Sitting of 18 November 1991

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

    Lone Parents (Earnings Disregard)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the amount of earnings disregard before benefits for lone parents are affected.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We have no plans at present to change the earnings disregard in income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit. However, in family credit, the threshold at which earnings start to affect the maximum credit for lone parents will be increased at next April's uprating from £62·25 to £66·60.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging news. As he will know, those in work who earn more than £15 a week lose £1 for every £1 that they earn. That discourages people from working.
    Almost 1 million lone parents are now managing on benefit. Only 10 per cent. work, and the number is falling. Will my hon. Friend consider allowing working women in such circumstances a greater disregard? Will he at least
    2
    allow them the cost of paying childminders? I am sure that he agrees that we should not dock the benefit of deserving mums.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for advancing, in her characteristic way, the case of women who wish to return to the labour market.
    The Government have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. As she will know, from next April a £15 maintenance disregard will, for the first time, be applied to family credit. We shall also reduce the number of hours required for people to qualify for that benefit. Given those two improvements—together with child benefit, one-parent benefit and housing benefit—many women in my hon. Friend's constituency will find that they have enough financial room for manoeuvre, so that they can both go out to work and meet their childcare costs.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will recognise that lone parents are being given some useful assistance under the "children come first" proposals, in the form of a reduction from 24 to 16 hours in the full-time working week. Is he aware that many people who work part time, for less than 24 hours a week, and who can currently claim income support, will lose out substantially in terms of mortgage interest relief? Have the Government considered that and, if so, what steps is the Minister taking to mitigate the losses involved?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The Government have carefully considered the matter, and transitional arrangements will be made to safeguard those who are now receiving income support and would like to move to family credit, but may be worried for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-income pensioners are expected to gain from the measures he announced in his uprating statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The proposed uprating of income support by a full 7 per cent. from next April will give increases substantially above the current level of inflation to around 3·5 million low-income pensioners where the claimant or partner is aged 60 or over.
    Mr. Hargreaves: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that many Conservative Members are anxious that any future measures should be directed specifically towards those receiving small pensions or basic pensions but no works or professional pensions? How much danger would be posed to such pensions by some of Labour's high-inflation, high-spending policies?
    Mr. Newton: It goes without saying that those on retirement incomes were among the principal sufferers under the taxation and inflation rates of the late 1970s.
    It is precisely to direct extra resources to the pensioners, about whom my right hon. Friend is rightly concerned, that we have increased income support premiums for three successive years, providing more than £300 million extra in real terms. I think that we are succeeding in that aim.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State accept that the miserly 4·1 per cent. given to those on state pensions has been met with a resounding raspberry? Does he refuse, even now, to double the Christmas bonus to £20, to give a little Christmas cheer to hard-up pensioners? While he is at it, will he adopt Labour's policy and top up next year's pension increase by £5 for single pensioners and £8 for couples? That, surely, is the least that the right hon. Gentleman could do to inject some justice and fairness into the lives of our pensioners.
    Mr. Newton: I make just two points. First, if the hon. Gentleman considers what has happened over the past two years, to the basic retirement pension, quite apart from income support premiums, he will find that they have risen by 15 per cent. That is a very substantial increase. Secondly, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the Christmas bonus, but many other people would think that if the relevant sums of money were available—and they would be quite substantial—they should be directed to the less well-off pensioners.
    Mrs. Roe: My right hon. Friend knows that Opposition parties constantly carp about the level of pensions in Britain. Will he confirm that many aspects of social security systems in other countries compare unfavourably with ours? For example, no other European Community country pays pensions in their own right to married women with no contribution record.
    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that in much of what is said about pension comparisons with Europe, areas that would lead to a substantial loss among some British pensioners, including those to whom my hon. Friend referred, are often overlooked. Another fact that is also overlooked is that in most other European countries, people must make contributions, for example to health care, which do not arise here.
    Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State is aware that had the Government not broken the link between the rise in pensions and the rise in earnings, the single pensioner would be receiving £14 more a week and a couple £24 more a week. That means that more and more elderly people are being forced down to income support or poverty line
    4
    levels. The Secretary of State's last uprating statement means that another 400,000 pensioners are now eligible for income support. That in itself is an indictment of the Government. Will he ensure that at that poverty level, those additional 400,000 pensioners are informed of their rights to claim income support so that they can at the very least receive what little is due to them under this Government?
    Mr. Newton: I have to say that I find something quite extraordinary in the spectacle of an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman apparently complaining that we are to make a potential 400,000 pensioners better off. I hope that he will acknowledge that. With regard to his latter point, I know that he has sought, and has rightly been provided by the Department, a copy of the circular that we have sent to local authorities precisely to enlist their assistance to ensure that pensioners who will gain from the proposals receive those gains.

    Cold Weather Payments
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to improve the working of the cold weather payments scheme.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The cold weather payments scheme has been considerably improved for the coming winter. Payments of £6 for every period of cold weather will be paid automatically to eligible people as soon as a seven-day period of exceptionally cold weather is forecast by the Met Office or actually occurs. The capital rule has also been abolished, making approximately 400,000 more people eligible for payments. In addition, some improvements have been made to weather station linkages.
    Mr. Sayeed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He knows that I have often thought that the exceptional needs payment scheme was complex, slow and did not often reach those most in need. Is the new system speedy? Will it reach those who are entitled to it and is it far less complex than the old system?
    Mr. Scott: I would put particular emphasis on two factors. The first is the ability of the Met Office to forecast cold weather in advance with some accuracy so that payments can be made in advance rather than in arrears. Secondly, people will be paid automatically without having to fill in a claim form or other kind of document.
    Dr. Godman: I am not going to whinge that the weather in Scotland is always colder than in England. However, I plead with the Minister to examine the local system on the Clyde. The weather station at Glasgow airport is too far from the homes of many of my constituents and their homes are also several hundred feet above sea level. Will he re-examine the system and the way in which it affects people on the lower Clyde?
    Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Scotland we made a number of changes to the linkages of weather stations with local areas. If he wants me to reconsider the changes, I shall, of course, do so. However, he will understand that in such matters I rely heavily upon the professionals at the Meteorological Office for advice.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has already been snow in the north, the midlands, and even on Exmoor in my constituency? is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is concern about the efficiency of the cold weather payments system? Will he confirm, therefore, that the present system is greatly superior to what existed under the previous Labour Government, whose supporters make such hypocritical remarks about their concern for old people?
    Mr. Scott: I reiterate the point that I made to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). On the advice of the Meteorological Office, I further fine-tuned the system, but I am prepared to consider individual cases again, if necessary.
    Mr. Bradley: The cold weather payment scheme is still wholly inadequate, with thousands of pensioners whose incomes are just above the income support level receiving no extra help with their fuel charges. As fuel costs are racing ahead of inflation, will the Minister enter into immediate discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy and the fuel industry to examine the standing charge, which is iniquitous and which adversely affects low-income families, and pensioners in particular?
    Mr. Scott: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to his newly appointed position. I look forward to doing battle with him in the coming weeks and months. I trust that, after the next election, he will remain a Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition.
    The present scheme has, in recent years, been made substantially more generous than the previous one. The actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was responsible for such matters, together with our recent announcement, have made arrangements for the coming winter much more generous. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue his last point, he should do so with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

    Homeless Families (Diet)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account was taken in the review of the arrangements for income support of homeless families of the need of children of homeless families in bed-and breakfast accommodation to have a balanced diet; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: Since April 1989, people in board-and lodging accommodation have been treated in the same way as most other recipients of income support. They receive housing benefit to cover the cost of their accommodation and the standard income support personal allowances and premiums to meet their day-to-day living expenses.
    Mr. Steen: I welcome the Government's initiative to help the homeless, and we are grateful for what the Department of the Environment has done. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bed-and-breakfast families are living below the level of subsistence and that parents go without so that children can eat? Does he agree that, as we approach the Christmas season, it would be appropriate to have a homeless children's Christmas bonus, perhaps of £10 a week, and then longer-term arrangements through
    6
    supplement for income support, so that we can guarantee that every child in bed-and-breakfast accommodation can have a hot meal every day?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend will recognise that, in introducing the concept of premiums into income support, we have made it possible to concentrate help on those who most need it, and not least families with young children. They, of course, will get the appropriate premiums, whatever accommodation they are in. I should be very reluctant to go back to anything like the old system, which gave a perverse incentive for landlords to provide board and lodging rather than other accommodation.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that board and lodging is a second-best provision for those families? Is he satisfied that the new system encourages local authorities to provide houses—rented accommodation—for those people and that the numbers that are dependent on board and lodging are decreasing?
    Mr. Scott: As I said, that is a matter for Environment Ministers. I, too, welcome the fact that we are trying to move away from a system that does not benefit families, local chargepayers, or anybody else. We need as little as possible of the concept of board and lodging and bed and breakfast.
    Mr. Paice: Is not every child whose parents are on income support entitled to a free school meal? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense burden that is being placed on education authorities in the current year because of the increase in the numbers entitled to free school meals? We recognise why that is, and it is a perfectly reasonable requirement that they should be given that free school meal, but it is producing a rather sudden burden for education authorities which they are finding difficult to accommodate at present.
    Mr. Scott: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I must say to him that it is not a matter for me.
    Mr. O'Hara: May we have an assurance that the Minister takes full account of the particular needs of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, among whom there is a high incidence of low birth weight, weight loss, malnourishment and exposure to infectious diseases which is associated with the inadequate cooking and food storage facilities in such accommodation? Commonly, families are excluded during the daytime from such facilities as there are. As a result, such families depend on convenience foods which are more expensive than other foods, and have to purchase food in small quantities which makes it even more expensive. Is the Minister satisfied that the particular needs of those children are met by present arrangements?
    Mr. Scott: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. That is one of the reasons why the Government as a whole and especially my colleagues in the Department of the Environment wish to minimise the use of that type of accommodation.

    Local Offices (Strathclyde)
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of those employed in local Department of Social Security offices in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Greenock and Port Glasgow in each of the past three years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The number of staff employed in local Benefits Agency offices in Strathclyde at 1 April 1989 was 3,774, at 1 April 1990, 3,661 and at 1 April 1991, 3,267. Of those, 204 were employed in Greenock and Port Glasgow in April 1989, 220 in April 1990 and 184 in April 1991.
    Dr. Godman: Do not those inadequate staffing levels explain why many of my constituents have to wait so long for their applications for disability benefit, severe disability premium and industrial injury benefit? Why is that? Only this morning I received a letter from a lady in Port Glasgow which states that her husband made his claim in relation to the heat cataract from which he suffers in September 1989. His appeal, which he won, was heard on 29 September this year. Yet he has heard nothing from the local Benefits Agency. Is that what we can expect from the Benefits Agency? Will the Minister consider employing more people in Port Glasgow and Greenock, especially in respect of such claims and those which have been made vis-a-vis regulation 72?
    Miss Widdecombe: Despite the hon. Gentleman's claim of poor staffing, Greenock and Port Glasgow are ahead on most of the national and area targets for the year. The hon. Member will understand that there was a take-up campaign for disablement benefits directed particularly at the dockyards and shipbuilding. The campaign resulted in 1,400 claims being received in Greenock and Port Glasgow. As a result, 1,367 claims were removed to Stranraer, which had the experienced staff and surplus capacity to deal with the claims. Only 86 claims were outstanding because of the category into which the vast majority fell. Four of those are awaiting medical boards, two are awaiting a decision and 80 have been submitted for an appeal tribunal hearing. If the hon. Gentleman's office is ahead of national and area targets and if it can transfer claims to an office which will deal with them at that rate, the overall picture seems rather better than the hon. Gentleman portrays.

    Social Security Appeals
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to introduce measures to reduce the time taken to determine appeals against the disallowance of social security benefits.
    Mr. Newton: I understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that several initiatives are currently being proposed or piloted in conjunction with the Independent Tribunal Service to reduce the time taken to determine appeals.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that too many appeals take too long to determine and that causes a great deal of anxiety to applicants? Does he agree that something drastic needs to be done about that?
    Mr. Newton: I do not quite go along with the way in which my hon. Friend presents the position. I accept that we all want to see an improvement in the speed of determining appeals. Both the Benefits Agency and, indeed, Judge Holden, as president of the Independent Tribunal Service are devoting a great deal of time and attention to the matter at present. There has been an interesting pilot scheme to speed up submissions in family credit cases. It looks as if the scheme will provide a model to speed up other appeal processes. I accept my hon. Friend's underlying anxiety. We shall certainly continue to do everything that we can to improve the position.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 16 to 17-year-olds are the biggest group who are disallowed benefit, and that latest estimates suggest that 65,000 of them have no job, no training, no further education and no benefit? Is he aware of a recent survey which found that 21 per cent. admitted that they could support themselves only by stealing, 6 per cent. only by begging and 2 per cent. only by selling drugs, and that many were starving and had not eaten for several days? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of the hypocrisy of the Government talking about the citizens charter while depriving tens of thousands of their citizens of the basic essentials of life?
    Mr. Newton: I suppose that I could say that that question has nothing to do with the original question. Whether or not it has, it is a characteristically overheated piece of Oldham hype talk. We have made persistent and, in my view, successful attempts to improve the operation of that part of the benefit system. That, and the severe hardship provision—of which he is well aware, but did not even mention—are working well.

    Pensioners
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of extra help, including measures in the 1991 uprating statement, which has been directed to less-well-off pensioners since 1989.
    Mr. Newton: The proposed additions to the income support higher pensioner premium from next April will increase social security expenditure by £60 million. That means that the total cost of help for pensioners on low incomes, over and above that resulting from normal upratings since 1989 will amount to about one third of a billion pounds.
    Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of pensioners who claim income support fell significantly over the 10 years beginning 1979? Will he please tell the House what percentage rise the lowest 20 per cent. are receiving in real terms?
    Mr. Newton: A study of the incomes of the least-well-off pensioners will show that there has been an increase of about 15 per cent. in the standard of living of the lowest quintile. I hope that that is the sort of information that my hon. Friend wants. Pensioners' living standards have been rising faster than those of the population as a whole. That reflects not only social security policies, including those touched on in the original question, but the greatly improved income from savings and occupational pensions, which have been such a feature of the past 10 years.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State consider reinstating the disregard for retired mineworkers and their widows? They have lost income through the concessionary fuel allowance and, therefore, in many instances are being driven into the lowest benefit possible—income support. If the allowance for fuel were reinstated, it would lift their benefits and standard of living. Would he give that serious consideration?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will know that we went to considerable trouble earlier this year to try to ensure that the changes being made by British Coal did not have adverse effects on pensioners. I am sure that the right approach overall is the one that we have adopted—that is, to put additional resources into income support premiums to help low-income pensioners regardless of in which industry they may have worked.

