as a whole would depend on the assumptions made.

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the figures in table 7.3 in Cm. 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91,(a) in cash prices, (b) in 1990–91 prices and (c) as a percentage of gross domestic product;

  (2) if he will publish the figures in table 7.2 in Cm. 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91, with a back series to 1978–79 (a) in cash prices, (b) in 1990–91 prices and (c) as a percentage of gross domestic product.
  33
  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not currently available. Updated versions of the two tables will be included in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement" which is due to be published at the end of January 1992. Figures for the years 1978–79 to 1984–85 on a basis consistent with the figures given in table 7.2 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement", Cm. 1520, could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the figures for the public sector borrowing requirement/public sector debt repayment for each year back to 1978–79,(a) including privatisation proceeds, (b) excluding privatisation proceeds and (c) both of these as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures are in the table.

  PSBR

  PSBR excluding privatisation proceeds

  £ million

  as percentage of GDP1

  £ million

  as percentage of GDP1

  1978–79

  9,174

  5·4

  9,174

  5·4

  1979–80

  9,926

  4·9

  10,303

  5·0

  1980–81

  12,519

  5·4

  12,729

  5·5

  1981–82

  8,631

  3·4

  9,124

  3·6

  1982–83

  8,904

  3·2

  9,359

  3·3

  1983–84

  9,678

  3·2

  10,817

  3·6

  1984–85

  10,134

  3·1

  12,184

  3·7

  1985–86

  5,622

  1·6

  8,329

  2·3

  1986–87

  3,559

  0·9

  8,019

  2·1

  1987–88

  -3,406

  -0·8

  1,734

  0·4

  1988–89

  -14,657

  -3·1

  -7,584

  -1·6

  1989–90

  -7,932

  -1·6

  -3,777

  -0·7

  1990–91

  -472

  -0·1

  4,837

  0·9

  (negative numbers indicate debt repayment).

  1 Adjusted for the abolition of domestic rates.

  Books (VAT)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent proposals have been made by the European Commission concerning the rate of value added tax levied on books; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the 24 June meeting of ECOFIN, agreement was reached that member states which apply zero rates of VAT will be able to retain them, during a transitional period to December 1996, provided that they were in force on 1 January 1991 and are in accordance with Community law. The current zero rating of books is, therefore, safeguarded until at least December 1996, without prejudice to the position thereafter.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving the percentage increase in real terms in (a) income from employment, (b) income from self-employment, (c) rent, dividends, interest, (d) social security benefits and (e) personal disposable income after deduction of taxes and interest between1978–79 and 1990–91 giving the contribution of each towards personal disposable income in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no official estimates of individual components of personal disposable income measured at constant prices. Between financial years 1978–79 and 34
  1990–91 real personal disposable income as a whole increased by 41·6 per cent. Estimates of the various components expressed as percentages of personal disposable income, measured at current prices, are given in the table.

  As percentage of real personal disposable income

  1978–79

  1990–91

  Income from employment

  86·6

  82·5

  Income from self-employment

  12·0

  14·8

  Rent, dividends and interest (net)

  11·1

  14·7

  Social security benefits

  13·7

  12·8

  Parent-Teacher Associations
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances fund- raising by parent-teacher associations and similar bodies for use by schools would become liable to VAT.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Only those organisations whose turnover is in excess of £35,000 per annum are required to register and account for tax on their activities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vertebrate Animals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to sign the European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have signed the convention and hope to ratify it shortly. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 fully complies with the convention and in a number of ways exceeds its requirements.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for spending by the office of the Data Protection Registrar on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  For the years up to 1991–92, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 8 May 1991 at columns 483–84, save that the newspaper advertisting budget for this financial year has been revised from £50,000 to £195,000. I understand that the budgets for 1992–93 have not yet been determined.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Home Office and (b) the Metropolitan police during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Details of Home Office television campaigns and each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000 during 1991–92 are as follows.
  35

  Television advertising

  Start date

  Duration

  Companies involved

  Crime Prevention (General Awareness)

  1 April 1991

  19 days

  Collett Dickenson Pearce Advertising; Clarke Hooper Consulting Promotions

  Crime Prevention (Car Security)

  12 January 1992

  N.A. Media plan not yet devised

  Leagus Shafron Davis Chick Advertising; Clarke Hooper Consulting Promotions

  Fire Safety (Smoke Alarms ownership)

  January or February 1992

  6 weeks

  FCO Advertising

  Absent Voting Rights

  When a General Election is announced

  2–3 days

  FCO Advertising

  Non-Television publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000

  Start date

  Duration

  Companies involved

  Electoral Registration

  Mid-September 1991

  1 month

  FCO Advertising

  Civil Protection Magazine

  N.A.

  Every quarter

  N.A. (Home Office/COI publication)

  Police Recruitment Graduate:

  1 September 1991

  4 months

  Riley Advertising

  Ethnic:

  1 April 1991

  3 weeks

  Riley Advertising

  Police (Special Constable Recruitment)

  31 July 1991

  3 months

  Riley Advertising

  Crime Prevention (General Awareness, Press, Poster and Radio Advertising)

  1 April 1991

  19 days

  Collett Dickenson Pearce Advertising; Clarke Hooper Consulting Promotions

  Crime Prevention (Car Security, Press, Poster and Radio Advertising)

  12 February 1992

  N.A. Media plan not yet devised

  Leagus Shafron Davis Chick Advertising; Clarke Hooper Consulting Promotions

  Fire Prevention and Safety

  A range of publicity material is available all year round

  None

  Passport renewal

  October 1991

  6 weeks

  FCO Advertising

  Prison Service Recruitment

  January 1992

  3 months

  Riley Advertising

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department has not sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The full cost of staff, accommodation and administration for the Home Office press office from 1979–80 to 1990–91 was:

  £

  1979–80

  283,140

  1980–81

  392,532

  1981–82

  381,799

  1982–83

  424,290

  1983–84

  516,362

  1984–85

  560,512

  1985–86

  606,996

  1986–87

  548,136

  1987–88

  599,282

  36

  £

  1988–89

  674,945

  1989–90

  715,646

  1990–91

  786,519

  Notes

  1. Figures supplied before 1986–87 were the costs estimated by the Treasury. After devolved budgets the estimates are based on Home Office costs.

  2. Press Office figures include the costs for staff, accommodation and administration costs.

  The estimated cost for 1991–92 is £800,275.

  The budget for 1992–93 has not been confirmed but the estimate is for the same amount of staff and the projected figure is £832,285.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Figures for expenditure on advertising and other promotional material for the years from 1986–87 to 1990–91 are as follows:
  37

  Year

  TV advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional material

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1986–87

  Total advertising = 5·0

  1·40

  6·40

  1987–88

  Total advertising = 4·7

  2·10

  6·80

  1988–89

  Total advertising = 5·4

  2·80

  8·20

  1989–90

  Total advertising = 5·5

  3·70

  9·20

  1990–91

  2·024

  0·109

  3·595

  6·75

  12·47

  1991–92 estimates

  1·131

  0·236

  2·172

  6·46

  11·89

  Note: £1·9 million for crime prevention remains to be committed. 1992–93 cannot yet estimate

  It would not be possible to provide more detailed information on advertising except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by the office of the Data Protection Registrar on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  For the years up to 1991–92, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 3 May 1991 at column 339. I understand that the budget for 1992–93 has not yet been determined.

  Murderers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his general policy to release the relevant medical records of convicted murderers prior to their release.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those convicted murderers since 1979 who have been released from prison and subsequently were convicted for another murder.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I assume that the question relates to convicted murderers released since 1979. There have been five: J. W. Charlton; K. Pollard; J. Johnson; M. N. Robinson; and M. J. Green.

  Year

  Force

  Additional cost £

  Percentage increase in costs between each year

  (a) Labour

  1987

  Sussex

  23,000

  —

  1988

  Lancashire

  61,000

  + 165

  1989

  Sussex

  4,000

  - 93

  1990

  Lancashire

  97,545

  + 2,339

  1991

  Sussex

  10,000

  - 90

  Percentage change between 1987 and 1991 = -57 per cent

  (b) Conservative

  1987

  Lancashire

  829,000

  —

  1988

  Sussex

  1,400,000

  + 69

  1989

  Lancashire

  1,080,000

  - 23

  1990

  Dorset

  2,000,000

  + 85

  1991

  Lancashire

  1,379,000

  - 31

  Percentage change between 1987 and 1991 = +66 per cent

  (c) Liberal Democrats

  No identifiable

  1987

  N.A.

  policing costs

  —

  No identifiable

  1988

  Lancashire

  policing costs

  —

  No identifiable

  1989

  Sussex

  policing costs

  —

  38
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors were considered in the decision to release convicted murderers from prison after serving sentence for a first murder.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend may release a life sentence prisoner only if recommended to do so by the Parole Board and after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if available. The main factors which are taken into account are whether the prisoner has been detained long enough to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the offence, and whether it is considered safe to release him to the community.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the cost of policing the party conferences for(a) the Labour party, (b) the Conservative party and (c) the Liberal Democrats, for each year from 1987 to 1991, giving the percentage increase in costs between each year and the percentage increase between 1987 to 1991; and if he will give an estimate of the full economic cost of policing each conference.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief officers of the forces concerned that the additional costs of policing the party conferences for the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats for each year from 1987 to 1991 were estimated as follows:
  39

  Year

  Force

  Additional cost £

  Percentage increase in costs between each year

  No identifiable

  1990

  Lancashire

  policing costs

  —

  No identifiable

  1991

  Dorset

  policing costs

  —

  Information about full economic costs is not available.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No.

  Betting Shops
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any approaches from members of the public or punters' associations in favour of evening opening of betting shops.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the year ending 30 September 1991, we received no direct representations in favour of evening opening of licensed betting offices from members of the public or any association representing punters.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has had in favour of the evening opening of betting offices; and what interests they represent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the year ending 30 September 1991, we received one direct representation from an independent bookmaker in favour of evening opening of licensed betting offices. We are also aware that a number of organisations expressed their support for evening opening in the course of the Home Affairs Committee's recent inquiries into the levy on horseracing.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will extend the consultative period over the evening opening of betting offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We should be willing to arrange for written comments to be received after 29 November if any organisations are unable to submit them by that date. Until all written comments have been received, it is not possible to predict what further consultations may be necessary nor how long they may take to complete.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many evening horse racing meetings took place during the last 12-month period when figures were available; and what estimate he has of the annual attendance at these evening meetings, and at all horserace meetings during that year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There were 134 evening horserace meetings in 1990 attended by 654,302 racegoers. The total attendance for all horserace meetings in 1990 was 4,901,515.

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum as listed in his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 338, were (a) in country and (b) at port of entry on entry in each quarter of 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures are for principal applicants excluding dependants. The 1990 figures for after-entry applications understate because of delays in recording, particularly for the fourth quarter.

  Applications received1 2 for asylum in the United Kingdom, by location of application, 1990–91

  At port of entry

  After entry3 4

  Total3 4

  19903

  Quarter 1

  1,450

  1,910

  3,360

  Quarter 2

  1,615

  2,000

  3,615

  Quarter 3

  2,580

  4,220

  6,800

  Quarter 4

  3,550

  3,995

  7,545

  1991

  Quarter 1

  3,520

  8,180

  11,700

  Quarter 2

  2,040

  10,030

  12,070

  Quarter 3

  1,970

  8,630

  10,600

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 The after-entry, and total, figures for 1990 understate because of delays in recording, particularly for the fourth quarter. In total, applications in 1990, excluding dependants, are estimated at over 22,000 (over 30,000 including dependants).

  4 Includes also the small number of principal applications made from overseas

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to achieve his commitment to end the practice of holding young people in prison accommodation.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has established a national steering group to plan and take forward the work needed to give effect to the juvenile remand provisons of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, including the abolition of prison remands for 15 and 16-year-old boys.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department's public relations branch has commissioned three market research surveys since 11 July:

  Pre-campaign research for smoke alarms maintenance advertising.

  Qualitative research among samples of the target audience for Special Constables recruitment advertising.

  41

  Post-campaign research for electoral registration advertising.

  Greyhound Tracks
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many greyhound tracks operate throughout England, Scotland and Wales in the evening for the last year when figures were available; and what information he has as to the approximate annual attendance at greyhound evening meetings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On the basis of figures provided by the joint standing committee of the British Greyhound Racing Board and the National Greyhound Racing Club to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into the financing of greyhound racing, I understand that there were about 87 greyhound tracks operating in the evening in 1990 with annual attendance estimated at about 5 million.

  Residential Psychiatric Patients
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former residential psychiatric patients were prosecuted for offences in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the number of former residential patients who have been prosecuted for offences is not collected centrally.

  Adoption
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of children brought into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information held centrally relates to Romanian children during the last two years only. In 1990 the issue of 114 entry clearances was authorised to Romanian children with a view to adoption by British couples. To date the corresponding figure for 1991 is 212. In 1990, a total of 80 and in 1991 to date seven Romanian children have been brought to the United Kingdom without entry clearance with a view to adoption. In addition I understand that in 1990 our High Commission in Sri Lanka issued 54 entry clearances to Sri Lankan children with a view to adoption by British couples.

PRIME MINISTER

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases since 1975, excepting those initiated under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975, British courts have exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction conferred upon them by anti-terrorism legislation in compliance with mulilateral conventions for the suppression of hijacking, hostage-taking and similar terrorist offences.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not available.

  Separation of Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to ensure a constitutional separation of powers and to enhance the powers of the elected representatives vis-à-vis those of the Government.
  42
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many political advisers are in post in Her Majesty's Government; in which Departments they are in post; what is the salary in each case; and what is the total salary bill of such posts.

  The Prime Minister
  There are currently 34 political advisers to Ministers employed in the civil service. The number in each Department is as follows:

  Number

  Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

  8

  Defence

  1

  Department of the Environment

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2

  Department of Health

  3

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  3

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  2

  Department of Energy

  1

  Department of Employment

  1

  Home Office

  2

  Lord President of the Council

  1

  Lord Privy Seal

  1

  Scottish Office

  1

  Department of Social Security

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  2

  Department of Transport

  1

  It is not our practice to reveal the salary of any advisor as it is negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and is therefore confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine comprising 30 points, as follows:

  Scale Point

  Salary (Inclusive) £

  30

  57,706

  29

  55,486

  28

  53,352

  27

  52,104

  26

  50,861

  25

  49,271

  24

  47,681

  23

  45,509

  22

  43,818

  21

  42,135

  20

  40,372

  19

  38,595

  18

  36,818

  17

  35,048

  16

  32,937

  15

  31,595

  14

  30,527

  13

  29,464

  12

  28,347

  11

  27,328

  10

  26,490

  9

  25,316

  8

  24,422

  7

  23,627

  6

  22,843

  5

  22,042

  4

  20,869

  3

  20,155

  2

  19,546

  1

  18,403

  43
  The two most senior special advisers are paid personal salaries above the spine limit of £57,706. The current total salary bill, excluding one adviser who is paid a daily rate, is £1,249,970.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he plans to announce in the programme of testing British nuclear weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representation he has received from the Government of Australia or the representatives of the Maralinga aboriginal people to fund a clean-up of the British nuclear bomb test site at Maralinga, Australia.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a letter from the Australian Prime Minister on the question of a further clean-up at the former nuclear weapon test sites at Maralinga and Emu field, and requesting discussions between Ministers and officials from both countries. We are considering the points raised by Mr. Hawke and have agreed to meet the relevant Australian Minister and officials later this year. In addition, a delegation representing the Maralinga aborigines called on my noble Friend the Earl of Arran, Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, and senior officials on 30 October to present their views on the same topic.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to representations from the Shoshone nation against the continuation of the British nuclear bomb test site in Nevada.

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington to reply on my behalf.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the Dutch Presidency's proposals for economic and monetary union with his own call for an EC of 30 states; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The question of enlargement will be high on the European Community's agenda in the coming years; we must ensure that decisions taken in the intergovernmental conferences do not pose a barrier to the accession of applicants who wish to join and meet all the conditions of membership.

  The text produced by the Dutch Presidency is a useful basis for further negotiation towards an agreement. But the United Kingdom and other member states are not committed to any particular part of its contents. The Government have plenty to say about it in the intergovernmental conference and we will make our views clear to the other member states. I remain confident that it will be possible to reach an agreement on economic and monetary union. Such an agreement should not hinder the enlargement of the Community.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from pensioners about the level of their pension increase.
  44
  The Prime Minister
  I have received many representations on this topic.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what impact the declaration of independence for the Ukraine has had upon Her Majesty's Government's policy.

  The Prime Minister
  We are naturally paying close attention to developments in the Ukraine and intend to build on the good contacts we have established there. Questions of recognition and our future policy towards the Ukraine will largely depend on the outcome of discussions which are still going on between the Ukraine, the centre and other republics on the form of its future relationships. The Ukrainian people will vote on their Supreme Soviet's declaration of independence on 1 December.

  Paid Public Appointments
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an up-to-date directory of paid public appointments made by Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A list of public bodies by Departments, with the number of paid and unpaid appointments, is now given in "Public Bodies", published annually by the Cabinet Office (OMCS). The 1990 edition is available from the House of Commons Library; the 1991 edition will be published in December.

  World Development
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Prime Minister what interdepartmental meetings are held to discuss how world development issues can be covered within British schools.

  The Prime Minister
  As a result of the introduction of the national curriculum world development issues will be firmly established in school timetables. Government Departments worked together on the formulation of the national curriculum.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on press and public relations by the Cabinet Office was:

  £

  1984–85

  247,495

  1985–86

  232,980

  1986–87

  224,813

  1987–88

  215,925

  1988–89

  201,837

  1989–90

  205,650

  1990–91

  165,601

  The latest estimate for 1991–92 is £1,005,000 and the provisional budget for 1992–93 is £508,000.

  Similar information is not available for the years prior to 1984–85.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for spending by his office on(a) television

  45
  advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1991–92.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether(a) the Prime Minister's office or (b) the Cabinet Office have sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not sent any unsolicited direct mail. The Cabinet Office, as part of its central civil service function, has sent the following publicity material:An approach has been made to heads of universities and local authority chief executives advising them of European Community recruitment competitions as part of the ongoing initiative to improve United Kingdom representation in EC institutions.
  Each year we inform certain private sector companies of the date by which the Cabinet Office needs to receive applications for the top management programme in the forthcoming cycle.
  The public appointments unit approaches individuals, in respect of whom they have received a recommendation, seeking their willingness to be considered for senior appointments.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by his office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure by my office on press and public relations was not recorded separately before 1987–88. The total expenditure for each year since then is as follows; the budget for 1992–93 has not yet been finalised.

  £

  1987–88

  377,987

  1988–89

  419,326

  1989–90

  427,802

  1990–91

  553,068

  1991–92

  1560,750

  1 Estimate.

  Note: The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 include notional superannuation costs which are excluded from the figures for earlier years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Prime Minister's Office and (b) the Cabinet Office during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not undertaken any advertising campaigns in 1991–92; nor has the Cabinet Office undertaken any television advertising during 1991–92.

  Details of the only advertising campaign costing over £100,000 carried out by the Cabinet Office in this period are as follows:
  46

  (i) Citizen's Charter White Paper

  (ii) 22 July 1991

  (iii) 7 weeks

  (iv) the campaign was managed by the Central Office of Information

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for spending by the Cabinet Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television or radio in the years 1979 to 1993. Expenditure in this period on promotional advertising in newspapers is estimated at £585,000 in 1991–92 and £300,000 in 1992–93.

  Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material from 1987–88 was:

  £

  1987–88

  19,306

  1988–89

  9,500

  1989–90

  14,833

  1990–91

  876

  The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on other promotional material in 1991–92 or 1992–93.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the kind of shops and markets and the goods which may legally be offered for sale to the public on the Sundays between 10 November and Christmas in England.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on tax relief on private health insurance for the elderly.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government intend neither to abolish the existing relief nor to extend it to the under-60s.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any member of(a) the Prime Minister's Office's or (b) the Cabinet Office's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  The Prime Minister
  One private secretary and one secretary were available to assist me in my official duties. Three members of my policy unit were also in attendance.

  Interned Soldiers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he or his predecessors have made and what efforts he is currently making on behalf of civilians of Dutch, British and Commonwealth citizenship interned by invading and occupying forces in Indonesia and other Asian countries in the years 1942 to 1945 to secure adequate and meaningful compensation.
  47
  The Prime Minister
  Successive Governments have taken the view that the question of compensation for former prisoners of war and civilian internees of the Japanese was settled in the 1951 treaty of peace with Japan.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now give details of the name, composition and remit of each Cabinet committee and sub-committee.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 6 June 1991 at column 280.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 5 November.

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

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 15 July 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two surveys have been carried out since 15 July: one, a survey of customer attitudes towards the service provided by the Social Security Agency with relation to national insurance contributions, the other a survey examining employment and possible improvements in services and the general environment in the Rathcoole/Bawnmore/Longlands area.

  Campaign

  Commencement Date

  Duration

  Company

  Pedestrain Safety

  26 June 1991

  1 month

  A V Browne

  16 September 1991

  1 month

  Advertising Ltd

  Environmental Awareness and Energy Efficiency

  22 August 1991

  3 months

  Chrysalis TV

  Crime prevention

  2 September 1991

  3 years

  Cannot be disclosed on security grounds

  Confidential Telephone

  Mid-December 1991

  4 months

  Cannot be disclosed on security grounds

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1979–80

  281,641

  1980–81

  344,596

  1981–82

  393,239

  1982–83

  519,912

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information could be obtained in the form requested only at disproportionate cost; the total figures for spending on all advertising and other promotional material are, however, set out in the table.

  £

  1979–80

  468,972

  1980–81

  487,393

  1981–82

  613,464

  1982–83

  1,550,896

  1983–84

  2,853,451

  1984–85

  2,699,659

  1985–86

  3,916,824

  1986–87

  3,787,628

  1987–88

  4,028,259

  1988–89

  4,606,655

  1989–90

  5,227,759

  1990–91

  5,886,796

  1991–92

  15,970,883

  1992–93

  24,845,837

  1 (Estimate)

  2 (Budget)

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1983–84

  482,188

  1984–85

  528,666

  1985–86

  701,685

  1986–87

  684,727

  1987–88

  783,771

  1988–89

  3,622,972

  1989–90

  4,226,581

  1990–91

  5,699,510

  1991–92

  15,502,537

  1992–93

  25,800,516

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  49
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Police Custody (Injuries)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many payments of compensation for injuries suffered in police custody have been made in each year since 1987; and if he will list the amounts paid in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-profit making sports clubs in Northern Ireland applied for rate relief for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 and as a total over the same period; and how many of these clubs were granted rate relief of(a) 25 per cent. or under (b) 25 to 50 per cent., (c) 50 to 65 per cent., (d) 65 to 90 per cent. and (e) 90 to 100 per cent.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Rate relief for non-profit making sports clubs is a mandatory 65 per cent., but is restricted to those parts of the premises used solely for sporting purposes. This is administered by the Commissioner of Valuation who is responsible for the maintenance of the valuation list.

  Relief is granted as of right to these clubs and there is no need for them to apply.

  The application of sports and recreational relief is governed by article 31 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, and the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has reached a decision on the Royal group of hospitals' application for health and social services trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have decided to establish the Royal group of hospitals as a health and social services trust to become operational on 1 April 1993.

  In making my decision I considered carefully the Royal group of hospitals' application and the comments made on it during consultation.

  As a trust, the Royal group of hospitals will continue to be a regional centre of excellence with a commitment to the provision of services to its local community and to teaching and research. The trust will remain firmly within the Northern Ireland health and personal social services
  50
  and will continue to be financed from public funds. However, it will have new freedoms and I am confident that the trust will use these to benefit patients and improve its quality of service while giving greater job satisfaction to its employees. I am also confident that the trust will build on the existing involvement of senior professional staff in the management of the unit.

  Consultation on the application revealed a number of problems which need to be resolved concerning the future of the Royal group of hospitals. In order to give time for these matters to be addressed I have decided to delay the operational date of the trust for one year. In the meantime the Eastern health and social services board will retain overall managerial responsibility for the unit. A shadow board for the trust will be appointed which will take over full responsibility for the Royal group of hospitals from April 1993.

  Stillbirths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be(a) the initial costs and (b) the annual running costs of confidential inquiries into stillbirths and infant deaths in Northern Ireland; and what additional funds he is making available to (i) the Northern Ireland Office, (ii) the General Register Office and (iii) health and social services boards to (a) set up and (b) run the inquiries.

  Mr. Hanley
  Resources will be made available to allow Northern Ireland to participate fully in the national confidential inquiry. It will not be possible, however, to provide detailed information about the funding and costs of the inquiry in Northern Ireland until expert advice on its design and content has been formulated by the national advisory board which is being set up to guide and oversee the work throughout the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, in declining order of size of print run, all leaflets and circulars printed by him for general or mass circulation distribution in the past two years on education, health, and other topics relating to his departmental responsibilities, and their cost in each case.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A breakdown of annual expenditure by the Welsh Office in advertising and other publicity from 1979–80 to 1990–91 is set out in the following table.

  Publicity expenditure in 1991–92 is planned to be about £2,000,000. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of this under each heading because in many cases decisions

  51
  about the extent to which different media will be used are taken as projects develop. Budgets for 1992–93 have yet to be finalised.

  Welsh Office Publicity Spend

  Year

  Radio Advertising

  Television Advertising

  1Joint Press and Television Advertising

  Press Advertising

  Other Promotional Material

  (£.000)

  (£.000)

  (£.000)

  (£.000)

  (£.000)

  1979–80

  Nil

  61

  24

  1980–81

  Nil

  62

  22

  1981–82

  Nil

  100

  44

  1982–83

  Nil

  99

  28

  1983–84

  Nil

  108

  34

  1984–85

  Nil

  66

  100

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  31

  92

  1986–87

  Nil

  27

  49

  331

  1987–88

  Nil

  39

  191

  615

  1988–89

  Nil

  64

  112

  1,105

  1989–90

  Nil

  57

  354

  1,758

  1990–91

  Nil

  17

  251

  1,161

  1 Television and Press advertising for the years 1979–85 cannot be readily separated.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80, and each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for expenditure by the Department's information division, including staff and press cutting service, but excluding media advertising and promotional material, cannot readily be disaggregated for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  Figures for the succeeding years are:

  £

  1988–89

  469,000

  1989–90

  487,000

  1990–91

  481,000

  Campaign

  Timing

  Companies

  Enterprise Wales

  Ongoing

  McCann Erickson Payne Golley/ Hall Harrison Cowley

  Road Safety

  Ongoing

  Dragon Advertising/Hall Harrison Cowley

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse

  Ongoing

  Hall Harrison Cowley

  Parents Charter

  Commenced 27 September 1991

  None commissioned by Welsh Office

  Patients Charter

  Commenced 28 October 1991

  None commissioned by Welsh Office

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Such direct marketing to date includes distribution of agricultural information to farmers, valleys promotional literature, community charge information and promotional material for the Enterprise Wales scheme.

  Infant Deaths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be(a) the initial costs and (b) the annual running costs of confidential inquiries into stillbirths and infant deaths in Wales; and what additional funds he is making available to (i) the Welsh Office and (ii) health authorities to (a) set up and (b) run the inquiries.
  52
  Estimated expenditure for 1991–92 is in the region of £530,000. Budgets for 1992–93 have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and for each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office does not plan to run any television campaigns.

  The Department will run five publicity campaigns in 1991–92 costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The confidential enquiry into stillbirths and infant deaths was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 2 July 1991. Wales will take a full part in the enquiry.

  Heart Specialists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will indicate where in the health authorities of Wales there is a shortage of consultant heart specialists;

  (2) what steps he will take to eliminate the shortage of consultant heart specialists in order to reduce waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Welsh Medical and Dental Manpower Committee advises the Department on the relative priority of consultant appointments and reflects in its recommendations any shortages identified by district health authorities.
  53
  The latest information shows no shortage in this speciality.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-profit making sports clubs in Wales applied for rate relief for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 and as a total over the same period; and how many of these clubs were granted rate relief of

  Number of applications

  Total number awarded relief

  Number of properties granted relief of up to:

  20 per cent.

  21–50 per cent.

  51–80 per cent.

  Over 80 per cent.

  1989–90

  Not known

  744

  19

  408

  156

  161

  1990–91

  756

  673

  105

  297

  80

  191

  Information for 1991–92 will not be available before September 1992.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any member of his Department's mess and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Pension Scheme)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to equalise female contributor survivor benefits within the teachers' superannuation pension scheme.

  Mr. Fallon
  With effect from 6 April 1988 widowers' pension benefits and associated benefits for children are payable in every case, subject to completion of the necessary qualifying period. Individual female teachers had the option at the time to elect to purchase service before 1988 for benefits if they so wished.

  Manchester Schools (Repairs)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further recent representations he has had about the urgency of the need for additional funding for repairs to Manchester's school buildings; what response he has made; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  I recently met an all-party delegation from Manchester city council to discuss its capital programme for 1992–93.

  I was able to allocate funds through the issue of a supplementary credit approval over and above Manchester's existing capital allocation for this year, to enable the LEA to start urgently needed work in two of its primary schools—Chapel Street and Charlestown. This will entail a total government commitment of some £6 million for an immediate start in 1991–92.

  Manchester's bid for 1992–93 is being considered in the normal way. Its allocation will be announced in December.
  54
  (a) 25 per cent. or under, (b) 25 to 50 per cent., (c) 50 to 65 per cent., (d) 65 to 90 per cent. and (e) 90 to 100 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested for the years 1979–80 to 1988–89 is not available. Information relating to discretionary rate relief for non-profit making clubs used for recreational purposes, including sporting organisations, for 1989–90 and 1990–91 is shown in the following table:

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultation he has undertaken with those directly involved in educating adults, in relation to his White Paper proposals on adult education; and how many meetings have been held with adult educators.

  Mr. Eggar
  Among those my right hon. and learned Friend and I have met in this context are the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Pre-Retirernent Association, and the principals of Devon community colleges and Richmond adult and community college.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the procedure for the appointment of each of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools; what is the role of the Privy Council in such appointments; and by what procedure inspectors may be made redundant or otherwise have their employment terminated.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Her Majesty's inspectors are recruited by open competition after advertisements in the national and education press. The holder of my office recommends the names of prospective HMI through the Privy Council to Her Majesty the Queen. Any terminations of employment would be made in accordance with central guidance currently operating within the civil service.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  The expenditure figures for press and publicity by this Department for the financial years
  55
  1984–85 to 1991–92 are given in the table. Figures for 1979–80 to 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis. The figure for 1991–92 is estimated expenditure. The Government's expenditure plans for 1992–93 will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. The Department does not incur expenditure on public relations.

  Year

  £000

  1984–85

  788·8

  1985–86

  1,026·3

  1986–87

  1,937·8

  1987–88

  2,313·6

  1988–89

  2,336·2

  1989–90

  2,596·0

  1990–91

  2,106·5

  11991–92

  4,881·0

  1Estimated.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend launched a teacher recruitment campaign on 1 July which included advertising on television for a period of three weeks and advertisements in the national press for four weeks. The second phase of this campaign began on 27 September and included advertisements in the national press for four weeks and in cinemas in selected towns for six alternating weeks. The campaign has been designed by Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising Ltd.

  The parents charter was launched on 27 September. Advertisements were scheduled to appear in national newspapers and women's magazines from 27 September until 31 October. In addition, it is planned to place some advertisements in the ethnic minority community press. The company involved is BMP DDB Needham.

  An exhibition to provide parents with information about recent changes in education will also be launched in the current financial year. HP:ICM has been commissioned to mount the exhibition which will visit a number of venues across the country. The timing and duration of this campaign has yet to be finalised.

  The professional, industrial and commercial updating (PICKUP) programme continues to support and encourage colleges, polytechnics and universities to improve and increase their provision to meet the training needs of employers and their employees. The Services to Business campaign, run as part of the PICKUP programme, is managed by Quadrangle Communications Ltd.
  56
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has not sent unsolicited mail direct to members of the public. It is the practice of the Department, however, to send sample copies of publicity material for parents to libraries and to schools, offering the latter the opportunity to order additional stocks to distribute to pupils to give to their parents.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  The expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by this Department for the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 are given in the table. The figure for 1991–92 is estimated expenditure. The Government's expenditure plans for 1992–93 will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. The rise in expenditure since 1989–90 is the result of the teachers recruitment campaign and the parents charter.