    Care Homes
    Dame Peggy Fenner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are expected to benefit from the increased funding from residential care and nursing home income support limits announced in October 1991.
    Miss Widdecombe: The increased income support limits are expected to help about 265,000 people.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which I know will be of benefit to quite a large number of my constituents and also a consolation to those in residential care and nursing homes, who were becoming concerned. Does she agree that that again gives an example of extra help to the most vulnerable among our older population—those who need residential care and nursing?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. She may be interested to know that whereas those benefits cost £10 million when the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, we are now paying about £1·6 billion, which is a sign of our commitment to help the poor pensioner.
    Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State has made great play of his proposed increased funding for residential homes to £175 a place next April. Is he aware that that level of income support is already grossly inadequate for homes in London and the south-east? According to a survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services only a month ago, the proposed level of income support is already £70 a week short of the actual charges being made today in Watford, £80 short in Edgware and £95 short in Edmonton. Since another survey has shown that as a result of those shortfalls elderly relatives have been evicted from private homes in more than one in four social service department areas, will the Minister now have the grace to recognise that the privatisation of old people's homes has been an extremely expensive error, of which many elderly, frail residents have been the chief victims?
    Miss Widdecombe: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has got the whole thing wrong. As ever, he is confusing costs with charges. He is also ignoring both the survey conducted by this Department which showed clearly that many homes manage and the fact that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed the National Care
    10
    Homes Association he was given a standing ovation, so they cannot be too discontent. Evidence of evictions is negligible. The hon. Gentleman completely overlooks, conveniently, the responsibilities that local authorities have even now towards those who require care and cannot afford it.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of a single pensioner and pensioner couple on income support; and what is the total weekly value of their income from all benefits.
    Mr. Newton: The average total weekly income of pensioners on income support excluding housing benefit is, for a single person, £56·70, of which £56·20 is benefit income; and for a couple £91·20, £90·30 of which is made up of benefit.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the old-fashioned Labour party view that all pensioners have low incomes is now completely outdated? Since so many pensioners in retirement own their own houses and have good occupational pensions, investments, savings and interest-bearing shares, is not it crazy to give an across-the-board uprating? Is not it better to target resources on those who need them most?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is entirely right to point to the rising number of pensioners who have significant sources of income other than the state retirement pension. That has emerged several times in today's Question Time. I agree that in making extra real resources available, as we have been doing, it is right to steer them towards those who do not have those extra incomes and are therefore most in need.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know where all these rich pensioners are, but they certainly do not live in my constituency. Is not it outrageous that any Tory Member should suggest that £56 a week for a single pensioner and £91 a week for a pensioner couple is in any way adequate? Those are miserly sums. When one considers the sums available to pensioners in other European countries, the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself. I am ashamed that so many pensioners have to live on the sort of money that Tory Members will spend on dinner tonight.
    Mr. Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too overheated, let me make two simple points. First, the particular part of London that he represents may have an above-average proportion of less well-off pensioners. That is another way of saying that he has a population that will have benefited disproportionately from the increases that we have steered towards less well-off pensioners. Secondly, as I emphasised in my answer, these figures exclude housing benefit. To get the real comparison of what is being paid to many of those pensioners each week, we need to add the 100 per cent. support with the rent which they also get.

    Child Benefit
    Sir Peter Blaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children will benefit from the October uprating of child benefit.
    Mr. Jack: Child benefit is paid for about 12·3 million children. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that 1·5 million of them are in the north-west and 300,000 in Lancashire. Every one of them will gain from the October increases.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, by the time of the increase next April, child benefit will have increased no fewer than three times in the space of 12 months? Will he also transmit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my congratulations on his decision to locate 550 extra jobs in the Blackpool, Fylde and Preston area? That is extremely welcome and those jobs will be well performed.
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tenacity with which he has put the case for his constituents regarding the location of jobs in our constituencies. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State noted my hon. Friend's remarks. The three upratings have cost £1 billion and our record is in stark contrast to that of the Labour Government, who cut benefits to families with children by 7 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Eastham: The Minister and the Government may take all the glory for the recent increases, but if things are so good, why did the Government refuse for several years to uprate child benefit when they knew that the same needs as now existed?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that since the social security system changed in the 1987–88 financial year we have managed to increase in real terms the benefits up to April 1992—in addition to all the other expenditure—for low-income families by £600 million. We must balance how we use our resources and, by doing so, we have been able to help such families.

    Disabled People
    Sir John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to ensure that disabled people receive benefits to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Scott: We are planning a wide range of activities to publicise the introduction in April next year of disability living allowance and disability working allowance and we shall be involving disabled people and their organisations in the publicity campaign to ensure effective take-up of these and other benefits for disabled people.
    Sir John Hunt: Should not my right hon. Friend's welcome announcement lead to a further significant take-up of disability benefits? The mobility allowance has increased sevenfold since 1979 and during the same time there has been a substantial increase in disability benefits. All those increases demonstrate the Government's continuing concern for the needs of the disabled.
    Mr. Scott: The increases in the coverage of attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits for disabled people during the term of the Government have been remarkable. Sometimes the Opposition appear to criticise us for that, but our take-up campaigns have been successful. However, we are learning new techniques all the time and they will be applied to disability working allowance and disability living allowance.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will introduce changes to speed up the payment of attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce that from April next year we are introducing a fundamentally different claims and adjudication system for disability living allowance and attendance allowance for people over 65 which will significantly improve the time taken to deal with claims to those benefits.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister is referring to the fact that the Government are going to modify the sixth-month waiting allowance that applies to people who get payments such as the attendance allowance. However, some cancer victims do not qualify, because, unfortunately, they have passed on. From what I can gather, the Government are refusing to pay retrospectively all those who claim attendance allowance in the proper manner, irrespective of their illness. In April will the Minister ensure that no claimant for attendance allowance and all the other benefits loses out retrospectively? It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will improve the benefits for some exceptional cases, but not for all. So get rid of the six-month allowance for everyone.
    Mr. Scott: The DLA will subsume attendance allowance and mobility allowance. This new benefit will substantially lower the threshold that people have to meet. For the care component of the new benefit the qualifying period will be reduced from six months to three months. Those on existing benefits will automatically transfer to the new benefits. The hon. Gentleman referred to terminally ill people. We have removed the qualifying period—
    Mr. Skinner: For some of them.
    Mr. Scott: No, all terminally ill people qualify in that way. The other significant fact about the new benefits is that we will rely far less on medical examinations and more on the assessment of disabled people and their carers when determining the extent of their disability and its effect on their life.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Rost: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the total value to a two-child family of the three increases in child benefit which will have taken place in the year to April 1992.
    Mr. Jack: For a two-child family, those increases will be worth £2·95 a week, taking total child benefit to £17·45 a week. For a family on average income, that is equal to an increase in gross earnings of £1,350 a year.
    Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the Government's generous increase in child benefit, our provision now compares favourably with that of many other European countries? For example, will he compare our provision with that of socialist France?
    Mr. Jack: Clearly, my hon. Friend has been doing his research extremely well, because in France there is no equivalent to the benefit that we pay for the first child. If the French scheme were to be replicated here, 40 per cent.

    13
    of mothers would not receive child benefit. In several other EC countries, there are extra entitlement conditions. Greece, Germany and Italy have means tests, while Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain link eligibility to insurance. My hon. Friend is right to say that our provision is generous.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the income of pensioners.
    Mr. Newton: In the past month, Ministers have met two delegations to discuss issues of general concern to pensioners.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern and anger that is felt by pensioners? Despite the statement that was made earlier today, they feel that they are being victimised. A large number of pensioners, especially those on income support and just above the income support level, face another winter of struggling daily to make ends meet. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves because of how those pensioners have lost out as a result of the decision taken in 1980, which resulted in pensions no longer being increased in line with earnings. A married couple has lost out by £24 a week directly as a result of Tory Government action.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the pensioners about whom he is concerned—many Conservative Members share that concern—have benefited from the successive improvements in income support premiums of the past three years. Some 1 million such pensioners will gain next April from what I announced a few weeks ago, either directly through extra income support or through the effect of increased housing benefit or community charge benefit. I am not ashamed of that; I am glad that we have been able to do more to help those pensioners and I hope that we can continue to do so.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Deliberate Injustice
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Attorney-General if there are any restrictions upon his ability to investigate a case of alleged deliberate injustice.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I do not have investigatory powers of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Browne: What advice would my right hon. and learned Friend give to those seeking appeal under clause 5 of article 14 of the United Nations international convention on civil and political rights, especially where a quite deliberate injustice has been perpetrated by senior Government Ministers intent on injustice to a Member of a sovereign Parliament by misleading that Parliament?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse a Minister of misleading the House.
    Mr. Browne: I withdraw the words "senior Government Ministers" and say, certain persons.
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I do not give advice on abstract questions. If my hon. Friend's ingenious question were to induce me to comment on proceedings that are wholly a matter for the House, that would be wrong.

    Prosecution Delays
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to reduce the time between individuals being arrested and their being prosecuted.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The detailed recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues and the recently announced plan for their implementation incorporate proposals that are intended to reduce delays throughout the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Mr. Leslie Huckfield was acquitted some three years after he was first charged? Is not that a case of justice delayed, justice denied? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that relatively simple cases will be dealt with speedily?
    The Solicitor-General: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that relatively simple cases will be speeded up, particularly when the costed action plan for the recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues comes into effect. The case that he mentioned arose only after detailed investigations by the police on a much wider series of matters.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Solicitor-General examine the delays in prosecutions, particularly the case of Mr. Don Stewart, who phoned me this morning and who is a frightened man? He was held hostage in a car for 24 hours and shot at the end of that period. He has discovered in the past few days that the man who committed the alleged offence is now on bail. Will the Solicitor-General look at that extraordinary series of events and ensure that we speed up the systems of prosecution and sentencing to prevent such incidents from occurring?
    The Solicitor-General: Problems of offences being committed while people are on bail are very much in the forefront of the minds of all those involved with the criminal justice system.

    City Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on recent initiatives by the Serious Fraud Office in connection with City fraud.
    The Attorney-General: The SFO has continued its work of investigating and prosecuting serious and complex fraud. Its objectives are to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system in this regard, to deter fraud and to maintain confidence in our financial systems.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Attorney-General draw the attention of the SFO to the fact that just round the corner at Westminster city council there has been another allegation of serious fraud involving a charity called the Foundation for Business Responsibilities. The £100,000 plus received from big business and Tories in the City was used, not for charity—although the contributions were probably set off against tax—but to keep control of key marginal wards in Westminister council. It seems odd that

    15
    Lady Porter and her cronies on Westminster council can do as they like with the Government and the SFO—they seem to have got away with the cemeteries episode and now are involved in another big scam. While Labour councils are surcharged and kicked out of public office, Lady Porter and her cronies get away with blue murder. Why does not the Attorney-General have an investigation?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him, because I have told him about six times already this Parliament, that if there is evidence of criminal behaviour in any quarter it should be drawn to the attention of the police. It is due to a Conservative Government's initiative that we now have a specialist office with powers to investigate and prosecute serious and complex fraud which has brought highly effective results. The hon. Gentleman seems to find it impossible to forgive that.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the SFO is extremely effective? By far the highest number of prosecutions brought to a successful outcome at the Old Bailey are connected with fraud. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the extra powers of the SFO have resulted in those convictions? Long may the SFO continue to get to the bottom of many of the complex frauds which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants us to look at.
    The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the powers that Parliament has given the SFO were necessary and are being well used in the interests of justice. The SFO is greatly admired in many other countries; people come here to find out how it goes about its business and what powers it has. It sets an example which is being widely followed and co-operates effectively with other organisations overseas. It is a success story of which the House can be proud.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General reconsider his dismissive answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about what has been described in the quality papers as the Porter slush fund? Does not the Attorney-General have special responsibility, first, as a Tory, secondly, as the person who supervises prosecutions and, thirdly, as the Minister with responsibility for charities? Does he agree that probity, like charity, should begin at home? Will he set in hand an investigation into whether charitable funds were improperly used in Westminster to influence election results in favour of the Conservative party? Will he at least undertake to the House that he will set in hand that investigation?
    The Attorney-General: If my reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was dismissive, it was because it is right to dismiss bald assertions of crime when no investigation has been carried out. If there are matters that should be investigated by the police, the police should be told of them.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It was on the front page of The Observer.
    The Attorney-General: Then that is the answer to the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). There is no desire on the part of the Government,
    16
    the prosecuting authorities or myself, holding responsibility for the interests of charities, that anything improper should be covered up. That has always been so and it will continue to be so.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the care with which public money is spent on legal aid and of the adequacy with which records are kept of its disbursement.
    The Solicitor-General: Legal aid payments are subject to control by the courts, known as taxation, and to internal and external independent audit. Records are kept or destroyed in accordance with Public Record Office guidelines.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that when it is alleged that a bill paid by legal aid is billed for privately by a solicitor, no one can determine whether that is true or investigate whether it is true? Even if such investigations are carried out, the records are destroyed—even if a Member of Parliament has taken up the matter. One of my constituents is in precisely that predicament and no one can give me a clear answer about whether there has been double billing.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has been looking with great care at the problem of his constituent. The problem has been examined by the solicitors complaints bureau, the solicitors disciplinary tribunal and, quite independently, by the new legal services ombudsman, who found no improper activity.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Debt Write-off
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the write-off of outstanding debt to third world countries will have on his plans for aid to Africa.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Harare that we are to reduce the official debts of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries by around two thirds is greatly welcomed by eligible countries. The granting of Trinidad terms will significantly enhance the overall level of United Kingdom support for the poorest countries, especially those in Africa.
    Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only have certain countries been helped by this great relief but it has done a great deal for the reputation of this country, which has removed an unbearable burden from countries overburdened by debt to the advanced world? Will she press for countries in west Africa such as Nigeria and Ghana to be included among those with great needs and with great expectations of this Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend. The cost to the United Kingdom of the two thirds write-off will be more than £500 million, which will therefore greatly benefit the nations that come under the Trinidad terms. We believe

    17
    that Nigeria should be eligible for debt relief; we continue to argue her case in the Paris Club. Her official debt stands at about $12 billion.
    Mr. Pike: In view of rapidly changing circumstances, including writing off certain debts and the ending of apartheid in South Africa, what priority is the Minister allocating to the educational needs of black people in South Africa to help them meet the challenges ahead once apartheid is ended?
    Mrs. Chalker: The whole world knows that black people in South Africa are owed education. We have concentrated our help in South Africa on education and we shall continue to do so. But now at last there is help from the South African Government for black South Africans. It is not yet enough, but they have started well and they intend to continue, so that debt to people is being assisted by British aid, too.
    Mr. Rowe: There can be no one in the aid world who does not appreciate my right hon. Friend's assiduity and the tremendous practicality with which she tried to skew aid programmes to practical purposes. Will she assure us that when giving aid to developing countries in Africa, she will do all in her power to prevent the Governments of those countries from looking for sophisticated pieces of equipment and machinery which are far beyond the capacity of the people in those countries to use and to stimulate and support simple, practical courses of the kind which at the moment are, incongruously, run at the Institute of Child Health in London when they should be run in Africa?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, with which I sympathise. Over the past two and a half years I have taken a great deal of interest in diverting, so to speak, the former big projects to small, local-level projects. I know about the work of the Institute of Child Health and warmly commend it, as I commend the work of many other British specialist institutes. With our non-governmental organisations, they provide some of the most effective ways in which to give help to the poorest people who so desperately need it.

    Voluntary Agencies
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from voluntary agencies on aid policy over the last month.
    Mrs. Chalker: I maintain regular contacts with voluntary agencies in the aid field and these frequently include exchanges of views on policy.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many voluntary agencies are greatly concerned that after years during which the Government refused to give any assistance whatever to the people of Cambodia, only a miserly £5 million has gone from the Government recently? Tragically, people in that country are still being wounded and killed by the 3 million to 4 million land mines which it is estimated are still there. Countries such as ours, which have been much at fault in not giving assistance to Cambodia, now need to make a real effort.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that until the ceasefire and the peace negotiations were completed,
    18
    we were limited in what we could do. We were already working through the NGOs before that, but now we can work much better. We have already opened a diplomatic mission and we are contributing officers to the United Nations advance mission in Cambodia and making a substantial contribution to the cost of the UN presence. In aid terms, not only are we supporting the co-ordination of the donors' assistance, but we are giving £2 million towards the cost of repatriation of people in the camps along the Thai-Cambodia border and £3 million for the new World Health Organisation programme to combat the spread of malaria and other diseases and posting an experienced aid administrator to Phnom Penh. We are making available from the Department a senior medical adviser who is a Khmer speaker to the WHO office in Phnom Penh. We have already told the Cambodians that we shall establish an in-country English language training facility to help train their officials and others involved in reconstruction and redevelopment work and we shall continue our financial support for the humanitarian assistance programmes of the British NGOs. That is no small order for a country which has only just got its peace agreement.
    Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of voluntary agencies assisting in Vietnam has been very helpful to the Government and that many voluntary agencies are now establishing offices in Hanoi to carry out programmes that will do something about the abject poverty in that country and so end the dreadful plight of the boat people?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vietnam certainly needs a great deal of assistance. Vietnam has recently shown improvements in human rights and we can certainly assist such countries. We are glad that there are no reports of human rights abuses against returned boat people to whom we are giving specialist settlement help. I am sure that, as our NGOs develop in Vietnam, more can be done through our joint funding scheme to assist them.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of good governance criteria in the allocation of aid, do the principles that the right hon. Lady set out in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) apply equally to Indonesia? Will she answer yes or no?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the great anxiety in the House about Indonesia. Only a couple of days ago on 13 November at the European Community Ministers meeting we expressed our grave concern about the situation in East Timor and one of my diplomatic wing colleagues saw the Indonesian ambassador. Of course, good government applies to Indonesia as well and we shall be doing everything that we can to change those aspects in the most encouraging way, because there is much to be done.

    Third World Countries
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held, in the past month, with his European Community ministerial colleagues concerning aid to third world countries.
    Mrs. Chalker: I last met my EC ministerial colleagues at an informal Development Council at Apeldoorn in the Netherlands in July. I shall meet them again at the Development Council in Brussels next week.
    Dr. Goodman: Is the European Community providing any assistance by way of NGOs to the many impoverished people in Tibet? Is not such assistance desperately needed in that occupied country and would not the best way to achieve such fine ends be through the NGOs?
    Mrs. Chalker: It is perfectly true that in countries like Tibet and others where it is difficult to give assistance to the ordinary people at village level, the NGO route is by far the best one to follow. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the EC is putting money through its NGOs to Tibet, but I shall write to him with an answer.

    Rain Forests
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with British initiatives to assist the preservation of the tropical rain forest.
    Mrs. Chalker: The Government's essential aim is to help promote sustainable management of tropical forests and their biodiversity. We have increased our bilateral activities and encouraged multilaterals to do likewise and we are active in preparations for the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil next June.
    Mr. Arnold: Given the expertise to be found at Kew gardens, in the Oxford Forestry Institute and elsewhere, could my right hon. Friend tell us about the measures being taken to ensure that that expertise is brought to bear, particularly in the Amazon basin?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, but if I went into this at length, you might censor me, Mr. Speaker, so I shall not. However, I can say that the royal botanical gardens at Kew, the Oxford Forestry Institute and many other excellent British academic institutions are fully engaged in our programme in South America and I hope that the G7 forestry initiative will mean that more projects come to the excellent British institutions that are already giving help. Some 185 projects are already under progress at a potential cost to our programme of £109 million.

    Kurdish People
    The following Questions stood upon the Paper:—
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to discuss aid for the Kurdish people.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Government aid has gone to Kurdish people since April of this year; what information he has on the amount of aid from United Kingdom non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: I held discussions in Geneva last week on the situation in Iraq with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, the United Nations Secretary-General's executive delegate, and senior officials from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the League of Red Cross and
    20
    Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organisation of Migration and the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator. I heard of the considerable efforts being made by those agencies to relieve humanitarian need in Iraq and was able to discuss with them how best we might continue to assist the needs of ordinary Iraqis.
    The British Government have played their full part. Since April this year, we have spent £44 million to help the people of Iraq, including over £6 million through United Kingdom non-governmental organisations, £500,000 through Iraqi humanitarian groups and £2·5 million through the ICRC. Britain maintains a contribution to the coalition force in southern Turkey which is continuing to deter any renewed repression by the Iraqi authorities.
    Iraq is able to and should meet the basic requirements of all its own people. The Security Council adopted two mandatory resolutions, 706 and 712, on 15 August and 19 September. They permit the export of some $1·6 billion of Iraqi oil to meet humanitarian needs. This oil could and should already be flowing, but Saddam Hussein refuses to implement the resolutions. He is clearly using the suffering, especially of women and children, for his own cynical purposes.
    Prince Sadruddin leaves for Iraq tomorrow to make progress on these points. I have given him my full support for this vital United Nations task. I am sure that he will have the full support of the whole House. Britain will continue to play her full part in alleviating suffering in Iraq. The last months have proved that the international community is more concerned for the people of Iraq than are their own Government.
    Mr. Barnes: What estimates have been made of the needs of the Kurds and how much of the material that has been made available to them has been able to get through? What protections are available? What is the latest information about the field hospital that was sent out by British Aid for the Kurds?
    It is a pity that we did not know that a statement was to be made generally about Iraq rather than in response to the two questions that have been tabled about the Kurds, Nos. 34 and 35. There is much wider concern and I am one of those who would wish to see trade being opened up with Iraq so that a devastated country can begin to be repaired.
    Mrs. Chalker: It is extremely difficult, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) knows as well as I do, to obtain a full estimate of what is needed. I can say that there is great need and that in certain pockets the situation is disastrous. That is so in the north and it is also the position of the Shias in the marshland in the south, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) can testify. Therefore, the need is still great. I made that point with considerable emphasis to Prince Sadruddin and to others whom I met in Geneva last week.
    We can protect and, by means of our troops in southern Turkey, deter the recurrence of the awful things that seem to have happened in the past. We have no doubt that medicines that have been sent from Britain and many other countries have been blockaded by the Revolutionary Guard somewhere in Iraq. We know also that other materials have not yet got through but have been sent. We are doing all that we can to unblock the situation and to overcome the problem. That does not absolve Saddam

    21
    Hussein of the responsibility for looking after his own people. There is his agreement—well, not agreement because the United Nations resolutions are mandatory —when he permits the oil to flow. As soon as that happens, the people of Iraq will benefit and will cease to suffer in the disastrous way that they have for so long.
    Mr. Corbyn: The Minister will be aware that I visited Kurdish Iraq in August to see for myself the destruction that had taken place. The right hon. Lady has been informed of the observations that I and others made at that time. It is clear that there is an urgent need for aid to get through to the Kurdish people. What was bad in August is terrible now and it will be appalling in the middle of winter. An urgent supply of aid is desperately needed —medicines, food and building equipment, for example, to assist the Kurdish people.
    When I was in Kurdish Iraq I felt that many of the aid agencies should have more confidence in working with the Kurdistan Front in the supply of aid and food to the villages and towns and in co-operating with logistical support. Those in the Kurdistan Front know the region best. They have always lived there and they are best able to advise on appropriate aid.
    My final point—
    Mr. Speaker: No more please.
    Mr. Corbyn: My last concern, which is of great importance—
    Mr. Speaker: There are others who want to participate.
    Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
    Unless the Turkish army and air force desist from attacks over the border into Iraq, the security of the Kurdish people is once again threatened, not only by Saddam Hussein but by the Turkish air force.
    Mrs. Chalker: To clear up the last point first, we made it clear to the Government of Turkey that the people of northern Iraq and the Kurdish people of southern Turkey should not be treated as was seen to be happening some months ago. There has been no difference between us on that.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been in the area, as have others. There is justified concern about the Kurds facing the threat of this winter. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley has seen the position for herself.
    We have been concentrating on pushing through food, shelter facilities and health care to try to avert the tragedy of the mountains, but no single Government or group of NGOs can make things happen if the Revolutionary Guard is stockpiling equipment and necessary food. Prince Sadruddin is going to Baghdad tomorrow to try to solve that problem. We send our best wishes with him; but I assure the House that we shall not let up in our attempts to help Iraqi people in both the north and south.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I thank my right hon. Friend from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of those whom I have seen in southern Iran who are refugees from Saddam Hussein's brutality against the Shia people. I thank her even more warmly for the help that she gave, in the form of food and clothing, to people who fled into the marshes. Their plight is desperate. I saw them recently in the marshes of southern Iraq and I hope to bring over one or
    22
    two of the smallest victims of Saddam Husseim's brutal napalm bombing—in particular a boy of 10, who needs crucial plastic surgery.
    May I ask my right hon. Friend to endorse—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please ask one question at a time? If not, they take a good deal of time from others.
    Miss Nicholson: Tomorrow, the findings will be released of the interim report from Mr. Max van der Stoel, the special United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, who will present the report to the United Nations third committee. Will my right hon. Friend endorse those findings and make every effort to endorse the resolution, proposed by Belgium, which Mr. van der Stoel will present?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that we shall see almost total aggreement with Mr. van der Stoel's report when it is published tomorrow. I have not seen the report yet, but my hon. Friend knows me well enough to realise that we shall use the opportunity offered by it to do all that we can to further help for people in southern Iraq and those in camps in the south-west and other parts of Iran.
    The situation is serious. We shall continue to support NGOs in southern Iraq and in the camps in the south-west. I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on the work that she has done, but on going to the marshes of southern Iraq and coming back with the evidence. It took some courage to do that.
    Mr. Cormack: What my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon about the activities of Saddam Hussein and his lackeys in the Revolutionary Guard makes many of us extremely ashamed that no attempt has been made to bring this bestial, malevolent, satanic figure to the bar of world opinion, either by seeking to bring charges against him or by forcing him into exile. Cannot something be done? Men's lives were lost in the Gulf war. A war was fought and to what purpose?
    Mrs. Chalker: The freeing of Kuwait was the objective set by the United Nations. That was successfully accomplished with—thank goodness—a minimal, although sad, loss of life.
    It is extremely difficult to speculate about what will happen next. I understand my hon. Friend's grave and deeply felt anxiety and the wish of all the British people that Saddam Hussein be brought to justice. It is not in the British Government's power to do that; we must continue to work through the United Nations. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do that with all the force at their disposal.
    Sir David Steel: The Minister will have seen all the independent reports—including that of Reuters news agency—of deliberate attempts to prevent fuel, medicine and food from reaching Kurdish areas. The reports include a remarkable quotation from the health minister in Baghdad, who, tacitly, more or less admitted that that was happening.
    Did the Minister discuss with Prince Sadruddin the possibility of staging a United Nations airlift of supplies, aimed directly at the area and paying for it with the frozen Iraqi funds that are in our banks?
    Mrs. Chalker: Prince Sadruddin and I have indeed discussed the issue and we shall continue to discuss it when