  Year

  Television

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  1979–80

  —

  —

  91·6

  12–2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  8·9

  58·3

  1981–82

  —

  —

  86·9

  49·9

  1982–83

  —

  —

  6·0

  33·7

  1983–84

  —

  —

  9·6

  74·9

  1984–85

  —

  —

  18·5

  150·6

  1985–86

  —

  —

  14·8

  184·1

  1986–87

  —

  —

  532·0

  533·0

  1987–88

  —

  —

  280·0

  1,459·0

  1988–89

  —

  40·0

  475·0

  1,156·0

  1989–90

  —

  11·8

  238·0

  1,150·0

  1990–91

  1,100·0

  97·0

  1,407·0

  1,916·0

  11991–92

  812·0

  —

  2,049·0

  4,081·0

  1 Estimated

  Education Spending
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a series going back to 1978–79 in(a) cash prices, (b) 1990–91 prices and (c) as a proportion of GDP, Government spending on education, sub-divided into primary, secondary and others both in total and divided into (i) capital spending, net and gross of receipts, and (ii) current.

  Mr. Fallon
  The available information on actual expenditure by the Department of Education and Science is shown in the tables. The records do not show a breakdown of expenditure between the primary and secondary schools sector. The figures for receipts appropriated in aid are aggregated for schools and other education and do not distinguish between capital and recurrent receipts.
  57

  Department of Education and Science: Expenditure

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Cash

  Schools

  capital

  16

  20

  22

  24

  22

  19

  25

  31

  27

  32

  57

  82

  115

  current

  24

  27

  26

  29

  29

  26

  44

  56

  62

  74

  84

  1102

  1128

  Other

  capital

  82

  108

  116

  121

  124

  122

  126

  138

  152

  151

  166

  2254

  2292

  current

  1,120

  1,360

  1,731

  1,900

  2,016

  2,151

  2,191

  2,217

  2,294

  2,606

  2,818

  24,074

  24,725

  Total

  1,242

  1,515

  1,895

  2,074

  2,191

  2,318

  2,386

  2,442

  2,535

  2,863

  3,125

  4,512

  5,260

  Receipts appropriated in aid

  9

  14

  2

  4

  4

  8

  9

  8

  10

  11

  12

  112

  115

  1990–91 prices

  Schools

  capital

  40

  43

  40

  40

  34

  28

  35

  42

  35

  39

  65

  88

  115

  current

  61

  58

  48

  48

  45

  27

  62

  75

  80

  91

  96

  110

  128

  Other

  capital

  207

  234

  212

  202

  193

  181

  178

  185

  197

  186

  190

  274

  292

  current

  2,825

  2,941

  3,163

  3,166

  3,136

  3,199

  3,101

  2,976

  2,976

  3,209

  3,230

  4,390

  4,725

  Total

  3,133

  3,277

  3,462

  3,456

  3,409

  3,447

  3,376

  3,278

  3,288

  3,526

  3,582

  4,862

  5,260

  Receipts

  23

  30

  4

  7

  6

  12

  13

  11

  13

  14

  14

  13

  15

  As a proportion of GDP

  Schools

  capital

  0·009

  0·010

  0·009

  0·009

  0·008

  0·006

  0·008

  0·009

  0·007

  0·008

  0·012

  0·016

  0·021

  current

  0·014

  0·013

  0·011

  0·011

  0·010

  0·009

  0·014

  0·016

  0·016

  0·017

  0·018

  0·020

  0·023

  Other

  capital

  0·048

  0·053

  0·050

  0·047

  0·044

  0·040

  0·039

  0·039

  0·040

  0·036

  0·035

  0·050

  0·053

  current

  0·656

  0·664

  0·741

  0·741

  0·719

  0·707

  0·672

  0·622

  0·598

  0·614

  0·597

  0·799

  0·864

  Total

  0·728

  0·739

  0·811

  0·809

  0·781

  0·762

  0·732

  0·685

  0·661

  0·675

  0·662

  0·885

  0·962

  1 Figures do not include annual maintenance grant to GM schools, recouped from LEAs. The cash figures for this were £15 million for 1989–90 and £59 million for 1990–91.

  2 Includes institutions transferred from LEA sector.

  Devonport Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will approve immediately the proposal by Devon county council to reorganise Devonport schools in Plymouth by closing St. Peter's and designating Devonport secondary school as a Church-aided four-form entry comprehensive school for 11 to 16-year-olds.

  Mr. Fallon
  The proposals under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 to which my hon. Friend refers were published on 5 July and are currently before the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend aims to reach decisions on such proposals within five months from the date of publication if possible.

  St. Anne's School, Rock Ferry
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will approve plans for St. Anne's primary school, Rock Ferry, Birkenhead, which are now lodged with his Department.

  Mr. Fallon
  The capital plans put forward by local education authorities for 1992–93 are still under consideration and decisions will be announced in December.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 11 July, the Department has not conducted any widespread public opinion surveys but has undertaken some market research.

  Reading Standards
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to respond to the third report, Session 1990–91, of the Education, Science and Arts Committee on standards of reading in primary schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have written today to the Chairman of the Select Committee, setting out the Government's response.

  The report is an important timely contribution to the current debate on reading standards in schools. Its conclusion that a fall in reading standards has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt provides no grounds for complacency. Rather it highlights the inadequacies of our present data, and the need for a reliable and consistent basis for the measurement of pupils' attainments. This is just what the national curriculum and the associated testing arrangements will provide.

  Reading is the most fundamental of skills and the Government are determined to ensure that standards are

  59
  improved in line with society's ever-more demanding needs for literacy. My response to the Select Committee sets out the steps we are taking to secure such improvements, notably through the implementation of the national curriculum which establishes clear national targets for pupils' reading across the full age range for compulsory education. Pupils' progress will be measured against those targets at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. The results will help teachers to build up a detailed picture of each pupil's strengths and weaknesses to inform their teaching. They will also give parents the accurate information about their children's progress to which they are entitled under the parents charter. In aggregate they will in due course enable comparisons to be made of pupils' performance, for example, between the sexes, between local education authorities and between schools. I shall shortly publish an analysis of the results of the first tests of the performance of pupils at the age of seven.

  The recent changes that I have announced to the system of testing of seven-year olds will give more detailed information to parents and the public next year. Teachers will be required to make a more precise grading of the reading attainments of those seven-year olds—roughly half the age group in 1991—who were assessed as of average ability for their age. We shall also be introducing for the first time in 1992 an optional written test of reading comprehension which will likewise be aimed at pupils of average ability and yield a finer grading of their attainments.

  All schools should strive to match the standards of the best. The Government have taken a number of measures to promote good practice in the teaching of reading. HMI's findings on good practice based on a report produced last January have been circulated to schools, and discussed at regional conferences for LEA inspectors and advisers. HMI has also provided guidance for schools on how to improve their libraries. Substantial resources have been made available for books related to the national curriculum and the training of school library staff, as well as for in-service teacher training.

  Local education authorities should ensure that reading standards in their area are kept under review. The Government have urged all education committees to take an active and critical interest in this. The report rightly emphasises the importance of the active engagement of parents. Schools will be required to include in all reports the name of a contact with whom parents can discuss their children's progress. The Government are also supporting projects designed to strengthen home-school links, particularly in inner-city areas.

  Copies of the Government's response are being placed in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Nursery
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the dates during last Session on which the hon. Members' staff's union, the Transport and General Workers Union parliamentary branch, has been consulted about establishment of a nursery for their children; and if he has any plans to consult their union in the coming parliamentary year.
  60
  Mr. MacGregor
  In accordance with a decision on the Services Committee, no survey of potential demand will be undertaken until detailed advice is received on the feasibility of establishing a child care facility in the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in the last Session towards establishment of a nursery for the children of hon. Members' staff.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 22 July 1991,Hansard, column 386. Possible suitable accommodation for a child care facility in advance of phase 2 is still being sought. This will be an early matter for consideration by the Accommodation and Works Committee as soon as it is established.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of applications received from businesses in the north-west region for regional selective assistance in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  In the financial year 1990–91 my Department received 354 applications for assistance from businesses in the north-west region under the regional selective assistance scheme. Between 1 April 1991 and 31 October 1991 a further 280 applications were received from businesses in that region.

  Note: The north-west region includes the counties of Cheshire, Cumbria, Iancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside and the High Peak district of Derbyshire.

  Computers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will summarise the findings of his review of trade in computers; and what is his estimate of the percentage of exports imported in (i) the same form and (ii) after further processing in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This review has now been published and is available in the House of Commons Library, entitled "Broad Balance of Trade of Major Companies in the Electronics and Information Technology Sector". The further detailed information requested is not available, although the above review contains a reference to entrepot trade.

  Mountain Rescue Teams
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to clarify and safeguard the position of volunteer mountain rescue teams under the European Community draft directive on the liability of suppliers of services; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The present draft of the services liability directive excludes public safety services, and we are seeking to have this exemption extended to private sector safety services run on a voluntary basis.

  Post Office
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to remove the statutory exemption from liability for negligence from the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  We have no present plans to do so. However, as we said in the citizens charter, we have asked the Post Office to carry out an urgent review of its redress schemes with POUNC, the statutory body representing the interests of all Post Office users. The review is looking at the scope of current compensation arrangements as well as at the levels of compensation offered.

  As also set out in the charter, it is our intention that in future the Secretary of State will have powers to approve the arrangements for redress where service fails to meet the reasonable expectations of the Post Office's customers.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will specify those transactions which are permitted in Post Office Counters Crown offices but not in privately owned sub-post offices or franchised outlets.

  Mr. Leigh
  The range of business transacted at Crown post offices and sub-post office agencies is an operational matter determined in negotiations between Post Office Counters Ltd. and each individual client.

  I understand that, with the exception of those located at international airports, sub-post office agencies do not issue British visitors passports; and that the issue of motor vehicle licences is carried out by 2,825 offices, both Crown and agency, at the request of DVLA. Other transactions available in Crown offices and some but not all agency offices are acceptance of datapost and the re-setting of franking machines. There is no change in the range of transactions carried out by Crown offices which have been converted to sub-post offices.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office Crown branch offices in(a) Britain and (b) south Wales are in each of the three categories A, B and C specified by Post Office Counters for (i) 1989 and (ii) projected by management for the end of 1992; and what is the proposed percentage change in each category.

  Mr. Leigh
  The numbers of Crown post offices in categories A, B, and C in(a) Britain and (b) south Wales counters district (B and C not separately identified) at 31 March 1989 were as follows:

  A

  B

  C

  Britain

  498

  552

  443

  South Wales

  20

  —35—

  An effect of the Crown conversion programme may be to change the percentage distribution of offices between these categories; in addition, the precise effect in any area will depend on negotiations with potential agency operators and the outcome of the local consultation procedure. It is therefore not possible to project numbers for the end of 1992.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department issues advice on care for domestic pets where fireworks are used; what 62
  information his Department has on the law relating to the sale of fireworks in other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  The main thrust of the Government's annual firework safety campaign is to publicise the firework code, which urges the public to keep pets indoors. The law on fireworks varies greatly in other countries.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer to the answers given to the hon. Member on 13 March 1990 (Official Report, column 172) and 30 April 1991 (column 127).

  The final outturn for 1990–91 and estimated expenditure in the current year are as follows:

  £000

  1990–91

  2,383

  1991–92

  2,410

  The figures include regional press officer and other support services. The budget for 1992–93 is not yet finalised.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) the Export Credits Guarantee Department, during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Department of Trade and Industry

  I refer to the answers given to the hon. Member on 1 July (Official Report, column 20), 12 July (column 523) and 17 July (column 180–81). The Department continues to have no plans for television advertising in the current year.

  (b) Export Credits Guarantee Department

  Television advertising campaigns in 1991–92: None. Other campaign:

  (i) Topic: ECGD's strength in Europe.

  (ii) Commenced: 22 April 1991.

  (iii) Duration: four weeks.

  (iv) Advertising agency: Leo Burnett.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total expenditure by the ECGD on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The response for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90 is contained in the Official Report for 3 May 1991, columns 364–65. The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  63

  Year

  £000

  1990–91

  1,067

  11991–92

  1,326

  1 Latest estimate.

  The budget for 1992–93 has still to be prepared.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department uses carefully targeted direct mail in support of a number of its objectives, including the stimulation of innovation, the promotion of exports and the provision of information to business about new methods, opportunities and management skills.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give separate figures for spending by the ECGD on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The response for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90 is contained in the Official Report for 8 May 1991, column 502. The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  Total

  Press advertising

  Other

  £000

  £000

  £000

  1990–91

  1,067

  692

  375

  11991–92

  1,326

  875

  451

  1 Latest estimate.

  No expenditure has been incurred on TV and radio advertising. The budget for 1992–93 has still to be prepared.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer to the answers given to the hon. Member on 13 March 1990 (Official Report, columns 173–74) and 29 April 1991 (column 55–56). Final outturn figures for expenditure from the Department's central publicity during 1990–91 were as follows:

  £000

  Television advertising

  3,938

  Radio advertising

  141

  Press advertising

  1,905

  Other promotional materials1

  3,778

  United Kingdom Exports 1980–89

  Beryllium 1

  Bismuth 2

  Volume (kg)

  Value (£k) Total

  of which to EC

  Volume (MT)

  Value (£k) Total

  of which to EC

  1980

  0

  0

  0

  289

  1,469

  …

  1981

  1,100

  11

  0

  298

  945

  …

  1982

  603

  3

  1

  292

  1,140

  …

  64
  1Publications, audio-visual materials and posters.

  I expect expenditure on such activities this year to be well within last year's total. Media allocations are made according to need during the course of the year, but the Department has no plans for television advertising this year.

  South Sefton Business Centre
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make an official visit to South Sefton business centre.

  Mr. Leigh
  I do not at present have any plans to visit the South Sefton business centre.

  Thomson Consumer Electronics
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department will offer to promote industrial activity(a) in the Gosport area in general and (b) at the Ferguson plant in particular in the light of the announcement by Thomson Consumer Electronics that it intends to close the Ferguson factory.

  Mr. Leigh
  The best way for the Government to support firms in the Gosport area is through its policies aimed at controlling inflation and encouraging sustained economic growth. Eligible firms there benefit from access to DTI schemes aimed at helping them to become more efficient, encouraging innovation and promoting exports. DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau and the English unit promote new direct investment by overseas firms to the United Kingdom. IBB can give individual inward investors information about locations where sites, premises and labour are readily available to meet their particular needs.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 12 July 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department has carried out no general public opinion surveys in this period.

  Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the value and volume of exports in each year of the 1980's of(a) beryllium, (b) polonium and (c) bismuth, specifying in each case the countries stated as the destinations of the exports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information is given in the table. Information on polonium is not available as it is not separately identified in the overseas trade statistics. To provide country details would involve disproportionate cost.
  65

  Beryllium 1

  Bismuth 2

  Volume (kg)

  Value (£k) Total

  of which to EC

  Volume (MT)

  Value (£k) Total

  of which to EC

  1983

  17,898

  23

  0

  310

  1,343

  …

  1984

  452

  33

  2

  292

  1,881

  …

  1985

  725

  44

  0

  …

  …

  …

  1986

  0

  0

  0

  …

  …

  …

  1987

  13

  4

  3

  …

  …

  …

  1988

  6

  3

  3

  566

  4,270

  2,109

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  413

  3,419

  2,135

  1 As defined by code 689.91 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).

  2 As defined by SITC Code 689.92 for 1988–89 and Combined Nomenclature Code 810411 (part of SITC 689.99) for 1980–87. …= not available.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics

  Businesses, North-West
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentages of businesses in the north-west have reported a decline in sales over the last six months.

  Mr. Leigh
  Statistical information of this nature is not collected by my Department.

  Manufacturing Standards
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy for assisting British trade and professional organisations with travel and administration costs for meetings in connection with achieving Europeanwide standards of manufacture for 1993 onwards.

  Mr. Leigh
  We continue to make available through the British Standards Institution substantial financial support towards the travel costs of leaders of BSI delegations and of principal experts and other selected personnel attending standards meetings overseas.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Leigh
  No.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on British Shipbuilders' external financing limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  British Shipbuilders' external financing limit for 1991–92 was set at £5·8 million as recorded in the Government's expenditure plans 1991–92 to 1993–94 published in February 1991. I am now able to announce a reduced EFL for 1991–92 of £3·6 million which amounts to a net improvement of £9·4 million. This is principally due to the release of the provision of legal fees totalling £6 million following the out-of-court settlement of the Scott Lithgow dispute in March 1991 and the deferred receipt of asset sales at North East Shipbuilders Ltd. (NESL) which included £2·075 million from the sale of Pallion, the only remaining NESL yard.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on Monday 4 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  The main item was a further discussion on the European Commission plans to apply "MAC" standards to direct-to-house satellite broadcasting. I continued to argue strongly for service provider freedom to follow their commercial judgment. Consumers should not have imposed on them the costs of these changes, especially where they do not derive benefits from new services on offer. I am pleased to say that opinion among EC states does seem to have shifted in this direction to some extent and I hope that the Commission's revised proposals, expected later this year, will show considerable improvement.

  The Council reached political agreement on a resolution on satellite communications, which envisages future liberalisation of that sector. A common position was reached on a Council directive on the application of open network provision to leased lines, which will facilitate future liberalisation of the European telecommunication services market. Agreement was also reached on a Council decision on the harmonisation of the international access code, subject to approval by the United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny committees and the availability of the opinion by the European Parliament.

  The Commission announced that it hoped to produce a Green Paper on postal services for discussion at the next Telecommunications Council on 5 December 1991. The Commission also announced its intention to produce a Communication on a co-ordinated EC position for the world administrative radio conference (WARC), in February 1992. All member states agreed with the United Kingdom that CEPT should remain the principal European body dealing with international radio frequencies and that member states should where possible support the common CEPT proposals at WARC.

ENERGY

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Publicity
  M r. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested for 1989–90 and earlier years was contained in my reply to the hon. Member on 25 April,Official Report, col. 500. Expenditure in 1990–91, and estimated expenditure in 1991–92, is as follows:

  £'000

  1991–92

  1990–911

  Television Advertising

  —

  —

  Newspaper Advertising

  606

  559

  Radio Advertising

  —

  —

  Other Promotional Material

  900

  1,074

  1 Does not include expenditure on the privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry.

  Decisions on expenditure by media in 1992–93 have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Unsolicited direct mail has been used from time to time when it has been considered the best method of disseminating advice or information to specific audiences. A recent example was a mailing to head teachers of a booklet entitled "Energy Efficiency in Buildings—Schools".

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has a continuing programme of publicity to promote energy efficiency, including a joint campaign with the Department of the Environment on the environment and home energy efficiency and the "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign, the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry and renewable sources of energy. None of these campaigns will involve television advertising in the current year.

  The joint campaign which was launched on Monday 4 November and will run for three years is being handled by Collett, Dickenson, Pearce and Partners Ltd., and Maxima. The purpose of the campaign is to encourage householders to make their homes more energy efficient.

  The "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign was launched on 16 October 1991 and will run until 1992–93. The aim of the campaign is to encourage top management to make a corporate commitment to energy efficiency. The campaign is being handled by Laing Henry Ltd. and Network Ltd.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure by his Department on press 68
  and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The estimated expenditure in 1991–92 is £675,000. This figure includes:

  (i) forecast expenditure by the Press Office;

  (ii) staff costs (salaries, accommodation and common services) for all the permanent information service and support staff in the Press Office (including the Speech Writing Unit), at 1 November 1991.

  The corresponding expenditure for previous years was set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 30 April, Official Report, c. 107–8.

  Details of proposed expenditure for 1992–93 are not available.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the problems being encountered at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and its future life expectancy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 14 October, (col. 6). I understand that Nuclear Electric plc's interim safety case for the restart of Trawsfynydd remains the subject of discussions between it and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Nuclear Material (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement outlining the sequence of events leading to Her Majesty's Government offering to accept nuclear material from Iraq for reprocessing in Scotland; what offers of assistance in dealing with the material have been forthcoming from other countries; and what is the current position regarding the possible importation of the materials.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following an approach from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Government indicated that facilities at Dounreay would be available if required for making safe certain nuclear materials which will be removed from Iraq in accordance with Security Council resolution 687. The IAEA requested tenders for this work and an alliance of British and French companies submitted bids. It will be for the agency to assess these and any other offers received on technical and economic grounds.

EMPLOYMENT

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give separate figures for spending by the Training Agency or Manpower Services Commission
  69
  on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d)other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  TV (£)

  Radio (£)

  Press (£)

  Other (£)

  Total (£)

  Actual

  1979–80

  N.A.

  N.A.

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  424,102

  4,127

  2,496,440

  2,588,540

  5,513,209

  1981–82

  —

  62,896

  1,814,935

  2,784,279

  4,662,110

  1982–83

  —

  89,654

  2,984,230

  3,222,031

  6,295,915

  1983–84

  1,479,748

  17,434

  764,409

  2,670,666

  4,932,257

  1984–85

  944,975

  3,477

  717,057

  4,473,283

  6,138,792

  1985–86

  9,676,257

  311,537

  1,867,286

  5,111,180

  16,966,260

  1986–87

  15,624,000

  258,631

  6,927,370

  12,124,000

  34,934,001

  1987–88

  17,321,000

  26,841

  6,950,159

  11,647,000

  35,945,000

  1988–89

  12,569,000

  —

  5,502,000

  12,449,000

  30,520,000

  1989–90

  8,610,000

  56,000

  6,164,000

  12,485,000

  27,315,000

  1990–91

  6,115,000

  —

  3,803,000

  9,912,000

  19,830,000

  All the figures refer only to expenditure by the former Manpower Services Commission, Training Commission and Training Agency. Following the abolition of the Training Agency, from 1991–92 the Department's advertising and publicity budget is held centrally.

  The total budget for 1991–92 (excluding HSE and ACAS) is £18·41 million. Estimate of the breakdown by media is as follows:

  TV (£)

  Press (£)

  Others (£)

  Total (£)

  8,594,000

  1,166,000

  8,650,000

  18,410,000

  (c) Expenditure levels for 1992–93 are in the process of being set.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  (a) Expenditure on advertising and promotional material by the Department of Employment from 1979–80 to 1985–86 was as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  70,000

  1980–81

  320,000

  1981–82

  400,000

  1982–83

  360,000

  1983–84

  500,000

  1984–85

  320,000

  1985–86

  1,220,000

  Figures for television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional material are not available separately.

  The figures for 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 are as follows:

  Television

  Press/Radio

  Other Promotional

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1986–87

  9·3

  3·0

  4·1

  1987–88

  3·3

  0·8

  2·8

  1988–89

  2·1

  2·3

  1·3

  1989–90

  0·9

  0·9

  1·2

  1990–91

  n/a

  0·5

  2·4

  70
  Mr. Forth
  (a) The information requested is given in the table:

  (b)From 1991–92 the Department's advertising and publicity budget has been held centrally. Details of expenditure for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93 are being provided for the hon. Member in a reply to a separate question.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year

  Expenditure

  £ million

  Actual

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  n/a

  1986–87

  1·080

  1987–88

  1·014

  1988–89

  3·185

  1989–90

  3·331

  1990–91

  3·507

  Estimated

  1991–92

  3·870

  Figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are for Department of Employment information division only. Figures for TA are not available.

  Figures for 1988–89 represent total expenditure separately incurred by DE information division and TA information services branch; the two merged to form DE information branch in November 1989. Figures for 1990–91 onwards represent expenditure by the DE information branch.

  Expenditure levels for 1992–93 are in the process of being set.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Department of Employment and (b) the Training Agency during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.
  71
  Mr. Forth
  Two television advertising campaigns have been carried out for the Department so far in 1991–92, for TECs and for Just the Job. No further television advertising is planned by the Department during the remainder of the financial year. The Training Agency is now part of the Department.

  Topic

  Start Date

  Duration

  Company

  Career Development Loans Press

  July 1991

  3 months

  1GGT

  Jobclub Press

  Late 1991

  3 months

  2DMB&B

  Job Review Workshops Press

  Early 1992

  1–2 months

  DMB&B

  National Training Awards Press

  March 1991

  3 months

  GGT

  National Training Awards Press

  December 1991

  4 days

  GGT

  High Technology National Training Press

  April 1991

  1 month

  GGT

  High Technology National Training Press

  September 1991

  2 weeks

  GGT

  Just the Job Press

  September 1991

  2 months

  DMB&B

  TECs Press

  April 1991

  2 months

  GGT

  Investors in People Press

  October 1991

  1 month

  GGT

  1Gold Greenlees Trott.

  2D'Arcy Masius Benton and Bowles.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether(a) the Department of Employment and (b) the Training Agency or Manpower Services Commission have sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Forth
  Direct mail containing information about the national training awards was sent to senior figures in British industry as part of the March to May 1991 campaign to encourage entries for the awards.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will consider seeking derogations from the EC proposals for limiting working hours of employees for seasonal agricultural activities;

  (2) if he will consider seeking derogations from the EC proposals for limiting working hours of employees for food manufacturing dependent on shift, night and weekend work;

  (3) what derogations are currently being considered in the discussions with his EC counterparts on the proposals for limiting working hours of employees.

  Mr. Forth
  In discussions on the draft directive it has been proposed that member states should be able to make derogations from the main requirements of the draft directive in a number of circumstances. These include activities where the workplace is at a distance from the worker's place of residence; activities where continuity of production or service is necessary; unforeseen exceptional circumstances which are limited in time and predictable peaks of work such as in agriculture. In all such cases employees must be afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest, or, where this is not possible, other forms of equivalent protection. The Government consider the draft directive unnecessary and unjustified, but will continue to seek to limit the damaging effects of the directive, if adopted, on all employers and employees in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current position regarding EC proposals for limiting working hours of employees.

  Mr. Forth
  A draft directive on the organisation of working time was proposed by the European Commission
  72
  Other publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 carried out or planned during 1991–92 are set out in the table:

  under its social action programme in July 1990. It is under discussion in the Council. Various amendments have been proposed by other member states in discussions, including a limit of 48 hours on the working week and a requirement for the weekly rest period in principle to include Sunday.

  The Government question the need for this proposed directive, which would have a damaging effect on the flexibility of firms in the United Kingdom and throughout the EC, increasing their costs and prejudicing their competitiveness. Hours of work are best decided between employers and employees. The Government did not consider the Commission's original proposals justified as minimum requirements for the protection of the health and safety of workers. The Government strongly question the justification for further restrictions on weekly hours and Sunday work.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the average weekly earnings of(a) a male manual worker, (b) a female manual worker, (c) a male non-manual worker and (d) a female non-manual worker.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information for April 1991 is published in part A of the 1991 New Earnings Survey report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the number of benefit staff units dealing with unemployment benefit claims in each of the Employment Service administrative regions, (b) the number of unemployed people claiming benefit in each of the administrative regions and (c) the benefit staff unit to claimant ratio in each of the administrative regions as at 1 March 1990, September 1990 and September 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  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.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's various research branches do not commission public opinion surveys as such. However, they carry out research projects on a variety of employment-related issues which involve surveys of individuals. Listed are those research studies, commissioned or partly funded by the Employment Department Group—ED, Employment Service, Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service—which have involved surveys of individuals commissioned since 11 July 1991.

  Abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme

  Top Managers Views of the ED Group

  A Survey of Industrial Tribunal Applications

  Customer Satisfaction Survey

  New Clients Survey

  Job Link

  Restart Courses Follow-Up

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to increase the supply of qualified tradesmen, including mechanics and engineers, to small businesses located in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The primary responsibility for training lies with employers, who must recognise that investment in training is essential to ensure the success of their business. This is just as relevant for all businesses, large or small, wherever they are based.

  The Government are supporting and encouraging the efforts of employers in a number of ways. In particular, the employer-led training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies have been charged with helping to ensure that local people develop the skills that businesses need. They also have particular responsibility for promoting the growth of small firms.

  Employer-led industry training organisations also have a key role at industry level to develop strategies to meet the needs of particular industries and to work with TECS and LECS to encourage effective training.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the benefits to the tourism industry of moving the United Kingdom into central European time.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department contributed towards the costs of the work leading to the Policy Studies Institute report "Making The Most Of Daylight Hours", published 74
  in 1988. This report concluded that the adoption of single/double summer time would bring a number of likely benefits to the tourism industry.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Commission-only Work
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number and percentage of commission-only jobs available at jobcentres on the most recent date for which information is available; if he will outline the procedures for clients viewing commission-only jobs; and if he will list the occupations likely to be offered on a commission-only basis.

  Mr. Forth
  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.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables to show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, the latest results of the YTS leavers survey, to show for male and female trainees and for each separate ethnic group and for those with a disability(a) those in full-time work with the same employer, (b) those in full-time work with a different employer, (c) those in part-time work, (d) those on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) those on another YTS, (f) those doing something else, (g) those who were unemployed, (h) those who had obtained a vocational qualification, (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (j) the usable percentage response rate and (k) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers; what were the numbers of accidents on YTS, fatal, major and minor, for the latest available three-month period; and how many YTS placements were closed or not accepted in that period and in the three preceding months.

  Mr. Forth
  The complete information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Table 1 provides information about the situation of young people three months after leaving youth training in the period April 1990 to September 1990. Table 2 provides separate figures on the numbers of accidents for the period April 1991 to June 1991. Separate figures for closures and rejections of YT placements are no longer available.
  75

  Table 1

  Youth Training Outcomes April—September 1990: All Leavers

  GB1

  Scotland

  Northern

  Y&H

  North West

  West Midlands

  Wales

  South West

  South East

  London

  East Midlands and Anglia

  Number of returned questionnaires

  78,489

  10,827

  6,112

  9,114

  10,597

  8,460

  4,502

  5,599

  5,414

  2,252

  10,886

  GB1

  Scotland

  Northern

  Y&H

  North West

  West Midlands

  Wales

  South West

  South East

  London

  East Midlands and Anglia

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  In jobs at time of survey2

  65

  61

  55

  63

  62

  67

  61

  71

  71

  61

  70

  In jobs, YT or another full-time course at time of survey2

  80

  78

  74

  79

  78

  82

  76

  83

  83

  75

  83

  Gained qualification

  47

  47

  42

  43

  45

  49

  41

  57

  56

  40

  49

  Source: YT National Follow-up-Survey.

  1 Includes some trainees not identified to a particular region.

  2 Activity 3 months after leaving.

  Youth training accident statistics April 1991—June 1991

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  West Midlands

  0

  10

  49

  East Midlands and Eastern

  0

  6

  24

  London

  0

  3

  12

  South East

  0

  8

  22

  South West

  0

  5

  14

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  11

  47

  Northern

  0

  8

  67

  Wales

  0

  8

  34

  North West

  0

  18

  52

  Scotland

  0

  11

  32

  National

  0

  87

  353

  (a) Employment Department figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Employment Department's figures include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which would not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  (b) Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. These regualtions which came into force on 1 April 1986 reclassified fractured wrists and ankles as major injuries which were not considered to be major under the previous regulations, the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR).

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish updated versions of tables 6.5 and 6.6 of chapter 6 of the 1990–91 to 1992–93 public expenditure White Paper (Cm 1006) extending the series published there up to date.
  76
  Mr. Forth
  Tables 6.5 and 6.6 of chapter 6 of the 1990–91 to 1992–93 Public Expenditure White Paper were published in an amended form as tables 6.6 and 6.8 of the 1991 departmental report.

  It was necessary to change the format as TECs have taken over delivery of the youth training and employment training programmes. Entrant numbers and target outcomes for all these programmes will be negotiated with all 82 TECs in January, and TEC business plans will be agreed at the beginning of the financial year, after publication of the departmental report at the beginning of the year. The national aggregate of individual TEC targets will be announced to Parliament following completion of the negotiations with all the TECs.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the total cost to United Kingdom consumer/taxpayers of direct and indirect support to farmers and horticulturalists.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost per adult in the United Kingdom of the common agricultural policy for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  The CAP system of agricultural support, in common with the support policies of other industrial countries, gives rise to substantial costs to taxpayers and consumers compared with a situation in which foodstuffs were imported at world market prices with no support to domestic producers. Estimates of these costs, and the savings that could be secured if current policies were
  77
  ended, are possible only by making many assumptions. Important judgments are necessary about the current levels of world prices—no simple matter given the wide variations in quotations and substantial fluctuations from year to year—and the changes in these prices if present policies were abandoned. The latter depend on how producers and consumers throughout the world might respond to the new circumstances and on the impact on factors such as exchange rates.