    23
    he returns from his mission in Baghdad. We hope that, by then, the $1·6 billion worth of oil will be starting to flow: that would help more than anything else.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued repression of the Kurdish people and the Shia people in the south and the brutalities inflicted upon them by Saddam Hussein and his Government were entirely predictable when that Government were left in power? What would be the attitude of the Turkish authorities to humanitarian air supplies from bases in their territory?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Government of Turkey then in office gave us a great deal of help earlier in the year. I am quite certain that the new Government of Turkey will give the international donor community similar help if that is the only way in which we can get assistance to the people. However, the fact remains that there is $1·6 billion-worth of Iraqi oil money that should benefit ordinary Iraqi people.
    Mr. Winnick: The large numbers of Iraqi people of all kinds who are suffering so much at the moment do not question whether the war was justified—they know that it was. Rather, they are wondering why the allies left them at the tender mercy of a notorious and murderous criminal dictator. Bearing in mind the questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House today, if it is clear that Saddam Hussein is not going to take the necessary action to relieve the suffering which the Minister has described, will the United Nations take further measures and adopt a new resolution to ensure that the people of Iraq do not continue to suffer under that notorious dictatorship?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I will have made certain plans for the future under certain circumstances. Prince Sadruddin is going to Baghdad tomorrow; after the discussions that he and I and others have had in the past week, I believe that we must await the outcome of that visit. We sincerely hope that Saddam Hussein will see sense. Whether he does or not, we are prepared to do what is necessary for ordinary Iraqi people in future.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister know that reports today claim that 5,000 Kurdish villagers have just fled from their homes near Arbil after coming under Iraqi mortar fire and that Iraqi troops are today telling Kurds to leave or be shot? Has she heard the reports from Arbil, where I was last week and where I saw 18,000 Iraqi troops two miles away with their tanks and artillery ready to strike? Does she realise that shells like this in my hand, which I picked up from the roadside near Arbil, are being fired at the Kurds from helicopters? Clearly—
    Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remember being apprehended by a previous occupant of your Chair when I brought an orange into the Chamber.
    Mr. Speaker: I would like that shell taken out of the Chamber please.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry that people are so squeamish. The shell is empty. I was making a serious point that helicopter gunships are still being used against the Kurds. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) could not take the point seriously.
    Does the right hon. Lady remember that when the Prime Minister proposed a plan to protect the Kurds from further attacks by the Iraqi army, he promised to
    "provide shelter and housing to the Kurds until it is safe for them to return to their own homes."
    Seven months later, does she really expect us to believe that the promises to protect them and the Shias in the south are being honoured? Does she realise that the failure to honour those promises means that the United Nations agencies cannot do their job properly? Is she aware that little has changed for the refugees and that last week I saw tens of thousands of them once more on the moutainside where I was in April? They were still living in desperate conditions because they are either too frightened or unable to return to their homes in Iraq. Is she also aware that I saw hundreds of people fleeing once more in trucks, tractors and cars with their meagre possessions piled up round them?
    Can the Minister urge the Prime Minister to honour his promises and ensure that the Kurds are given air cover backed by a visible will to use it until they are no longer threatened by the terror and butchery of Saddam Hussein?
    Mrs. Chalker: I sincerely welcome the hon. Lady back safely to this country. Allied aircraft and men based in Turkey are having a deterrent effect. There may be a need to do more than is being done now, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), we must give Prince Sadruddin the chance this week to change what we believe can be changed under the existing Security Council resolutions.
    There has been no failure to honour promises. This country has given more than £44 million since April alone. We have United Kingdom engineers working for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in northern Iraq. Other British people are working out there at present. We have consistently inquired about the funding of the agencies. We have resources. We have been responding positively to requests from NGOs and we will continue to respond.
    The hon. Lady keeps asking me whether I know this, that and the other. Of course I know. But I also know that the practicality of getting through the help that we genuinely and willingly will give Iraqi people can happen only if we can make sure that Saddam Hussein will make it happen. That is what we are engaged upon at the moment and that is what we shall do, one way or the other.

"Competing For Quality"
3.50 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", which is published today.
The citizens charter sets out a comprehensive programme to improve the quality of public services and make them answer better to the wishes of their users, where that can be done, by providing choice for the citizen. At the heart of the charter lies our commitment to provide services of the highest quality and the best value that can be bought with taxpayers' money. Extending competition is crucial to that.
The citizens charter promised a White Paper this autumn on the extension of competition and choice in the provision of public services. "Competing for Quality" fulfils that promise.
Governments of all persuasions have always bought in some services, but this Government have taken the process further. Where competition has been introduced, the results have been impressive— market testing has typically cut the cost of providing services in central Government by no less than 25 per cent.
Good managers everywhere know that they need to look both inside and outside their organisation to get the best deal for the citizens who use their services. Competition does not mean invariably choosing the cheapest service; it means combining quality and price to provide the best value for money for the service. That is what the best managers are doing. The White Paper will make it easier for them to do so.
We have already made some progress. The White Paper marks a step change in our programme for reforming the public sector. It sets out how the Government intend to extend competition in the provision of public services further and faster than ever before right across the public sector. That means providing incentives, removing obstacles, and enhancing purchasing skills—in short, it means driving competition much further into our public services.
Central Government Departments which achieve savings through competitive tendering will in future be able to apply those savings for the benefit of their programmes. Each Department and agency will set annual targets, with private sector help, for testing new areas of activity in the market. There will be a new public competition and purchasing unit in the Treasury to carry forward that work, led by a part-time chairman from the private sector, who will also be a member of the advisory panel on the citizens charter. I hope to announce that appointment before long.
Performance pay will play a crucial part in delivering the citizens charter programme. The successful application of competition to increase value for money should be an important factor in determining performance pay.
Market testing procedures in central Government have often taken far too long. They will be simplified and streamlined. In some parts of the public sector, documentation has been so unwieldy that businesses have been deterred from tendering. This will change.
Competition must be conducted fairly and openly. We shall remove tax distortions, require in-house services to be clearly costed and accounted for, and ensure that
26
one-off costs are appraised over a realistic period. This will ensure that there will be no bias between public and private sector providers. We shall welcome suggestions from private companies on services which might be suitable for contracting out, and on ways of improving contracting out procedures.
The Government are committed to a publicly funded health service, firmly located in the public sector. None of the proposals in this White Paper will change that, but the NHS has always bought a substantial amount of services from external suppliers. We estimate that the drive to market test support services throughout the NHS has brought savings of some £626 million over the past seven years. These savings can be ploughed directly into patient care.
The White Paper sets out good practice to encourage buying in high-quality support services in hospitals, to improve direct health care for patients. We also propose that health authorities and provider units should report on their plans and achievements and that there should be a new national database on contractors for major services.
In local authorities, expanding competition through compulsory competitive tendering has shown many successes for about a decade. The White Paper sets out how we propose to take this further. It reflects the proposals which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales issued for consultation on 5 November.
Local authorities should buy the services that meet the needs of their local population, wherever the services can best be obtained. Many local authorities have responded enthusiastically to the competitive challenge. Some have led the way and have used the private sector to deliver a range of professional and technical services. We want to ensure that all local taxpayers reap these benefits. So we are consulting on proposals to extend competition under existing legislation to more manual and direct services; extend competition requirements to construction-related professional services such as architecture, engineering and property management; and in the longer term, require core services such as legal, finance, personnel and computing services to be opened up to competition. As a necessary first step, authorities would set up internal trading accounts, to identify the true costs of providing each service.
We also intend to bring forward proposals to introduce competition into the important field of housing management—in ways which will enable tenants to participate. The private sector must be given a fair chance to compete for local authority contracts. The Local Government Bill currently being considered in another place contains provisions for securing greater consistency of practice between local authorities.
Competition is good for the users of public services. It gives them a wider variety of facilities and services. Competition is good for taxpayers who get better value for their money. It is good for managers who can concentrate on their core activities, looking for the best deal for their customers. It is good for staff, who can give of their best in a more competitive environment. It is good for business, giving private firms new opportunities to market their services.
The services that we get from the public sector affect all our lives and cost a great deal of money. For that reason, services must be bought wherever the best deal can be obtained. What the Government buy matters as much as

27
what they spend. This White Paper expresses our determination that the taxpayers' money which the nation can afford should buy the best quality services for our citizens. This lies at the heart of the citizen's charter and the Government's programme for public services in the 1990s.
Mr. Chris Smith: Once again, the great expectations unleashed by the Prime Minister and the inflated claims made for the citizens charter when it was first announced have resulted in a half-baked set of proposals which will do little to improve the real quality of public services in Britain.
Is the Financial Secretary aware that, in some instances, greater competition may lead to improvements in quality, but that that does not automatically follow? Only a Government as dogmatically fixated as this one would believe that all one needs to do is introduce a market or privatise sections of service and all will be well. Is he aware that that has not been the case in large parts of the national health service, where food, cleaning and laundry services have been put out to competitive tender, and where, as a result, standards have often fallen far short of what they ought to be?
On the health service, how was the figure of £626 million of savings in seven years calculated? Is it not the case that a similar figure would result from calculating seven years' worth of tax relief for private medical insurance? Is it not also the case that the cost of one or perhaps two years' worth of the administrative introduction of the NHS changes for the internal market would again result in the same figure? How dare the Government say that they are going to improve patient care when they are wasting money so disgracefully in other parts of the health service?
On housing, what exactly does the Financial Secretary mean by the introduction of competition into housing management? Is he aware that the Institute of Housing has recently reported that it does not believe that competitive tendering in housing management is a sensible option, saying that it does
"not easily lend itself to competitive tendering"?
The Opposition strongly support tenant involvement in housing management. Labour-controlled authorities have been introducing imaginative schemes for tenant involvement for years. How on earth can the Government ensure that tenant participation takes place if they force through a tendering process which will not necessarily guarantee the tenant involvement we want?
Is the Financial Secretary aware that the introduction of more rigorous management and purchasing provisions in central Government will be welcomed by everyone, but it hardly needs a massive White Paper and a citizens charter to start the job? Surely the greatest guarantee of performance in central Government would be the guarantee of democratic access? Why do the Government still refuse to endorse the principle of freedom of information, and why do they not agree to support the freedom of information Bill which will shortly be brought before the House?
Finally, will the Financial Secretary accept that there is no dispute between us about the sheer importance of ensuring quality in our public services? Our disagreement is on how that is best achieved. Competition and
28
privatisation are not always the guarantors of quality. Indeed, the cheapest price, which competition will principally lead to, may ensure the worst service.
The best guarantors of quality are rigorous management, open government, access to information, customer participation, clear contracts with the public which have been pioneered by a number of Labour-controlled councils, and the public sector's absolute determination to provide quality. That would be a much better way forward than this very disappointing statement.
Mr. Maude: The remarkable thing about that response was that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) failed to tell the House whether he agreed with our proposals. I take it that, as he did not say that he opposed what we are going to do, we have his wholehearted support.
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal was half-baked. A programme that offers the prospect of harvesting efficiency savings of 25 per cent. through great swathes of the public sector does not seem to me to be half-baked. It seems to represent a programme which is extremely good value for the taxpayer and which offers the best prospects of much better services for the user.
The truth is that the Labour party does not dare come out in favour of a programme of competition of this nature because it is in hock to the very public sector unions that have sought to oppose it over the years. That is why the hon. Gentleman timidly teetered round the edge of this at the outset, saying that of course there may in some circumstances be benefits. Either the Labour party believes that competition is good for efficiency and the quality of service or it does not.
I make no bones about the Government's position: we believe firmly that, where competition can be exercised, it has a wholly beneficial effect. It enables good-quality managers and staff to test their services against the best that can be provided elsewhere. That is good for morale and for the user of services. The Labour party owes it to the House and the country to tell us freely, frankly and openly where it stands. If it does not, all its claims to be the guardian of the citizen and service user fall to nothing.
If the hon. Gentleman genuinely thinks that services that are contracted out are of lower quality than those done in house, I invite him to make the short journey between the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth. In the former, he will find services provided in house by members of the National Union of Public Employees at extremely high cost and of poor quality. Over the boundary in Wandsworth, he will find services provided by the private sector at lower cost and of much better quality.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect again on his knee-jerk reaction to our proposals and to tell us frankly whether he is in favour of them and on the side of the citizen, the user of services and the taxpayer or on the side of Rodney Bickerstaffe, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and NUPE.
Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that, of all the White Papers that I have read in recent years, this document is one of the most detailed and practical? It shows a sensitivity that we have perhaps not always come to expect from Government Departments. The section on the management of theatres and arts facilities explains that certain community-based

29
facilities may be exempt and that, provided that subsidies are put up front and form part of the tender process, they may be allowed, yet it is appropriate that there should be tendering for the management of theatres such as the Derngate in Northampton. That is greatly to be welcomed. Will he re-emphasise that at the end of the day the document is all about contracting out to produce as good a service at less cost or a better service at the same price?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend puts his remarks well, and I am grateful for them. His point about subsidies being shown is an important one. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), this is all about transparency and opening up the process to much greater public scrutiny, so that the public can see what is going on, the taxpayer can see what his or her money is being spent on and the customer can see the standard of service being contracted to be provided. That is a good deal for both customer and taxpayer.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Financial Secretary accept that we welcome the proposals that will allow managers to buy competitively? Clearly, if that leads to lower costs and more services, we support it. How does he square the Government's commitment to allow public service managers the right to manage with compelling them to opt for competitive tendering in circumstances where, he will accept, that can be costly to prepare and can lead to inflexibility in meeting changing circumstances? Surely managers should have the right to make that decision.
Will the Minister explain why, if competitive tendering is to be encouraged as a means of securing better value for money, the national health service trusts are to be exempt from the process? Indeed, some of them are making a virtue of their exemption by saying that that is part of the reason for opting for trust status. If it is a good idea, should it not extend to all forms of public services—not just those that the Government decide?
Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing the support of his party for our proposals. That emphasises once again that the last redoubt of reaction in this matter is the Labour party. Just by coincidence, half its members are sponsored by the public sector trade unions—there may be a connection between the two facts.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked how the proposals will square with the delegation of management powers to the chief executives of agencies, which is a fair point to raise. The process of reform upon which we embarked some time ago runs against some ingrained attitudes in public sector management, but they are beginning to change. I have no doubt that the chief executives of agencies will want to embark upon this programme wholeheartedly. They will welcome the support that is given for that process from the centre.
As for NHS trusts, we have made it clear that we will expect them, as well as the directly managed units within the NHS, to report annually on what they have done. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the programme of NHS reforms gives managers a strong incentive to ensure that the money that they have to spend buys the very best possible. That is a strong incentive to ensure that what is being bought has been properly tested against what can be provided in the private sector. That is the way in which to maximise the amount of money that can go to buy direct
30
patient care. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, as much as my hon. Friends, would strongly support that.
Mr. Steve Norris: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that this is a document that the Labour party simply could not write, because the principle of being critical of the producer is anathema to a party that is totally in thrall to the producers? Will my hon. Friend underline the clear concept that, in terms of public expenditure, it is not what one spends but what one buys that finally counts?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and about the Labour party. The Opposition have given a pitifully embarrassing performance today by refusing to tell the House whether they support the programme.
We have a duty, as the authority that extracts money from the taxpayer and then spends it on buying services for the taxpayer, to ensure that every pound we spend on the taxpayers' behalf buys as much as it possibly can. Except for the last Albanians in the Labour party, I do not believe that anyone seriously disputes that the process of competition is essential to maximise what is bought for the taxpayer. Even the Liberal party has eventually come to that conclusion—even the Albanian Government have come to that conclusion. However, as in so many other things, it is only the Labour party that is still way back in the tired old 1960s.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Minister aware that, in Sunderland, we have recently had a taste of the Government's competition policy, because private companies have won the contracts from the local education authority to provide school meals and from the health authority to clean health centres? Those companies propose to reduce the hours of the already not well paid workers to below the level where those companies have to pay national insurance and take responsibility for pension payments, sick pay and holiday pay—all the things that we used quaintly to associate with civilisation. Will the Minister accept that many decent people will not accept cheaper services at the cost of rubbing the noses of people who are already quite-downtrodden in the dogma with which the Government have come up?
Mr. Maude: I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of the contracts.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Deal with the principle.
Mr. Maude: I will deal with the principle, since the hon. Lady invites me to.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) suggests that his primary concern is not the interests of the taxpayer who supplies the money or the customer who uses the services, but the staff who work in those services. That shows that the Labour party remains the producer party—the party in hock to producer interests. The Conservative party is concerned with the taxpayer who produces the money and with the quality of service provided to the customer. I make no apology to the House for that.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the secret of contracting out is the drawing up of a contract between those who buy a service and those who supply it, and that, together with