  Estimates made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, using a particular set of assumptions, imply that the transfers from consumers and taxpayers in 1990 resulting from agricultural policies in the European Community as a whole—separate figures for the United Kingdom are not available—were equivalent to £4·4 per head of total population per week. It is not meaningful to express this per adult. This figure is derived from the OECD estimate of the aggregate cost of 105·1 billion ecu for 1990, assuming the EC12 population is 327·1 million and that 1 ecu = £0·7139. Corresponding estimates can be derived from OECD studies for 1986 to 1989 as follows, expressed per head per week: 1986, £4·0; 1987, £4·4; 1988, £4·0; 1989, £3·7. Consistently based estimates for earlier years have not been published.

  The figure for 1990 is one estimate of the extent to which the CAP raised the cost of food and agricultural products, and incurs budgetary costs, compared to existing "world" prices. As I have emphasised on a number of occasions, and as the OECD has made clear, the estimate takes no account of the effect that removal of farm support would have on world prices, and other variables, and thus gives no indication of the extent to which taxpayers and consumers might be better off if current policies were removed. Consumers/taxpayers would benefit by considerably less than £4·4 per head per week if all agricultural support were removed.

  "Our Farming Future"
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to consult outside organisations prior to publishing his policy document "Our Farming Future"; and whether it will be a consultation document.

  Mr. Gummer
  "Our Farming Future" will be a policy statement by the Government, not a consultation document. Consequently we have not consulted outside organisations specifically in its preparation although our regular meetings with consumers, farmers, environmental organisations, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have enforced our policies.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are ready to consider industry proposals for decommissioning provided that these form part of a wider conservation package aimed at reducing fishing effort.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Agricultural Marketing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations that his Ministry funded that promoted the marketing of agricultural produce giving the amount funded in each case in(a) 1980 and (b) 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department contributes to a number of bodies concerned with marketing.

  These contributions and the purposes concerned are shown for 1990–91 in respect of the main bodies. Information for 1980 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Food From Britain

  £4·5 million to cover establishment costs and some marketing activities.

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  £240,000 to cover salaries and related costs.

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  £115,000 towards administrative expenses.

  Potato Marketing Board

  £300,000 for the provision of statistical information.

  Healthy Eating
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his catering working group expects to publish a report and make recommendations on healthy eating in different catering establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The group is conducting a review and will report to the MAFF/DH/HEA nutrition liaison group as and when it is appropriate to do so.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  Public opinion surveys carried out by my Department since 11 July are as follows:Food Sense Publications Campaign: pre-campaign market research.
  MAFF Touring Exhibition: post-project evaluation research.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure by the Department in the financial year 1982–83 and each subsequent year was as follows:
  79

  Television

  Radio

  Press advertising

  Other publicity material

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1982–83

  Nil

  Nil

  3,000

  n/a

  1983–84

  Nil

  Nil

  27,000

  n/a

  1984–85

  Nil

  Nil

  26,000

  575,000

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  29,000

  656,000

  1986–87

  Nil

  Nil

  54,000

  825,000

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  12,000

  693,000

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  380,000

  1,004,000

  1989–90

  Nil

  Nil

  116,000

  2,373,000

  1990–91

  Nil

  Nil

  53,000

  2,379,000

  11991–92

  157,000

  Nil

  108,000

  4,135,000

  1 Forecast.

  Figures for publicity advertising prior to 1982–83 are not available as the information for those years includes recruitment and other types of advertising. Information is not readily available to distinguish between expenditure on advertising in newspapers and that in the press generally.

  Separate figures for expenditure on other publicity material prior to 1984–85 are available only at disproportionate cost. A figure for the overall publicity budget for 1992–93 is not yet available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Curry
  Publicising the new "Food Sense" series of publications, launched in August this year, will include limited regional TV advertising in 1991–92. The production has been undertaken by Coleman RSCG, who were commissioned by the Central Office of Information.

  A touring exhibition carried consumer information, on a wide range of food safety and environmental issues, to major shopping centres and agricultural shows between May and October this year. The exhibition was produced by Interactive Learning Productions of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The information required for the financial years 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures for the subsequent years are as follows:—

  Year

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional material

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1,620

  1,629

  1983–84

  96

  13

  2,182

  1,698

  1984–85

  147

  154

  3,153

  2,133

  80

  £ million

  1984–85

  3·2

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  3·0

  1987–88

  0·6

  1988–89

  0·8

  1989–90

  1·1

  1990–91

  0·5

  1991–92

  0·5

  Figures for the years 1984–85 to 1986–87 refer to the total cost of press services and paid publicity which could be separated to show expenditure on press services only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1987–88 to 1991–92 relate to press services alone. The budget for press services for 1992–93 is not yet available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Catering Working Group
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the different types of catering establishments that are being considered by his catering working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The group is considering ways of increasing the provision of healthier food in all types of catering outlets.

SCOTLAND

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-profit making sports clubs in Scotland applied for rate relief for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 and as a total over the same period; and how many of these clubs were granted rate relief of(a) 25 per cent. or under, (b) 25 to 50 per cent., (c) 50 to 65 per cent., (d) 65 to 90 per cent. and (e) 90 to 100 per cent.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for spending by the Scottish Development Agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table.
  81

  Year

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional material

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  1985–86

  253

  16

  2,553

  1,738

  1986–87

  152

  5

  1,860

  1,339

  1987–88

  201

  9

  1,708

  822

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1,430

  1,877

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1,513

  1,550

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1,592

  1,433

  The information for 1979–80 to 1981–82 cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. The Scottish Development Agency, along with the activity of the Training Agency in Scotland, was replaced by Scottish Enterprise on 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Forestry Commission on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 May 1991, at column 537. The estimate for the current year is £260,000. No figure is available at this stage for 1992–93.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure by the Forestry Commission on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 May 1991, columns 346–47. The estimate for the current year is £2 million. No figure is available at this stage for 1992–93.

  Mar Lodge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to bring Mar Lodge estate into public ownership.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Our objective is to enable Scottish Natural Heritage to negotiate a management agreement with the new owner of Mar Lodge estate, whoever that may be, which will safeguard the conservation and other qualities of the estate.

  Foresterhill Hospital
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy not to allow Foresterhill hospital, Aberdeen, to opt out of local health board control.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The application for NHS trust status submitted on behalf of the Foresterhill group of hospitals will be considered against the published criteria.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.
  82
  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many first-time voters appeared on the electoral register(a) in each Scottish constituency and (b) in the whole of Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of those attaining the age of 18 and appearing on the electoral register in Scotland for the first time, by parliamentary constituency and in total, is contained in the annual series "Electoral Statistics" compiled by OPCS. Copies are available in the House Library.

  Dunoon General Hospital
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the future of Dunoon general hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for Argyll and Clyde health board, but any changes proposed by the board would require the consent of the Secretary of State.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he expects to change entitlement from income support to family credit as a result of the Income Support (General Amendment) Regulations, S.I., 1991, No. 1559.

  Mr. Jack
  We estimate that around 45,000 families on income support and working over 16 hours a week will become eligible for family credit in April 1992.

  In the longer term we expect the reduction in the qualifying hours rule to attract many more people who are on income support into work and on to family credit.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of pensioners claim income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are about 1·4 million pensioners claiming income support, some 14 per cent. of all pensioners.

  Source: 1990 Annual Statistical Inquiry.
  83
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the categories of income support claimants(a) who have to sign on as unemployed, be available for work and be actively seeking work and (b) who do not; and if he will give in table form the numbers and the percentages of total income support claimants in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  All claimants who are not specifically exempt from the availability for work and actively seeking work requirements must satisfy these conditions in order to be entitled to income support.

  The circumstances in which exemptions apply are set out in schedule 1 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

  Detailed information on the number of IS claimants taking advantage of each of the exemptions is not available. However, the following table gives a general breakdown of claimant categories, based on entitlement to IS premiums, as at May 1990.

  IS claimants by category

  Category

  Number

  Percentage

  Unemployed and required to sign

  1,063,053

  25

  Not required to sign

  In receipt of training allowance

  125,075

  3

  Lone parents

  793,099

  19

  In receipt of disability premium

  330,076

  8

  Aged 60 or over

  1,674,714

  40

  Other cases

  193,883

  5

  Total

  4,179,900

  100

  Note:

  The table is based on information contained in table 3.1 of the "IS Annual Enquiry" for May 1990 which categories IS claimants by premium entitlement.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of how many additional pensioners in receipt of the retirement pension will be eligible for income support as a consequence of the income support level being higher than the retirement pension as a result of his uprating statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that around 400,000 people may become eligible to claim income support following the proposed uprating of benefits in April 1992. The majority of these are likely to be benefit units where one or more members is aged 60 or over, although it is difficult to be precise about the proportion, which is extremely sensitive to assumptions used in the estimating model.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–87–88 Family Expenditure Surveys at 1992 prices.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the number of people on transitional protection in April 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that, immediately after the uprating in April 1991, 25,000 income support claimants were receiving a transitional addition.1 It is not possible to give an estimate of the number of income support claimants who were then receiving a boarder's protected sum. At that time housing benefit transitional protection payments were being made to 21,000 people.

  1 Source: Based on modelling using date drawn from the May 1990 Annual Statistical Enquiry of Income Support recipients.
  84
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women and how many men were in receipt of each of the premia paid with income support, listed separately, at the latest date for which information is available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information for May 1990, the latest date for which it is available, is as follows:

  Single

  Couples

  Premium

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Higher pensioner

  86,946

  490,815

  102,324

  8,186

  Enhanced pensioner

  38,039

  238,755

  35,418

  1,792

  Pensioner

  90,767

  307,342

  94,929

  2,987

  Severe disability

  10,485

  50,713

  1,095

  100

  Disability

  108,127

  145,774

  68,585

  8,491

  Lone parent

  34,119

  759,180

  199

  —

  Disabled child

  698

  10,683

  5,995

  399

  Family premium

  38,113

  777,460

  317,725

  10,796

  Notes:

  (1) There is free choice of claimant between couples; either may claim. Classification by sex denotes the sex of the claimant, and does not identify which partner qualifies for the premium.

  (2) Figures show the number of premiums in payment; a case may have more than one premium.

  (3) The carer premium, introduced in October 1990, is not included.

  (4) Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1990.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effects on incentives to work of the Income Support (General Amendment) Regulations S.I., 1991, No. 1559 for people who receive income support for mortgage interest payments.

  Mr. Jack
  The change in the hours rule will mean that 30,000 families with children who are receiving income support and working between 16 and 24 hours a week—some of whom pay mortgage interest—will be better off by claiming family credit.

  There will be some people working between 16 and 24 hours a week and receiving income support at the time of the change who will either not be eligible to claim family credit or will not be better off by doing so. These will include some with mortgages. They can continue to claim income support and their work incentives will not therefore be affected.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give precise details of the calculation he made before uprating means-tested benefits by 7 per cent. rather than 7·2 per cent. for April 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The new index to be used in April 1992 differs from its predecessor in that water and sewerage charges, 20 per cent. of the community charge and miscellaneous housing costs—dwelling insurance and ground rent, repair and maintenance charges, do-it-yourself materials—will be included. Rent and mortgage interest remain wholly excluded. The new index shows a rise of 7 per cent. in September 1991 compared with its level in September 1990.

  Marginal Tax Rate
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the marginal tax rate incurred by a combination of income tax, national insurance, housing
  85
  benefit rent withdrawal taper and the community charge benefit withdrawal taper in 1990; and what is the contribution of each of these to the total.

  Mr. Jack
  The marginal deduction rate for a person paying standard rate income tax, national insurance and receiving both a rent rebate and community charge benefit as from April is 87 per cent.

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

  Per cent.

  Tax

  25

  NI

  9

  Housing Benefit

  43

  Community Charge Benefit

  10

  Widows
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of widows aged under 60 years in receipt of (1) widow's pension,(a) full and (b) reduced, and (2) widowed mother's allowance also claim (i) income support, (ii) family credit and (iii) housing benefit.

  Table 1

  Single pensioners

  Averages of income components by quintile

  (per week, 1988 prices)

  Total benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Total gross

  Total net

  1st Quintile

  43·60

  1·10

  2·90

  0·10

  47·80

  46·40

  2nd Quintile

  51·00

  2·90

  3·40

  0·40

  57·70

  56·80

  3rd Quintile

  57·80

  5·80

  3·30

  0·50

  67·50

  66·40

  4th Quintile

  55·00

  18·10

  11·10

  2·30

  86·60

  81·30

  5th Quintile

  49·90

  64·00

  56·00

  16·90

  186·70

  155·30

  Overall

  51·80

  16·50

  13·70

  3·50

  85·50

  78·50

  Table 2

  Single pensioners

  Proportion of average gross income derived from each component, by quintile

  (per cent.)

  Total benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Total gross

  1st Quintile

  91

  2

  6

  *

  100

  2nd Quintile

  88

  5

  6

  1

  100

  3rd Quintile

  86

  9

  5

  1

  100

  4th Quintile

  63

  21

  13

  3

  100

  5th Quintile

  27

  34

  30

  9

  100

  Overall

  61

  19

  16

  4

  100

  Table 3

  Pensioner couples

  Averages of income components by quintile

  (per week, 1988 prices,

  Total benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Total gross

  Total net

  1st quintile

  71·30

  3·70

  5·00

  1·10

  81·00

  78·80

  2nd quintile

  80·30

  10·20

  6·20

  1·30

  98·00

  96·30

  3rd quintile

  81·30

  22·80

  9·70

  2·90

  116·80

  111·90

  4th quintile

  77·60

  42·80

  19·80

  13·30

  153·40

  141·70

  5th quintile

  69·50

  12·400

  89·80

  64·90

  348·20

  286·60

  Overall

  75·20

  45·80

  30·20

  19·90

  171·20

  151·90

  86
  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not possible to answer all the question. The most recent available data on widows' benefits are for March 1990 and for income support and housing benefit, May 1990. These two data sources have been combined to provide estimates of the proportion of those on widows' benefits on other benefits. Statistically valid figures of the number of widows receiving both widows' benefits and family credit are not available. A total of 18,000 or 6 per cent. of those in receipt of widow's pension and 6,000 or 9 per cent. of those in receipt of widowed mother's allowance were also in receipt of income support. A further 24,000, or 7 per cent., of those in receipt of either widow's pension or widowed mother's allowance also received housing benefit.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the composition of income for single pensioners and pensioner couples by quintile of income, using the 1988 family expenditure survey, broken down by average gross weekly income, and the proportion derived from social security benefits, occupational pensions, savings and investment and earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the tables.
  87

  Table 4

  Pensioner couples

  Proportion of average gross income derived from each component, by quintile

  (per cent.)

  Total benefits

  Occupational pensions

  Investment income

  Earnings

  Total gross

  1st quintile

  88

  5

  6

  1

  100

  2nd quintile

  82

  10

  6

  1

  100

  3rd quintile

  70

  20

  8

  3

  100

  4th quintile

  51

  28

  13

  9

  100

  5th quintile

  20

  36

  26

  19

  100

  Overall

  44

  27

  18

  12

  100

  Notes:

  1. Source: 1988 Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. Quintiles used are of net equivalised income gross of housing costs.

  3. Quintile groups used are for all pensioners, rather than for singles and couples separately.

  4. Pensioners are defined as single people over state pension age, or couples in which the man is over pension age.

  5. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  6. All averages in Tables 1 and 3 are means.

  '*' denotes a figure of less than 0·5 per cent.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he is taking to notify those pensioners who qualify for income support as a result of his uprating statement that they now have rights to this additional entitlement, and the consequent passported benefits;

  (2) what steps he is taking to inform and assist local authorities to ensure that all those individuals entitled to additional benefits, including housing benefit, community charge benefit and other passported benefits, arising from pensioners becoming entitled to income support, are notified of their rights by local authorities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has written to the local authority associations to tell them that we shall issue a circular asking local authorities to bring to the attention of pensioners receiving the maximum rate of community charge benefit that they might become entitled to income support when benefits are uprated next April.

  We are considering what further steps, through the Benefits Agency or otherwise, can be taken to bring the possibility of new or renewed entitlement to income support for pensioners arising from the uprating.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners received income support and/or housing benefit to top up retirement pension reduced following a stay in hospital of more than six weeks in 1990–91; and what was the cost.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The annual statistical inquiry for 1990 did not reveal any such cases. The inquiry is based on a 1 per cent. sample of all cases.

  Number of claimants, partners and dependants

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Claimants

  2,854,664

  3,117,774

  3,722,563

  4,266,531

  4,349,192

  4,609,310

  —

  4,937,736

  4,895,525

  4,351,520

  4,160,765

  4,179,906

  Partners

  560,871

  620,752

  848,726

  1,010,205

  1,020,610

  1,086,318

  —

  1,126,654

  1,073,579

  841,018

  723,770

  691,157

  Dependants

  954,705

  1,124,718

  1,550,168

  1,792,958

  1,867,840

  2,032,992

  —

  2,226,548

  2,235,824

  2,195,454

  2,138,404

  2,151,159

  Total

  4,370,240

  4,863,244

  6,121,457

  7,069,694

  7,237,642

  7,728,620

  —

  8,290,938

  8,204,928

  7,387,992

  7,022,939

  7,022,222

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries

  Eating-out Allowance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the boarders' eating-out allowance in its final year of operation; how many households received it; and how many individuals received it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No data are available on either cost or the number of boarders receiving an additional allowance for meals.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the number of claimants and their dependants living below the supplementary benefit and income support line in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Numbers of individuals and their dependants with incomes below supplementary benefit levels for the years 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985, are held in the low income family tables, copies of which are available in the Library. In October 1990, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published data for 1987. This is the latest available information as these tables are no longer published. Any further figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the number of claimants and their dependants on supplementary benefit and income support for each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is published annually in the supplementary benefits or income support statistics. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the gross additional cost of increasing the period from six to 12 weeks would be before cutting the retirement pension of pensioners who become in-patients; and what the cost would be net of other benefit savings.

  (2) how many (a) retirement pensioners and (b) dependants of retirement pensioners had their retirement pension reduced after staying in hospital for more than six weeks in 1990–91;

  (3) what was the net saving to his Department in 1990–91 from reducing retirement pensions to pensioners or their dependants who became hospital in-patients for in excess of six weeks.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Statistics show the percentage rate by which the pension is reduced rather when it is reduced. Furthermore, data on the number of pensioners whose pensions have been reduced is available only on the basis of the number of reductions being made at specified dates during the year—31 March and 30 September. Separate information on dependants of retirement pensioners is not collected.

  At 30 September 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of pensioners whose retirement pensions were being reduced as a result of receiving in-patient treatment under the national health service was 55,700.

  Staff Health
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations which were invited to tender for the health checks on his Department's staff aged 35 years or over.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Disclosure of the names of the organisations invited to tender for these health checks could cause commercial damage to the unsuccessful tenderers and jeopardise the Department's future relationship with its suppliers.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) who paid for distribution of the leaflet informing his Department's staff of the health checks on those aged 35 years or over; and what was the cost;

  (2) who paid for the leaflet informing his Department's staff of the health checks on those aged 35 years and over; and what was the cost.

  Income Support

  Year

  Unemployed

  As proportion of all claimants receiving help with mortgages Per cent.

  As proportion of all unemployed claimants Per cent.

  Lone Parents

  As proportion of all claimants receiving help with mortgages Per cent.

  1987

  207,000

  28

  12

  74,000

  10

  1988

  114,000

  38

  8

  62,000

  21

  1989

  88,000

  31

  8

  67,000

  24

  Source:Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  Notes:Figures for numbers of claimants are rounded to the nearest 1,000

  Mr. G. P. Simmons
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that Mr. G. P. Simmons of 13 Hartley street, Bethnal Green, London E2 ON R receives a
  90
  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of the production and distribution of publicity material was included in the tender and formed an integral part of the contract. This element of the work was not costed separately.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals will be prevented from claiming severe disability premium by the proposed change to regulation 3 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987; and what saving the Department expects.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The amendment regulation restores the policy intention that the severe disability premium goes to people who live alone or with others on a commercial basis. The number of people who might have tried to establish a commercial relationship with members of their family who are close relatives, but for the amendment regulation, is not known. No savings are anticipated; the amendment avoids unplanned expenditure. Further, the amendment regulations contain preserved rights to the premium, at a cost of £5 million.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently claim the severe disability premium on income support by having tenancy agreements with their families; how much it would cost to continue to allow such claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. An estimated 3,000 people may be receiving the premium, or have taken steps to obtain it, on the grounds that since April 1988 they have become joint tenants or co-owners with close relatives with whom they live. The regulations laid on 21 October 1991 provide preserved rights to the premium for this group at an estimated cost of £5 million.

  Mortgage Assistance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the comparable figures to those contained in his answer of 22 October,Official Report, columns 577–78, for 1987, 1988 and 1989; and if he will give unemployed claimants receiving mortgage assistance as a proportion of unemployed claimants.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table:

  pension book this week plus a Girocheque for any money owed since his book was returned to the Bawhill office in July 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief
  91
  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.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners retiring in each of the past 11 years have retired with an occupational pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Such information as is available is given in the table. The definition of newly retired pensioners is the one normally used when quoting figures from the Family Expenditure Survey: single women aged 60–64, single men aged 65–69 and couples where the man is aged 65–69, in each respective year.

  Proportion of Newly-retired Pensioner Units in receipt of an Occupational Pension, by Year.

  Percentage in receipt

  1979

  50

  1980

  56

  1981

  54

  1982

  61

  1983

  57

  1984

  55

  1985

  60

  1986

  63

  1987

  64

  1988

  62

  Notes:

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. Pensioner units defined as single people of pensionable age or couples in which the man is of pensionable age.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer,Official Report, 27 March 1990, columns 161–63, concerning pensioners with occupational pensions using the 1988 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Table 2: Pensioners with occupational pensions

  Proportion with occupational pension (per cent)

  Mean amount received (£ per week)

  Median amount received (£ per week)

  All pensioners

  51

  54·10

  27·20

  Single male pensioners

  52

  44·80

  26·40

  Single female pensioners

  37

  38·10

  21·00

  Pensioner couples

  67

  68·00

  33·90

  Single women 75 or over

  33

  32·70

  18·40

  Single men 75 or over

  49

  47·30

  29·60

  Couples where at least one partner is 75 or over

  61

  59·70

  23·20

  Notes:

  1. Source: 1988 Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. All figures refer to pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person of pensionable age or a couple in which the man is of pensionable age.

  3. £s per week at 1988 prices.

  4. Mean and median amounts are for those pensioners actually in receipt of occupational pensions.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the full cost to his Department of every extra 100,000 unemployed people in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is in table 24 of the departmental report, "Social Security—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94" (Cm. 1514), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Public opinion surveys carried out by the Department of Social Security since 11 July 1991 are listed in the table.

  Survey

  Purpose

  1. National Customer Survey

  Continuing evaluation of customer opinion of benefits delivery by local and central offices of the Benefits Agency.

  2. Family Credit Campaign Evaluation

  A continuing evaluation of the campaign. Surveys conducted in August and October.

  3. Child Support Agency

  Target market study.

  Mrs. Teresa Byrne
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that Mrs. Teresa Byrne of 46 Linden place, Bispham, Blackpool FY2 0QY, who was widowed on 30 October 1990, receives a pension book in the next week.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that an invalidity pension order book was sent to Mrs. Byrne on 1 November 1991.

  SERPS
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to quantify the contribution of the state earnings-related pension scheme to pensioners' incomes derived from(a) social security benefit and (b) occupational pensions in each year since 1978–79.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Administrative data on the average amount of additional pension (SERPS) has been collected since 1978–79, but this is not linked to data on other incomes apart from retirement pension and other benefits paid with it. Questions were added to the 1987 and subsequent annual family expenditure surveys asking for information on the amount of net additional pension (SERPS) paid to each individual and their contracted-out deductions to try to expand the details available on pensioners' incomes. So far, the proportion of those pensioners able to respond accurately to these questions does not appear to be sufficient to estimate the contribution of SERPS to pensioners' total incomes. There is no way of discovering this contribution in any earlier years.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the additional administrative cost of(a) introducing a two-tier child benefit in April 1991 and (b) making a half-year increase in child benefit in October; and what was the yearly cost difference between paying a flat rate child benefit to every child and a two-tier benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  The administration of child benefit 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.

  Benefit Offices
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit claim offices were closed to the public at any time during the past year during official opening hours because they were becoming overcrowded or because staff were over-pressed; which offices closed; and for how many days.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed eligibility to sickness benefit for a person with an untreatable condition and incapable of work within the first six months of the benefit period who wishes to travel abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The special conditions for eligibility to sickness benefit for a person going abroad are contained in regulation 2 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975. These conditions, along with all the other conditions for eligibility to sickness benefit, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, are kept under constant review. We have no plans to amend these regulations.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of district offices in which women fleeing domestic violence are classified as a high, medium and low priority, respectively, for the purpose of community care grants paid under the social fund.

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

  Each district manager constructs his guidance, taking into account guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and a variety of local factors. This specific grouping may not always occur within the high priority band of a district's guidance because of the need to ensure payment for even more needy cases. However, all the circumstances of an application will still be considered and discretion can be used to raise the priority of an individual application, allowing a payment to be made.

  Social Fund Loans
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of districts are now paying social fund loans only where there is considered to be serious risk to health and safety.

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

  Student Refugees
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial support is available from his Department to a student with refugee status who is barred from taking paid work but unable to claim income support or housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that students with refugee status are not barred from taking up paid employment. The social security system is not intended to support students, who should look to the educational maintenance system for any necessary financial support.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue guidance to area social fund officers reminding them that their guidance on community care grants should specify the priority of needs.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently considering the need for extending and amending existing guidance. I will write to the hon. Member with details of any action that we decide to take.

  Lower-paid Families
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of lower-paid families with and without children, whose marginal tax rates including benefit withdrawal will be(a) 90 to 100 per cent., (b) 80 to 90 per cent., (c) 70 to 80 per cent., (d) 60 to 70 per cent., (e) 50 to 60 per cent. and (f) 40 to 50 per cent., taking into account the tax changes for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Marginal Deduction Rates Including Social Security Numbers with marginal deduction rates within each range (thousands) Great Britain

  Per Cent.

  Families with children

  Others

  190 to 99

  50

  0

  80 to 89

  130

  15

  70 to 79

  140

  50

  60 to 69

  0

  5

  50 to 59

  0

  0

  40 to 49

  5

  15

  Figures are based on pooled Family Expenditure Survey data.

  Calculated for benefit units in receipt of income-related benefits where at least one partner works 24 hours per week or more.

  1 There are no families facing marginal deduction rates of 100 per cent. or more.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances payments of income support for mortgage interest are made to the mortgagee rather than the mortgagor.

  Mr. Scott
  Income support for mortgage interest may be paid direct where such payments are in the interest of the mortgagor and his family. To strengthen these arrangements we shall in future be asking all claimants with mortgages to provide evidence of the state of their loan account at the outset of their claim, and annually thereafter. This will enable the Department quickly to identify people who have arrears and for whom direct payment to the lender will be appropriate. We expect to have the new administrative arrangements in operation before the new year.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Test Sites
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his most recent assessment of radioactive surface contamination through venting and cratering at the Nevada nuclear bomb test site.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) on 29 October 1990,Official Report, column 416.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the talks at his Department with the delegation of aboriginals from South Australia on 30 October about compensation for the effects of British nuclear tests at Maralinga.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A delegation representing the Maralinga aborigine population met my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and senior officials on 30 October. They presented their views on the further rehabilitation of the former nuclear test sites at Maralinga and Emu field, and on the question of compensation for any remaining restrictions on access that might remain once any rehabilitation is complete. Both sides found the meetings useful.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The earliest year for which figures are available is 1982–83. Figures for period 1982–83 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  5·1

  1983–84

  6·3

  1984–85

  6·8

  1985–86

  6·7

  1986–87

  7·3

  1987–88

  7·0

  1988–89

  7·1

  96

  £ million

  1989–90

  8·0

  1990–91

  8·4

  The estimated expenditure figure for 1991–92 is £9·0 million and for 1992–93 £9·5 million.

  The figures provided include staff costs and expenditure on films, exhibitions, publications and equipment.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the working party report on service accommodation requirements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The Government's conclusions on the recommendations of the task force on service housing will be made public by announcements in the usual way.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service married quarters he plans to make available for purchase by members of the armed forces; and where they are located.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All surplus married quarters which are suitable for individual sale are normally offered for sale to service personnel through the services' discount scheme in the first instance. Those currently being offered for sale include properties in Exmouth, Devizes, Kirkudbright, Edinburgh, Barton Stacey, Gosport, Peterhead, Ripon, Lower Quinton, Uckfield, Southend, Chatham, Forres, Ely, Folkestone, Portsmouth and Plymouth.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discount will be offered to service personnel wishing to buy their service married quarters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service personnel purchasing surplus married quarters through the services' discount scheme are given a 30 per cent. discount.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service married quarters are currently vacant; and where they are located.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,834 service married quarters were vacant.

  The regional breakdown is as follows:

  Region

  Total vacant

  Northern

  98

  Yorkshire

  731

  East Midlands

  745

  East Anglia

  622

  South East

  3,604

  South West

  1,659

  West Midlands

  289

  North West

  121

  Wales

  273

  97

  Region

  Total vacant

  Scotland

  1,191

  Northern Ireland

  501

  Total

  9,834

  Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major works or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly, and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, 1,613 houses were in the process of being sold.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether service personnel leaving the armed forces will have the same right to purchase their service married quarters as those continuing in the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service personnel in general do not have a right to purchase their service married quarters. There is, however, a scheme under which service personnel may apply to purchase surplus vacant married quarters at a discount. We are examining the scope for giving personnel who will be made redundant a degree of priority under this discount scheme.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of service personnel are married; and what proportion live in service married quarters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximately 52 per cent. of service personnel are married and approximately 20 per cent. of service personnel live in service married quarters.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service married quarters he is planning to make available to housing associations; for how long they will be made available; whether the housing associations will be charged; and where the properties are located.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Discussions with housing associations are continuing. It is too soon to provide details of any scheme that may be adopted.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Gordon Highlanders
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the White Paper proposals concerning the Gordon Highlanders.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement during the debate on the Address on 1 November 1991,Official Report, column 186.

  Worcester and Sherwood Foresters
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the absence without leave since 4 October of Private Patrick Callaghan of Tylder road, Worksop and Private Byron Dent of Kilburn 98
  road, Belper now stationed in the Worcester and Sherwood Foresters at Lichfield following their allegations of brutality by non-commissioned officers while stationed in Cyprus this summer; if he will ensure that any disciplinary hearings and sentence will be made in this country and that they will not be sent back to Cyprus.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The two soldiers are no longer absent. The special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police is undertaking a full investigation into the allegations of bullying they have made.

  Bullying is not tolerated in the Army, and anyone found responsible for such behaviour will be appropriately disciplined. Any charges that may follow from the SIB investigation will be dealt with in Cyprus, and the two soldiers may have to return there to give evidence.

  Charges arising from the soldiers' absence will also be dealt with in Cyprus, and their attendance will be necessary. With regard to future postings, as soldiers must be available for duty anywhere in the world, I cannot give the undertaking sought.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Tom King
  No.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which financial institution his Department has arranged the provision of mortgages for service personnel; at what rates will the mortgage be offered; and whether they will be made available to service personnel leaving the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The company concerned has asked that such details are not made public.

  Merchant Ships (Emergency Use)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy for having available a pool of British registered merchant ships for emergency defence use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Current policy for providing merchant ships for defence purposes during crisis and war is to charter commercially on the open market or, where this is not possible, to requisition ships on the British register.

  Thames House, Millbank
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Government Departments' workers will be located, and what work will be carried out, at Thames house, Millbank, which is currently being refurbished.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Staff will be moved into Thames house from a number of buildings currently occupied. Details will not be finalised for some time yet.

  WEU Satellite Centre
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken by his Department to ensure that the proposed Western European Union ground sector data management sector is based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The UK is one of three countries to have bid for the location of the proposed WEU satellite centre. All three bids are currently under consideration and await the decision of WEU Ministers on 18 November.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has of the financial difficulties being experienced by trust hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All the NHS trusts submit details of their financial performance to the NHS management executive on a quarterly or monthly basis. The returns received to date indicate that all trusts are planning to meet their financial duties this year.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his estimate of the start-up cost for each of the first and second wave hospital trusts; and which budget has met this cost in each instance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A sum of £190,000 was allocated for each trust in the first wave and £15,000 towards conveyancing costs. A similar figure will be allocated to the second wave of trusts. This is a top-sliced budget to support expenses arising from the reforms and is a non-recurring revenue addition paid to regions to help cover expenditure incurred by trusts during their shadow running period.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trust boards are without female representation; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the female trust chief executives and the trusts they manage.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The appointment of the chief executive and other executive directors is a matter for the NHS trust board. The hon. Member may wish to contact the individual NHS trust boards for this information.

  Immunisation and Smear Testing
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will report on the extent to which doctors in the Northern health region have achieved the targets for immunisation and smear testing.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At 1 October 1990, the latest figures available, 74 per cent. of GPs in the Northern regional health authority area had achieved the higher target level for immunisations and 20 per cent. had achieved the lower target level. The corresponding figures for cervical cytology targets were 72 per cent. and 27 per cent. I congratulate all those involved in this splendid achievement.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage increase in the NHS prescription charge, since May 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figure is 1,600 per cent.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of beds for the continuing care of the elderly in 1979 and currently.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The average daily number of available geriatric beds in national health service hospitals in England fell from 55,000 in 1979 to 49,000 in 1989–90—the latest figures available. These figures include all beds under the supervision of a geriatric consultant; beds for long-stay patients are not separately identified.

  In the same period, the numbers of elderly patients treated rose from 243,000 to 447,000.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the patients charter will affect health care for patients.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The key aim of the charter is to improve the service provided to patients. Patients will be clear what their rights are under the national health service. They will know the standards of service they can expect to receive and what to do and who to contact if standards of service do not meet expectations. They will also be encouraged to give their views on services to help the NHS to do even better in the future.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet representatives of health authorities to discuss waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I meet representatives of health authorities regularly to discuss a whole range of NHS issues.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the length of time for waiting lists is to be calculated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting time is calculated from the date on which a patient's name is added to a waiting list for in-patient or day case treatment by a hospital doctor.

  Under the patients charter, from 1 April 1992, all patients—except for special cases—are to be guaranteed admission within two years from the date on which their name is added to the waiting list. Health authorities will also set local charter standards on waiting times for first out-patient appointments.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is proposing to provide patients with more information about waiting times for treatment at hospitals before they undergo the initial consultation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The patients charter, published last week, sets out a new right for patients to be
  101
  given detailed information on local health services, including waiting times for treatment. From 1 April 1992, health authorities must provide information about waiting times for in-patient, day case and out-patient treatment by hospital, specialty and individual consultant, set out in a standard way. Health authorities will also set and publicise local charter standards on waiting times for first out-patient appointments.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners became budget holders on 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 1,720 general practitioners became budget holders on 1 April in England. This represents 6·8 per cent. of the total number of GPs in England.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners' practices are interested in acquiring fund-holding status from April 1992.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 13 March that 306 GP practices in England became fund holders this year. It is anticipated that a similar number will acquire fund-holding status from April 1992.

  Cardiologists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will obtain a copy of the review into cardiology staffing published jointly by the British Cardiac Society and Royal College of Physicians; and what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that each district is served by a full-time cardiologist.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We received the report on 29 October. Its implications are being considered.

  Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Liverpool
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the proposed reorganisation of the gynaecology and obstetrics service in Liverpool.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a letter from the hon. Member about the £16 million development proposed for the new women's hospital that will bring together at last in one place all the services for women and expectant mothers in Liverpool.

  GP Earnings
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the average current earning levels of general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From 1 December 1991, general practitioners are intended to earn, on average, £37,975 per annum. In 1988–89, the latest year for which actual earnings are known, general practitioners earned, on average, £28,979.

  Dorset Health Authorities
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the real level of resources available to(a) West Dorset and (b) East Dorset district health authorities in 1979 and currently.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total revenue expenditure by Dorset health authority for the financial year 1979–80 equates to some £116,807,000 at 1990–91 prices.

  The total revenue expenditure by the successor East and West Dorset health authorities in the financial year 1990–91 was £165,860,000.

  These figures represent an increase in real terms of some 30 per cent.

  NHS Trusts, Essex
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards self-governing trust status for hospitals in Mid-Essex.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am happy to report that the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust was established on 1 November and will become fully operational on 1 April 1992. The unit has an excellent record and I am sure that it will use its new freedoms to bring even greater benefits to its patients.

  NHS Public Finance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of expenditure by the NHS is raised by public finance in 1991–92, and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that public expenditure will account for 94·3 per cent. of NHS expenditure in England this year. The comparable figure for 1978–79 was 97·5 per cent.

  Manchester NHS Trust
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial viability of Manchester Central Hospitals and Community Care NHS Trust in Manchester.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Manchester Central Hospitals and Community Care NHS trust was financially viable when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established it last year and continues to be so.

  Stillbirths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for the most recent year, the percentage of birthweights under 1500g and the stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates for babies whose mothers(a) delivered at a domestic address and originally intended to do so, (b) originally intended to deliver in a national health service hospital but delivered at a domestic address as a result of circumstances which occurred unintentionally during labour, (c) originally intended to deliver at a domestic address but delivered in a national health service hospital as a result of a decision made during labour for clinical or other reasons or (d) delivered in a national health service hospital and originally intended to do so.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available. Data relating to maternity episodes are
  103
  collected via the hospital episode statistics—HES—system which will in future years provide some of this information. HES data for 1989–90, the latest year currently available, are not of sufficient quality to allow analysis at this level of detail.

  Midwifery
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to include basic and post-basic midwifery education within the terms of reference for the special investigation into how London's health care should be planned in the 1990s.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson, who has been appointed to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the development of London health services, has been given a wide-ranging remit to look at the provision of health care, the organisation and provision of undergraduate medical teaching, postgraduate medical education and research and development. If, in the course of his investigation, issues arise which have implications for midwifery education, he would be free to offer advice on this area.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the concern expressed in the eighth report of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors and Professions allied to Medicine Review Body with regard to regional discrepancies in the allocation of clinical grades to posts, particularly in midwifery, is being addressed in his Department's evidence to the forthcoming review body report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware of the concerns expressed by the review body in its eighth report about the outcome of the clinical grading review. The Health Departments' evidence to the review body is not published.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by national health service region for each of the last five years the number of national health service maternity beds which have been lost to the service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is contained in "Summary of Bed Availability—England" a copy of which is available in the Library. This includes the numbers of NHS maternity beds and the annual average percentage change in each region from 1984 to 1989–90.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has used direct mail to every household to inform the public about AIDS and the NHS reforms. A summary of the patients charter will shortly be issued to each household.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.
  104
  Mr. Dorrell
  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  The Department's budget for communications and publicity includes provision for nurse recruitment, blood donor recruitment and drug misuse campaigns. The other information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Expenditure for 1988–89 is as follows

  Television

  1·662

  Radio

  0·205

  Newspaper

  1·196

  Other Material

  7·736

  Expenditure for 1989–90 is as follows:

  Television

  3·549

  Radio

  0·127

  Newspaper

  2·258

  Other Material

  10·828

  Expenditure for 1990–91 is as follows:

  Television

  1·900

  Radio

  0·005

  Newspaper

  2·739

  Other Material

  16·845

  Estimated expenditure for 1991–92 is as follows:

  Television

  3·200

  Radio

  0

  Newspaper

  2·030

  Other Material

  18·853

  The budget for communications and publicity for 1992–93 has yet to be decided.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 1 July at column 54, 10 July at column 414 and 11 July at column 459. In addition to that information, other campaigns for 1991–92 costing more than £100,000 are:

  Advice to elderly people

  —commencing shortly and will be ongoing.

  The Patient's Charter

  —commenced October and will continue to January 1992.

  The only additional major company involved is Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Television advertising is currently being used for the nursing campaign and will be used in early 1992 for the solvent misuse campaign.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Functions that are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division. Manpower and running costs of this division are:
  105

  £million

  1989–90 Expenditure

  0·890

  1990–91 Expenditure

  1·250

  1991–92 Expenditure1

  1·540

  1 Estimated.

  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested. Budgets for 1992–93 have yet to be decided.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department first approved the practice of using a macerator to dispose of the bodies of aborted unborn babies into the sewage system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This method has been used in a small number of private sector approved places since the early 1970s.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the methods of disposal of the bodies of unborn babies by private clinics licensed to perform abortions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is one of the conditions of approval of private sector places under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 that the method of foetal disposal is agreed by the Department and that no change is made without prior consultation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions and for what reasons his Department has withheld approval of the use of a macerator to dispose of the bodies of aborted unborn babies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The use of maceration following termination of pregnancy will not be approved in future.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the disposal of the bodies of unborn babies following abortion.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Incineration is the preferred method of disposal following termination of pregnancy.

  Sugar
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those diseases, ailments or other disorders, other than tooth decay, recognised by his Department as being solely or primarily caused by consumption of sugar.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy—COMA—in its 1989 report "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease", identified the consumption of non-milk extrinsic sugars or NMEs, principally sucrose, as the primary cause of tooth decay. It found insufficient evidence to identify dietary sugars as either the sole or primary cause of any other disease or disorder. However, it recommended that intakes of sucrose in excess of about 200g per day should be avoided, since this may be associated in normal adults with elevations of blood cholesterol, glucose and insulin concentrations. It also recommended restriction of intakes of NMEs in the obese and those becoming obese.

  COMA further advised that people with diabetes or hypertriglyceridaemia should restrict their intake of
  106
  NMEs to less than about 25g to 50g per day, unless otherwise instructed by their own physician or dietitian. It also recommended the intensification of research into links between sucrose intake and colo-rectal cancer, renal and biliary calculi and Crohn's Disease as evidence in these areas is inadequate to justify any general dietary recommendations.

  COMA's report, "Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom", published in July of this year, endorsed the findings of the 1989 report. Both reports are available in the Library.

  Birth Statistics
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region the number of babies that were born in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of live births occurring in each regional health authority in England and Wales in 1990 is given in the table.

  Regional Health Authorities

  Total live births

  Northern

  40,446

  Yorkshire

  51,084

  Trent

  59,399

  East Anglian

  28,206

  North West Thames

  47,332

  North East Thames

  60,536

  South East Thames

  51,168

  South West Thames

  38,183

  Wessex

  38,137

  Oxford

  36,211

  South Western

  40,464

  West Midlands

  76,103

  Mersey

  33,008

  North Western

  60,447

  Wales

  37,193

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region(a) the number of babies born weighing less than 1500g and (b) the proportion of births under 1500g in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of low birth weight babies under 1500g, and the proportion of births under 1500g, by regional health authority, in 1990, is as follows:

  RHA by residence of mother

  Total births Under 1500g

  Proportion under 1500g per 100 1 total births

  Northern

  408

  1·0

  Yorkshire

  541

  1·1

  Trent

  723

  1·1

  East Anglian

  231

  0·9

  North East Thames

  596

  1·0

  North West Thames

  540

  1·1

  South East Thames

  542

  1·0

  South West Thames

  397

  1·0

  Wessex

  400

  1·0

  Oxford

  320

  0·9

  South Western

  384

  0·9

  West Midlands

  904

  1·2

  Mersey

  352

  1·0

  North Western

  676

  1·1

  Wales

  371

  1·0

  1 Live and stillbirths.

  107
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region(a) the number of low birth weight babies, under 2500g, and (b) the proportion of births under 2500g in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of low birth weight babies under 2500g, and the proportion of births under 2500g, by regional health authority, in 1990 is as follows:

  Regional health authority by residence of mother

  Total births under 2500 g

  Proportion under 2500 g per 100 total births

  Northern

  2,795

  6·8

  Yorkshire

  3,660

  7·1

  Trent

  4,666

  7·3

  East Anglian

  1,596

  6·0

  North East Thames

  3,956

  6·8

  North West Thames

  3,425

  6·7

  South East Thames

  3,437

  6·6

  South West Thames

  2,461

  6·1

  Wessex

  2,499

  6·5

  Oxford

  2,298

  6·3

  RHA by residence

  Perinatal deaths

  Neonatal deaths

  Postneonatal deaths

  number

  rate

  number

  rate

  number

  rate

  Northern

  322

  7·9

  174

  4·3

  148

  3·6

  Yorkshire

  410

  8·0

  267

  5·2

  200

  3·9

  Trent

  538

  8·4

  307

  4·8

  189

  3·0

  East Anglian

  157

  5·9

  84

  3·2

  99

  3·7

  North West Thames

  380

  7·4

  214

  4·2

  135

  3·0

  North East Thames

  503

  8·6

  240

  4·1

  163

  2·8

  South East Thames

  430

  8·2

  234

  4·5

  189

  3·6

  South West Thames

  282

  7·0

  174

  4·3

  101

  2·5

  Wessex

  271

  7·0

  141

  3·7

  131

  3·4

  Oxford

  299

  8·2

  157

  4·3

  107

  2·9

  South Western

  292

  8·1

  163

  4·0

  118

  2·9

  West Midlands

  771

  10·2

  473

  6·3

  271

  3·6

  Mersey

  268

  7·9

  149

  4·4

  107

  3·2

  North Western

  527

  8·9

  275

  4·7

  228

  3·9

  Wales

  290

  7·4

  152

  3·9

  116

  3·0

  Perinatal mortality: stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life. Rates per 1,000 live and still births.

  Neonatal mortality: deaths in the first 28 days of life. Rates per 1,000 live births.

  Postneonatal deaths: deaths at ages 28 days and over but under one year. Rates per 1,000 live births.

  Aromatherapists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of unqualified aromatherapists practising in England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a licensing system for practitioners of herbal medicine, aromatherapy and other forms of alternative or complementary medicine.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no such plans.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information readily available relates to the register of surveys maintained by the Central Statistical Office. Titles of surveys carried out since 11 July are as follows:

  Public perception of family doctor services.

  Anti-Drugs Misuse Campaign 1991–92: Strategy.

  108

  Regional health authority by residence of mother

  Total births under 2500 g

  Proportion under 2500 g per 100 total births

  South Western

  2,460

  6·0

  West Midlands

  5,631

  7·5

  Mersey

  2,165

  6·4

  North Western

  4,435

  7·5

  Wales

  2,432

  6·2

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region(a) the number and rates of perinatal deaths, (b) the number and rates of neonatal deaths and (c) the number and rate of post neonatal deaths in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The numbers and rates of perinatal, neonatal and post neonatal deaths for each regional health authority in 1990 are as follows:

  Clinical Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to regional health authorities and district health authorities with regard to the upgrading of existing facilities for the disposal of clinical waste, following the removal of Crown immunity from hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidance, under cover of an executive letter ELM(91)M/1, was issued to the NHS on 20 March 1991 in a document entitled "Strategic Guide for Waste Management", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the recommendation to mothers on whether to lie babies down to sleep on back, front or side in the "Pregnancy Book" issued to all mothers(a) in the version issued in 1990, (b) as revised in 1991, (c) as reprinted in 1991 and (d) as intended now; and how many copies of it were printed for distribution;

  (2) what steps he is taking to inform health care professionals, doctors, midwives, and maternity homes of how to advise mothers on avoiding cot deaths;
  109
  (3) when his Department was informed about the New Zealand research and the factors associated with cot deaths; what steps he then took to assess that research; and what other action was taken.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given to the national steering group on social service departments' role in the Criminal Justice Act on the need for an early report; and what studies are being conducted into the resource implications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The first meeting of the national steering group is to be held on 8 November. A detailed timetable for the production of an action plan will be considered at that meeting. Members are aware of the need to complete their work by the time the main provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are implemented in October 1992. Part of the group's remit will be to make an assessment of the additional resources required to enable the practice of remanding juveniles to penal establishments to be abolished.

  Adoption
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the difficulties facing social workers undertaking inquiries into the proposed adoption of children brought into the United Kingdom from other countries; and what guidance has been issued by his Department on procedures to be followed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As part of its responsibilities for liaising with local authority social services departments on all child care matters, the Department's social services inspectorate is in contact with local authorities on intercountry adoption. The inspectorate is available to advise on intercountry adoption in general and on any particular matters of difficulty.

  Detailed guidance on intercountry adoption is contained in letters CI(90)17 and CI(91)14 issued by the chief inspector of the social services inspectorate to directors of social services in England. Copies of which are available in the Library.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the hospitals offered in the consultations on the application of the South Yorkshire ambulance service for trust status expressed opposition or criticism of the proposal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The public consultation exercise was organised by Trent regional health authority; the results are available from the authority.

  Health Authorities
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region(a) the total number of health authority members and (b) the number of female health authority members.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Each regional health authority has five non-executive members. The number of female members in each is as follows:110

  Number

  Northern

  1

  Yorkshire

  1

  Trent

  1

  East Anglian

  2

  North West Thames

  2

  North East Thames

  2

  South East Thames

  1

  South West Thames

  2

  Wessex

  3

  Oxford

  1

  South Western

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  Mersey

  1

  North Western

  1

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region(a) the number of health authorities without female representation and (b) the district health authorities without female representation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the number of district health authority members who are female is not collected centrally. The appointment of district health authority members is the responsibility of regional health authorities.

  Hospital Social Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of recent changes in the national health service, including the creation of hospital trusts, for the roles and responsibilities of hospital social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS reforms have not changed the collaborative arrangements whereby local authorities provide social work services to the NHS without charge or the responsibilities of the individual social workers concerned. Local authority circular LAC(91)14 issued in October 1991 made this clear; a copy of the circular is available in the Library.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any member of his Department's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Dentures
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sets of complete upper and lower synthetic dentures were supplied under the national health service during the financial years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1988–89 there were 439,630 sets of complete upper and lower synthetic dentures provided under the national health service in England. The figure for 1989–90 was 345,430. The figure for 1990–91 is not yet available. The decline in numbers is likely to continue as people retain their natural teeth for longer.

  Lowermoor (Pollution)
  Sir Gerrard Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received the report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group of their assessment of reports on the health effects on people resident in the Lowermoor distribution area at the time of the pollution incident in 1987 which have become available since the group reported in July 1989; when it will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am pleased to say that the Lowermoor incident health advisory group has completed its report following careful assessment and evaluation of all available information. It has consulted extremely widely on all the matters before it. Its report is being published today, and I am placing copies in the Library.

  The group has concluded that the research reported to it does not provide convincing evidence that harmful accumulation of aluminium has occurred, nor that there is a greater prevalence of organic abnormalities in the exposed population. It does not expect lasting physical harm from the toxicity of the contaminated water itself. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that the incident was unique and although it has no reason to predict any late consequences, it cannot exclude them categorically.
  112
  The group states that it has no doubt that the accident itself and subsequent events have led to real mental and physical suffering in the community. Such a situation is well recognised following major accidents. The district health authority is arranging the continuation of counselling services for at least two years.

  The advisory group has recommended that preliminary work which suggests that some residents are "sensitised" to aluminium, so that they experience increased absorption of aluminium and a worsening of symptoms, be repeated. Agreement in principle has been reached for the Medical Research Council to commission and manage this research, and for the Department of Health to provide funding. The Medical Research Council will provide the mechanism for the development of protocols, and provision of peer review for this research.

  The Government welcome the group's advice, and I have asked the health authority to act on those recommendations for following up the health of local people that the group have made.

  I am grateful to the chairman, Professor Dame Barbara Clayton, and the members of her group for the thorough way in which they have produced such an authoritative report. The Department, the health authority, and the people of the Camelford area have been well served by the group.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

HIV Research: Funding
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the present level and distribution of funding for HIV research and treatment gives adequate support to voluntary organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, yes. In the current year in England we have made £1.8 million available through Section 64 funds for the voluntary sector. In addition, we have allocated earmarked funds of £137.3 million to health authorities and £10.2 million to local authorities. Guidance has been issued to those authorities to encourage them to contract with voluntary groups. On research, over a five-year period the Government spent over £59 million on AIDS/HIV-related research. In addition of course we support education and prevention programmes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Naturally those funds are extremely welcome. Is she aware that the Terrence Higgins Trust, which is the leading organisation dealing with AIDS in this country, faces a deficit of £1 million in its next year's budget? That may result in it having to make substantial numbers of people redundant. Is that not a retrograde step, and should we not do our best to avoid it? Will the Government consider providing increased assistance for such bodies to deal with the situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the department already gives the Terrence Higgins Trust a large Section 54 grant. It is currently £450,000 a year over a three-year period. That goes towards its core costs. It is the biggest single voluntary sector recipient of AIDS funds. Of course we expect the trust to contract with statutory providers for payment for those services that it provides in their areas, as appropriate. The department is working closely with the trust to ensure that it maximises its income in that area and that statutory purchasers are willing to enter into constructive working relationships with voluntary providers.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, have the Government read the report of the National Audit Office on HIV and AIDS-related services, in particular paragraphs 242 to 246 on voluntary sector funding? Have they noted the criticisms contained there of the extreme complexity of the present arrangements? Are they aware that charitable giving has fallen dramatically
140
during the recession? Will they consider increasing temporarily their grants to voluntary bodies performing a national role, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that I have already said that we support substantially the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I have seen the NAO report. We are currently considering what our response will be. We note what the noble Lord said.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as a patron of the National AIDS Foundation perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. First, is she satisfied that the money allocated is being used effectively by health authorities? Is she aware that some health authorities have used moneys allocated for HIV/AIDS to relieve their fairly desperate financial situation? Secondly, is she aware that many health authorities have not used in any way the funds available to them for HIV/AIDS work?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are monitoring the spend of those substantial funds allocated by the Government and local authorities. It is true that in its analysis of the 1989–90 AIDS control Act, the department found that some regions had transferred funds to their capital overspend. We have ensured that those moneys are reallocated and have intervened as necessary, as the NAO report notes.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as regards the new funding arrangements, who will pay for people with AIDs from foreign countries such as Italy and Spain and from South America who become ill? Many have been or are being treated in our hospitals and by voluntary organisations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, overseas visitors to this country who need emergency treatment will always receive it under the National Health Service in this case as in any other.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is not just emergency treatment but ongoing care. They come to Britain because we have good services.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we note the point of the noble Baroness. We are making appropriate arrangements to ensure that the long-term needs of such people are catered for.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the ring-fencing of HIV funding will continue? As concerns complexity, is she aware that last year the Terrence Higgins Trust had to make 69 separate applications to the London boroughs and district and regional authorities in arriving at its funding? Have the Government any plans to simplify the procedure?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is good news in terms of future levels of funding. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced an increase for 1992–93 in the AIDS support grant, the earmarked funds to local authorities, of 50 per cent. That takes the amount of the grant to £15.3 million. It shows, I believe, our commitment to high levels of funding for AIDS services. In the general context of

141
the reforms, we are examining the way in which voluntary sector organisations have to contract with a number of different authorities in order to simplify the mechanisms involved.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, do the Government have a special committee examining the tragic effects of the illness on children?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we have set up the AIDS action group. Obviously, one of the areas the group is considering is the effect on children.

The "Patient's Charter": Cost
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of printing and distributing to every household a copy of the Patient's Charter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the estimated cost of printing and distributing 20 million copies of a summary of the Patient's Charter to households in England is £1.4 million, inclusive of VAT.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the public will have more than adequate access to the charter at health service premises and elsewhere, even if they are not aware of the contents through the considerable publicity surrounding the launch? Does she further agree that the public will be reassured that expenditure of tax revenue on publicity would be directly related to the delivery of the health service if the spending were on advice? There is, for example, the campaign recently run by the New Zealand Government, with publicity, which has led to a dramatic reduction in cot deaths in that country.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that, because this is the first time that any government have set out patients' rights under the National Health Service or introduced national standards of service, it is important that every single person in the country is fully aware of patients' rights. The amount for this household drop in the context of this year's overall expenditure of £34 billion on the National Health Service puts the matter in context.
However, we are relying and will rely very much on other methods of distribution through citizens advice bureaux, schools, pharmacies, public libraries and many other organisations, in order to ensure that every single person in the country is fully aware of the excellent services and standards that we provide in our National Health Service.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if one has the privilege of asking a parliamentary Question, one's needs are rather different from those of a person frightened for a child, a parent or even for themselves? They need to
142
discover how to obtain information and action. Is it not good practice for the service to be driven by the user?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The whole purpose of the charter is to improve services to patients. The charter deals with many areas of concern expressed by patients. It is therefore important that individuals be fully informed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what is new in this charter? What distinguishes it from a propaganda sheet? What new rights are guaranteed to patients? Are any guaranteed by law or by penalties? I am worried about those rights that are now being lost, such as the rights of patients to choose what consultant and what hospital they go to, when they discover that there is no contract. What is the significance of this one of the many charters that seem to be dropping on us like confetti?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord has very well demonstrated the need for this household drop. He will find when he receives his copy of the charter that all his questions are answered.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that does not answer my question.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if we wish to raise standards and improve services that will be achieved, or helped, if those using the services know their rights and obligations as widely as possible? That objective will be met by the leaflet.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend. I also add that it is only possible to publish the rights and ensure that individuals are able to exercise them because we now have the mechanisms introduced by the National Health Service reforms. The contracting basis of the reforms will enable those rights to be ensured.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is confusion over the use of the word "rights" in the Patient's Charter? Are those rights enforceable at law? Will the patient receive compensation if the rights are not met?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the rights are enforceable through the channels that are indicated in the charter document. The full effect, which is all part of the free treatment offered by the National Health Service, will mean that the rights are fully satisfied financially.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is rather sad to think that, if Her Majesty's Government refrained from trying to help people by providing information, they would be castigated by certain sections of our society, but that on the other hand when the Government provide information some people query the cost of providing that information and, no doubt, complain about that? Is my noble friend aware that the cost of providing the

143
information works out at approximately 8p per household? Does she also agree that that is a small price to pay for providing this important information?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe the cost amounts to 7p per household.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the Government make vigorous efforts to ensure that those who provide the service are clearly aware of the rights of those who use it, as from time to time it appears that that is not the case?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we fully recognise the key contribution that staff in the National Health Service can make in this area. We are dependent on their wholehearted co-operation for the success of this measure
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister give us further information on whether these rights are enforceable at law? That is a quite specific point. It is all very well to tell us that when we receive the document we shall learn what we can complain about in court, but presumably the Minister knows now what is enforceable at law and what is not. That is an important distinction.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are seven existing rights which are enforceable at law and through the additional channels that are being provided. From April of next year there will be three important new rights.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, mentioned patients' rights and their obligations. Do the Government propose to do anything to inform patients about their obligations?—for example, the obligation of patients when they are put on a waiting list to inform the appropriate personnel if they get better or if they no longer wish to have an operation. At present a great deal of money is being wasted through the failure of patients to keep hospital personnel informed of such developments.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an important point. In disseminating information we hope to ensure that we shall obtain the full co-operation of the public not only as regards exercising their rights but also as regards accepting their obligations.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the Minister tell us anything about the Government's programme of charters" How many more charters are likely to be published and on what dates between now and the election?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait and see what happens.

Energy Tax: EC Proposal
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support European Community proposals for an energy tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Commission has put forward a wide-ranging communication to the Council, which includes ideas for a mixed carbon/energy tax. The Commission's ideas for such a tax provide a useful basis for discussion, but much more work is needed before decisions can be taken, not least on the implications for the competitiveness of Community industry and on the international context.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Will he confirm that all the other members of the EC are also in favour of this proposal? Such a situation would make a change. Will the British Government ensure that the way in which such a tax is applied does not put British industry at a disadvantage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm that all the other member states are interested in the proposals and believe they warrant further discussion. Nevertheless only four member states were prepared at the energy council discussion held on 29th October to support the introduction of a tax exactly on the lines put forward by the Commission. We shall have to take into account the final point made by my noble friend. There would be no point in introducing such a measure if we merely made British or European industry uncompetitive and thereby caused carbon dioxide emissions to be emitted in other parts of the world.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that all these matters will be thoroughly discussed by Britain's two Houses of Parliament before any action is finalised?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that this House is discussing this matter today. I am sure the noble Lord and his honourable friends in another place will find adequate opportunities to discuss these measures.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give an unequivocal reply to the House on whether the Government support the European proposals for an energy tax? The answer to that question must surely be either yes or no.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it could also be "maybe". What I am trying to say is that a carbon/energy tax could—I stress the word "could"—in principle be a cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. It is certainly worth considering. However, I cannot say at the moment that we definitely support the proposals as put forward by the Commission. Nevertheless those proposals might represent a way forward.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the replies given by the Minister, in particular the "maybe" reply. Does the Minister agree that all the evidence shows that, if we wish to economise on the use of energy, a carbon tax of this kind is far and away the best method of doing so? Does the Minister also agree that there is absolutely no reason why such a tax should place an extra burden on British industry because in theory the proceeds of that tax could be offset against other taxes? In other words, simply changing the tax structure need place no extra burden on industry while an energy tax can achieve the objective of reducing energy demand.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. An energy tax could achieve the objective we are discussing and it is certainly a measure that should be considered. However, the matter is not as simple as the noble Lord thinks when he says that there need be no extra burden on industries. Some industries use far greater amounts of energy than others and therefore a carbon/energy tax would affect them much more than industries that use less energy. There is the danger of introducing such a tax purely in Europe and thereby merely shifting industry to other parts of the world and consequently shifting emissions of CO2 from Europe to other parts of the world.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hope the Minister will provide a little more information on this matter. On the assumption that the Government support this tax, or take the attitude that they may adopt it, to whom would the tax be paid? Will the European Community receive the tax revenue as part of its "own resources", or will the tax be paid to the British Treasury?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord a categorical answer on this occasion. Should such a tax be introduced—as I have said already, a great many matters would need to be considered before taking such a step—it would be paid to Her Majesty's Treasury.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not Ministers in the environmental council of the EC, including the United Kingdom Minister, cautiously accept this proposal as one to be pursued?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct, but this matter goes beyond simply the environment Ministers. This matter concerns ECOFIN and energy Ministers.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, further to the reply given to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, did I understand the Minister to say that some industries use more carbon than others? Is not the whole point of this tax to discourage them to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made the point that this tax need not place an extra burden on industry collectively as other tax reductions could be made. However, the tax would certainly affect some of the high energy users in industry. The
146
noble Lord is correct to say that those are the industries we wish to encourage to reduce their energy consumption. However, if in doing that one merely shifts emissions of carbon dioxide to other parts of the world, one achieves absolutely nothing.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, when looking positively at this tax will the Government bear in mind the potential damaging impact it could have on the poorest sections of our society, as ultimately they would have to pay a higher price for their fuel? In many cases they cannot afford that fuel at present. It is not clear that the suggested offsetting measures will benefit those people. If the offsetting measures comprise tax rebates, they will not necessarily benefit the poorest sections of our society.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a further important point. We can appreciate that the Commission's present proposals need to be given considerably more thought and need further discussion before we or the Commission can move forward in this matter.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the application of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; to increase the penalties for certain offences under that part; to confer powers for preserving the security of supplies of petroleum and petroleum products; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the organisation of boxing matches for profit. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

L. Colnbrook,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. John-Mackie,

L. Thurlow,

L. Tordoff,

L. Waddington (L. Privy Seal).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Committee Work: Select Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion is a formality in order to allow the Select Committee established under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe to continue its work.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Committee work of the House and to make recommendations.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate. resumed on the Motion moved on 31st October last by the Earl of Selborne—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign-We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, today's debate concerning local government, the environment and agriculture may appear to your
148
Lordships to cover widely diverse subjects. But I submit that they are all interweaved and in many ways interdependent. Agriculture and the environment go hand in hand in the presentation of our much loved landscape now and for the future. Local government's involvement with housing and planning completes the triangle.
The legislation announced in Her Majesty the Queen's gracious Speech concerns two important Bills affecting local government so I shall begin there. The first Bill, introduced into your Lordships' House yesterday, is the Local Government Bill. The second, introduced last week in another place, is the Local Government Finance Bill.
The Local Government Bill has two principal purposes. It contains our proposals for implementing some aspects of the Citizen's Charter and proposals to review the structure of local government by the setting up of the local government commission.
The Local Government Bill will implement four specific proposals from the Citizen's Charter. Those four proposals deal with: measuring the performance of local authorities; the way in which authorities respond to their auditor's reports and recommendations; the publication of information by the Audit Commission; and competition. I shall say a few words about each of those in turn.
I shall deal first with performance measures. The White Paper on the Citizen's Charter drew attention to wide disparities in the level and cost of services provided by local authorities. Of course there can be many reasons for those disparities but at present the very fact that there are disparities at all is hidden from the public. Some information is published but only in a limited and unco-ordinated way. It does not provide any basis for making comparisons between authorities.
Our proposals will enable meaningful comparisons to be made. For that purpose we shall extend the powers of the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission. Those commissions are independent of central government. Over the years they have built up an impressive reputation for the high quality of their work on value for money.
We believe that our proposals will stimulate a much wider appreciation among local authorities of the opportunities which exist for improving the value for money of the services they provide. They will also enable local people to make judgments about the performance of their local council.
Our second proposals concern the reports and recommendations which may be made by the auditor of a local authority. Those reports and recommendations are frequently concerned with improving the value for money of council services. Alas, they are not always equally welcome. Sometimes the authority prefers to sweep the auditor's reports under the carpet.
Under our proposals that will no longer be possible. We shall require authorities to consider an auditor's report or recommendation at a full council meeting within a period of four months after receiving it and to give a formal response.
Again, publicity is central to that process. Authorities will be required to publish the fact of a