31
independent inspection, that is an essential ingredient to ensure that quality and standards are maintained in the public's interest?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Every public sector manager should be doing that, whether a service is contracted out or not. The process of putting a service to competitive tendering requires that very beneficial process. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made precisely that point. He is a latter-day convert to the cause. Unfortunately, like the response of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) today, his conversion is half-hearted and timid. We believe in that process; that is why we are pushing the programme forward.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is the Minister aware that he has done a useful service to the House in spelling out the inadequacies of so many of our public services after 12 years under Tory management? Will he explain something that puzzles many Opposition Members as well as many voters? Why are the Government so sensitive to our explanation of the creeping privatisation in the health service, when the tenor of his statement is of the tremendous benefits that privatisation is supposed to bring? The Opposition and the electorate at large do not believe that.
Finally, if the proposed programme is a follow-up to the citizens charter, will the Minister confirm what the Prime Minister said in a written answer to me, that the citizens charter's provisions to improve our public services promise not a penny in additional public expenditure? Like the previous blue glossy document, this blue glossy document contains Conservative party propaganda published at taxpayers' expense. How much did it cost?
Mr. Maude: On a point of information, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the citizens charter was not a glossy blue document but a glossy red one.
I confirm that the citizens charter is not about providing more money. As the autumn statement said, we provide more public money where it is required for key services. We have done that this year, as in previous years. The citizens charter and this White Paper, "Competing for Quality", are about ensuring that that money buys as much as it can for users of the service. It is a simple concept, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support it.
He is wrong if he thinks that the White Paper is about privatisation, because it is about competition. The document says explicitly that the programme implies no dogmatic preference for private over public sector, or vice versa. However, to test and ensure that as much as possible is bought with the money available, we believe that those services should be subject to fair and open competition. The Labour party's reaction shows that it is the only party with a dogmatic stance on that matter. One must assume that the reasons are connected with the fact that it is in hock to the public-sector trade unions.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great merit of the establishment of the agency programme in government is that there is now a clear distinction between the formulation of policy and its execution? Now that we have a clear emphasis on the
32
execution of policy, the new chief executives are becoming more customer-oriented. If, in the private sector, one cannot go far wrong by putting the customer first, the same must be true of the public sector.
Mr. Maude: That is entirely right. Chief executives in the new agencies are approaching their tasks in precisely that way, which is why they will warmly welcome the new approach to competition and will work with, rather than against, the grain. Unhappily, some public authorities work against the grain. For example, Derbyshire county council set up a special panel at a cost of £300,000 of taxpayers' money specifically to combat the effect of competitive tendering. The final insult is that it is using taxpayers' money to frustrate the object of the programme, and effectively doubly robbing the Derbyshire taxpayers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to subsequent business, so I shall allow questions to continue until 4.30. As I then have notice of an application under Standing Order No. 20, I ask for brief questions so that, hopefully, most hon. Members will be called.
Mr. William O'Brien: To return to the reference to services provided by local authorities, is it not a fact that compulsory competitive tendering, as designed by the Government, has failed in local authorities because the majority of contracts have been won in house, thus proving that local authorities are efficient?
I hope that the Financial Secretary will attempt to address a question of what happens when local authorities have secured an open tender that has been won by outside private contractors, who have then failed to do the job properly, so that local authorities have had to pick up the tab and carry out the services? That has happened in relation to vehicle maintenance—in Kirklees and Wakefield, contracts were given to private contractors who failed to do the job, and the local authorities had to pick up the pieces. I have asked for a meeting at which that important issue can be discussed, and I hope that the Financial Secretary can prevail on his colleagues to discuss the problem, which is costing local authorities a large amount of money. Compulsory competitive tendering has failed in local government.
Mr. Maude: The idea that compulsory competitive tendering has failed for local authorities is absurd. There have already been significant savings from the process, even where bids have been won by the in-house operation. Many local authorities have, like Derbyshire, deliberately set out to frustrate the process of running the tender scheme in such a way as to stack the odds against private sector competitors and in favour of the in-house operation. The consultation paper has been brought forward to make the process open and fair, which was necessary in the interests of local residents who would otherwise be ripped off in taxation and denied the benefits of greater quality that comes from competition.
Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the latest instalment of the citizens charter, which underlines the fact that it is better value for the taxpayer and the citizen. In the light of his mention of Derbyshire, is he also aware that the same public sector trade unions that pull the Labour party's policy strings

33
have set up a unit deliberately designed to frustrate open and free competition? Is that not an absolute disgrace, and should we not expect condemnation of that action from the Labour party, which has been quiet about today's statement? Perhaps Labour Members are going along with the statement, but they are not showing that by their comments.
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Many of us have seen with dismay what some of the public sector unions have been doing as they deliberately seek ways to frustrate the will of Parliament and rob their local residents by denying them the benefits of competition. One would expect the Labour party to have some view on that, but it seems to be timid about offending its paymasters in the unions.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Some public services are utterly essential to the well-being of communities and hence need to be subidised. One such example from Scotland is the provision of passenger ferry services between the mainland and the islands, and among the islands. Throughout all other north Atlantic countries, such services continue to be subsidised, and I hope that that essential service in Scotland will not be harmed.
On page 7 of the document, it states that those who believe that they have suffered by way of the EC directive on such matters can obtain compensation by way of the High Court. Do I take it that that will apply, in Scotland, by way of the Court of Session?
Mr. Maude: I am sure that that is right: the process will apply to the Court of Session just as much as to the High Court.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the ferry service to the islands, we are talking about services principally provided directly from taxpayers' money, so that subsidy is not merely an element, but often the entirety, of the services' cost. Often, the services are wholly subsidised, which means that it is of the utmost importance that we should buy as much as we can with that money. That certainly does not run counter to the idea of subsidising a specific service, which is a wholly separate consideration, about which there may be a lively discussion. That policy is not in any way compromised by the measures that we propose.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Is my hon. Friend aware that Bury health authority has already contracted out 17 services, which result in an annual saving of £750,000 for the health service? That money has already been applied to a new obstetrics unit, to the upgrading of maternity wards, and to more patient care and doctors and nurses. Can he possibly calculate how much damage would be done to my constituents if this money, because of Opposition policies were not available to my health authority?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend graphically illustrates the benefits to direct patient care that can flow from this programme, which is growing not because of a dogmatic commitment to the process, but because—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) might like to listen and learn something about this. Public-sector managers throughout the public services are increasingly seeing how they can deliver, through this
34
process, an ever better service to their customers, patients and passengers. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to support that.
In any event, my hon. Friend is right to say that enormous benefits in patient care can be provided by this programme. More than £600 million has already been saved—the cost of about 200,000 hip replacement operations which could not otherwise have been paid for.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister recall from his study of the mandarin civilisation of China that that society relegated the mercantile class—[Interruption.]—to a low place in society; and that the success of that mandarin civilisation is judged to have been due to the fact that it laid down regulations to ensure that the mercantile class never dominated the society? When the historians look back across history at our society, will they not judge the dark age of Thatcherism, in which competition was elevated to a supreme virtue, as a great heresy that has resulted in much misery? Have not the Government proved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Have not the Government proved today that they are the idealogues and we are the problem solvers?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did ask for brief questions.
Mr. Maude: I am afraid that I missed much of the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's discourse, because the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) was bellowing at such a decibel rate that I could not pick it up. It sounded interesting, however. I do not know whether I am thought of within Whitehall as belonging to the mandarin class; I do not know whether I belong to the mercantile class, either. What I did hear from the hon. Gentleman was dyed-in-the-wool opposition to opening up public services to competition. He would have done better to stand up frankly and state it.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that at last, after generations, the words "public service" will mean what they say, and not just public employment? Does it not show a lack of confidence among Opposition Members that they do not think that those in public employment can really compete? I have more faith in their members than they have.
Mr. Maude: I share my hon. Friend's confidence in the public services. He draws an important distinction between public service and public employment—they do not always necessarily go hand in hand.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In the interests of the efficient use of taxpayers' money, will the Minister now answer directly a question that he has already been asked this afternoon: how much did "Competing for Quality" cost?
Mr. Maude: The production of the White Paper is reckoned to be recompensed from sales of the White Paper —[Laughter.] I am surprised that Opposition Members do not accept that, as it is the basis upon which these papers have been produced since time immemorial, under Labour as much as Conservative Governments. I think that the taxpayers will find it extremely good value for money. If the programme is put through successfully, it stands to realise billions of pounds for the use of taxpayers and users of services. It is surprising that Opposition Members do not support it, although perhaps less so in the

35
case of the hon. Lady, who is supported by COHSE and who therefore has a vested interest in opposing this sort of measure.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that public service union bosses and their sponsored Opposition Members have no interest whatever in competition and competitive tendering but only in robbing the taxpayer for the benefit of union members?
Mr. Maude: I am sorry to have to agree with my hon. Friend. I had hoped that, when we made the statement and published the White Paper, the new so-called "modern" Labour party would make a rather more enlightened response than it has made in the past. Behind the lip service is the old Neanderthal reaction and opposition to anything that smacks of competition.
Mr. John Butterfill: Is it not outrageous that, for many years, public-sector employees who have worked hard to deliver good service have been prevented from receiving a just reward because they are paid the same as those who do not give such a good service? It is absolutely right to introduce performance-related pay. Perhaps we can encourage Opposition Members to support that, because, even though their trade union bosses will wish to prevent them from doing so, their mailbags will be lighter as a result.
Mr. Maude: We said in the summer that the extension of performance-related pay was a crucial element in delivering the citizens charter. That remains the case. Labour has been a little diffident in saying whether it supports that, but our support for it is unequivocal.
Mr. John Bowis: My hon. Friend was wise enough to refer to the experience of Wandsworth, which is my borough. Does he agree that the lesson from that borough is that competitive tendering results in increased quality and lower cost if the service is carried out by the private sector and that the same benefits accrue from efficiency savings if the service is carried out in-house? Those benefits would be lost if competitive tendering were abolished, which is the threat and the road block posed by Labour.
Mr. Maude: I am afraid that that is the case. Labour has repeatedly said, "We will abolish the Conservatives' compulsory competitive tendering regime." It has not yet explained to our citizens, who have gained greatly from the process, what will replace it, nor has it spoken about the poorer quality that will result and the higher taxes that will inevitably follow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is an application under Standing Order No. 20. I call Mr. Cormack.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the statement.
Mr. Speaker: It may be, but I shall first hear the application.

Kurdish People
4.32 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In the light of the answers to Questions 34 and 35, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The need to take immediate action to compel Saddam Hussein to allow international assistance to the Kurdish refugees and to the civilian population of Iraq."
The matter is specific and important, as no one who heard the answers to those questions could deny. The Minister revealed the continued brutal obduracy of Saddam Hussein and the revolutionary guard. The matter deserves to take priority over the business set down either for today or tomorrow. People are suffering unspeakable hardship, entirely because of the tyrannical cruelty of a dictator who is condemned throughout the world, against whom the House has many times expressed unanimous revulsion and against whom the world went to war. It is essential that those to whom Saddam Hussein still allows no safe haven should again command not only the sympathy but the resolution of a united Parliament and its support for international action to bring a true hope of peace to a shattered country and all its unhappy people.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The need to take urgent action to compel Saddam Hussein to allow international assistance to the Kurdish refugees and to the civilian population of Iraq."
I have listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have to decide whether the matter that he has raised should be given precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot rule that his application meets those requirements and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions on the statement, you called my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), neither of whom was here for the statement. Will you please explain the decision—
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not explain my decision. By raising such a matter, the hon. Member is being impertinent. He must not raise such points of order just because he was not called. That will not do him any good.
Mr. Sayeed: The point of order is this. Is it normal to call hon. Members who have not heard the statement on which they are asking questions?
Mr. Speaker: No, it is not normal, and if I did so today it was in error. However, I still resent what the hon. Gentleman said.