149
report and its subject matter, give notice of the meeting and then publish their response. The Audit Commission will, under our third proposal, be empowered to name publicly those local authorities which do not meet those requirements.
The Government's proposals concerning the competition requirements for the provision of services by local authorities are intended to achieve two principal objectives. First, we wish to implement the commitment in the Citizen's Charter White Paper to ensure that the private sector has a fair chance to compete for local authority work. Secondly, we wish to extend the requirements for local authorities to subject service provision to competition.
The Government have today published a consultation paper which contains details of how we propose to use those enabling provisions. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government's objective is to encourage maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services to the public by local authorities. The experience of the past decade has shown the value of competition in achieving that.
The Government consider there is a need to clarify the framework of competitive tendering for local authority services. We are concerned that unless private sector contractors are convinced that they have a fair chance of winning they may no longer consider it worth their while to bid for work. It is for that reason that we propose a power for the Secretary of State to define what is or is not anti-competitive behaviour.
The extension of compulsory competitive tendering to professional services is more complex and we therefore propose enabling provisions so that tendering procedures may be modified when competition is extended. Comments on our proposals are invited by 31st January 1992.
The Government also propose to set up a new local government commission to replace the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The new commission's main task will be to review the structure of local government in England. Wales and Scotland are not affected. We intend that the commission will carry out a rolling programme of reviews, examining the shire counties area by area. The commission will have a duty to recommend the most suitable structure for each area which it examines. There is no intention that either county or district councils should be abolished as a tier.
Responses to our consultation paper on The Structure of Local Government in England from principal local authorities showed that the majority were keen to achieve unitary status. While we believe that unitary authorities will provide a better structure than exists at present, it will be open to the commission to recommend that a two-tier structure should continue in some areas.
The Bill also sets out a framework for the procedure the commission will follow in conducting reviews, including consultation with local authorities and local people.
150
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to issue guidance to the commission about the matters to which it will be required to have regard in carrying out reviews. The commission will consider the costs and benefits of change and how economic and effective are service arrangements.
Where the Secretary of State decides to implement recommendations for structural changes from the commission, he will lay orders before both Houses of Parliament which will be subject to affirmative resolution procedures. He may also make orders on consequential transfers of local government functions.
The Local Government Finance Bill provides a new, fair and stable basis for local government finance. It introduces the council tax, a new method of raising revenue from the domestic sector which I believe will be widely welcomed both by local authorities and the public.
The council tax is based on the value of property but it avoids the difficulties which made domestic rates so unsatisfactory. The new system will provide for reduced bills for single-person households. Most single-person households consist of elderly people. Under domestic rates their circumstances could not be reflected. The council tax will ensure that their bills are more closely tailored to their circumstances.
Many people will agree that a property tax is a sensible basis for a local tax. But taxes are paid by individuals, not properties, and it is essential to ensure that any system offers appropriate protection to those who are less well off.
The Bill therefore provides for a rebate system which takes full account of ability to pay. Council tax benefit will provide rebates of up to 100 per cent. for people on low incomes. This, I am sure, will be widely welcomed on all sides of both Houses and throughout the country.
The council tax is a straightforward tax which is easy to administer. A local authority will know from the outset the number of bills that it has to issue. A straightforward and non-intrusive method of assessing eligibility for discounts will avoid the need for any kind of comprehensive register. Most households will receive a standard bill and there will be no need for the authority to conduct any inquiries into the numbers and status of the residents.
The valuation bands to which dwellings will be assigned are the same throughout England, Wales and Scotland. The Government believe that regional banding would be unsatisfactory and would introduce unacceptable anomalies. There will be concessions for certain groups; in particular, students, student nurses, apprentices and youth training trainees.
I move on to the environment. Although there is no specific legislation planned this Session on the countryside or the environment, I want to mention briefly two events: the publication of the anniversary report on the environment White Paper and the United Nations conference on the environment.
Last September—on the exact day of the original White Paper launch—we published our first anniversary report. The White Paper was the first comprehensive policy statement by any British

151
government. The anniversary report was the first time that a British government had subjected their policies to such open accountability. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given art assurance that there will continue to be reports on a regular basis.
In the anniversary report we accounted for every one of the 350 or so White Paper commitments. Over 200 commitments have already been met. On those which will take time, we have recorded the progress made so far. I am pleased to be able to report that over 400 separate environmental measures have been taken this year. They range from telephone helplines for those concerned about air quality to international agreements on key issues such as water quality.
We are now well into the preparatory work for the very important United Nations conference on the environment and development which will take place in Brazil next June. The Prime Minister has been among the first heads of state to state his intention to attend the conference. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the preparations for the conference and in providing assistance for developing countries to attend.
Our objectives at the conference are several. The priority is to conclude a framework convention on climate change and I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom's draft has been adopted as the working text for discussion. We are also working hard to conclude a framework convention on bio-diversity and forestry.
Among other things we hope that the conference will agree a statement of environmental rights and obligations which will inform future policy making. Our aim is that this Earth Charter, as it is known, will cover such fundamental principles as the precautionary approach, the polluter-pays principle and public access to environmental information.
The final objective of the conference is to agree Agenda 21—the action plan for the 21st century. That will set out national, regional and international environmental strategies and plans and state clear responsibilities for specific commitments. Wherever possible we hope that the plan will be monitored through existing institutions.
I have perforce had to limit my remarks on environmental and countryside issues to the two umbrella initiatives which will affect us in the coming year. However, many matters affecting the countryside and the environment generally will be put before your Lordships and thoroughly discussed.
Finally, perhaps I may turn to agriculture. In his reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, my noble friend Lord Selborne stressed the vital importance of achieving a successful outcome to the GATT negotiations and of securing a reformed CAP which fully recognises the Community's international as well as internal obligations. I could not agree more. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the log jam in the GATT negotiations is removed. Negotiations in Geneva are now moving into what we all hope will be their decisive phase.
Agriculture is only one of a wide range of issues under discussion, but it is widely regarded as one of the most important. Indeed, it would be no
152
exaggeration to say that agreement on agriculture is essential if there is to be a successful conclusion to the round as a whole.
I believe that there is a real willingness to bring the round to a conclusion over the next few weeks. I hope that the Community will be able to respond positively and constructively to the Dunkel paper when it emerges.
As I indicated, the Community has accepted the need for significant reform of the CAP and is actively engaged on internal negotiations to that end. We had a most interesting and constructive debate on that very issue just a few weeks ago. Since then the Commission has produced the detailed legislative texts which provide the basis for the detailed negotiations that are taking place.
In those negotiations, the Government will seek changes which achieve comprehensive reductions in support, applied with equal effect throughout the Community, and with compensation limited to those who really need it. We shall seek to have the proposals for headage limits in the livestock sector dropped in favour of action on prices. We shall also seek changes in the set-aside proposals and elsewhere which encourage the farmer's responsibility for the environment.
Such changes would contain the cost of the CAP and reduce the burden for both consumer and taxpayer. They would bring Community agriculture closer to the realities of the market and, by promoting efficiency rather than hindering structural development, would prepare our farmers for the challenges of a more liberal era in agricultural world trade. They would recognise and reward our farmers' roles as both agriculturalists and environmentalists. Only in that way can we provide our farmers with the prospect of a viable long-term future which will enable them to plan ahead with confidence and so continue to make that contribution to a healthy countryside and a prosperous rural economy which they have made for generations.
Caring for the rural environment is central to our thinking about the future shape of the common agricultural policy. Our countryside is very largely the product of generations of farmers. They have shaped it; now they have a key role to play as its custodians, maintaining it in good heart for the next generation while at the same time continuing to earn a fair living from it.
In the United Kingdom we have been progressively developing agricultural support towards environmental care; for example through our environmentally sensitive areas scheme, our farm and conservation grants scheme and our farm woodlands scheme. We want to see this important shift in emphasis carried through to the level of the European Community as a whole.
We shall be pressing for our pioneering work on environmentally sensitive areas to be carried forward under the agri-environmental action programme proposed by the Commission as part of its CAP reform package. We want the Commission's current sketchy proposals to be developed into a coherent and cost effective set of environmental measures, which are

153
nevertheless capable of application in the widely different local circumstances throughout the Community.
Such measures should not be just an extra added on to the CAP. Environmental policies should be an integral part of a reformed CAP and should, wherever possible and when worthwhile, shape the various market support arrangements. Environmental concerns and objectives should be explicitly stated as integral to the support arrangements and as practical steps taken to achieve environmental protection with the help of those arrangements.
If such a change in attitudes were achieved, the Commission would not in future propose, as it has done, what is in effect compulsory set-aside, affecting large tracts of countryside without appropriate environmental safeguards; and it would not seek major changes to the livestock regimes which give scarcely any consideration to environmental concerns. We have a long way to go but we shall keep up the pressure to green the CAP.
Dealing with three such vast subjects in a limited time amounts to more than trying to put a quart into a pint pot. Your Lordships will no doubt be making good my omissions and I look forward to listening to the debate and to my noble friend's summing up.
3.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not follow up the subject matter of the latter part of her speech. It will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Gallacher at the conclusion of the debate. I hope that I shall also be forgiven if I devote more attention, as did the Queen's Speech, to the local government side of today's debate rather than to the environmental side. That is partly because those matters will be discussed with more expertise than I can claim by my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lord Hatch. Indeed, as the Session proceeds, they will be dealt with from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lady Nicol and Lady Hilton, who, I am delighted to say, will join us to cover these matters.
Even so, I am bound to say that it is disappointing to hear from the Government that there will be no further legislation on environmental matters. That certainly does not reflect the impression of urgency that we were given when the environment White Paper was produced just over a year ago. I noticed that in her speech the Minister did not refer to the report which was produced this year as a progress report. She chose to use the words "anniversary report" because, as we well know, although the report may produce evidence of some little progress on a large number of small issues, there is no evidence of effective progress on the major concerns to which the White Paper addressed itself. That is for exactly the reason that we anticipated when we debated this matter a year ago; namely, that the Government's responsibility for the environment—which ought to be overarching a number of departments of state, not simply the Department of the Environment but also the Departments of Transport and Energy in particular—has not been put
154
into place. There has been no effective overseeing of the environment between the different departments of state. For that reason, as we anticipated a year ago, there has been no real progress.
In particular it is disappointing that the Government, having come round at last to our view that there ought to be a single environmental protection agency—a view which we have expressed in policy documents on a number of occasions—have not been prepared to introduce legislation to that effect. There is only a consultation document to which responses are required by 31st January next year. There will be no prospect of any action until we have to take action after the next election. It is noticeable—is it not?—that when the Government want to slow down matters they put forward consultation papers with a lengthy deadline for responses and when they want to speed up things they produce the legislation (as they have done today with the Local Government Bill) and the consultation paper at the same time. It is hard to see how in either of those cases consultation can be intended to add significantly to the quality of debate. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will be present at the United Nations conference in Brazil in June. No doubt without fear of contradiction I can say on behalf of my right honourable friend Mr. Neil Kinnock that he will honour that undertaking when he is Prime Minister in June.
I now turn to the issues of the Bills that will come before us. I shall start, as did the noble Baroness, with the Local Government Finance Bill. It is noticeable that with this Bill we come almost full circle in terms of legislation by this Government on local authority finance. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, put it very elegantly in his speech last Thursday when he referred to "the net legislative utility" of debates in Parliament on this matter. He did not go quite far enough. When we look back to the Local Government Finance Bill which introduced the poll tax and consider the debates which will take place on the new Local Government Finance Bill, we might well say that they have a negative financial utility.
There has been a change in the usual to-ing and fro-ing between governments of different political persuasions. It is bad enough when governments consider it their duty first of all to overturn the actions of their predecessors. Now we have a government going to great lengths, which include the imposition of a guillotine in another place, to overturn their own legislation. One can hardly have sunk lower in standards of competence of government than this Government in respect of local government finance.
But it is all part of a pattern. We now come up to what is perhaps the hundredth piece of legislation about local government since the Conservative Party came to office in 1979. As recently as 1989 a previous Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, in introducing the Local Government and Housing Bill claimed that it would repeat the essential reforms of the framework within which local authorities operate. Some hope, my Lords. Ever since that day there has been an unending stream of local government

155
legislation, all in the same direction. It has all involved the erosion of local government and the strengthening of central government.
The matter goes a long way back. Those who consider the parlous state of our prisons will hardly be surprised to learn that some of the worst events have happened since local authorities lost their control of prisons in the last century. Those who look at the unparalleled state of government-induced confusion in our hospital service will not be surprised to learn that it was nothing like as bad when local authorities controlled the bulk of the hospitals. Those who consider the vast amount of expenditure which is required to bring our water and sewerage industries up to standard will recall that our water and sewerage industries were expropriated from local government control in the mid-1970s.
Since then every single intervention of central government in local government has been to restrict local governments' responsibilities and powers. In education, there has been the setting up of city technology colleges. The invention of grant maintained schools not only took schools away from local authority control but, by taking away those schools which were threatened with closure for very good demographic reasons, ensured that local authorities had much less chance of running an effective schools service with the schools that were left to them. The intervention of the Government in taking away polytechnics from local authorities—I do not oppose that; the Labour Party is not opposed to it—is another example of the way in which local authorities are having responsibilities taken away from them. What is now proposed in the Further and Higher Education Bill is that further education sixth form colleges and overall oversight of post-16 education shall be in the hands of central government.
In hosing, the first move by this Government in the early 1980s was for compulsory sale by local authorities of their housing stock to their tenants. Again, we are not opposed to that. But we are certainly opposed to the corollary in the Government's mind: that local authorities will not receive the proceeds of those sales—they will not be able to use them for more housing—and, indeed, as Ministers have made clear this year, local authorities will not be in the business of having housing to rent.
In more local ways the Government have attempted to bypass local authorities' responsibilities for housing by the creation of urban development corporations, housing action trusts—although they have been a conspicuous failure—and generally by the heavy financing of non-elected bodies in local services and the starvation of resources for elected local authorities. That is what it comes down to. The financial and constitutional independence of local authorities is under threat from this Government. The continuing flood of local authority legislation is evidence of that.
The Citizen's Charter sounds grand, except that of course the phrase was used by the Labour Party some time before it was taken up by this Government. From the legislation which was introduced into this House last night, I fear that the concept of empowerment
156
which ought to be behind the Citizen's Charter has been debased so far as concerns local government into the introduction of league tables of performance; and they will be very poor league tables of performance.
It is noticeable that the Local Government Finance Act 1982 set standards of economy, efficiency and effectiveness as the remit of the Audit Commission. That remit, as I well recall, was renewed and amended by both Houses of Parliament in debate earlier this year. We all thought both in 1982 and this year that the concept of economy, efficiency and effectiveness was a good way to define the responsibilities of the Audit Commission. We now have the word "cost" added. What does that mean? What can that add, unless it means that—notwithstanding economy, efficiency and effectiveness—the criterion that will be set for local authorities is low cost regardless of need. There is no other meaning.
I fear that we shall be judging local authority services not by standards of quality—otherwise the word "cost" would not come into it—but simply by setting league tables of costs regardless of the different levels of need in different parts of the country, the different levels of resources available and the wishes of local people who might, of their own free judgment expressed in electing their local representatives, decide that they want a higher quality service for a higher cost.
That is the case with nursery education. It is conspicuous that Labour local authorities elected democratically have decided that a nursery education should be provided for a higher proportion of under-fives; and Conservative local authorities have exercised their undoubted right to provide less nursery education. I fear that if the cost of the service is the only consideration we shall land up with everyone being forced to make the minimum provision, with no opportunity for people to express their wishes democratically in demanding better services even at a higher cost.
When we consider the criteria which are applied to the league tables, it is conspicuous that they apply only to local authorities. The Bill that is now before the House specifically states that health authorities are excluded from the consideration. There are serious dangers here. Of course there are dangers of high spending; but there are also serious dangers of low spending. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, whose maiden speech we look forward to keenly, will have a few things to say about low spending local authorities.
We are not opposed to the provisions for the publication of auditors' reports and council responses to them. Indeed, we have been advocating that for some time. We are not opposed to naming the councils that will delay in submitting their accounts. We have been saying that for some time. In case the Minister doubts it, we said so in our publication At Your Service in April 1986 and in our publication Quality Street in April 1989. In 1986 we said that there should be clear performance targets and standards for each service. Indeed at least 20 Labour councils, including York, Basildon and Stockton, have included in their policies customer contracts which go considerably

157
further than the Government's own proposals. Since the Government have not gone that far, I can promise the Minister that amendments to provide for customer contracts will be introduced during the passage of the local government Bill.
Some of those ideas have a respectable pedigree. In other words, we have been putting them forward for a long time and have been ignored. Unfortunately those who know far more about horse racing than I do will testify that a respectable pedigree does not always mean that the horse wins the race.
I refer now to the issue of compulsory competitive tendering. The key word is "compulsion". We thought when the present Secretary of State, Mr. Heseltine, spoke to the Association of District Councils on 28th June of this year that the idea of compulsion in these matters had been abandoned by government. He said that the best performing authorities should be able to go about their business unconstrained. He went on to say—and I agree with him—that those who fail to deliver find themselves hamstrung. That is an admirable sentiment but it is not what is contained in the Bill. Everyone, regardless of existing performance, will be required to go out to competitive tender.
We find ourselves in a most curious position. I am glad that the Leader of the House is present. Today saw the publication of the Bill. In addition, at a press conference given by the Secretary of State, we saw publication of a new consultative document entitled Competing for Quality. What do we find in the Bill? I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in the Chamber. Clause 8 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of Part I of the 1988 Act (competition) as he thinks fit".
The proposal means that it will be possible to vary existing legislation that has been considered by your Lordships' House by order and not by legislation. A number of people concerned with the quality and dignity of legislation will find that an unacceptable proposition.
Perhaps worse, we shall be asked to debate in November and December this year sections of a Bill which are subject to consultation. Those sections are therefore expressed in the most general enabling terms and give us no idea of the Government's actual intentions. In other words, either the consultation process is a sham and the Government can tell us what they propose to do about competition, or it is not a sham in which case your Lordships are being asked to waste time debating a matter on which the Government have not yet made up their mind.
That cannot be the way to treat Parliament, whether it is the House of Lords or the House of Commons. I must warn Ministers that the most strongly expressed exception will be taken to treating Parliament and legislation in that way. It is unacceptable for a government not to express even in principle their objectives in a piece of legislation and instead expect Parliament to discuss what has been put out for consultation as the basis of the detail of the legislation, leaving Parliament in ignorance of the Government's final position. I complained loudly enough last year after the Planning and Compensation
158
Bill was debated on Second Reading and then changed at great length when it arrived in Committee. In many cases the amendments were drafting amendments and were relatively trivial. However, this is the kernel of an important part of an important Bill. If the Government have not made up their mind what they think about the matter they should not bring legislation before Parliament.
I could have spent longer on parts of the Bill had I had more than an hour or so to read it. Furthermore, I do not wish to anticipate the Second Reading debate. However, Part II dealing with local government changes for England will not be opposed in principle by Her Majesty's Opposition. They are matters which have a respectable pedigree. Labour Party publications entitled Opportunity, Quality and Accountability published in April and Devolution and Democracy published in July set out what the Government have now belatedly come round to stating.
In April we stated that there was no need for a uniform structure throughout the country. Indeed, during our debate on the gracious Speech last year I said that I did not see why there should be the same structure throughout the country nor did I see why local people should not choose the form of local government structure most suitable for them. It may well be that people on the Isle of Wight will decide to keep a county council and abolish two district councils. It is highly likely that people in Cleveland and Avon will wish to keep district councils and abolish the county councils which were imposed on them by a Conservative Government not too many years ago.
The fact that we have said it all before and that the Government have come round to our view does not necessarily mean that we are convinced of the perfection of the words of the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I cannot promise that we shall give any part of the Bill a rapid passage. We shall do our duty to the best of our ability to ensure that the Local Government Bill before us and, above all, the Local Government Finance Bill—the council tax Bill—are given proper consideration by Parliament.
It is not our intention in any way to delay the abolition of the poll tax. During the summer we made clear that it was open to the Government there and then to abolish the poll tax in such a way that it would be gone by April 1992. We made clear that we would support as an interim measure any attempt to return to the rating system and so abolish the poll tax immediately. The Government rejected those appeals and now it is too late to carry out our proposals.
The present proposals were described by the Minister in her speech as a completely new system of taxation for local government. Given the Government's record in the effectiveness of their approach to local government finance, it is hardly surprising if we say, "Hold on a bit! Can we be certain that you have got it right?". We shall ask questions about the fairness of the council tax and whether the bands reflect ability to pay. We suspect that they do not. We shall ask whether the council tax improves the accountability of local authorities. As the standard spending assessment, which is widely distrusted by

159
local government members and by professionals, is to remain unchanged we doubt whether accountability will be Unproved. We shall also ask questions about the costs of the new system. Whatever Ministers say, a register of individuals will be required in order to identify those households entitled to a discount. We shall again oppose the continuation of capping—the Government's admission that they cannot get it right even after more than 12 years.
We shall not ask such questions in any sense of trying to delay legislation for its own sake. However, I do not believe that the people of this country will wish again to repeat the shambles of legislation for local government which has been imposed on it by this Government during the past few years. It is up to Parliament to seek to protect the people from a repetition of that shambles.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too shall try not to anticipate the Second Reading debate on the local government legislation which we shall consider later in the Session. Some noble Lords, including a number of the class of 1991, consider that they are experiencing something new almost every day. I find it a great privilege to be able to speak in the debate on the humble Address.
New legislation for local government and local government structure presents a golden opportunity to set a fair tax and to increase democracy and accountability in local government. I regret that it does not take 20/20 vision to see that that is unlikely to be the effect of the Bills that we are to consider. Since the first announcement of the proposed new council tax we have seen the contortions that are likely to be necessary. Rebates for students have been announced and they are most welcome and necessary. However, we wish to know whether they extend to students not in halls of residence. Although we should not discuss such detail today it is an example of the kind of detail that must be extracted and worked at extraordinarily hard if we are to come close to ensuring that the tax is fair. The more measures there are to deal with tiny parts of the legislation, the more it will be seen that the whole of the legislation is centrally and fundamentally flawed.
We are told that the new tax will be fair. I take one example. A "normal" household is something in the order of two plus whatever adults. Therefore, is it logical that the discount for a single person should be 25 per cent.? Why is it not 50 per cent.? In fact, I do not advocate a 50 per cent. discount but I should like to know the logic behind what is proposed.
Whatever arrangements there are for applying the discount, it seems to me that they will be unsatisfactory. Either we must have a register—we have been told that there will not be a register—or local authorities must use all sensible means at their disposal to check. Does that mean that they must use the electoral register? It seems common sense that they should use it, although there are civil liberties arguments against that. If that is used then the public could be forgiven for again describing the new council tax as a poll tax.
160
In the debate which we had on the Local Government and Finance Valuation Act, every argument which we heard with regard to the council tax seemed to me to be an argument for local income tax: a secure source of income for local authorities; much lower collection costs; accountability and, above all, fairness. By fairness I mean ability to pay with an exact relationship to the taxpayers' resources and not just a relationship at the extremes of those resources.
If the tax is related to ability to pay, there would not be the nonsenses which we see already and anxieties that the sums may be wrong. In the past few days we have seen professionals' comments that because house prices have fallen so dramatically in some areas of the country, the calculations of the amounts which the council tax will raise may not be correct. Above all, a local income tax is fair because it takes us back to a culture in which tax was to be paid and not evaded.
There is a financial priority which is apparently not on the stocks; that is, the relaxation of controls over capital receipts by local authorities from housing stock. It is symptomatic of the heavy hand of central government that local authorities are required to sell but not to use the assets properly. The losers from that are not the local authorities but the people without homes.
I hope that in the new legislation for compulsory competitive tendering, we shall stand back and look not just at the effects on the service, which of course are important, but also at the effects on the staff required to administer the service. One comment made to me from many sources is that if competitive tendering for revenue collection is introduced, the resultant lowering of morale among our poor, hard-pressed and overworked council employees will be drastic. The introduction of a council tax will be complex work, particularly while it is still necessary to collect the poll tax. It is not a particularly glamorous job and I should not expect there to be many takers for it anyway.
I have no objection in principle to competition; of course not. Good local authorities will always look for the best way to carry out their duties. However, we must not be so dogmatic and the procedures must not be so cumbersome that we lose the best practice. The element of compulsion takes that good practice into the realm of dogma. I welcomed the news last week that the lowest tender will not necessarily be regarded as the best tender. Quality must be a criterion. I welcome the assistance that the Audit Commission may give on that. There is plenty to learn from the practice now carried on by local authorities. The Audit Commission may help to make that known.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned customer contracts. They are assurances by local authorities to their own ratepayers and taxpayers. Local authorities are prepared to stand by what they agree and to offer rebates if they do not deliver. That is a right in law which seems not to have been working through in the proposed new charters.
As a quid pro quo, I hope that there may be something for local authorities to help them to do rather better and more easily what they want to do. I

161
suggest that a new power should be given to them. It may be rather scandalous to suggest that local authorities should be enabled to do something else. They should have a power of general competence; in other words, local authorities should be allowed to make the decisions which are best for their own communities unless there are specific statutory rules which prevent them doing so. Currently, the opposite is the case.
It is interesting to hear that the consultation which is to take place will run in parallel with deliberations on the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us at the end of this debate how the Bill will be dealt with if the response to the consultation is "no". I believe we should all be interested to learn that. It would be reassuring to those responding to the consultation to know that their comments will be taken into account.
Local government is more than mere administration. It is a fundamental and democratic right. I welcome a review of local government structure. I hope that its primary aim will be to revive and strengthen local government. It needs to lay the ground rules about minimum standards and democratic procedures. Apart from that, decisions need to be undertaken by and in the local community. The local community should decide the shape of the local authority. Local people know what is their natural community and should not have government imposed on them from some remote centre.
One area which is literally crying out for reform and is not included in the review is London. The call for a voice for London comes from business, residents, commuters and the man in the street. In five short years it has risen up the public agenda. If ever there was a will for change, that will is as regards a government for London. Of course London has a government; that is, central government. Above all, central government should recognise how vital is London's health to the health of Britain. The economic success of London on the world stage must not be taken for granted and yet there is no one to promote London. In an age of mass communication and media, it is easy to decry image. However, London is extremely dependent upon its image so that our overseas colleagues and competitors can judge us. At the crudest economic level, London needs not just a voice but someone to tell the international community everything which is good about it.
It is tough for London because it has been very successful and innovative in the past. It has set itself high standards. We risk killing the goose which lays the golden egg or perhaps not killing it but letting it die slowly of neglect. The voice for London must be democratic. It should not necessarily have wide powers and should deal with only what is truly strategic. It should take power more from central government than the boroughs. However, unless it is truly democratic and representative it will not command respect. I do not advocate the return of the old GLC but I advocate a democratically elected government for the only major capital city without one.
162
All local government should be a means of ensuring accountability, representative councils and greater participation. On these Benches we are proud to advocate in that the adoption of a fair voting system. At a stroke with a fair system we could end the ability of unrepresented minorities to dictate policy for political motives. A more representative cross-section of the community would be involved. I include in that cross-section a number of women. Without a fair voting system, any changes will fail to make councils more representative or accountable.
Others will deal with the environment. Perhaps I may simply say that a better political system would give us a better environment. With a system which is secretive we have almost no access to environmental information; with a system which is centralised Whitehall is overloaded and our environmental policy is inflexible; with a voting system which is unfair, voters with new anxieties such as the environment are penalised.
The Government rightly require local governments to be open. I hope that in adopting their own principles they will think more about public rights to freedom of information. To give a short example in one word, I would say Camelford. There will be plenty more to say on the topics in today's debate. I shall not say more today, other than to hope that this House will shape tomorrow's local democracy using the best traditions of fairness which I know this House is capable of promoting.
4 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to thank all quarters of this House for the kindness and help that has been given to me and my family since the sudden death of my father some 18 months ago.
We are here to debate the replacement of the poll tax, the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to "white collar" jobs in local authorities and the introduction of some unitary authorities across Britain.
I am concerned at the Government's constant extension of their powers over local authorities. Local authorities are fast becoming centres of local administration rather than of local government. The authorities which have most benefited from the Government's approach are those that have anticipated reforms and led the way in privatising their services and selling their council stock. Nowhere is that more true than in the London Borough of Wandsworth, where I am an elected councillor. While it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that Wandsworth is an efficiently run council and certainly a master of self-publicity, there should be no doubt in people's minds that the majority of Wandsworth residents have benefited at the expense of the borough's most poor and vulnerable residents.
Wandsworth has a poll tax of nothing. The world knows that; it is advertised everywhere. However, it also has one of the highest council rents in the country and makes one of the lowest per capita contributions to the voluntary sector in Inner London. Wandsworth privatises all that it can. In the Government's eyes it sets an example to other authorities across the

163
country. In Wandsworth we are now going through another typical privatisation, which I shall recount to your Lordships. It is the privatisation of the school cleaning contract. It will exemplify my point.
The council's direct services organisation will be putting forward a bid and the basis of their bid will be to pay council staff around £3.80 an hour. The private contractors are known and anticipated to put forward a hid based on paying their staff £2.80 an hour and I have beer told that some pay as low as £1.75 an hour. Of course the contractors' staff—they are not staff; they are contractors themselves—will not be entitled to any sick pay, any holiday pay and few rights while working is cleaners. Worse than that, it is the practice of Wand worth Council to put out a contract for bid and obtain responses. However, should only the direct services reply, then it rejigs the contract, talks to the private contractors and rebids the contract. That is precisely the situation we have reached in Wandsworth with the cleaning of the schools. I make no comment in regard to the quality of work one can expect for £1.75 an hour.
In my view that is the true face of privatisation. It is forcing people across the country on to breadline wages and is a callous example of the Government's compulsory competitive tendering policy without adequate safety nets. In my view local authorities should be allowed to arrange their affairs as they are elected to do, while there should be some national guidelines and restrictions. In London it would be so much more appropriate and easy if there were a strategic authority through which all London local authorities could discuss, debate and challenge strategic proposals.
One laughable example of the present situation in London homes to mind. It concerns the urban motorway proposals of two years ago. One such proposed motorway ran through the northern boroughs of London and stopped on the north side of Wandsworth Bridge. It was specifically designed to funnel traffic through Wandsworth and into South London. Wandsworth was not consulted about it because the road did not actually cross on to Wandsworth soil. It is a clear example of where a strategic authority would have been appropriate.
I see strategic authorities as being appropriate for other parts of Britain, forming a basis for regional authorities. I see regional authorities as an effective and long overdue tool for moving real decision making from Whitehall and giving it back to local communities. That is precisely the opposite of the trends we have seen since 1979. Indeed, it was in my father's maiden speech in 1975 while he was chairman of the GLC that he spoke of strengthening the GLC's powers so that it could act as a prototype for regional assemblies in the country. Time has moved on, but the approach remains right and should be acted upon.
If we are to have active and responsible local authorities and regions in Britain, our national government must be confident enough of their own role to let the boroughs and districts be centres of local government and not just local administration. The Government must also be seen to be democratic and responsible. In saying, "seen to be democratic", I am
164
unfortunately aware that this Chamber is known to be undemocratic. Unfortunately, it is a source of cynicism and ridicule of our national government that Peers such as myself, unelected, hereditary Peers, have a right to speak and vote on the affairs of the nation. I can assure the House that should ever I be fortunate enough to sit on the Government Benches as part of a Labour Government, I should be working to put myself out of a job as soon as possible.
To conclude, we need to reverse the centralisation of power and give our local communities a proper say in their local affairs. That can best be done by building on our borough and district councils, introducing regional strategic authorities and abolishing the House of Lords in its present state. As this is my maiden speech, I have sought to be as non-political and uncontroversial as possible. I look forward to playing a full part in proceedings in this House at a future time.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will expect me to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on his maiden and totally uncontroversial speech. Those noble Lords who have been here a lot longer than I will know that the noble Lord's father was a much esteemed Member of this House and indeed was the Opposition Chief Whip. He was greatly respected by all. We are all looking forward to the next speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, when of course he will be controversial and the speaker who comes after him will be able to take up some of the points on which he dwelt. The congratulations coming from me are a little strange; I am on my maiden speech plus one. In around 10 minutes I shall be happy to tell the noble Lord whether one's second speech is any less of an ordeal than one's first.
I do not want to talk about London, which will probably be a relief to those noble Lords whose interests exist throughout the rest of this country. Sometimes those of us who live to the north think that a lot of people in London believe that the country begins and ends at the M.25. I believe that is a car park I should one day visit.
I should like to deal quite quickly with three aspects, taking first local government. When one looks at how local government should fund itself, there are two or three principles I should like to put before the House. First, it is right that local government should raise a portion of its finance directly from its citizens. I believe that inevitably, given the expenditure of local government, that portion is quite rightly a small one. It is right that it should raise a portion of its finance. Secondly, it is best if the tax is a clearly separate one from any of the taxes raised by central government. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear from me that local income tax does not meet that criterion. The distinction between local and central government would be absolutely lost in income tax. I believe that the public would very quickly subsume the lot and blame the Government. That may be all very well when your party is not in power, but I believe that it

165
would make bad news for the party which is in power in being blamed for the income tax including the income tax of local authorities.
Thirdly, it must be simple to collect. It is stating the self-evident to say that the poll tax did not meet that particular criterion. I believe that the proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill are a sensible return to a local government tax based on property and property values. In that respect it is obviously easier to collect. Houses cannot move, which must be a redeeming feature of the system. I believe that the one thing we discovered as regards the poll tax is that our population moves in a fairly considerable way. I suspect that the changes in the register have been a great deal more than anyone ever foresaw.
I see very little difference between what the Government are proposing and what I understand the Labour Party are proposing. I suspect that much will be made of the difference. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who was trying to make as much as he could of that difference. I believe that the basic underlying principle of a tax on the value of property is agreed by both sides. It seems to me that the Labour Party believe that we should go up in pound steps which opens up all the byzantine arguments which we had concerning the old rating system about how many radiators you install in your house or the size of the garage that you have just added, or whatever else. There is the system which goes up in larger steps which, it is hoped, will reduce, if not completely eliminate, the problems of people arguing as to whether their house is of the same or of a greater value than the house next door.
I wish to say three things to the Government. I suspect that the poll tax may be found to be engraved on my heart if not on my mind. I welcome my noble friend's assurance—and I wish to underline it—that the Government should be sure that there is no need for a register in order to deal with the single person discount. During the passage of the Bill, both here and in another place, I hope that the Government will listen and mark the points raised and attend to them if they seem justified. I believe it was failure in that regard during the passage of the poll tax legislation which very largely brought about many of the problems that we found with the tax. I very much welcome the 100 per cent. rebate in the new tax. That is sensible. It avoids another very serious problem that arose with the poll tax. But why are we stuck with the 20 per cent. for the remaining year of the poll tax? I say to my noble friends that I cannot imagine that it is doing any good to stick to that principle.
I now wish to turn to local government reform. I shall stick with Scotland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is no doubt considering all the views. Interestingly, about a year ago everyone seemed to want to move away from the two-tier system. It was difficult to find a single defender. Suddenly, defenders are everywhere and very few people seem to be all that sure where they want to move. There is much wrong with the two-tier system. It may be that I have heard it in previous speeches as regards the English and Welsh position,
166
but one of the factors which is wrong is that we tend to try to have a uniform system over the whole country regardless of whether we are talking about urban or rural areas. Perhaps that is one thing that we should attempt not to do the next time round.
There is some controversy in Scotland that the Secretary of State is not setting up a commission. I have listened to that with interest. I recall that it was a commission of the great and the good—at least, they thought that they were the great and the good—which produced the two-tier system which was put into effect in 1974 and which, until recently, was pretty universally unpopular. My advice to my honourable friends is to move slowly with local government reform. It costs a fortune and makes no friends and, arguably, it probably does not improve the situation. One should attend to how local government works. At the risk of crossing the noble Lord who preceded me, despite the fact that it was his maiden speech, I should have thought that it was a joy to be a councillor in Wandsworth with a nil poll tax.
I now turn to agriculture and the environment. The common agricultural policy is important not just for agriculture but also for the countryside. For example, the encouragement to grow cereals by the way in which the Community bought cereals and stored them in ever-growing mountains, encouraged some farmers into the rather destructive techniques of grubbing up hedgerows and ploughing up what should have remained permanent pasture. Therefore, the common agricultural policy does not only impact on farming, but it impacts also on the environment. In every way it is a perfectly unsatisfactory solution to agriculture in the Community.
Many of the proposals in front of Commissioner MacSharry and the Community at the moment would be intensely damaging to British agriculture and thus to the majority of farmers who actually keep the countryside in the way all the urban dwellers like to see it. Perhaps I may give one example. I suspect that other noble Lords who follow me will develop it. As regards sheep farming, the proposals on headage limitation will be extremely damaging to sheep farmers on the hills and uplands. They will be entirely directed to benefit those part-time farmers in the golden triangle of Europe who have very well paid full-time jobs and who do not need the help of the headage payment.
The hill sheep farmer in the Highlands of Scotland, with 1,000 ewes or more, is by no means the rich man which Commissioner MacSharry and many of his colleagues seem to imagine. If these headage payments are controlled and limits are put on, sheep farming in these remote areas will become more and more uneconomic. Real problems will occur for the agriculture industry in our hills and uplands and for the rural economy in general. I believe that there is a need to separate agriculture and food from a social policy needed to work in the countryside. It is needed to encourage people to live and stay there. We should try to distinguish that.
I speak quite firmly as someone who is in favour of the European Community and who believes that we have a great deal to do to develop it. However, what

167
worries me is that often there is no genuinely level playing field. There are quite different views about agriculture between ourselves and many of our Continental partners. I know that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes a robust view on this matter in the Community. I am not asking the farmers in Germany to change the system which they operate. They should not ask us to change the system that we operate and which suits our quite different land tenure, agricultural holdings and climatic conditions.
There is another aspect of the common agricultural policy which I always find profoundly disturbing. On the one hand, the EC has said to us, as noble Lords will know, that we should not allow tobacco advertising on television, and that we should insist on health messages on cigarette packets. On the other hand, if you go into the depths of the common agricultural policy you will find that we are all paying out millions to sustain farmers in Europe to grow tobacco. If there is anything more illogical in anybody's policy than that, I cannot imagine it.
I conclude by looking at set-aside. As the Scottish Office Minister concerned with agriculture at the time, I can remember when we launched that with great trumpeting. It has a major part to play. However, it is only one of the factors which must be brought to bear on the amount of land which will need to come out of direct agricultural production. There are other ways. The danger with set-aside is that it is hard to justify vast areas of ground not being used and people being paid not to use them.
There are other crops which we can grow for which there is demand. I can think of one crop which would help the environment, which would help with atmospheric pollution and which would certainly help the balance of payments—namely, trees. Well planned and well planted trees of all kinds enhance the countryside and provide rural employment, raw material for downstream industries and much employment in those industries. I am always puzzled by the fact. that environmentalists love trees in Brazil and they love the Black Forest but they seem totally opposed to trees and forests in this country.
The problem is that planting rates are disastrously low at present. I should tell my noble friends that I believe the, Government must find ways to boost planting rates back to the targets set by them. We have excellent growing conditions for trees in this country. Such development can make an important impact on employment in the countryside. It is a sensible use of land which we no longer need to produce food. I hope that the Government will look seriously at the decline in planting rates and at ways in which to boost those rates.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, may know that it is almost ritualistic in this House to congratulate a maiden speaker. He may also know that I am not very interested in ritual. Therefore, the congratulations I offer him are direct and personal. I believe that he is the fourth generation of his family that I have known.
168
I am delighted to note the skilled contribution that he will be able to make to our knowledge of local government in this House. I am even more delighted that he has returned to the radicalism of his great grandfather. We hope to hear from him many times in the future.
My contribution this afternoon is entirely confined to the sentence in the gracious Speech which reads:
"The United Kingdom will work for a successful United Nations Conference on Environment and Development next June".
I have given notice to the noble Baroness who is to conclude the debate of the questions that I should like her to answer on behalf of the Government. Moreover, earlier, before the long Recess, I had a short discussion with her when I expressed the hope that she would keep the House constantly informed of developments in the preparation for the conference at Rio next June.
At this stage of our development I should like the Minister to share with the House knowledge of the policies in the discussions which Her Majesty's Government have been having with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a framework and convention on climate change. I believe that it has held three meetings—in Washington, Geneva and Nairobi—and is to hold a fourth in Geneva next month. I believe that we in this House and those in another place should be constantly informed by the Government as to what policies they are adopting within this preparatory conference so that we are able to criticise and discuss them and have knowledge of what the Government are doing on our behalf.
I should like to think—no doubt this will bring some wry smiles to the faces of some noble Lords—that the material of this debate was outside the party political scope. I say that because I believe that we ought to have a consensus on the essential ends, and that is something which we have not yet achieved. If we can obtain such a consensus, that would be the time to engage in political debate on the means of seeking the ends. There is a positive debate on the different political approaches as to how the international objectives in the environmental field should be reached. I shall mention them briefly at a later stage.
As regards the three conferences which have been held so far preparatory to Rio, I believe that we are entitled to ask the noble Baroness to give us a thorough account of the attitude which the Government have been taking. I should like her to address certain specific issues which have already been raised at the conferences and to say where the Government stand. For example, at the last conference in September held in Nairobi, I believe that the United States was virtually isolated on the question of whether there were sufficient targets and timetables for cutting emissions and cutting down on the use of gases. Is that the case? Moreover, is it also the case that at the conference the United Kingdom and Japan appeared to move somewhat nearer to the general European Community attitude on stating specific targets and timetables for cuts in emissions? As I understand it, the European Community in

169
general believes that by the end of this century we ought to reach stability on the emission of carbon dioxide in particular.
Is it also true that in Nairobi the United Kingdom dropped the policy that has commonly been known as pledge and review, which I believe was also supported by Japan? Pledge and review has been condemned as being purely voluntary and therefore open to breach without any penalty and indeed without there being any breach of treaty. One can contrast that with what is now becoming pretty universally accepted: that unless carbon dioxide can be cut by at least 20 per cent. below the 1988 level, never mind stability, global warming will continue. Even with the targets which have already been reached, global warming will continue throughout the next century. At the present levels, including the cuts agreed upon, by the end of the next century the global temperature will be more than 1"C above the level today. If that happens there can be no doubt that there will be ecological disaster in many parts of the world which will change the ecological stability of the entire globe.
We are talking about something which is surely the most significant issue of our age. The conference at Rio next June has been called in order to discuss whether this planet will be capable of maintaining the human race into the second half of the 21st century. An added issue and one of equal significance is whether it will be possible for the peoples of the developing world to raise their standard of living just to the point at which they can continue to exist without at the same time so multiplying the polluting effects which we in the industrial world have started that there will be virtually no hope for human life on this planet. I believe that the noble Baroness agrees with me on those points. What is important is how we deal with the challenge facing us.
I refer again to the Nairobi conference in September. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the British Government are now quite firmly opposed to what is called double counting? The Americans have proposed the counting of a number of gases so that manufacturers can increase the emission of carbon dioxide because they are decreasing the emission of CFCs. They can thereby claim that they are making progress towards reducing emissions even though the emission of carbon dioxide is increasing. We know that in the United States carbon dioxide emissions are increasing. We know that vehicles in the United States are now becoming less and less efficient. There was a time when they became more efficient, but over the past three years they have become less and less efficient. We know that manufacturers are planning to increase the number of vehicles which means that carbon dioxide emissions are bound to increase. Will they be able to claim that, because they are reducing the emissions of CFCs, the net balance is one which enables them to claim that they are actually reducing the danger of global warming? That is the double counting argument. I have asked the noble Baroness about it before. I should like a firm assurance from her
170
that the British Government reject that form of estimation which quite clearly is not reducing the dangers of such emissions.
I should also like to ask the noble Baroness about carbon taxes. The European Community is coming closer and closer to complete support for carbon taxes. I notice that the noble Baroness who opened the debate referred to the principle of polluter pays. How will the polluter pay? Will the polluter pay for the pollution that is occasioned by the use of carbon? Will there be carbon taxes? If there are to be carbon taxes, where will they go? Will they be used to increase the efficiency of public transport? Will they contribute towards the transfer of technology to the third world? Where do the Government see them going?
In this respect it is interesting to note that there is one omission from the White Paper. One of the Government's pledges was to civilise traffic in towns by preventing additional car commuting. Why is nothing said about that in the annual report? Have the Government given up their recognition that the increase in commuter traffic, particularly in company cars, and the road building programme into which they have entered are bound to increase pollution? Are they quietly hoping that we will not notice that they have had nothing to say about the first year's experience in dealing with traffic pollution?
Where do the Government stand on energy saving? I understand that they opposed a measure brought forward in the European Community on the efficiency of gas boilers. The White Paper refers to improving the efficiency of domestic appliances. The gas boiler is a domestic appliance and makes a contribution to the emission of carbon dioxide. Is it true that the Government opposed this measure; and if so, why did they do so?
On the issue of energy efficiency and renewables, I understand that there is a potential excess supply of renewables over the targets which the Government have set—in other words, developers are offering far more in the provision of renewable sources of energy than the Government's targets allow for. In regard to wind, wave and solar energy, is it the case that if the Government were to give the go-ahead a great deal more of our energy could be created by those methods; and that there are now developers who are begging for support to do so? Without such sources of energy, how do the Government expect to secure the cuts which they say are their targets? Can they do so without an increase in renewables and without increasing energy efficiency? We have talked about energy efficiency before. Why is VAT charged on energy conserving equipment? Is it not in the interests of society that energy conserving equipment such as light bulbs should be VAT free? I remind the noble Baroness that over the past two years the market for energy conservation equipment has dropped by 30 per cent., which I am sure is not what the Government are aiming at.
Finally, I come back to the wide issue of the relationship of global warming and the international challenge which we face to what is happening in the third world. I had a little experience of that relationship during the long Recess. In Tanzania, the

171
coral reefs are being destroyed by dynamiting. Every year the sea encroaches further into the land. In Cape Town, fires on Table Mountain have caused tremendous landslides which have engulfed houses, shops and villages, down to the lower slopes of the Cape. In the third world 17 million children die of starvation every year. Mobilising its forces in order to increase the standard of living will at the same time increase the danger of global disaster. We must come together with the third world and admit that we have been responsible for most of the pollution in this world and are responsible for most of the danger to the human race. We must therefore assist the third world in the transfer of technology and in the provision of finance in order to escalate its development so that its people can live. We must do so without at the same time destroying the opportunity for the human race to continue to inhabit this planet. Where dc the British Government stand when that issue is being discussed—as we know it is—and when the Chinese and Indians, and now the Africans and the Latin Americans, are preparing to meet that direct question which will be the central issue at Rio?
I do not have time to discuss the ideological argument as to how we should achieve those aims. I hope the Minister will agree that we should be able to agree on the aims, although we shall argue about the means used to achieve those aims. I hope that even the Government do not agree that the means used to attain those ends should include what is happening in Guyana, with the profiteering through privateering of the Guyanese forests. That is making profit out of potential deaths, not just among the Guyanese but among all the people who rely upon those forests to be the sink for the gases which are now accumulating to produce the dreaded menace of global warming.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have to apologise I o the House and to the Minister. First, I must leave at six o'clock to catch an aeroplane to Paris for a meeting tomorrow morning where I shall be working hard. Secondly, I apologise to noble Lords because I shall say many of the things that I have said previously, but that will do them no harm.
The position of the CAP is untenable. The most extraordinary thing is happening. The CAP's original objectives were admirable. A great deal of essential food was provided for Europe. It was right to do that, but then no one knew when to stop. In this country, in particular in my county, one finds acres of ground covered with buildings. The ground is not being used to grow anything, but the buildings are used to store surpluses which are exported at subsidised, dump prices, to the great distress of our cousins in Australia, New Zealand and the third world generally. That is because the CAP, the Commission and the Council of Ministers paid no attention to the market.
I do not believe in surrendering to pure market forces; but any system which does not pay attention to them will rind itself in trouble. That is what has happened. We have enormous expenditure and surpluses, and we are making ourselves unpopular all over the world—I speak of us as Europe—and
172
something must be done. I do not know whether the present proposals will be successful. I shall discuss them later. While we are throwing about enormous sums of money, British agriculture is in a poor way.
I have figures from the NFU's excellent economic department —a very reputable source—which show that since 1978 the industry's income since 1978 has dropped by over 50 per cent. in real terms. That is an extraordinary thing to happen to an efficient industry. The way we in Britain have buckled down to building an efficient agricultural industry is marvellous. One has only to look at the productivity figures: the bigger farms have one man to 300 acres, whereas at the end of the war there were five or six. Those are surprising figures. Costs have escalated greatly, and the British farming industry deserves to be treated far better.
I gave an illustration during the debate on the report on the CAP from the Select Committee on European Affairs. It now takes five times more barley to buy a tractor than it did 30 years ago. Those figures are the same for practically every aspect of farming, including the price of land. Although the CAP must be reformed, we should also study what is happening to farming. Cereal production is the main target when people criticise the CAP. The figures are interesting. In the EC as a whole about 90 million acres produces some 172 million tonnes of cereals, oilseed rape and so forth. Scotland has 1.6 million acres under cereals producing about 3.5 million tonnes. The United Kingdom has 19 million acres producing something over three tonnes an acre. Those figures illustrate how competent is our farming and they are far better than those produced elsewhere.
According to the FAO, the world's total cereal production last year was 1,894 million tonnes. That is a great deal of cereal, but it is 60 million tonnes down on 1990. That is a reduction of about 3 per cent. The FAO expects 1991–92 production to be insufficient to meet demand so that a draw down of stocks will occur. At the end of this season it expects stocks to be at the lower end of the range it considers necessary for world food security. We must watch what we are doing.
We see the figures for the United States and believe that they have enormous reserves. They do. They have 20 million acres in reserve. The efficiency with which they grow grain is poor. They can produce about 30 million tonnes extra. Even with that amount coming on to the world market, world food reserves will remain shaky. We must be cautious when we talk about cutting production. We must ensure that this country and European agriculture have a level playing field when compared to the United States, Canada and everywhere else, and that we do not cut production merely to benefit them. It is important that a fair agreement is arrived at in GATT.
I am unhappy about the cereals proposals under the MacSharry arrangement. They postulate that in order to qualify for the deficiency payment one can only produce so many tonnes. Above a certain size of farm there is no payment for set-aside nor a deficiency character payment. That is obviously set up to please and satisfy the small farmers of Europe whose average farm size is about 20 hectares against the much larger and more competent farms in this country. There is

173
use of the extraordinary word "modulation", meaning that smaller farmers are paid more. Modulation has another great fault. There is no question of giving these totally uneconomic farmers a carrot to encourage them to retire, although that also exists. The proposal is that there should be a permanent deficiency payment to wholly uneconomic farmers.
The Commission has ignored various suggestions which would have paid people over 20 years through a bond, buying them out, and thereby freeing the competent farmers to get on with production at a price more in line with the true world price. The present proposal is that within three years the price will reduce to about £80 per tonne as the guarantee given to farmers in cereal growing areas. I know of no farmer in this country or elsewhere who could possibly produce at £80 a tonne, if he has reasonable overheads. It is not possible. Mr. Murphy has produced careful figures for the competent farmers of East Anglia. He has investigated costs in the United States and the figures agree. We shall arrive at that figure in three years' time, according to MacSharry. We need to stand absolutely firm over these practical issues.
I have some happy quotes and some unhappy ones from a speech by Mr. Gummer in Scotland which was made with an eye on a certain by-election. Nevertheless, the speech gave categorical assurances and difficult figures. He said that,
"the MacSharry plan would result in 14 per cent. of Scottish arable land being set aside for other purposes, against 9 per cent. in the EC as a whole. A total of 47 per cent. of Scots farmers would not be compensated—against 34 per cent. in the EC… More than half the dairy cows in Scotland would not qualify for the dairy cow premium, compared to 11 per cent. in the EC as a whole, and 47 per cent. in the UK".
Mr. Gummer then gave a number of figures. The NFU figure is correct since I checked it. According to the NFU, a 300-acre arable farm yielding 2.9 tonnes per acre of cereals and 1.2 tonnes per acre of oilseed rape would suffer an overall loss of margin of about £8,000. Anyone who knows the income in recent years of a 300-acre cereal farm will know that that is reducing the farm to a totally unviable state.
Mr. Gummer also said:
"We are not going to have British agriculture disadvantaged in order to support other parts of Europe which have not adapted to the economic and environmental facts of life".
I hope that he is able to achieve that, because in this country we have sorted out the inefficiencies that were apparent 20 or 30 years ago. The small dairy farmer in the Yorkshire Dales has gone completely. He used to milk 12, 10 or even fewer cows and expected a living from them. We now have one man looking after anything up to 150 cows on various farms over the country.
However, in the EC—and it is even lower for Europe—the average size of a dairy herd now is 16 cows. It is totally impossible to support the situation. I hope we shall not allow the Council of Ministers to support a scheme which will accept that level of incompetence for ever. It is not possible. The Commission should look at buying out the small farmers who in most cases live in areas where
174
part-time farming is possible and there are other jobs for farmers. Mr. Gummer must go for realistic cereal prices. Of course they should come down. But they must be realistic and not based on a totally false world price which is purely a dump price. He will have a difficult task.
Another essential is that in order to reduce the cereal surplus quickly we should have a really attractive set-aside scheme. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that bigger and better incentives for forestry are necessary if we wish to plant a crop which will be of great value to the country. In the marginal areas, land must come out of cereal growing. The best and only way I can see to achieve that in a realistic manner is to pay a reasonable set-aside amount. I know that our figure in this country does not cover overheads in nearly every case. Also, in marginal, second-class land, a sensible extensification scheme for encouraging more grass and less intensive methods is possible. One could be worked out which would be a great help to those areas and would replace production of uneconomic grain.
With the hills and uplands, the headage payment and other payments to farms are absolutely essential. No one has yet suggested a way in which agriculture in these areas can be replaced as a basic method of keeping the place alive and retaining the population. The hill land compensatory allowances must be increased and we must tie them to environmental objects.
For goodness' sake, let us look at the policy and people who apply these environmental objectives. There is the extraordinary case in Scotland of which everyone has heard. One of the best and biggest hill farmers in Scotland, John Cameron, bought an estate and produced a plan to develop it and to plant trees, and so improve grazing and hold and increase the population. One would have said that it was an admirable plan for the people of the area. He put that plan before the Nature Conservancy Council. A young man from that body visited John Cameron. The young man was no doubt highly intelligent and no doubt he had a beard too. The young man considered the plan and looked at the land in question. He said the plan was no good. John Cameron asked the young man what he should do with his land. He offered to plant any kind of tree that was recommended to him and to preserve any rare orchids that might be on his land.
The young man replied that there was nothing John Cameron could do. He said he liked the land. He considered it was a wonderful example of wilderness and should be left alone. That decision cost the Government a great deal of money. If we are to have an effective environment programme that kind of decision cannot be allowed. For goodness sake let us have practical people making these decisions as well as scientists. In reaching their decisions they should consider all the aspects of the matter. They should be people who care about communities as well as corncrakes. If the Government recruited such people we might achieve an effective environment policy.
5.1 p.m
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my concerns may seem rather small in comparison with those of my noble friend Lord Hatch. However, I am sure your Lordships will agree that when we have finished saving the planet we must be certain that the world we have saved was worth it. Therefore I make no apology for returning to problems nearer home. Most of my remarks will concern the continuing pressure on our countryside. In the gracious Speech there was a lack of positive proposals on this matter. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, seemed optimistic that we would discuss countryside matters as time went on. I hope that will be the case and I look forward to those discussions. In the meantime, however, I shall draw attention to matters that are causing concern.
We have discovered that private legislation as a means of authorising transport development schemes is to be ended. I know that many noble Lords will welcome that step as the existing arrangements were often us,1 to avoid the normal planning procedures. We also applaud the fact that the proposed changes were the subject of consultation. However, we share the concern of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that the Government have gone back on an important agreement on procedure. It had been agreed that the final decision should be made by Parliament after a public inquiry had been completed so that Parliament could make its decision knowing all the facts. However, on 17th May a Department of Transport press notice announced that this procedure was to be reversed and that parliamentary debate would precede a public inquiry.
The CPRE was dismayed by that move. It stated in a letter to the Secretary of State on 18th June:
"CPRE believes that it is appropriate for Parliament to reserve the right to take the final decision on some projects of national importance. But, where the projects in question stand to affect adversely the rights of large groups of individual; in particular places, this should occur after there has been an opportunity for detailed scrutiny and debate through a public inquiry. The notion that Parliament should decide the principle of a controversial development affecting the lives of possibly thousands of individuals before its implications have been properly assessed and scrutinised is, quite simply, misguided given recent experience which has shown the inadequacy of existing Parliamentary review mechanisms … The resentment created by Parliament's decision in principle on the basis of such unsatisfactory scrutiny would, moreover, have unpredictable and possibly volatile effects on any public inquiry that followed".
Perhaps that procedure is not a final decision on the part of the Government and we shall be able to discuss it when the appropriate Bill comes before the House. As an ex ample of putting the cart before the horse, that measure is astounding even by the present standard, of the Department of Transport.
The whole question of landscape beauty in connection with roads needs to be considered. I apologise for referring to transport matters but there appears to be no other occasion this week when I can do so. The transport proposals I shall refer to will have serious repercussions for the environment. The Government's £12 billion road building programme poses an extremely serious threat to areas of high landscape beauty and public enjoyment and to the work of organisations which seek to protect them. The
176
proposals as they stand will affect 12 out of our 38 areas of outstanding natural beauty and will damage 27 sites of special scientific interest.
Foremost among the organisations affected is the National Trust, which is greatly concerned by the proposals. As one of the largest landowners in the country, the trust has had to face road proposals on a regular basis. However, never before has it had to cope with road building on the scale of the current programme—some 40 of the proposed road schemes are likely to affect trust properties. It is both the exceptional number of the proposals and their insensitivity to the areas' amenity and landscape value which are causing such concern to conservationists.
Among the schemes which would damage trust properties are the bypass proposals for Morecombelake and Melbury Abbas in Dorset which would run through parts of the Golden Cap Estate and Melbury Down respectively. These are some of the most prized landscapes in the South of England. Another proposed scheme, the A.3 bypass of Hindhead in Surrey, would take a corner of the Devil's Punchbowl. That is a highly prized local beauty spot in an otherwise built-up area.
There is no doubt that some roads urgently need improvement in order to relieve congestion, to cope with increasing traffic, either actual or forecast, and to reduce road accidents. We question, however, whether the Government give adequate consideration to possible environmental effects and to the development of alternatives. It would also be much easier to develop a considered environmentally-sensitive strategy if the Government were to look at problem areas in the context of the whole road or region concerned instead of in the piecemeal fashion in which they currently address these areas.
If further evidence were needed of these problems, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales reminds us of the difficulties being caused by piecemeal development of the A.5. The Brecknock branch of the CPRW wrote to the highways department of the Welsh Office. The letter states:
"There appears to be no coherent policy for the A40 as a whole. We believe there should be a primary long-term objective to deter heavy industrial traffic from using the A40 west of Abergavenny through the national park and some of the most attractive and least developed countryside in South Wales".
The branch wants such traffic routed along the A.465 Heads of the Valleys road already scheduled for improvement. The letter continues:
"Unless there is a positive strategy for deflecting such traffic from the A40, the removal of each bottleneck will attract more lorries, thereby increasing pressure for yet more expensive schemes, which in turn will attract more heavy goods vehicles".
We are all familiar with that pattern. There is already a tarmac web over our countryside, but that tarmac is as gossamer compared with the roads the Government have planned. The Government must make the environment a higher priority if roads are not to continue the steady destruction of what was once our green and pleasant land.
I wish to refer now to some other omissions from the gracious Speech. Those omissions should be noted. It is very disappointing that, despite previous

177
commitments from the Government concerning landscape protection orders in national parks, no proposals have yet been produced. Landscape protection orders have been under discussion since 1986 when Mrs. Rumbold, in her then capacity, announced plans for them. That announcement was followed six months later by a consultation document. In May 1987 the Conservative Party manifesto promised greater protection for national parks. We are now in the last Session of that Parliament and the commitment has still not been honoured.
There is also the question of hedgerow protection. The case has been argued in this House many times and I do not want to go over it again. Your Lordships are familiar with the saga of destruction and the many figures which are bandied about. However, I remind the House that, despite the replanting which has undoubtedly taken place, between 1984 and 1990 there was still a net loss of 85,000 kilometres of hedgerow. The Government have admitted the need for action and constantly say that they see it as a priority. However, a clause in the Planning and Compensation Bill which would have been helpful was deleted by the Government. Their commitment to this environmental feature must be in question.
I now turn briefly to ESAs, the creation of which we all welcomed at the time. A very promising start was made but progress appears to have stopped. I was very glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, give a commitment of continuing government support for ESAs. However, earlier this year, in discussion with Government departments and farmers, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds identified 11 areas which were suitable for designation within the government's criteria in terms of bird conservation and many other qualities. What seemed to be constructive and progressive sessions with government departments and farmers have so far produced no result. Can the Minister give the House this afternoon any details of progress? Does she know whether any of those areas are to be designated and when we can expect an announcement?
Finally, I turn, perhaps inevitably, to the question of the protection of common land. I have raised this subject many times in this House, by various methods. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments again today. However, perhaps I may just remind your Lordships of the length of time this story has been running. It began in 1955 with a Royal Commission on Common Land. That commission sat from 1955 to 1958 and there was agreement that action was urgently needed. Thereafter there was a long history of conferences and reports, culminating in a report by the Common Land Forum which was published in May 1986. Subsequently there were arguments with the Moorlands Association and other bodies. Nevertheless, in May 1987 the Conservative Party election manifesto again gave a firm commitment that the Conservatives would legislate in this Parliament to protect common land. Again, we are in the last Session and there is no sign of that commitment being honoured.
178
If there are further environmental commitments in the next Conservative Party manifesto we shall all view them with some suspicion in view of what has happened to those two very firm earlier commitments which I have mentioned.
I am disappointed that there was not more in the gracious Speech about those concerns, which are shared by so many people in this country. In spite of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in relation to the developments in Scotland, they are no longer the concerns only of bearded, sandalled environmentalists. Conservation bodies have enormous memberships. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has a membership which is approaching 1 million; the National Trust has 1½ million members, and there is a descending scale of membership of other bodies. Added together they amount to millions of people in this country who are concerned about the matters which I have mentioned. I beg the Government to take them seriously.
I know that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is prepared to wait until the next Labour Government but I do not believe that we have much time. I believe that some of these matters need to be attended to now and cannot wait even another six months.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, today's debate on the gracious Speech linking local government, the environment and agriculture has resulted in many tours of the inside of the town hall and a few occasional excursions into other areas. I propose very briefly to take an excursion into the countryside. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington for saying in her introductory speech what good things were in store which the Government hope to enact, and in particular that there was to be support for the farming community in the event of the common agricultural policy being so reformed as to make agriculture in this country untenable for the majority. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for producing the statistical analysis—which I had not done—which supports what I shall say.
For those who live in the country as I do—and here I must declare an interest and my connection with planning—the principal worry now is that the prosperity of farming will be destroyed by the reform of the common agricultural policy. I agree that the common agricultural policy has worked itself into a nonsensical position, but there is anxiety about what will happen if prices are reduced to anything like the extent currently proposed. It would then be impossible for farmers to survive. They would go bankrupt or give up. What are we to do about it? We must have a policy to prevent the depopulation of the countryside.
We are now faced with the situation which existed in the 'twenties and 'thirties. I well remember when I was a student at Cambridge the late Wilfred Mansfield describing the downward spiral in agriculture. He had a gloomy voice, which I could not attempt to imitate. He said that first farmers starve the land, then they starve the animals, then they starve themselves. We cannot allow that to happen again. We have had some 50 or so