Orders of the Day

  Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed their sympathy for, and solidarity with, my constituents after the events of the weekend. I make it clear that this was a success for the police security operation and a failure for the IRA. I am sure that the House will agree that, had it achieved its objectives, that would simply have hardened the determination of my constituents and those of other hon. Members across the House to resist the demands of those who pursue their political objectives by the bomb instead of the ballot box.
  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill fulfils the commitments we made in the citizens charter to strengthen the position of customers of the formerly state-owned utilities. It puts the customer first by extending competition, by strengthening the powers of the regulators where monopoly remains, and by providing for compensation where standards are not met. It will give a better deal to 25 million customers. In future, customers can be confident that all the regulators will have the toughest powers to set standards, customers will have the right to be told what these standards are, customers will be told clearly what recourse they have if standards are not met, and customers will be able to ask regulators to resolve disputes with the utility.
  The Bill has been welcomed by almost everybody except the Opposition. It has been welcomed by the regulators, who are pleased by their new powers. It has been welcomed by consumers, who are delighted by their new rights. It has been welcomed by the press, regardless of the party leanings of the papers.
  Their headlines were unequivocal. "Customers First" said the Daily Express. "Better Deal for Consumers" said The Independent.
  "Consumer Champions Will Pursue Poor Service Claims"
  said The Guardian. "Bill of Rights" said The Observer, and it was echoed by the Evening Standard today. The Financial Times put the general view pretty comprehensively when it said:
  "The Government's aim of making utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications deal better with customers' complaints is commendable. So too are simple systems of redress which offer cash compensation when things go wrong. And independent and binding arbitration when the customer and utility fall out is clearly desirable in the absence of effective competition".
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If that is the case, and I believe that it is, and that the Bill should be welcomed, why were these measures not introduced before privatisation rather than after consumers had suffered several years of exploitation by the private monopolies?
  Mr. Lilley: That shows a misunderstanding of what has been done. The fact that we have been able to introduce the Bill is one of the successes of privatisation, and I shall explain that.
  Despite the general welcome, Labour's opposition to the Bill is no surprise. The Opposition have never been a friend of the customer. They always back the producer interest against the consumer interest. They loathe competition. They were the midwives of monopoly, and they are nostalgic for nationalisation. Nationalisation always has meant, and always will mean, that the politicians, the bureaucrats and the unions come first, while the customer comes a poor fourth.
  Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister described himself as the friend of the customer. In that case, why did the Government privatise, for example, British Gas as a monopoly, and leave it in such a position that it could act as a monopoly despite the fact that it had become a private company?
  Mr. Lilley: When we privatised British Gas, we took steps to introduce competition. We gave the regulator the duty to extend competition and, through the Bill, we shall extend it further. The Bill is the fruit of privatisation.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman later.
  Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), I shall give way.
  Mr. Brown: As for the support of the National Consumer Council, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the council has described the Bill as narrowly drawn, that it is concerned with certain areas of utility regulation only and that it fails to cover other areas that concern it, such as price regulation, regulatory accountability and consumer representation?
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman a direct question that is central to the conduct of the utilities. Does he believe that, in the past year, the profits of British Telecom and those of the gas, water and electricity utilities have been excessive?
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman had read the comments of the National Consumer Council, he would know that it described this measure as an "elegantly drafted Bill". The Bill, of course, covers some things and not others. That is normal. I shall deal clearly and unequivocally with pricing powers and profitability later in my speech.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: On that point—
  Mr. Lilley: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question, and I shall respond to it further in my own time when I come to it.
  The Bill is the fruit of privatisation, which has made competition and regulation possible. When the industries were publicly owned, neither competition nor independent regulators existed, so the consumer was given a rotten deal. State ownership led to poor services and high prices. Ten years ago, when British Telecom was still nationalised,

  39
  more than 250,000 customers were waiting over two months—many for much longer—for a new phone to be installed. Waiting lists are now non-existent. Customers are entitled to compensation if BT is late by even one day.
  Before privatisation of BT we could have any type of phone installed as long as it was bakelite, basic and black. Now, the choice is huge. Over 13,000 pieces of equipment have been approved since 1981.
  In the five years before privatisation, domestic gas prices increased by 2 per cent. a year in real terms. In the five years since British Gas was privatised, prices have fallen by 2 per cent. a year in real terms.
  Electricity disconnections have declined rapidly since privatisation and have fallen by nearly a quarter over the past year. Regional electricity companies are now being required to produce codes of practice protecting consumers against disconnection.
  The Labour party wants to return to nationalisation and we intend to build on the successes of privatisation.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Who told the right hon. Gentleman that?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman wants to know who told us what the Labour party intends to do. This document, "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change", sets out the Labour party's commitment to nationalisation, which is one that was reaffirmed and repeated by the leader of the Labour party in September.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Is my right hon. Friend not being a little too modest about prices? Is it not true that gas prices have fallen substantially, by 14 per cent., and that they are due to reduce by the retail prices index minus 5 per cent. each year from now on?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. There is so much good news that there is not room for it all in my speech.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: As I told the hon. Gentleman earlier, I shall deal with prices later in my speech.
  Part I of the Bill strengthens the powers of the regulators. The Opposition profess concern about the adequacy of those powers, and I shall consider their detailed quibbles later. The stark fact is that under Labour's nationalisation there were no independent regulators. No one was specifically charged to protect the consumer. Still less was any independent body equipped with statutory powers to uphold the consumer's interest. So there was no one to cap prices, to set standards, to ensure compensation and to resolve disputes. Yet Labour wants to return to unregulated state ownership.
  It is the sheerest bare-faced cheek for the Labour party to criticise alleged motes in our eye when it still has the beam of nationalisation in its eye. The reason that there were no independent regulators under nationalisation is clear. When a Government are both the owner and the putative regulator, they face an acute conflict of interest. As owners, a Government will be tempted to milk an industry for the Exchequer by allowing unjustified price rises or by deferring investment spending. In practice, a Government's responsibility towards the consumer always plays second fiddle.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is being wholly fair. He seems to be slightly exaggerating his case. I am sure that I have received several communications from the National Union of Pulic Employees and other such organizations—perhaps my colleagues have also received them—in which the claim is made quite passionately that they represent the consumer. Is my right hon. Friend being entirely just?
  Mr. Lilley: That is probably how the Labour Government interpreted consumer interests when the industries concerned were nationalised. They put the unions, rather than the consumer, very much in charge.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Lilley: We shall hear the hon. Gentleman first and then we shall hear something from some of his hon. Friends. We can then see how their remarks compare and contrast.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way to me to answer the question that I put to him towards the beginning of his speech. The question is central to the conduct of the utilities. Does he agree with many of the regulators, and even with stockbrokers in the City, that the profits of British Telecom, British Gas and those of the water and electricity utilities in the past year have been excessive: yes or no?
  Mr. Lilley: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am coming to that matter in my own time and in my own order within my speech.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Lilley: No. I am not giving way. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared for me to make my speech in my own way, he had better resort to his normal practice of talking to his hon. Friends.
  The Fabian Society, which is part of the Labour movement, acknowledged recently in a pamphlet that nationalisation in practice meant
  "self-regulation with the help of Treasury targets."
  That is why we believe that the roles of owners and regulators should be separated. Ownership should be for the private investor and regulation should be by independent bodies free from political interference. That is why we set up an independent regulator for each of the utilities that we privatised. Each is charged with promoting competition and protecting the consumer where monopoly power remains.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the progress that has been made so far by the regulators? He tells us that the Bill will extend their powers, but is he satisfied with what has been achieved after six years' regulation of British Telecom?
  Mr. Lilley: I believe that regulation and regulators have produced a great success story and that the Bill builds on that. The system is infinitely preferable to the regime that it succeeded, when there were no regulators and no protection for the consumer.
  As we have set up the regulatory system, each regulator has been given some different powers to reflect the specific circumstances of the industry concerned and experience gained from the regulators established previously. In the citizens charter we therefore promised to

  41
  "introduce legislation to bring the formal powers of each regulator in this area up to the levels of the strongest, including making sure that the regulators have adequate powers to require the award of compensation in response to legitimate customer complaints".
  In most respects the electricity regulator, as the latest to be established, has the best powers. So part I brings the powers of the telecom, gas and water regulators up to the level of that of the electricity regulator. In addition, all the regulators are to be given some new powers to implement our other citizens charter pledges, notably on complaints handling procedures and dispute resolution.
  In upgrading and formalising the powers we are building on success. The regulators have all made considerable advances with their existing powers in setting standards, ensuring compensation and resolving disputes. They have all sought to ensure that the quality of service offered by the utilities matches what would be provided in a competitive market. As a result, all the utilities operate consumer service guarantee schemes. Domestic consumers are now entitled to compensation of one month's line rental charge for each day that BT falls short of its targets for the installation and repair of telephones.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend has referred to the dramatic improvements in British Telecom and many of the other utilities with which the Bill is concerned. Everyone is aware of those improvements. Does he agree that the key to the future is increasing competition for all of the utilities? As competition is increased—probably over a longish period —regulation can be eased off to seek to maximise profitability.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have given the regulators a duty to promote and encourage competition. I shall list the areas in which, as a result of that, we are able to increase competition when I deal with part II of the Bill. Our success in that regard will be welcome to everyone in the country except those in the Labour movement.
  Ofgas has recently agreed with British Gas a comprehensive new package of key standards which will come into force in April 1992. It includes compensation for individual customers if, for example British Gas fails to keep an appointment. British Gas has halved the number of disconnections since privatisation, and the electricity regulator has made it clear that reducing the number is a priority. As a result, disconnections are at their lowest level for 15 years.
  New service standards for the electricity companies came into force on 1 July this year. Failure to comply with those standards will result in compensation of between £10 and £50 for individual customers. In the water industry, a scheme has been agreed setting out customers' rights on appointments, account queries, complaints and interruptions to water supply. It is coupled with a swift, no-nonsense compensation scheme. The regulators have achieved their progress through a combination of their powers under primary legislation, licence conditions and informal arm-twisting.
  It is significant that a recent survey on behalf of the National Consumer Council found that consumer satisfaction with telecommunications, gas, electricity and water was notably greater than satisfaction with utilities that were still in the public sector.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Why will the water regulator not allow consumers to choose between being charged for the water they use and being charged on the basis of rateable values?
  Mr. Lilley: That is not entirely a matter for the regulator.
  Support for our regulatory system has come from across the political spectrum. In another pamphlet, entitled "Telecommunications in the United Kingdom", the Fabian Society described the Government's policies as "bold and radical", adding:
  "Most would agree that the creation of Oftel has been good for the consumer and few would wish to go back to the days when British Telecom operated without an independent regulator."
  Mr. Tim Smith: The introduction of part I—which, as my right hon. Friend has said, strengthens the powers of regulators, including Oftel—coincides with the Treasury's sale of a large tranche of British Telecom shares. What attitude will the Government take to any amendments that might be tabled whose effect would be a change in the balance between the regulator and the company?
  Mr. Lilley: That is an important point, with which I dealt in a press release at the time of First Reading. I am happy to reaffirm what I said then.
  I have made clear our position in relation to the forthcoming BT sale. It is clearly right for potential investors to be fully informed, and clarification amendments to the Bill cannot be ruled out. The Government do not, however, intend to make any amendments that would have a direct financial impact on BT's profitability. They will also resist any amendments tabled by others that would have that effect.
  As a result of the Bill, all the regulators will have statutory powers to take five major steps. They will have powers to set overall performance standards; to set guaranteed service standards for individuals; to establish compensation where service for individuals falls below those standards; to ensure that utilities establish and publicise complaints procedures; and to resolve disputes over standards. In addition, the Government are taking powers to enable the regulators to resolve disputes over bills.
  In a plethora of press statements over the past day or so, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has suggested the appointment of an ombudsman to deal with complaints and standards. That is a typically misconceived idea: in fact, it would markedly reduce the level of consumer protection.
  The regulators already have far greater power than those possessed by any ombudsman. As a result of the Bill, they will have even greater powers. In particular, they can take into account the success or failure of utilities in meeting standards when they fix the price cap. A separate ombudsman could not do that, as, by definition, he would not set prices. He would have less power than the regulators to achieve results.
  I am afraid that most of the hon. Gentleman's other suggestions are of a like nature. Either they are ineffective, or they have been looted from our own proposals. At the end of the war, when the Red Army occupied parts of western Europe, some of the soldiers removed almost everything from the houses that they occupied—including the taps—and took them back to the steppes in the hope