179
years of prosperity. We must ensure that we do not destroy it, either at the whim of Brussels or through confusion about our objectives in this country.
Without enough to live on, the outlook for farmers is grim. I am sure that noble Lords in this House who have knowledge of agriculture will agree. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Department of Agriculture have produced a considerable range of schemes such as set-aside and the farm woodland scheme, all of which alleviate the situation. However, I do not believe that they are enough.
Such schemes are valuable but they do not require the hard-up farmer to put up much money in front. If he is to broaden his base of activity, he must think of new enterprises. That almost invariably requires money up front. Before he does that, he has to carry out market research to find out whether he will have any customers. There is no point in building something, or starting up an enterprise making something if there are no customers. I am in the caravan business and I remember being assailed by somebody who said that it was rotten that people were building caravans and advertising all over the place and yet a caravan park which belonged to a relation had had only three visitors during the whole of the year. Its position may have suffered as a result of the road network and the weather of central Wales, but that person had not done any market research. I suspect that he had not counted the caravans going past the gate. He had perhaps failed to get a sign at the nearest main road due to the malign influence of the planners. I do not know, but it can happen if you do not do your homework.
If you intend to do market research to any extent, it must be relevant to your position and you must therefore pay for it. It is expensive. Time is involved. I urge my noble friend the Minister to commend to her department that good quality market research should be a supportable operation in considering farm diversification or extensification. That would prevent mistakes and enable the applicant to carry more weight with his banker who will doubtless be extremely suspicious because he will already be eyeing his customer's bank balance which is probably negative. It will also help considerably in finding a partner who may produce some of the cash and skills necessary to exploit the great asset of the farmer; namely, the position of his farm and the area that it occupies. That is what he must sell and it is up to him to find a way of doing so.
When the farmer reaches that stage, he will encounter another hazard. Every district has one; it is called the planning committee. Planning committees tend to take a conservative view—conservative with a small 'c' I hasten to add for the benefit of the Benches opposite—of what is good for the country. They think that if it is not there already, it is probably bad news. They entirely forget the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the countryside is substantially artificial. It has been created over the centuries by the toil of those who lived there in the expectation that their work. would be rewarded by prosperity.
Your Lordships' House recently passed the Planning and Compensation Act. One of the
180
unexpected effects of that Act is that local plans will carry much more weight than they did previously. Inevitably, a local plan will tend to be prepared by looking backwards, not by looking forwards. Looking forwards is always dangerous, particularly in the eyes of people who feel that they might be assailed by conservationists of every hue and type. Local plans will therefore almost certainly seek to preserve the status quo perhaps with minor improvements or desirable objectives; but they will not cater for the need to re-use substantial areas of farmland which, to put it bluntly, are now redundant. I hope that the noble Baroness and her department will urge, through the appropriate channels, that those planning committees and those plans should take full account of the social implications of what is happening in agriculture so that our beautiful countryside can be maintained and those who live there can take pride in doing useful work in pleasant surroundings.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that we cannot allow agriculture to die while we all look the other way. I urge that flexibility of development, much of which will in any event be small-scale and reversible —indeed, some may be ephemeral—should be allowed with the minimum of bureaucracy in planning departments.
Finally, I should like to give my heartiest congratulations to my noble friend the Minister and her department for solving that long-running problem; namely, the export of horses. I am truly grateful for the great success which her department has had in the face of much hostility.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I welcomed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, although I am sorry that he is not in his place when I pay tribute to his wise and balanced speech. He reminded us that local government reorganisation was not exclusively a London affair, and that appropriate local government reorganisation in Scotland would follow. Noble Lords will recall that Scotland was the guinea pig for the poll tax. The noble Lord reminded the Government that, when they scrutinise the matter further and consider the future of local government, they should listen to the views expressed. I well recall debating the matter well into the night together with the late Lord Ross of Marnock. It was a great bore to English Members of the House; but if they read the debate in Hansard, they will see that it would have greatly benefited the Government if they had listened to the views expressed. I therefore hope that Ministers will listen carefully to the views expressed with regard to any proposals for local government reorganisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made another point that interested me particularly. That was his final reference to the importance of forestry. Members of this House may not be surprised to hear that I wish to develop that theme this afternoon. I have received two glossy brochures about forestry in the last day or two. That is one thing about forestry literature; it lends itself to beautiful pictures. The first is from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am sure that this

181
will be of special interest to my noble friend Lady Nicol who speaks authoritatively on behalf of that organisation from time to time. In its beautiful 50-page document, the RSPB concludes:
"we believe that Government should now undertake a thorough review of forestry, leading to a single statement of policy, setting long-term objectives, targets, and objectives for existing forests".
If there is one thing that we can do without in the forestry industry, it is another review of long-term strategy.
Almost by the same post there arrived on my desk an equally beautiful and glossy document entitled Forestry Policy for Great Britain, published by the Government as recently as September 1991. I commend to the RSPB and its almost 3 million enthusiastic members a study of the Government's policy towards forestry in that document because it has much to commend it. It sets out the basic policy stating that:
"Forests and woodlands are an integral part of the rural environment, providing important opportunities for recreation and for public access to the countryside. They are also a valued component of our landscapes and an essential habitat for wildlife. Our forestry industry makes a substantial and increasing contribution to meeting the growing national demand for timber and provides support and employment to people living in rural communities … The two main aims of the Government's forestry policy are thus:
The sustainable management of our existing woods and forests.
A steady expansion of tree cover to increase the many, diverse benefits that forests provide".
I welcome the Government's commitment. That document is sponsored by all three Ministers involved with forestry and I hope that it will be studied carefully.
The one disappointment in the document is the introduction next to the picture of Mr. Ian Lang, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who says:
"The record of Government forestry policy initiatives over the past 12 years has been one of considerable progress and achievement".
I assume that when the Minister made that Statement in all good faith he had not seen the planting figures for the year ended 31st March 1991, because in the document he confirms that the government target is 33,000 hectares per annum of new planting in order to sustain the industry. In fact last year the private sector planted 11,700 hectares, not 33,000 hectares.
The poor old Forestry Commission, which only a few years ago was planting 11,000 hectares per annum, now plants between 3,000 and 4,000 hectares per annum. So instead of reaching a declared target under the Government—the farm woodland scheme represents another 3,500 hectares a year—last year there were something like 18,000 hectares planted compared with the government target of 33,000 hectares. I hope that in addition to publishing those excellent objectives the Government will take some steps to realise the implications of the policy which they have agreed.
This is a sad situation because the immediate effect of the decline in planting is not apparent. One gets the first thinnings in 12 or 15 years for the pulp industry and it is probably around 30 years for mature timber, while the famous hardwoods will not mature for a
182
hundred years. So forestry is a long-term investment which does not lend itself to short-term considerations.
What does the decline of planting mean to the large pulp industries which we have induced to invest in Britain? Two years ago one plant in Scotland attracted an investment of £100 million and a similar investment took place at Shotton. We have pretended to those people that there will be a ready and continuing supply of timber when in fact—and it is not apparent—today's decline in planting will now make that supply almost impossible. There will be great difficulty in fulfilling it.
I should like to quote just one more basic figure. The import of timber and timber products to this country costs £6 billion per annum in our balance of payments. One month's supply of total exports from the United Kingdom is nullified by the import of £6 billion of timber and timber products. Surely there is a basic economic interest in doing something about that situation.
I very much regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is not now in her place. She speaks frequently and eloquently on behalf of the conservationists. I should like to say a few words to expand on the recent case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It is the case of John Cameron, who bought land in Glen Lyon and produced a plan in which there would be some diversity—sheep farming, forestry and so on. It was a mixed development of that estate, which was eminently sensible and which he agreed to adjust if necessary in order to accommodate environmental interests. That estate is designated an SSSI and he had to apply to the Nature Conservancy Council for permission to carry out his plan. That was refused. It is a 4,000 acre estate but even a sheep pen the size of a football field was not permitted under the precious SSSI. John Cameron then went to the land court in Scotland and asked for compensation for the non-development of his estate. The cheque which he has recently received amounted to £600,000 for the lack of development and something like £150,000 in interest—the matter had been going on for some time —plus his expenses. He received a cheque for £1 million for doing nothing. The birds and plants in Glenlochy must be very expensive ones.
That warning should be heeded. I understand that there are some 20 cases of similar applications which are still pending. I hope that our conservationist friends will take heed of the implications of some of the restrictions and inhibitions that have been placed on sensible land use and development, particularly in Scotland but also elsewhere.
I want to make just one more comment in connection with our RSPB friends who seem to visualise that somehow or other the development of forestry is against the interests of good land use or sensible planning. People who go into forestry do not do so to make money. Take the example of the young man described in the supplement to today's Times. People go into forestry because they love the countryside. Many of them resent directives from people in London about how they should manage

183
their countryside. There are dedicated people in the Forestry Commission. They are dedicated because they love what they do.
I suggest to the Government that they should look again at their policy and ask how we can produce the minimum 33,000 hectares which they have confirmed as their target. I ask them to look again at that matter. When I was chairman of the Forestry Commission, the private sector and the public sector worked together. They both planted about the same amount every year—around 11,000 to 15,000 hectares. They worked together in training and in research. There was a happy partnership in what was a model of a mixed economy. Why in heaven's name should that pattern be destroyed by selling off the Forestry Commission for ideological reasons when the private sector has not taken up the slack from the decline in Forestry Commission planting?
These matters should not be viewed in the short term; nor should they be considered in ideological terms. The Government should be proud of the Forestry Commission. They should not necessarily destroy the high morale that exists in that organisation. I urge the Government to take a further look at their forestry policy if they intend to implement their declared intentions.
5.38 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, for a long time I have wanted to bring forward some matters about local government. They are not covered in the consultation and local government review published in April 1991; nor are they in the consultation paper, A new tax for local government. My thesis is this: how far is the present set-up democratic in the general sense of the word?
I do not put forward just a party line on the merits of proportional representation, although I see that as an important way forward which would avoid some of the extreme situations which have arisen from time to time. We talk about democracy. That does not imply that everyone who has a button on his television set should vote on everything about which he has little knowledge; nor should we hide behind the not unreasonable argument that democracy means government by the duly elected representatives of the people.
Straightaway one sees that on the last point there is a problem. As we well know, the people who stand for election may simply have been nominated by a majority of some extremist group which has managed to take over the local elected party. That has been seen in Liverpool and elsewhere with disastrous results. So we should consider how far the simplistic ideas are what we mean by democracy. Recently I heard democracy defined more subtly; namely, as a symbiosis in which the will of the people is balanced with the wellbeing of the state.
Had there been proportional representation, would it have been necessary from the Conservatives' point of view to abolish the Greater London Council? So much of its work on a non-political basis was truly useful and cannot easily be provided by a grouping of
184
several other regional bodies. They lack the GLC's overview and ability to provide expensive expertise where it is needed. We have lost something.
What are the failings of our local government system at present? In general terms it is scarcely democratic in any sense of the word. Too few vote for any candidate except on party lines. Party politics should be only a minor consideration in local elections. What should matter are the qualities of the candidate which make him or her suitable to represent the electors, local knowledge and a large dose of common sense.
How many people know their council representatives or even consider such knowledge important to them? There are basically two problems. The first lies in getting the right people to stand for local elections. There are plenty of very capable older people with experience and qualifications. But what about the young? Too many of those who come forward in reality are power seekers or activists. Those who might be able or willing to give the time have other demands on them. In this imperfect world what should be done? I give no solutions. But of course one mentions larger payments to councillors. I wonder, my Lords!
Secondly, we ought to have more interest from the electorate. Electors should not cast their vote, if they vote at all, solely on party lines. I believe that the Australians may be right. They insist that people who do not vote should have to pay a fine or other penalty.
Although I can understand why there are objections to proportional representation for national elections, I can see nothing against it for local government. It should mean that councils are more balanced and that one party with only a small majority on the council does not completely dominate all decisions, sometimes even at the expense of important local issues.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to abolish the poll tax. With your Lordships' permission, I wish to speak about that today. If noble Lords will permit an historical reference, the new Poor Law of 1834 sought to discipline those local authorities which paid out poor relief on the basis of family need. It was probably the most detested piece of legislation in the 19th century. A couple of years previously Lord Melbourne, then Home Secretary, confessed to being rather worried about getting his legislation through the newly reformed parliament. "I will always support you when you are in the right, Lord Melbourne", said one of the young MPs to him. "Be damned to that", said Lord Melbourne with his customary charm, "When I'm in the right the question looks after itself. I need your support when I'm in the wrong". When the new Poor Law was imposed in the North, it generated Chartism, brought in the opposition and deformed social policy for a generation.
The poll tax may likewise be regarded in future years as one of this century's most unpopular pieces of legislation. Now, £l4 billion of costs and sweeteners later—the sum may eventually be nearer £20 billion —the Government have acknowledged in the Queen's

185
Speech, in Lord Melbourne's phrase, that they were in the wrong. In the inimitable words of the Prime Minister as reported in the Daily Mail:
"I'll tell you about the poll tax. We were bounced into it … without thinking".
That is an honourable admission. However, in the process the poll tax has placed about one adult in three in debt to his local authority and looks set to put one adult in five through the courts by the end of the year. Summonses have been issued and ignored; liability orders go unpaid; warrants are undelivered; bailiffs are denied access; and the police prudently stand by. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, what is hard to forgive about the poll tax is that the Government have recklessly squandered the law-abiding instincts of ordinary people.
As CIPFA, one of the local authority institutions, has said, people now consider that,
"Local taxes are vulnerable to local pressure not to pay".
It suspects that the council tax, a flagship of the Queen's Speech, may well face the same problem.
We regret that no mention was made in the Queen's Speech that the 20 per cent. contribution would be immediately abolished. Anything that costs two and a half times as much to collect as it brings in must be financially perverse. However, the Minister justified the 20 per cent. contribution last year on two grounds: first, it was a matter of major principle that everyone contributed—that principle has now been discarded—and, secondly, that income support levels would have to be readjusted. When the 20 per cent. rule is abolished in April 1993 are the Government really proposing to cut income support for those who are too often among the homeless at the same time as those rich enough to own a second home will find their liability on it halved by the council tax?
Among the 800 consultation papers in response to the Government's proposals, I cannot find one that favours keeping the 20 per cent. contribution in the dying years of the poll tax—and why? It is not just on the ground of financial hardship, although that is severe enough. It is not just on the ground of financial perversity, although that is real enough. It is because the poll tax was at least introduced against a background of a stable rating system which virtually collected itself. The rates were almost on autopilot while city and county treasurers set up the poll tax. However, against a background of administrative, financial and legal turmoil we shall now see a council tax, more complex than the poll tax, introduced in half the time, while simultaneously the poll tax collapses, arrears and court cases mount and councils have to contract out their finance function under CCT in 1993.
Systems are collapsing. The software will crash. The Government may guillotine the Bill referred to in the gracious Speech so that it passes through Parliament on time. However, without removing the 20 per cent. contribution well in advance I have to say that they will not see the council tax introduced in local government on time.
I hope that noble Lords will allow me to spend a little time on the council tax, the flagship of the Queen's Speech. The poll tax fell because it is unfair and unworkable. So too I fear is the council tax. It is
186
not fair among households within an authority. It is not fair among properties within an authority. It is not fair among authorities. Let me enlarge on that. On fairness among householders, as noble Lords will know, a pensioner couple who are barely above rebate level will pay a third more in council tax than a single millionaire. Rebates are fair because they relate to income; discounts are unfair because they do not. Indeed, since for the single person discounts are proposed to be a percentage of basic bill, not a flat rate, they will help most those who live in the highest value houses.
Is it nonetheless true that single people make less use of local authority services? That appears to be the assumption behind the single person discount. That too is doubtful. Perhaps I may take the largest services. First, education: a single person will use an education service no more and no less than a childless couple. An elderly widow whose children have grown up will use the service no more and no less than a pensioner couple. Secondly, sheltered services or sheltered housing: in my experience the single, elderly widow uses such services rather more than a pensioner couple who are still able to support each other. Thirdly, roads: car usage depends not at all on whether one is single but very much on gender and job. Fourthly, street services such as cleaning, lighting, police and fire: household size is irrelevant. So what is the justification for a single person discount if it is not related to ability to pay—which it is not—and appears to be only doubtfully related to the use of services? I suggest that it is not fair.
Secondly, as we understand it from the Bill, the council tax is not fair because properties within an authority are not properly and rightly assessed. With only eight national bands properties bunch in the bottom of those bands in the North and in the top in the South. Of course the more that properties bunch, the more flat rate and regressive the council tax becomes. In Hull two-thirds of all property is in the single bottom band. It is virtually a flat rate tax, like the poll tax that it is supposed to replace. Individual valuations, many more bands and regional variations might have made the council tax valuation system more fair but in the paving Bill the Government refused the lot.
The council tax is also unfair between authorities. The Government have said that they will not change the standard spending assessment and grant structure. Grants are designed to intermesh the needs of a local authority with its resources. The Government say that as regards the needs element the standard spending assessment will remain in place. It is unreasonable to have an SSA which, on the one hand, ignores economic deprivation such as homelessness or unemployment but, on the other hand, includes tourist nights as an indication of hardship and need. Does anyone outside Westminster City Council believe that to be fair?
The resources side of the grant allocation will be equally flawed because the Government have stated that properties of equal value will denote equal ability to pay. That assumes that all properties denote equal ability to pay but they do not. As all noble Lords

187
know, property prices vary more than incomes and as a result I he most deprived inner London boroughs will find themselves penalised twice over. The Audit Commission has warned that the grant structure commands no confidence outside Marsham Street. I ask the Minister to look again.
I suggest that the council tax is not fair between people, s not fair between properties and is not fair between authorities. However, will it work? No, my Lords. Council tax is a property tax crossed with a poll tax and as a result it is more complex than either. So what do we have? We start with a dubious property valuation done from the back of a car which will place properties in artificially compressed bands on the basis of which the Government will use their discredited standard spending assessment to distribute grant. Local authorities will then estimate their poundage and produce a householder's bill. We are halfway there.
Now ask local authorities to rework that bill for transitional arrangements. Now rework that bill a second time for the single person discount and/or status discounts. Now rework that bill a third time for the rebate on the liable householder's bill. Is that a final bill? No, not quite—now do the calculations all over again in case it is financially better not to claim the rebate for the householder but the low income discount for the second adult. If that second adult should move during the course of the year, and half of them probably will, calculate the bill again. Oh, and as the final bill will depend on all the adults in the household and their relationships to each other being calculated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly said, keep a register as well.
The Bill is asking local government to set up a council tax in half the time that they had to introduce the poll tax. They are being asked to set up a council tax in half the time while chasing arrears, while still closing down the old rates, while trying to close down the poll tax, while still seeking to collect the business rate and while their staff face redundancy under compulsive competitive tendering.
I suggest to your Lordships that in replacing the poll tax with the council tax the Government are replacing the indefensible with the unworkable. It is not fair, it will not work and it will not last.
5.56 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am sorry that I am unable to follow the noble Baroness in her vigorous argument about local government and the poll tax. I freely admit that to do so is beyond my competence; it is not my subject. I wish to speak for a short time about the environment globally and locally, about farming, the CAP and the differences that will occur and Mr. MacSharry's plan or whatever might eventuate. Finally, I wish to peer into the future and see what might happen. I believe that a gloomy picture is evolving in the countryside.
As regards a global strategy for the environment, whatever is said in Nairobi or Rio, it appears to be something of a failure. The North Sea is filthy because of the Rhine and the Schelde, for instance. Our ships are tied up for 10 days each month because there are
188
not enough fish. At least two nations have begun to catch whales again. The rain forests are still being burnt and the ozone layer is bigger. It would appear that although there may be talk nothing much is happening. It is easy to understand why. How on earth one gets so many people from such diverse nations together I do not know.
I remember a debate in this House sometime ago about the quality of life. I believe that we should think back to that debate. The two main reasons why the world is in such a mess are that there are too many people, particularly in the third world, and that the people in the first world demand too high a quality of life. They produce masses of people; we demand masses of motor cars. They are the main problems that should be tackled on an international scale.
When I joined your Lordships' House the Lord Chancellor was Lord Gardiner. He was most keen on a charity called Countdown. However, one has not counted much down in India, Brazil and so on. They are the two most important issues to be resolved, after which one might begin to think about agreement on other matters.
I now turn to the environment, local or parochial, in this country. I have been in your Lordships' House for 20 years and it seems that during those 20 years we have discovered pollution, animal welfare, and so on. There has been a mass of legislation some of which has been incorporated in larger Bills; for example, the Water Bill. Some of that legislation is contained in smaller Bills, and there have been various Bills dealing with animal welfare. I should not say that any of that was bad. However, we should be aware that nearly all those rules and regulations have taken the sharp edge off competitive farming. They were not very competitive before. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is not in his seat. They were very competitive in comparison with European farmers but because of the costs of our labour and machinery, our demands are far too high and years ago we priced ourselves out of the world market. We may be talking of £80 per tonne, as I said in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, but some countries can produce wheat at £40 per tonne.
That blunts the farmer to begin with. Probably quite rightly, he is prohibited from making as much money as he might have made. We now have the CAP debacle which will be very difficult. We have been given figures. At the moment farmers are having a fairly thin time and some are having an extremely thin time. However, if what we read about happens, times will be far thinner and far more difficult. I spoke about this in a previous debate. It is of prime importance that when we go to Brussels to discuss this matter, we must use every power which we possess to get away from the idea which they have on the Continent that they must always support the smaller farmer. As we all know, that is always to our detriment and is grossly unfair.
What then must the farmer do and what is he doing now? From personal experience and experience of farmers who farm locally, the farmer is drawing in his horns. I share the same teacher as my noble friend Lord Cochrane. He always said that high farming is

189
no answer to low prices. We are not high farming but we are drawing in our horns on variable costs. That does not make a great deal of difference. Then one must attack vigorously fixed costs, which amounts to machinery and labour. There is already a substantial build up of redundancies. In the countryside redundancy is extremely difficult because there is little alternative work. I have tried to draw a comparison, and in a certain newspaper, I read about a number of mining redundancies in Nottinghamshire. That is the same sort of situation because those people are also stuck where they are. The farmers who lose their farming jobs find it difficult to find an alternative. There is nothing to do.
In my opinion, when that happens the villages will die. Some people say that they will change because the country has changed. Totally different people live in the country. There used to be controversy at one time and now townspeople have come to live in the country. The controversies have not gone away. In fact, they have worsened.
One matter which may well happen in that future scenario is that people will become redundant. There are already redundancies and I could quote figures but I shall not waste your Lordships' time. However, if those figures are looked at on a country-wide basis, the picture would be fairly horrifying. Land will be set-aside and if that is done, it does not require much work. We are told to mow it twice a year but it does not take a contractor very long to do that.
Over the years many buildings have been constructed and until recently, all have been grant-aided by the farm and horticultural fund. They are modern buildings built from asbestos and steel. They are dotted about all over England. We have all seen them. Some people say they are hideous. However, they exist. They are factory units and have been so named. I do not say that factory owners or manufacturers will necessarily take them up, but on occasions they may do so. That would create alternative employment for country people who are thrown out of work.
I suggest—and this is the only part of local government which I wish to touch upon—that considerations of employment should become a very important part of planning. In some way or other planners should be made aware—perhaps forced—to consider carefully the employment implications when they look at, for example, the change of user of any barn or other building. At present foul rumour has it that planners do not like those buildings and would rather see them left empty or even pulled down. I can think of nothing worse than that.
I should like to make one suggestion. Which agency should deal with the situation? The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, was sitting in front of me but is not now in his place. However, the Rural Development Commission is beautifully equipped to deal with the unemployment retraining situation. Unfortunately it has a small budget from the DoE. However, it has power to subsidise the conversion of buildings such as those about which I have spoken. It has training schemes and it could use real force to get people working again
190
and to keep going the villages and communities. However, the figure of £28 million is derisory in the face of the problem. There cannot be a better agency through which those changes might be effected, but it will need at least twice as much money, if not more than that.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I congratulate my young colleague, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, on a very competent maiden speech. It illustrated some of the events taking place in a London authority on which he serves as a councillor. I was pleased to hear him mention his father whom we knew as Tom. I express the appreciation which we owe to his father for the kind way in which he helped new Members when they came to your Lordships' House. Nothing was too much trouble and he made the way easy for most of us.
I was interested in my noble friend's reference to the financial situation in his local authority and also the authority in which I live. I find it strange that I live in the City of Westminster, where property has much higher values than where I live in the North, yet I pay to the local authority here only one third as much as I pay in the North.
The local authority to which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred has a nil community charge. There is no question but that the Government broke with the tradition of impartiality of treating local authorities even-handedly, whatever their political colours. It will be interesting to see whether any more jiggery pokery emerges. The residents in the local authority of which my noble friend spoke and on which he serves, and where I live in London—unless I have misread the Bill or some jiggery pokery is introduced—will have to meet the full blast of whatever charges are introduced under the Bill when it becomes an Act. It will be interesting to see whether the Government's popularity remains high in such areas when the Bill is enacted.
I shall not dwell on that aspect any more. We shall deal with the Bill in due course. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, we shall look at it on its merits and, in the interests of the people, where we can amend it we shall try to do so. I wish to speak on a subject that, strangely enough, received no mention in the gracious Speech; the subject of housing. In certain sections of our community that is our biggest social problem. Despite what Ministers at the Dispatch Box say, whether it be in your Lordships' House or in another place, the situation is continuing to deteriorate.
I wonder why there was no mention of housing in the gracious Speech. I can only assume that it is an admission of guilt or something of that nature as regards housing people in this country. Over the past four or five years there have been questions from all sides of this House on the increase in the numbers of homeless people. I mentioned it last year in the corresponding debate on the gracious Speech. I said that coming along the Strand I had been surprised to see that each doorway was almost totally full with young people sleeping there. Last week, at 9.30 in the morning—not the evening—I walked along

191
Tottenham Court Road on an errand. Youngsters were just coming out of the doorways with their sleeping bags. That is Tottenham Court Road.
We are continually told that things are getting better. There was a reference in the gracious Speech to the regeneration of the inner cities. However, that is not what I am talking about. I am speaking of those areas in the cities where, historically, people have lived but which are now beginning to die rapidly of arteriosclerosis. The Government are not allowing the local authorities the finance to put their houses in order and maintain them as they should be maintained.
Should one wish to consider the situation on the basis of figures, the Library kindly looked some out for me. They showed that in 1979 around 3 million houses were available for rent in the private sector. In 1989 the figure was down to 1.68 million. That is a tremendous loss and one which is getting worse; those figures will have been out of date by the time they were printed. In new town local authorities, in 1979 there were 6.7 million houses for rent. In December of last year that figure had fallen to 5.438 million. There was therefore a loss of 1,260,000 houses for rent.
I know why the figure for owner occupation has risen; it is due to the enormous sale of local authority houses—over 1 million. Let us not forget that. The scheme has been an outstanding success for those who live in council houses and wish to buy them. But even dispassionate and non-political people such as those attending the bishops' conventions and the ecclesiastical conventions are saying that it has had an adverse effect on the ability of local authorities to rehouse homeless people. As I say, it is a good thing for those in a position to buy a council house. However, we now have a Prime Minister who has issued a number of charters. He is on record as saying that he wants to preside over a fairer Britain. I will give the House some figures which may be worth considering and perhaps your Lordships will decide whether it is a fairer Britain as regards housing.
Only a week last Saturday I took one of my grandsons for a walk in the area where I live; it is a place called Denton on the outskirts of Manchester. I passed a modest "semi" built within the past 20 years. It was empty because it had been repossessed. It was falling into disrepair. It had been repossessed because the owners could not pay the mortgage.
I walked on through a place called Haughton Green and came to a delightful place that I did not know existed. It was a row of cottages. I happened to speak about the area to a man coming the other way. He said, "I do not live in those cottages. I live in those council houses at the top". That is a council estate owned by the City of Manchester. It was built by direct labour when I was the chairman in Manchester. They are very nice houses, traditionally built. The man did not know who I was and I did not tell him. He said, "I'm going to buy my house. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally Labour. I'll vote Labour. But I can't get anything done to the house because the council has no money". I asked what he would pay for the house. It was a quasi-semi, the middle one of four. He said, "It has been valued at £35,000 but I'll buy it
192
for £13,000. However, there's one in the same avenue which a couple bought some time ago when the valuations were a lot lower and they only paid £3,000. They have sold it for £48,000".
One can compare that treatment with the treatment of the 48,000 families who were dispossessed last year. When calculating what those discounts are worth, in the case of the first house it would have been around £60 a week towards paying off their mortgage if the owners had been buying it in the normal way. In the case of the second, with a £23,000 discount the man is actually receiving a direct credit of over £40 a week. At the same time, young owner occupiers are being slung out on the streets in increasing numbers and the Government are standing by and watching it happen.
Where is the fair-handed treatment in that situation? If one person can receive a discount on a council house, it is surely right for young people who want to buy a house to have the same scale of financial assistance to help them set up home for their families. Make no mistake: an overwhelming number of families who have been dispossessed will never get back into the housing market. They will have to be catered for by somebody else.
This debate gives me a feeling of déjà vu. With your Lordships' permission, I could echo what I said last year in the same debate, when I asked a question which was never answered. A couple of weeks ago the noble Baroness sat on the Bench Opposite and gave some figures for what the Government were supposed to be doing. The inference was that they had found extra funding for housing. I submitted those figures to the AMA. It said that that money was not extra money. It is not new money; it is money that has already been allocated for council house projects. It has been creamed off the top for that use.
Let us see what has taken place. It seems to me that the Government have an inveterate hatred of council housing and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why. When Harold Macmillan, as he then was, was responsible for building 300,000 council houses in a year the Government were proud of it and boasted of it. What the Government are doing now is a different kettle of fish. Since the early 1920s a stock of about 6.5 million council houses of various types and sizes in various locations has been built up. I am not for one moment saying that all those houses were managed perfectly well and that everything was great.
I speak not only for myself but also for Conservative chairmen of housing who have controlled housing in Manchester. I take a rooted objection to the view of this Government that people like me, my noble friend Lady Fisher who is not here, and Conservative chairmen of housing, have let down the public over the years. That has not happened. One of the most humane men I ever met who was concerned with public housing was a Conservative chairman of housing in Manchester, Sir Richard Harper. If he had been alive today he would have been horrified to hear some of the nonsense spoken by Ministers in denigration of councils and the way in which they have looked after their tenants.
We hear the usual about 100,000 empty council house properties. The Government should make

193
resources available so that they can be tenantable. If we wish to play that game, then the biggest culprits in keeping properties empty in percentage terms are the Government themselves. In percentage terms three times as many government properties are empty as one will find on local authority estates. When did this wind-down in council house building start? We now have back at the Department of the Environment the golden boy known as Tarzan in another place. He is supposed to alter the situation and he promises to make it all right overnight. I refer to Mr. Heseltine.
What did he do in his previous term of office at the Department of the Environment? In 1978–79 London boroughs, which are at the pressure point, combined with the GLC, received £1.785 million of government money to deal with their housing problems. However, by the time Mr. Heseltine left the department, that figure had been cut to £965 million. The latest figures for 1989 show that the amount was cut further to £430 million. It is unbelievable that such an act could have been put into effect without much being said.
On a national basis, when Mr. Heseltine took control of the Department of the Environment on the last occasion, the aggregate national figure for local authority housing was £5.266 billion. In the last year that figure has dropped to £1.127 billion. That is a cut of 80 per cent. We then wonder why there is a shortage of housing to let. We now have the pyromaniac back in charge of the fire brigade. He is the man who caused all the trouble. In my opinion no cure will come unless the Government get away from the stupid and dogmatic idea that in future they do not want councils to be providers but simply enablers.
Figures were given recently by a colleague of the noble Baroness which indicated the Government's philosophy—that is, that local authorities have been removed from control and responsibility for judging the need in their areas and to build houses accordingly. They will be only enablers. Their job has been taken over by housing trusts of various kinds. In reply to the figures that I gave which showed that the building of council housing had become almost a nil factor, the Minister said that by 1993 housing associations would provide 48,000 units a year.
The Government's own statistics show that, in order to prevent further erosion of the housing situation in this country, one million new houses will be required by the turn of the century. If the Government wish to have a housing policy with any elasticity in it they will need 1 million new houses. The Government say that there will be 48,000 units a year to let. That is an absolute insult. For Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and claim that that is a success is like us believing that we won the last war at Dunkirk. It is absolute rubbish. I wish that Ministers both in another place and in this House would return to reality and start to talk in real terms.
I have spoken briefly about housing associations. I understand they they are now in difficulty. They are already trying to work out their yardsticks for next year in order to keep up with a building programme. I find it beyond belief that in the building industry it is predicted that another 100,000 men will be put on
194
the dole in the next 12 months; yet we are told that next week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce further expenditure of £10 billion. We are supposed to be in financial difficulties. Where is that money coming from or is it being provided on tick, as we call it? Will that money come from another source?
I can make a suggestion. Money which has been taken out of the public housing sector should be put back. The bricklayers and others should be sent back to work and new houses should be built for those at the lower end of the social scale. The Government may theorise and monkey about, but there is no other organisation that can build houses to the extent that we need them for people at the lower end of the social scale. I am not condemning housing associations because they have a supplementary role to play.
I ask the Minister whether for once she will consider that there is some merit in what the councils did over a period of 50 years—a proven record—as opposed to fantasising about things which the Government hope will succeed but which have not a cat in hell's chance of doing so. I ask the Minister to allow local authorities to build houses and to make the funds available. In the main it is young people who should be got out of their sleeping bags and into houses which are so earnestly needed. If the Labour Party win the next election we shall bring forward legislation. Local authorities will be building houses very quickly. I see that the Minister is smiling, but I do not believe that there is much to smile about if one is living in a doorway in this weather. That problem is on the increase and it will not go away unless some of the methods that my party have put forward in its document on housing are adopted. The Government should forget their bias and allow the local authorities to get on with the job which they have done so well in the past.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should apologise first for speaking in the gap. However, when I arrived here this afternoon I was rather horrified to see that the subject matter had attracted comparatively few speakers. I found that rather worrying. At the end of the day I should have thought that our environment, our agriculture, and our rural community were matters which were very important and dear to us all. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make one or two observations which it is to be hoped may be constructive to some extent. I have also asked the indulgence of my noble friend Lady Blatch because I have another engagement which necessitates my leaving the Chamber at half-past six. So noble Lords will be pleased to know that I am not likely to speak for very long.
In her excellent opening speech my noble friend Lady Trumpington said that agriculture and the environment were intrinsically tied up together. That is very true. It is only sad to reflect that the state of agriculture in our country at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out, is not very good. The returns today as compared to those of yesterday are at best static and at worst going down. Overheads are undoubtedly increasing and the twain

195
are getting further and further apart. There is little margin left for those engaged in agriculture—not only farmers but also landlords—to be able to afford to devote a percentage of their returns for the benefit, development and improvement of the countryside.
What I am about to say saddens me. It is not in any way a reflection on my party but it is a fact. Sometimes you have to acknowledge facts and the truth hurts. Over the years that I have been privileged enough to be involved in agriculture I have found that farmers have benefited rather more under the party opposite than under our own party. I do not know why that is. I am very sorry to have to say it. However, it is true and I am never afraid to state what I believe to be the truth.
We have arrived at the idea of a thing called set-aside in order to reduce the amount of corn which is being produced. The farmers are being blamed for producing too much corn and cereals and for creating a cereal mountain. But why should they take the blame? They were encouraged to do that very thing 20 years ago. They did so. They were subsidised for it. They received help and grants and did darned well. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, there is now one man to 150 cows. But on the Continent what do they have? They have Farmer Giles and one man to 16 cows. It is ridiculous. But what do we do? We institute a process called set-aside. I shall not go into the arguments for and against set-aside as I can only talk about the principle.
As regards any form of efficient business, I have never heard of a situation where someone is actually paid to do nothing. But that is set-aside. People are being paid to produce nothing. There is something fundamentally wrong in the principle. I shall not go further than that; but it is wrong. One day when the scheme comes to an end someone will want an extra man, an extra machine, an extra tractor, and so on, but they will have been disposed of because they were set aside and not used for anything. Where will that money come from? I believe that one day the pigeons will come home to roost. I am very sorry to have to say that, but I said so originally.
I turn now to the environment. We hear about schemes whereby various bodies such as the Countryside Commission and other such organisations will benefit from the presence of an appointed officer called an expert in the environment. But what does that mean? What qualifications does one have to have for the job? There is only one expert in the environment that I know of and that is the chap who actually lives and works in the countryside. We do not want interference from people who set themselves up on a pedestal and think they know what they are talking about. I say that because much of the time they are, for understandable reasons, slightly wide of the mark.
Let us take an aspect of the environment which has not been mentioned, woodlands and trees. No one would argue against the fact that trees and woodlands look beautiful, whether it be the greenery of the spring, the full bloom of summer or the autumnal colour of the fall. But what have we done about it? We have introduced financial legislation which dictates
196
totally against the planting and management of private woodlands. We are abolishing the form of what is commonly called Schedule D whereby expenditure on woodlands is allowable against tax but sales of timber are taxable. It will now be on Schedule B where no tax is paid and no allowance made. That is very misguided. Again I said so at the time. It is misguided simply because there is no money to be made out of private woodlands. Woodlands are grown, nurtured and looked after by those who are fortunate enough —perhaps I should say unfortunate enough—to own them. They do so simply because they love them and love the countryside. They love their estates and they love what they see. They want to produce something that other people will enjoy. However, that cannot be done without expense being incurred.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount, but it is a tradition in this House that those noble Lords who have not put their names down to speak but who wish to speak during the gap should confine themselves to a very brief speech on one subject. I believe that the noble Viscount has gone beyond that point.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I stand corrected. In the circumstances I shall confine myself to this subject and leave it there.
As regards the environment I hope that the Government will think seriously and carefully about fiscal and financial implications for the treatment of woodlands. There should be greater incentives for owners and managers through tax advantages. That would enable woodlands to be properly managed in accordance with a silvicultural policy which would benefit the environment.
I am sorry if I have exceeded my brief. I am grateful for having been corrected.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as we reach this stage of the debate it is my duty and pleasure to take up some of the threads on the subject of the environment which have been debated in the extremely interesting discussion this evening. A number of matters concerning the environment were raised in the gracious Speech, although there was perhaps not nearly as much actual legislation. I suppose that we are extremely lucky that in commenting upon this subject we are able to feel that we have as Secretary of State for the Environment someone who has a feeling for the subject, who is interested and passionate about the environment and who has energy and efficiency; indeed, he has been showing efficiency about the environment of his own party very recently with considerable success. Moreover, he has promised to report back on the White Papers in the future and that is a pledge of accountability which must be welcomed even though there are areas in which it has so far not been fulfilled.
But despite his interest in the environment, the Secretary of State is, after all, a Member of the Government. And the Government are pledged to

197
policies which seem to militate against the defence of the environment, let alone its preservation in the future. There is a phrase in the gracious Speech which does not appear to bear on the environment. However, I believe that it actually does. It states that Her Majesty's Government:
"will maintain firm control of public spending with the aim of keeping its share of national income on the downward trend over time".
That is a classical recipe for private affluence amid public squalor. It might indeed have been tolerable if we felt that the cash saved in the public sector would in some way help the poor in this country, the poor who are becoming permanently and steadily poorer, but we know that that will not happen. We know where the money saved will go. It will go in tax cuts as long as this Government are in office—let us hope that that will not be too long—which will benefit the better off, those whom the Government, poor saps, are expecting will vote for them at the next general election.
One of the major works of the Department of the Environment over a period of time will be the preparation for a successful United Nations conference next June on environment and development. That is extremely important. It is especially important that this country shows that it is prepared to take a hard line on, for instance, the control of emissions rather than the weaker alternatives which are proposed by the United States. I shall not proceed further in this area tonight because all that I could say has been said quite forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
We have heard a certain amount this afternoon and this evening about the integration of the environment in the CAP. Indeed the noble Baroness who opened the debate talked seriously about it and said how much it was welcomed. What I welcome is the fact that there are people on all sides of the House who are now able to talk about it with approval. When I came to your Lordships' House 15 years ago or thereabouts I remember that to mention the environment and agriculture in the same breath was to invite scorn from everyone. Agriculture was a business, we were told, and the business must be pursued. To persuade people that MAFF, as it then was, should have environmental advisers was an uphill task. Perhaps our revolution needs to be taken a little further.
We have heard a certain amount about how the European system to which the CAP is geared does not fit in with our traditional system of land tenure and countryside management. I was brought up in that traditional system. I was brought up on a large estate and on a working farm and I have a great affection for that system. But I am always surprised that no one seems to draw the conclusion that it may not be the Europeans who are wrong; it may actually be us. We may need to turn our attention to looking after the small farmer, improving his lot, increasing his numbers and populating the country in that way. Your Lordships may wonder how that ties in with the age old Liberal policy of free trade. I can assure you that by dint of taking a great deal longer, which I do not intend to do, I could reconcile the two. But it is
198
true that we need to regenerate our countryside and keep it pleasant by having more people on the land and asking them to use it appropriately. That idea appears to have been very much neglected.
I turn penultimately to the suggestion that a Bill will be introduced to replace private legislation as a means of authorising transport development schemes. The Private Bill system is well due for the chop, and, as such, we must welcome this proposal. However, a point was raised by a noble Baroness on this side of the House about Parliament deciding on the principle of some schemes before an inquiry is set up. That seems to me, as it seemed to her, to be absolutely ridiculous. It is an extension of the fact that people have been thinking in terms of the Bill system in Parliament—a Bill is introduced for Second Reading, the principle is discussed there and then the details are ironed out in Committee. That system works for that purpose, but it does not work at all with the kind of plans and developments in the countryside that we are talking about.
A principle is not involved in that respect. There is, instead, is a whole series of conflicting interests between which a compromise has to be found. That can be done only by the inquiry itself. It is not until there has been such an inquiry—a public inquiry, an educational inquiry—that your Lordships' House or another place is capable of passing a judgment. The Government's scheme is very much a case of verdict first, trial after. That is never satisfactory.
I shall trespass only for a second on the ground covered by my noble colleague Lady Hamwee in turning my attention to the idea of a review of local government structure. I do so because it has a considerable bearing on the environment and how it is managed. Since I first came into Parliament I have seen power after power taken away from local government. I have seen it become bigger and bigger and more remote. I have no doubt at all that the time must come when that is put into reverse—power is passed down again and our affairs are organised in smaller units. I hope that that will start now. Decisions are best made where people know and care what is happening. That is more or less in the smallest possible units, with some wider safeguard as a balance. If the Government can start to go into reverse on that matter they will earn our thanks more than they seem likely to on the other matters in the gracious Speech to do with the environment.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the gracious Speech makes no reference to agriculture and food as such, although there is a passing mention of reform of the common agricultural policy. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for the up-date she gave us on the position regarding reform of the CAP. I do not propose, however, to go into that subject in any detail as your Lordships will recall that we debated it in considerable detail as recently as 17th October.
At his party conference on 8th October, the Minister of Agriculture gave notice of moves to help farmers, and promised the introduction of a

199
programme which he called "Our Farming Future". He said that every farmer and farm worker should know where they stood, and we strongly agree with that point of view. In particular, we are concerned about the position not merely of farmers but of farm workers, because the statistics on reductions in the size of the labour force, and the conversion of many farms to part-time working all seem to us to indicate a serious labour situation, especially for men who may be based in rural areas with limited opportunities for employment there and perhaps difficulty in finding transport to towns, even if they can find work in urban areas.
Having regard to the importance of that programme, I wonder whether the Minister can say when it is likely to be published. The Minister of Agriculture promised it by December. I wonder whether that date will be adhered to or whether his farming future document must await the settlement of the common agricultural policy and the GATT negotiations themselves.
On the same date the Minister acknowledged a £6 billion annual trade gap in the United Kingdom's balance of payments for food and drink. Of that, £4.4 billion was with EC countries in 1990, and over half of that was with the five northern EC countries whose climate is similar to ours.
The deficit is in food—thanks to exports of Scotch whisky! Any harmonisation by the EC of rates of duty on alcohol at the expense of whisky and in favour of wine would have a serious knock-on effect on the United Kingdom's present balance of payments.
That adverse balance on food is well known to Her Majesty's Government. On 22nd March last, the Minister of Agriculture announced that he had asked a junior Minister in MAFF to report to him on how best the matter could he put right. That was eight months ago. When do Her Majesty's Government expect that report?
The gravity of the current situation is well described' in the 1990–91 annual report of the chairman of Food from Britain. Hopes for that organisation were high in 1983 when a previous Minister for Agriculture set it up. Today, despite noble endeavours, it does not have much of a tale to tell. Indeed, it ought perhaps be called Food for Britain since it is the United Kingdom's adverse balance which now preoccupies it. Food from Britain's main supporters from a financial point of view, apart from Her Majesty's Government, are the Milk Marketing Board, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Home Grown Cereals Authority. They are all statutory bodies authorised to raise levies for promotional purposes. Much of that money is used for generic publicity, and its value is not capable of assessment. We need a better overview of food marketing than that which took place hastily in 1983 when Food from Britain was set up. There are trends which need serious attention, and they cover the whole of the food chain. For example, consumer dis-benefit in Britain from the CAP is acknowledged. Farmers say that the benefit to them is minimal: much CAP money goes on intervention, export subsidies and fraud.
200
Food processors criticise CAP prices in comparison with world prices. Retailers say little, but the merciless trend to supermarkets and own-label products continues. It is estimated that from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of supermarket sales are now in own-label goods. The most successful of those supermarkets now report a net profit on turnover of 6 per cent. plus, which is about what food retailers made before retail price maintenance was abolished. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom market is now attracting German and Danish food chains which, it is said, can, like their counterparts in the United States of America, make an adequate return on capital with a net profit of just above 2 per cent. on turnover. Does all that augur well for the United Kingdom's balance of payments on food? How can one sell own-label abroad if no outlets exist there?
I accept that our tight policy on planning consents for supermarkets—whether out-of-town or edge-of-town—forces up land development values, and that hard-pressed local authorities, before granting consents, often require planning gains which also add to development costs, so that a higher return on turnover is probably needed in the United Kingdom in order to give the necessary return on capital. Even so, the differential in present rates of net profit on turnover need explaining.
The impact of environmental policies on food prices may not be well enough appreciated. Can the Minister tell us to what extent the Department of the Environment attempts a price impact assessment in the planning guidance advice that it gives to local authorities? I am concerned that the low paid cannot now afford products for healthy eating and that is a serious matter at any time.
Farmers are strong in their ability to complain about their results, and with some reason; and yet they do little to organise themselves as sellers. They were once encouraged by Her Majesty's Government to improve their marketing and the Food from Britain organisation was charged with the added task of continuing to promote producer co-operatives. Grants for the establishment of such co-operatives were quietly withdrawn a year ago, and no new applications have been eligible since 14th May 1991. Does that mean that there is no serious anxiety on the part of Her Majesty's Government about producer marketing at a time when the balance of payments is £6 billion in the red? Are we to assume satisfaction with a situation where farmers do not look beyond the farm gate? As students, we were taught that a nation's balance of payments had to balance and that borrowing was the ultimate way of achieving that. Farmers claim that their CAP benefit is limited; and yet traditionally they have to borrow to achieve even that.
If borrowing rates for farmers are high, as they are under this Government, how can one also justify a balance of payments food deficit? Can we also justify a 1991 UK forecast contribution to the EC of £1,225 million as well, of course, as import levies and a share of VAT? If two-thirds of that contribution is roughly in respect of our share of the net cost of the CAP, that

201
means that our Community food deficit of £4.4 billion costs us an added £816 million, in addition to higher interest rates. That is hardly a success story.
Instead of merely asking a junior to report on the food balance of payments deficit, the Minister ought to be engaged in a comprehensive review of the present economics of food, from grower to consumer, to satisfy himself that all is well and that traditional ways and schemes of assistance to farmers are still well-founded, when food processing and distribution have seen revolutionary changes, including a major concentration of power in a few retailers over consumers and suppliers.
Those are serious matters which were not addressed in the gracious Speech. They are serious matters to which the Minister of Agriculture, in his public utterances, does not appear to show undue anxiety. As a future government, it seems to us that no self respecting Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow a Minister of Agriculture to run a deficit of that magnitude for such a protracted period without asking what in the name of heaven he was doing about it. I hope that those comments will be useful to the House and have amplified what I believe to be a regrettable omission from the gracious Speech; namely, concern about food and food matters generally in this country.
6.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in the interests of responding to a detailed debate, I shall abandon my prepared speech and deal with the individual points that have been raised. This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate, covering the Government's agricultural and environmental policies. Those are issues for a full day's debate in themselves. We have also debated the two Bills relating to local government which were outlined in the Queen's Speech.
I must turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I join with all Members of the House who remember his father. We looked upon him with great affection; and we held him in the highest esteem. I listened to the noble Lord's speech with interest. It was uncharacteristic, if I may say so, for a maiden speech. He is concerned about what he calls unfair play in Wandsworth in respect of rigging contracting out. It is important that he should take full advantage of the system which is in place for investigating such an accusation of rigging, and I hope that he will do just that.
The contribution of this House both to the making of legislation and to the furthering of serious debate is unequalled. I believe that over time the noble Lord will come to be impressed with the performance of the House and he may have second thoughts about the demise of the second parliamentary Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, started with an opening salvo about the Government reversing a major piece of legislation in the lifetime of one parliament. Had the country voted Labour in recent years, it is doubtful that the United Kingdom would
202
be a member of the European Community at all, or that it would have an adequate defence. We certainly would not have Trident. Trade union reforms would have been reversed; private schools would no longer exist. I could go on. What we see now and what we have now is a Labour Leader energetically persuading his party to retain trade union reforms, to keep nuclear weapons, to retain Trident, to strengthen our European membership and to allow the retention of private schools.
The only policy I know of that has not been reversed is that the Labour Party would allow unleashed spending by local authorities with no limits whatever. So we do not need lectures on reversing policy. I believe that we responded very properly to a perception by the public of what they deemed to be an unfair tax.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, opened by saying that there were many gaps in her knowledge. She felt that it was not appropriate at this stage to anticipate forthcoming local government legislation. I believe that she and I will do battle across the Chamber, I hope in a friendly and constructive way; and I am certain that all those gaps will be filled.
The noble Baroness was anxious about a register. As long as each house remains in one of the eight bands and the relativity between the bands remains constant, whether the prices of properties increase or diminish should not affect the total tax take.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was worried about the application of competitive tendering on the NHS. I remind him that page 39 of the Citizen's Charter states that:
"We shall also invite the Audit Commission to publish similar comparative tables for the NHS as a stimulus to improvement. These will supplement standard information for patients which health authorities are expected to provide. We would expect relatively weak health authorities to take action to bring about management improvements".
This provision does not need primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about league tables. I believe that he missed the point. We will take account of both standard and cost; in every publication so far, standards and costs go together. It is important that local authorities determine their own standards and properly specify and cost them. But it is important that the public know them. Therefore, economy, efficiency and effectiveness are very much a part of what we are talking about.
Continuing his concern about CCT, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh also said that it was an outrage that the Government had introduced a Bill before consulting on the proposals. I suggest that that is nonsense. The Bill's provisions are enabling ones. Any changes to the CCT framework or extensions of CCT will require secondary legislation. There will be ample time for us to take full account of responses to the consultation paper before any regulations or orders are made. We are giving interested parties almost three months to respond to the consultation.
Secondary legislation is an appropriate vehicle for implementation of the proposals. It will permit the Government to be flexible and sensitive—a point pleaded for by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—

203
when extending CCT to each new service, and to establish the CCT regime most suited to the circumstances of each service. This should please your Lordships. The noble Baroness herself pointed out the risks of' inflexibility; we are working for flexibility. Affirmative resolutions by both Houses will be required. Local government must be consulted again before orders are made, according to Clause 8(3) of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about staff morale, especially in respect of CCT for revenue collection. I believe that point was made in my absence by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The Government do not propose to extend CCT to financial services under the local government Bill. They propose that there should be an internal market so that we have the most efficient delivery of a service: therefore it will not be a concern for the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was joined by others who were worried about a voice for London. It is important to make the distinction between a voice for London and a government for London. Both parties opposite believe that a government for London is needed. We have no plans to change the general structure of local government in London and no desire to inflict on Londoners another layer of bureaucracy which would create, not solve, problems. Where a strategic view is needed, there are arrangements to achieve it. Under this Government there will be no return to the GLC-either mother of GLC or son of GLC.
The noble Baroness asked why there was only a 25 per cent. not a 50 per cent. reduction. That is because the tax has both a property and a personal element. The standard bill comprises a 50 per cent. property and a 50 per cent. personal element. It also assumes two adults so that each adult represents 25 per cent. of the bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether the Government would cut income support when they abolish the 20 per cent. contributions. Decisions on the level of social security benefit for 1993–94 will be announced in the usual way in the autumn of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the register of individuals to identify households which are entitled to a discount. They will identify themselves because they have to apply for the discount. The noble Baroness. Lady Hollis, looks puzzled. There will be an assumption of two people per household; if there is to be a discount it must be applied for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned about hedgerows. It is important to remember that besides losses of hedgerows the findings also show an encouraging amount of new planting. Above all, they point to the need for improved management of hedges and our proposed new incentive scheme will help meet that need. The scheme does not hinge on legislation and we are working to take it forward as a matter of priority.
The noble Baroness was again concerned about progress on environmentally sensitive areas. The Government remain firmly committed to ESAs. We
204
are currently consulting interested organisations on ideas for improving the environmental benefits of the existing schemes, for example, by extending the period of agreement from five to 10 years. We hope shortly to put the revised schemes before Parliament. We have also asked English Nature and the Countryside Commission for advice on priorities should further designations be decided in the future.
Continuing with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about calling for extra protection for national parks, the Government were pleased to receive the report of the independent National Parks Review Panel earlier this year and the statements from the countryside agencies. The panel's report is a major evaluation of the ways in which the basic purposes of the parks might most effectively be met in the next century. There is no doubt that the national parks contain some of the best and most beautiful of our landscapes. We remain deeply committed to their protection. This commitment has already been shown in the recent announcement of independent status for all parks, and the Government will respond to the rest of the report before the end of the year.
The noble Baroness asked about legislation on common land. She will be aware that, following extensive consultations, our policy on common land was set out in a statement in July last year. It was in the light of that and the inevitable complexity of any new legislation on common land that I advised this House just over seven months ago that, although it remained our policy to safeguard common land and to strengthen the ways in which we would protect and use it and we recognised the importance of legislation, we regretted that we could not see an opportunity to legislate comprehensively during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about access to environmental information. My noble friend Lady Trumpington referred to that matter and mentioned the lead Britain was giving. The Government agree that public access to environmental information is essential. One of the major principles in the White Paper concerns already set up or proposed registers on such matters as pollution consents and contaminated land. The United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating a European directive on access to environmental information. That directive will give public rights of access to environmental information held by public authorities. Shortly we shall issue a consultation paper on how the UK Government will implement the directive.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and a number of other speakers expressed concern about the way we were setting up the Environmental Protection Agency. The setting up of the agency is a complicated task. We want to consult widely with all those involved. We need to work with existing institutions to agree a smooth transfer for the industry they serve and for their own staff. It is not possible to bring legislation forward in the present Session of Parliament. If we had legislated in this Session, I have no doubt that the very noble Lords who asked why there was no

205
legislation for the EPA in this Session would have complained that we were rushing legislation through Parliament before an election.
My noble friend Lord Mackay was concerned about a number of matters. I agree with him that the MacSharry proposals for the sheep sector failed to take account of the nature of our upland farms and their vital importance in maintaining the upland environment. That is why my honourable friend the Minister responsible for agriculture is opposing the new headage limits so vigorously.
As regards support for tobacco, it is absurd that tobacco is the most heavily subsidised CAP crop per hectare, particularly as the EC has policies to discourage smoking. The Government are arguing for support to be phased out over time but there must be transitional protection for those producers such as the Greeks who are wholly dependent on the crop for an income and who have virtually no alternatives. My noble friend also referred to forestry. As regards support for forestry, the Government have a firm policy for the expansion of multi-purpose forestry in Britain. That was made clear when we launched our forestry policy restatement last month. We are placing particular emphasis on better land and have increased the better land supplement to £400 for conifers and £600 for broadleaved trees. We are not complacent, but we remind noble Lords that new planting in England has shown a threefold increase since 1987.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Cochrane of Cults, and my noble friend Lord Radnor were all concerned about the CAP. The CAP has been outstandingly successful in increasing agricultural productivity but it contains a number of fundamental weaknesses. Not only is it costly and inefficient but it neglects consumers and has encouraged agricultural intensification to such an extent that significant damage has resulted to landscape features and habitats. We welcome the proposals for reform generally and the recognition which they give to environmental concerns. The challenge is successfully to reconcile consumer and environmental goals with a lower cost agricultural policy. The CAP must ensure that agricultural markets are responsive to changing consumer needs, that the rural economy and environment are maintained and enhanced and that a balance is maintained between providing a fair standard of living for agricultural communities and affordable food for consumers. The UK Government will press for reform which takes account of those needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was also concerned about the changes in procedures for Private Bills. The proposed change in the procedure by which parliamentary debate will take place in advance of a public inquiry reflects the outcome of consultation by the Department of Transport on Private Bills. New arrangements will apply to only a small number of major schemes which the Secretary of State for Transport regards as being nationally significant. Parliament will be asked to debate the principles behind the policy. The public inquiry will then
206
examine detailed proposals. It is sensible that in schemes of national importance Parliament should debate the principle at the outset.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was also concerned about the £12 billion cost of the road building programme. I am sure the noble Baroness has welcomed the tree planting programme on motorway verges and on existing roads. The number of trees planted—mainly mature broadleaved species—has increased by 25 per cent. That programme involves both local authorities and the Forestry Commission and is an excellent example of environmental collaboration. The landscaping of new roads will depend on local circumstances and will take into account representations from local communities and consultations with interested groups.
My noble friend Lord Radnor was concerned about the Rural Development Commission. He asked whether it was doing everything possible to improve conditions in rural areas. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend on the need to encourage new forms of rural development. The RDC is the appropriate agency to carry out work in that field. It has a successful redundant building grants scheme which has helped many people to convert buildings to new and profitable uses.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was predominantly concerned about housing. The Government view housing associations as the main providers of additional subsidised housing for rent. Public funding for associations through the Housing Corporation will increase to £2 billion from £1.2 billion by 1993. Together with their increased ability to draw in private funds, this will permit a sustained increase in output of subsidised housing by associations over the next few years. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, made a number of interesting comments on the right to buy council housing. I have a question for him which I do not expect him to answer at the moment. However, I must ask the noble Lord whether he would reduce the discount allowed for tenants on the right to buy schemes, or would he approve additional funds to assist owners with private mortgages and, if so, how does that square with the comments made by the shadow Treasury spokesman in another place?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was making the point that a home is a home whether its occupants have to buy it, rent it or whatever. The Prime Minister has made a stand on a fair society. I was merely asking about equal treatment in financial terms for people who have been dispossessed of their homes because they were unable to pay their mortgages.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I was making is that to give equal treatment one either has to reduce the amount of subsidy given to people buying their council homes to help people with private mortgages, or one has to find extra money. The noble Lord believed that half a million houses would be required by the end of the century. He claimed that only 48,000 houses per year were being built by housing associations. That adds up to 432,000 houses by the

207
end of the century, according to my arithmetic. That does not include all the other providers of housing, for example the private sector and local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is present in the Chamber. He raised three main points of which he kindly gave me prior notice. The noble Lord asked about the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. In its first three meetings the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), has made good progress in achieving many areas of common ground between countries. It is encouraging that at the last session in September over 100 countries were represented. It is only through this global participation that we can respond effectively to climate change.
The INC will meet again in Geneva between 9th and 20th December. We hope that this meeting will be able to produce a substantive convention text which can be finalised in the remaining sessions before the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992, during which the convention is due to be signed.
The United Kingdom's approach to the negotiations has been to work for an effective convention which can be supported by as many countries as possible. It should above all establish the process needed for a global response to climate change. This approach has been strongly supported in the European Community. The Dutch Presidency, speaking on behalf of the member states, made several statements at the last INC meeting setting out the main elements we would like to see in the convention.
The Community called for a commitment by all countries:
"to prepare, report and update national strategies which include inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and describe the measures being taken to limit emissions and preserve and enhance sinks for greenhouse gases".
Those strategies should be reviewed by an expert body established by the convention.
The Community also called specifically for the stabilisation of CO2 emissions by the year 2000, in general at 1990 levels, by industrialised countries individually or jointly. Developed countries should strengthen their co-operation with developing countries to enable them fully to address climate change without hindering their development goals through the provision of financial resources and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies.
We should be happy to make copies of the Presidency statements available to noble Lords through the Library of the House.
The Community also explained our views on the "basket" or "comprehensive" approach. While recognising that an approach which considers all sources and sinks is desirable, the Community stated that:
"in the present situation and the foreseen scope of the specific commitments this approach cannot be implemented as yet in the specific commitments. We believe that with respect to the specific commitment regarding stabilisation of emissions we should take a gas by gas approach".
The European Commission should take lessons in plain English!
That is, of course, very much the approach which the UK proposed in a paper on a phased comprehensive approach which was discussed by
208
European Community Environment Ministers in March 1991. The paper also proposed that commitments made in other agreements—pecifically the Montreal Protocol—should not be "double counted" by being included in the climate change convention.
In relation to the third point about carbon dioxide emissions, the Government consider that the UK's target of returning carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2005 is a demanding one. However, we have made it clear that, if possible, we shall improve upon it.
The Secretary of State for Energy is currently reviewing the Government's strategy for promoting renewable energy. We shall assess the extent to which renewable sources of energy could help further to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has today laid the second non fossil fuel obligation order. This sets an obligation, building up to 457 megawatts of renewable energy capacity over the period from 1st January 1992 to 31st December 1998. That virtually doubles the amount of renewable sourced generating capacity contracted to the regional electricity companies in England and Wales. It is a further major step in assisting renewables to enter the commercial electricity generation market. In due course the Government will announce their further proposals for a renewables order.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked whether we opposed EC measures to improve energy efficiency. I am glad to tell him that the Energy Council reached agreement on 24th October on measures to improve energy efficiency in gas boilers. That takes account of gas boiler technology in all member states.
The noble Lord asked about our policy on carbon tax. The policy on carbon tax is explained in paragraph 3.23 on page 182 of the anniversary report. Taxation is one means of reaching CO2 targets but can be introduced only if competitor countries do likewise: otherwise this country would be seriously disadvantaged. There are no early plans to introduce a carbon tax but we shall continue to contribute to international discussions on all measures to reduce CO2.
The noble Lord's final point concerned the dropping of "pledge and review" at the negotiations in Nairobi. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of "pledge and review". Countries are to prepare national strategies setting out action to limit emissions and provide progress reports on achievements. In addition, we are continuing to press for CO2 emission targets, especially from developing countries.
The trade gap study prepared by the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Curry, was an internal study. The Government have made clear the importance they attach to improving the marketing of agricultural products and food, as is shown by our support for Food from Britain. We shall be announcing further action soon but it is primarily for the industry to market its produce in the single market.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may just say that I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness

209
for the comprehensive answers she has given to my questions. May I ask her whether I am right in assuming that the British Government now totally reject the policy of double counting and agree with the paper from which she quoted which was put forward at Nairobi by the Dutch Minister?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the House will be indulgent and recognise that in dealing comprehensively with the points of which I was given advance notice I have exceeded my time. I have answered that question; I shall consider my answer and if I can make it clearer I shall write to the noble Lord.
We aim, through measures in the Local Government Bill, to ensure that communities get the best possible service from their local authorities. The
210
Citizen's Charter measures and the reform of local government finance and structure will improve accountability, make local government more responsive to local communities, improve the quality of services and firmly put the interests of people first. I look forward to many hours of detailed debate on the two local government Bills.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past seven o'clock.

  INDO-CHINA: AID
  INDO-CHINA: AID
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 21st OCTOBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 21st OCTOBER
  BURMA:POLITCAL REPRESSION
  BURMA:POLITCAL REPRESSION
  VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS TO HONG KONG: REPATRIATION
  VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS TO HONG KONG: REPATRIATION