  43
  that, by installing them in their homes, they would ensure a supply of fresh water. Similarly, Labour believes that, by removing some of the fixtures and fittings from our regulators and attaching them to nationalisation, they can protect the consumer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Peter Hain: In his reply to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), the Secretary of State made it clear that he was putting the shareholder first, rather than the consumer, in the sale of the extra tranche of BT shares.
  The deferment of shareholders' interim dividend until 28 February will mean that those who have acquired shares through the additional sale will receive a dividend on shares that they did not hold at the time when the dividend should have been paid. Moreover, a City stockbroker has told me that the Government will lose £77 million as a result of the deferment of the dividend. That money could have been used to build a hospital, or invested in schools, housing and a number of projects. Is not the Secretary of State simply giving it away to sweeten the additional privatisation?
  Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is handling the sale efficiently and in the best interests of the taxpayer. We have already installed a regime that effectively protects the interests of BT's consumers. Earlier this year we announced a full-scale duopoly review, which led, and will continue to lead, to an extension of competition in the market, and which will give us the most competitive telecommunications market in the world. We have done all that ahead of the sale, and the shareholders are well aware of what we have done. By and large, all in the industry welcome our actions, because competition enlarges the very market in which all participants take part.
  Clause 15 empowers Ofgas to set standards of performance for gas suppliers on the promotion of efficient use of gas by consumers. The electricity regulator already has powers relating to energy efficiency. We recognise that improving energy efficiency is the quickest and most cost-effective way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions: that is why we are giving the Director General of Gas Supply stronger powers in that regard.
  The Bill gives statutory backing to the code of practice agreed by British Gas and Ofgas on energy efficiency. The code covers, for example, the labelling of appliances in British Gas showrooms, and comprehensive advice for British Gas customers on the efficient use of energy. I know that the House will welcome that.
  Our whole approach to regulation is aimed at achieving a balance between two objectives: first, the protection of the customer from the abuse of monopoly power, and, secondly, the minimising of the burden of regulation and the avoidance of political interference in the affairs of the industries involved. We believe that those objectives are best achieved by the focusing of regulatory powers on the end results that matter most to consumers—competitive prices, and standards of service. That is what customers are really concerned about.
  Labour wants to extend controls beyond those end results to intermediate objectives such as boardroom pay
  44
  and profits. We believe that that would be damaging to the utilities and counter-productive for consumers, and that it would politicise the whole regulatory process.
  Our system of capping the annual price increase of each utility has been widely acclaimed. In the case of gas and telecommunications, the caps have been set well below the level of inflation. As the Financial Times has said:
  "The UK model of control over prices has been a largely successful spin-off from the privatisation programme. A steady stream of visitors from North America have found much to commend it in comparison with their own bloated bureaucracies."
  Under our system, the regulators set the cap in the light of productivity gains that they believe the utility should be able to achieve and the need to protect customers against unjustified price increases. Utilities can then increase their profits only by increasing their efficiency even more rapidly than the target set for them. Moreover, the regulators have progressively set more demanding productivity targets each time the cap is renewed. For example, British Gas has been required to cut prices in real terms by 2 per cent. a year. That was a marked improvement on price increases averaging more than 2 per cent. above inflation in the five years before privatisation. As has been said, from April British Gas will be required to do better still and cut its prices by 5 per cent. in real terms each year.
  Likewise, British Telecom has seen its price cap tightened successively from 3 per cent. below inflation to 4·5 per cent. below and now 6·25 per cent. less than inflation each year. Given inflation running at under 4 per cent., that means that prices will have to be cut in money terms. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East can name any other country requiring such large real price cuts by its utilities. However, he is not interested in prices. He is interested only in profits and boardroom pay.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No. The right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench colleagues urged me to reach this subject, and I have done so.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East interrupts when I am making my speech and also when I am answering questions. I suggest that he listens, and he will then learn a lot.
  The only alternative approaches to our system of capping prices are to follow the rate-of-return approach adopted in America, which simply encourages over-investment because the more that is invested, the more prices can be raised to provide the guaranteed returns, which by common consent is wasteful; or prices can be set by arbitrary political intervention as they have been in eastern Europe. That seems to be the approach prescribed by the Opposition and it is indefensible in theory and discredited in practice.
  It would give me and the House exquisite pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East how he could justify moving either to the American's wasteful, bloated and bureaucratic system of rate-of-return control or the east European arbitrary approach to regulating prices in preference to our own. Sadly, we know from experience that the hon. Gentleman never deigns to elaborate on his policies—for reasons that we fully understand.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that Sir Bryan Carsberg, the regulator for Oftel, has proposed that prices should be cut where profits are too high? He wants to share the benefit of excess profits with the consumer. Will the Secretary of State answer the direct question that I put to him? Does he believe that the profits for BT, gas, water and electricity have been excessive?
  Mr. Lilley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our regulatory system and the attitudes of the regulators who we have put in place. I join him in paying tribute to them.
  So long as we retain our system of capping prices, the proposal of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to control directors' salaries makes little sense. Those salaries are a matter for the private shareholders. If they choose to pay over the odds, that will come out of shareholders' funds. The excess cannot be passed on to the customer in higher prices, because prices are firmly capped by the regulator. The Government most certainly do not endorse some of the pay increases that shareholders have agreed to finance: but equally certainly, we do not wish, and nor do the regulators, to get drawn into the business of setting managerial pay.
  Suppose the regulators were forced to set a pay rate for the chairmen and directors of each utility and the board of a utility then wished to recruit someone from another company where he already earned more than that level. Is it really the job of the regulator to stand in the board's way? Only a party such as the Labour party, obsessed with envy, malice and greed, could seriously make that a major plank of its policy, let alone the major plank.
  Important though regulation is, the best way to improve standards of service is to increase competition.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that clause 32 will be particularly welcome with respect to increasing competition in gas because it allows the threshold of 25,000 therms to be removed or lowered? Is he aware that half a million industrial and commercial customers have been trapped in that domestic tariff, have not been allowed to shop around for contracts and cannot aggregate their multiple sites? Will he ensure that clause 32 is implemented as soon as possible?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely right. Many small and medium-sized businesses are looking forward to the contents of the Bill eagerly and they will be interested to hear the reactions of the Opposition in respect of clause 32.
  Competition is now firmly established in electricity, telecommunications and for large industrial users of gas. Part II of the Bill includes new measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) said, to increase competition in the supply of gas and of water services. At present, only British Gas has the right to supply householders and small firms who use less than 25,000 therms a year. As my hon. Friend said, clause 32 takes powers to end that monopoly. I challenge the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to say whether he supports the abolition of that monopoly or whether he wishes to retain it like his union friends and paymasters. The hon. Gentleman is often keen to intervene and I would happily give way to him on this issue. As he does not want to intervene, it seems that he does not know. He has not received his orders yet. No doubt they will be in the post.
  Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who may be more daring.
  Mr. Flynn: With regard to hon. Members' paymasters, is the Secretary of State aware that a book entitled "MPs for Hire" proved that less than 14 per cent. of Labour Members received remunerations from trade unions while 85 per cent. of Conservative Members who are eligible to receive money, receive money from consultancies outside this place? The Conservative party is the party with paymasters outside this House.
  Mr. Lilley: Quite a lot of Opposition Members receive help from their union paymasters direct and I believe that some of those who have spoken today are included. They rarely bother to declare that interest during debates.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: We will not in principle oppose the clause on gas so the Secretary of State should withdraw his allegation that any decision taken by the Labour party has anything to do with what the trades unions have told us.
  Will he explain his allegation that individual Labour Members are receiving cash from trades unions? Is it not the case that hon. Members like me, who are sponsored by a trade union, receive no cash? Is it not also the case that that cannot be said for Conservative Members when 800 directorships and consultancies are shared among Conservative Back Benchers?
  Mr. Lilley: I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman's assurance about the way in which the money from trade unions is channelled. I have not suggested, would not suggest and have never been known from the Dispatch Box to suggest, any impropriety on the part of any hon. Member. I simply remarked that Labour Members are silent about the relationship between whatever funds that money goes into and their relationship with their trade unions.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I do not know what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is getting so excited about. I have said that I am not accusing him. Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I was going to give way to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), but he seems to have given up trying to intervene.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman cannot make up his mind—
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he will not give way. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Lilley: Is that remark in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Secretary Lilley.
  Mr. Lilley: I did not realise that there was anything sensitive about trade unions giving money to Labour Members.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman made two allegations. First, he said that Labour Members' decisions were dictated by our paymasters. Secondly, he said that we were entirely silent about our relationship with individual trade unions. I have made it absolutely clear that, while I am an individual Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, like my colleagues I receive no money as an individual from it. Therefore, there is no question of our being silent about a public relationship. The right hon. Gentleman must explain the relationship between his colleagues and individual consultancies and directorships.
  Mr. Lilley: There we are. I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman, in all his bluster and attempts to disguse and hide it, say that he is actually going to support clause 32, despite the fact that that will get him into some hot water with his trade union friends, and we shall be very interested in that.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I shall not give way. I will make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Mr. Lewis: It is a genuine intervention.
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman will permit, I shall continue.
  I would expect the initial reduction that we shall make when we take the powers to be to a level not less than 2,500 therms, which will take place in the next Parliament. That approach is in line with our phased introduction of competition in electricity, where the 1 MW monopoly threshold is to be reduced to a tenth of that size in 1994. The new threshold will enable many new customers to benefit from competition by allowing them the same right as big firms—that is, to buy gas from anyone, on better terms, and at lower prices. Such a reduction would open up about 7 per cent. of British Gas's market to competition, allowing competitors to develop their systems for supply to smaller customers. After that, the next step will be a review in 1996 to determine the date at which the monoply will end, opening the rest of the market to competition.
  Mr. Rost: My right hon. Friend referred to smaller firms being given the same opportunities as bigger firms to shop around for contracts. Is he aware that many of the biggest firms are trapped with the 25,000 therms limit? I refer to firms with multiple outlets—large retail organizations—which consume less than 25,000 therms but, on aggregate, are some of the largest gas consumers. Such companies are being penalised. Not only small firms but some of the biggest consumers will be released.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for putting that point clearly on the record. That is why we are in the business of progressively removing the monopoly threshold. As my hon. Friend says, that will be welcomed by all categories of consumer, big and small.
  A couple of electricity companies have already expressed interest in competing with British Gas in
  48
  supplying gas to households. There are a number of other provisions in the Gas Act 1986 subject to the 25,000 therms threshold, including British Gas's obligation to supply to all customers below that level, and British Gas's obligation to offer non-discriminatory tariffs. Those statutory obligations will remain in place to protect all consumers of less than 25,000 therms until competition has developed sufficiently to provide a viable alternative.
  The statutory rights of smaller customers to a supply of gas at a fair price will remain as long as competition is limited. We shall not reduce those thresholds until we are satisfied that competition has developed fully. When that has happened, British Gas should be placed on an equal footing with its competitors, in terms of its obligations. I am confident that the reduction in the supply threshold will make a significant contribution towards greater competition in the gas market.
  The scope for competition in water is more limited than for other utilities. This is why, when we privatised water, we focused on comparative competition. That relies on comparisons between neighbouring water companies to act as the spur to greater efficiency. But we believe that there is greater scope for actual competition between water companies. Clauses 34 to 41 will therefore let water companies compete more effectively to supply new estates and large users, to buy in water supplies and to offer a better deal.
  Water companies have been effectively prevented from competing in each other's areas for new or existing customers within 30 m of the existing company's pipes. Clause 34 abolishes the 30 m restriction on so-called "inset appointments"—appointments to supply water in an area where there is already an existing appointed supplier.
  The will to compete in water already exists. There have been approaches to the Office of Water Services for appointments to supply water to new sites in another company's area. The Bill will remove some of the obstacles which are preventing enterprising companies from competing in new areas. Large customers will benefit from greater choice, and all customers will benefit from increased efficiency as a result of competition.
  I leave three questions with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. First, does he still stand by his party's commitment in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change", which states:
  "We are clear that the great utilities cannot safely be left as monopolies in private hands. The consumer interest in particular demands that the accountability and social responsibility provided by common ownership must be secured."
  Perhaps he could give us a yes or no answer to that question. Secondly, if he is deferring his threat to nationalise British Telecom, is he still determined to pursue the far worse threat of taking control by statutory means without any financial compensation?
  Thirdly, why are Labour Members persisting in their threats to nationalise water and the national grid at a cost of about £10 billion, when they frankly acknowledge that the cost of renationalising BT might be too expensive? How will they be able to continue to finance the £28 billion investment programme in water if they have already disbursed £10 billion or £9 billion on renationalising the water companies? The House has a right to answers to those questions. If we do not get them today, we will continue to demand them.

  49
  I have described the excellent progress made to date by the regulators in promoting standards of service and competition. I have made it clear that some of the standards set out in the citizens charter are already being achieved by the utilities, often voluntarily. The new powers that we have introduced reflect good business practice. The Bill will be of significant benefit to consumers. It will deliver the pledges that we made in the citizens charter. It will go a long way towards meeting rising public expectations of the utilities. The Bill ensures that customers of the regulated utilities will get a better deal, have more choice, enjoy higher standards, be better informed, and have proper rights of redress. I commend it to the House.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to establish independent consumer ombudsmen; fails to strengthen consumer representation; fails to give sufficient priority to energy saving and environmental protection; fails to take action where there are excess profits; and does nothing to prevent privatised boardroom salary excesses."
  In view of the widespread concern about the standards of consumer service, which is reflected in the large number of complaints, consensus on the need to strengthen consumer representation, a demand that we create ombudsmen, and widespread pressure to take action on excess profits and on privatised boardroom salary excesses, the Bill offers too little, is too limited and is too long delayed. It is not the most that could be done to protect the consumer, but the least that the Government thought that they could get away with. Their failure to take action on the essential measures that we have proposed is a confirmation of the power of the privatised vested interest rather than the promised assault upon them.
  There are to be no statutory ombudsmen or ombudswomen to represent the consumer, despite the Government's admission in their document entitled "Citizens Charter Implications for the Regulators of Privatised Utilities":
  "The principal advantage of introducing ombudsmen for each of the utilities is that they are seen by the public to be impartial and independent of all parties."
  Yet nothing is done. There are to be no improvements in consumer representation, simply because—I quote the same document:
  "It would be more difficult to secure the support of other Departments to a major change … so soon after privatisation".
  As the consumer associations and others have said, the result is that consumer representation in most of the utilities is completely inadequate. There are to be no changes in the price formula, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the pricing policies of our utilities and representations from many consumer bodies.
  There is to be no widespread review of the prices, profits and performance of the utilities, despite the original proposal in the Government's draft document issued before the publication of the citizens charter:
  "The Government will therefore in consultation with the regulators review the performance of the utility companies … the results of the review willl be published".
  None of that is in the Bill. None of that is promised by the Government.
  50
  While the Government have to admit that, after pursuit of the policy of privatisation for 12 years, substantial problems have arisen that must be corrected, the best that they can propose is that Ofwat, Ofgas and Oftel should be raised to the standard of OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation, as if OFFER were the champion of the consumer against the might of near-monopoly power. I suspect that OFFER is hardly a household name, even in the Prime Minister's household.
  The citizens charter was advertised as
  "a revolution in services … one of the central themes of public life in the nineties… a transformation of our services".
  It was to be the big idea. The best that the Government can do is propose to bring the worst regulator up to the standard of the inadequate, when we need regulation aspiring to the standards of the best.
  I have checked on how the public can contact OFFER.
  Mr. Lilley: An ombudsman would, by definition, have fewer powers than OFFER because he could not determine prices. How can the hon. Gentleman say that OFFER's powers are inadequate when he proposes to set up a less adequate body instead?
  Mr. Brown: Under our proposals, the powers of the ombudsman would be first, to impose penalty fines; secondly, to determine whether contracts are fair and not merely whether they are fairly interpreted; thirdly, to make recommendations about customer services to the regulator; and fourthly, to insist on consumers' rights to information. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why he resisted the demand for an ombudsman. I shall read from the document that his Department wrote for him when the case for an ombudsman was examined in detail. It said:
  "There is also an argument that it is desirable ideally to separate the function of economic regulation and investigation of complaints."
  The Department accepted that there was an argument. It said:
  "Ombudsmen would be seen by the public to be impartial and independent."
  The problem was that legislation to empower an ombudsman to determine settlements would
  "qualify contract law and might therefore be politically controversial."
  That is why the Government rejected the idea for ombudsmen. It was not because they thought that services to the consumer would be better; they were put off because ombudsmen might have powers that would interfere with the conduct of the privatised utilities.
  I will tell the Secretary of State what most reveals the Government's attitude to citizens' and consumers' rights. It is that, as a matter of principle, and as he confirmed earlier, no improvements are to be made to the Bill in Committee or at any point during discussion of the Bill which might significantly strengthen rights and representational services, if they affect the profitability of British Telecom.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the legal status of a prospectus and the nature of the commitments that are given to people who are considering buying shares. If not, he is not fit to be Secretary of State or anything else. May I ask him about the record of the past 10 years? Does he accept that a combination of privatisation and liberalisation in

  51
  telecommunications has resulted in a huge improvement in the quality of service to the customer? The regulator Oftel has done an excellent job for the consumer.
  Mr. Brown: There were 38,000 complaints to Oftel last year and half a million billing disputes. I will answer the hon. Gentleman directly on BT's prospectus. It was the Government who chose to publish the prospectus and the Bill at the same time. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the Government decided when consumer rights were set against the dogma of privatisation: privatisation had to come first—then and every time.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the assertion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that Labour will return the public utilities to public ownership, where he says they should be? Which utilities and at what cost?
  Mr. Brown: Our proposals are set out clearly in "Opportunity Britain" which came before the annual conference. The hon. Gentleman can purchase a document if he so wishes. I am surprised that he bothers to continue to ask exactly the same questions as the Secretary of State put to me, and as we are asked in every debate.
  Let us deal with the central issue of the Bill. Two Fridays ago the Secretary of State held a press conference to announce the publication of the Bill and what he called
  "a great advance in consumer rights".
  Did he tell us that he would listen to the consumer organizations—which, incidentally, he barely consulted during the preparation of the Bill? Did he say that he would be prepared to improve the Bill by accepting proposals that might be made, even by Conservative Members? Did he say that he could be persuaded about the merits of new rights or new services that might enhance the power of the consumer? No. He made it absolutely clear that he would resist
  "any amendments to the Bill during its passage through the House which would have a direct financial impact on BT's profitability. The Government will also resist any amendments tabled by others which would have this effect."
  For the Government the consumer comes second and privatisation of British Telecom comes first.
  The Government may talk about consumer rights and say that consumer redress is fine. They produce charters at taxpayers' expense, but if a measure interferes with British Telecom's profits and the Government's privatisation agenda, it counts for nothing. The guiding principle is the protection not of the British consumer, but of British Telecom's profits. That was stated even at a press conference called by the Secretary of State to advertise the flagship proposals of the citizens charter. That is the basic problem with the Bill.
  Even when there is a growing consensus about the need for better consumer representation and for ombudsmen and the need to take further action than that which is proposed in the Bill on energy efficiency and setting environmental standards, even when there is anger about privatised boardroom salaries, excess profits and utility prices in many areas, and even when the Government say that they are taking action to safeguard the consumer, the old agenda of privatisation comes before the new agenda of consumer rights for millions of people. It is privatization
  52
  irrespective of the consequences for standards, efficiency, speed and reliability of service and, of course, prices for the consumer. The Bill does nothing about excess profits.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed with British Telecom's profits. Will he reflect on the fact that British Telecom's prices have fallen by about 27 per cent. since it was privatised? Would a future Labour Government, if there ever were one, revert to having a Minister for Prices? I recollect Mrs. Shirley Williams saying that she was proud that, since she had become Minister for Prices, profits in British industry were the lowest that they had ever been. That seemed to reflect a common attitude in the Labour party. Is it still the Labour party's attitude?
  Mr. Brown: Under the last Labour Government, real prices of telecommunications fell. Despite all the Secretary of State's rhetoric, prices for telecommunications, gas, water and electricity have risen in real terms under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Lilley: As that remark is factually wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it. Telecommunications prices have fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms since the privatisation of British Telecom.
  Mr. Brown: I have material from the House of Commons Library which shows price rises for utilities. Since 1979, telephone charges have risen by 148·8 per cent. compared with a rise in the retail prices index of 145·9 per cent.
  Although the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) says that the consumer is getting a better deal, in its prospectus—
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am answering the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. In its prospectus, British Telecom makes it absolutely clear that there will be an increase of 4·9 per cent. in the median residential customer's bill in the coming year.
  The Bill does nothing about excess profits, about improvements in the price cap, about additional price cuts, and about the perks and salary abuses that are disfiguring the conduct of our privatised industries. If anything sums up the Government's failure to take on vested interests, it is the inaction over boardroom salary bonanzas, which have been happening year after year and month after month.
  Let us be clear about the number of complaints about the utilities. At the last count there have been 38,000 customer complaints to Oftel, 4,500 complaints about water since privatisation, 14,000 about electricity, and 102,000 complaints to the Gas Consumers Council about gas. That is merely the tip of the iceberg, as the Government's citizens charter draft document said that there was a rising level of public concern and disatisfaction.
  Sir Peter Hordern: It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman would confirm whether the Labour party, if it were elected to government, would nationalise the water industry. All he has said is that, in the conduct of the utilities, the Labour party would be careful to ensure that no excessive price increases occured and that therefore margins would be reduced. How would he finance the water authorities' capital expenditure

  53
  programme, which is now £28,000 million? What would be the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement, and what does he think that makes of the Labour party's credibility?
  Mr. Brown: We made it absolutely clear that we would not spend money that the country could not afford. In time, we are committed to bringing water under regional authorities, not into national ownership.
  Mr. Knapman: That is laughable.
  Mr. Brown: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why that idea is not laughable, as he has suggested. It is exactly what happens in Scotland, where water is under local authority control.
  Let me tell the House what Conservative party supporters have to say about privatisation. A survey in July showed that only 9 per cent. of Conservative supporters—the very people that the Secretary of State should have been able to persuade—believed that gas had improved with privatisation, only 14 per cent. thought that telephones had improved, only 6 per cent. believed that electricity had improved and only 5 per cent. believed that water had improved. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Even in its worst days, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the previous Prime Minister could secure greater support for the poll tax than the Secretary of State can secure for improvements to the utilities.
  What has happened within the utilities as the complaints have mounted? Do directors take action to deal with the complaints? Do they cut prices and recognise that something should be done? No, having pushed up their salaries last year and the year before, they push their salaries upwards again, ignoring all the complaints about last year's rises. They have given themselves bigger rises this year, the year of recession.
  Mr. Lewis: Perhaps one of the worst features of the boardroom abuses is the ease with which the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) moved from being the Secretary of State who privatised British Telecom to non-executive position on its board, one of whose functions is to set the salaries of board members, including the chairman, whose function is to increase the salaries of non-executive directors. If that is not corruption with a small "c", I do not know what is. When I compare that with Opposition Members who are supported by trade unions, I think that Conservative Members should shut up.
  Mr. Brown: It is interesting that Conservative Members complain about industries that were run by Ministers before privatisation, but they do not complain about privatised companies run by ex-Ministers—the people who privatised them in the first place.
  What has been allowed to happen in the privatised industries? There have been 14,000 complaints about electricity yet a few weeks ago the chairman of PowerGen was awarded an extra £30,000 from 1 April, on top of his rise last year—a 15 per cent. rise to £230,000. What did the Secretary of State for Energy say, or do? Absolutely nothing.
  A few weeks ago the chairman of Scottish Power awarded himself a £47,000 rise and his chief executive got
  54
  a £96,000 rise, on top of rises that took place last year. The Secretary of State for Scotland said and did absolutely nothing.
  The chief executive of Scottish Hydro-Electric had an extra £89,000, a 102 per cent. rise, during 1991, and the chairman had a 248 per cent. rise. What did the Secretary of State for Scotland say? Absolutely nothing.
  There have been 4,500 complaints about water, a seventyfold rise since privatisation, but what have the chairmen of the water companies done? They have awarded themselves higher rises: Wessex Water, £12,000 or 30 per cent.; Northumbria Water 37 per cent.; North West Water 37 per cent.; South West Water 15 per cent.; and Anglia Water 28·6 per cent.. What does the Secretary of State for Environment say or do? Absolutely nothing. The chairman of Welsh Water awarded himself a 12 per cent. rise, but the Secretary of State for Wales was absolutely silent. The same Ministers are ready to attack the award of a minimum wage of £3·40 an hour to people who are on poverty pay, while they say nothing about people who earn more in a single day than some low-paid workers would earn in a year.
  Those are not catch-up increases, justified as one-off boosts for newly privatised bosses. They are taking place year in and year out in year one, two, three, four and five of privatisation. Except perhaps inversely, they are unrelated to standards of service and to levels of consumer satisfaction. What does the Prime Minister do to show, us how that advances the concept of a classless society? Absolutely nothing.
  What about British Gas, which is perhaps the most interesting case of all? A fortnight ago Mr. Robert Evans, the chairman, awarded himself another £60,000 rise, on top of his £60,000 rise last year, taking his salary to £340,000 this year, a 21·4 per cent. increase, before his performance-related bonus. On top of that, his share options are now worth a windfall £99,000. Of course, money is not everything—there was also the refurbishment of his rent-free London flat, including the installation of gold taps in the bathroom. A private pipeline a mile long has linked his own home in Bournemouth to the grid. He has £25,000-worth of gas fitments on loan, including a tumble dryer, a gas fire, a gas-powered dishwasher, an oven, a grill, a cooker hob and a gas-fired Aga cooker. Is that to persuade other millionaires in the neighbourhood of the merits of gas, or just in case Joan Collins drops in with a camera crew? He has the equivalent of a gas showroom in his sitting room, his bedroom and his various bathrooms: four showers and five gas lights.
  Most lavish of all is the gas supply to the garden, a unique stock of gas-fired garden amenities. He has a gas-fired barbecue and, to illuminate the gas-powered idyll, a collection of Victorian gas lamps costing £8,000, in period standards—at last, amid this sorry tale of affluence and greed, the long-awaited return to Victorian standards, sadly in this instance at the public's expense. What did the Energy Secretary say or do? Absolutely nothing. There is a warning from the Government on every privatisation prospectus for a public utility that shares can go down as well as up. Another warning is needed—a warning from the Opposition that "directors' salaries can only go up under the Government."
  Is that what the Prime Minister means by opportunity for all? The real message from Bournemouth and from elsewhere is serious and general—that for 12 years, when we needed a real citizens charter, we have had a directors

  55
  charter for the privatised boardrooms, unpublished but nevertheless pervasive and wholly effective—a directors charter against which the citizens charter is unfortunately nothing but a feeble gesture and against which the Bill represents no significant redress.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I was not quite clear about what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Would a Labour Government interfere to fix the salaries of directors of private companies? Is not that a matter for shareholders, especially institutional shareholders? Why does he not encourage trade union pensions funds, which are among the largest shareholders, to take more interest in all this?
  Mr. Brown: I am impressed by one of the proposals from Sir Bryan Carsberg. There is no question of the Government setting directors' pay, but there is a case for the regulator to be involved in it. If the hon. Gentleman studies Sir Bryan Carsberg's proposal and other proposals that would link performance to pay, which does not happen now, he will see that we would do a lot better. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it has allowed me to clarify the point. He and many of his hon. Friends will agree that something must be done.
  There were 38,000 complaints about British Telecom. When the privatisation roadshow reached Edinburgh last week, people who wrote about the way in which the chairman behaved when talking about consumer rights said that he took them on in "an offhand manner". The last published figures showed that, in one year, BT had to deal with half a million billing disputes—2 per cent. of its customers. BT's answer was not to improve the service but to stop publishing the figures, so that we cannot get them.
  Nevertheless, a month ago, Mr. Iain Valiance, on top of last year's extraordinary salary rise, awarded himself an additional £64,000—a 16 per cent. rise—to £450,000. What did Ministers say? Absolutely nothing. On top of that came a bonus which could approach £175,000, yet Ministers say absolutely nothing. On top of that, and perhaps even worse, his new deputy was given a salary of £400,000 plus £118,000 of performance-related pay, promised even before he had done his first day's work. Surely that is not so much performance-related pay as appearance money. Between them, five top executives received £2 million in one year alone, yet Ministers do absolutely nothing.
  When BT bosses reel off figures, we do not know whether they are talking about telephone numbers or their salaries, because the numbers are roughly the same. In the world of the new citizens charter, it seems that some citizens are far more equal than others. The chairman of BT had the audacity to tell his shareholders at the last annual general meeting that nearly 10 million customers were "unprofitable" for BT. The directors tell us that they cannot afford the customers. The truth is that millions of customers cannot afford the price that they are paying for those directors.
  What did Mr. Valiance say when he was pressed about the salaries? We know that the Telecom boss in Germany receives £150,000, in France £120,000 and in Japan £100,000, yet Mr. Valiance receives four or five times as much. When he was asked why he got such a large salary, he said:
  56
  "This is compensation for appearing on the front page of the tabloids. This is a high profile job."
  If Mr. Valiance is to bear the heat of The Sun for being the chairman, what about his deputy chairman? Is he being compensated against the possibility of a small mention on the back pages of the Financial Times? Are the other directors being compensated for the risk of their names appearing in Accountancy Age? Perhaps soon they will receive compensation for having to appear in the telephone book itself.
  As everybody knows, those rises are completely unrelated to the standards of service. Last Thursday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer called for reasonable levels of pay settlement. In gas, the percentage rise is more than 30 per cent., in electricity generation alone it is above 50 per cent., in water it is about 20 per cent. and in British Telecom it is even higher than that. What does the Chancellor now say? Why is he silent about these abuses in the boardrooms?
  Who has benefited most of all from privatisation? Is it the customer, hundreds of thousands of whom have increased complaints about the services, recording, as even the Government's papers admit, high levels of dissatisfaction? Is it the ordinary employee, thousands of whom have lost their job as a result of rationalisation? Is it the small shareholder, who now owns less than 10 per cent. of the company and who, if he has £100, has dividend payments of less than he has had to pay in the last year in increased phone bills? Or is it the boardroom directors, for whom privatisation has become the nearest approach to a licence to print money since the birth of commercial television?
  What does the Prime Minister tell me in his letter?
  "We see no need to take further action."
  There is no redress on behalf of the citizen, no action on behalf of the consumer where it counts and no price cuts as a result of these high salary awards. The charter is for name tags for civil servants, yes, for action on traffic cones, yes, and of promises for Huntingdon commuters, whose service is no worse than that of many others. Yet when it comes to a charter that holds privatised boardrooms to account, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are prepared to take no action. Under pressure, the Prime Minister condemns the boardroom rises; in practice, by his inaction, he condones them.
  What should the Government have done? First, when there are legitimate complaints about the conflicting interests of regulators and about responsibilities for public and consumer interests and when there are calls for the mediation of disputes, we need legislation to create independent ombudsmen. Even in the Bill, the case for an arbiter is conceded, but he can be brought in to act only at the discretion of the regulator.
  Although there is a clear demand, although in other countries ombudsmen work well, although even in Britain the building societies ombudsman, in an area where there is greater competition than in the utilities, is active and is supported by legislation, the Government are not prepared to act for utilities. We need ombudsmen who can impose penalty fines, determine whether contracts are fair, publicly make recommendations about customer service, and insist on customer rights.
  That is not all. The Government's model for the legislation is OFFER—the electricity regulator. Their aim is to raise Oftel, Ofwat and Ofgas to the standard of OFFER. Although national figures have been denied us, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what OFFER has

  57
  achieved. Northern Electric gave out only £2,500 in compensation payments in the first quarter of the year, and South Wales Electricity gave out less than £1,500. People will ask whether a scheme that gives out only those sums is adequate to deal with the problems that we face.
  The power of settlement has been used on only three occasions. Repairs to the failure of a main fuse are not guaranteed from Friday to Monday. Appointments, although given in a day, are still not timed for the individual consumer. Indeed, I checked up on how the public can contact OFFER—the most basic matter of simply finding it. It is not even in the directory for Liverpool, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Manchester, Coventry and other major cities. OFFER officials may have their name tags on, but if a customer cannot find the name of the organisation in the phone book or locate the office, OFFER is not heralding a revolution in consumer service. Yet that is the standard to which the Government say that they aspire.
  When we need new performance standards set; when the compensation levels depend on this, yet when nothing is specifically set down about standards or about the level of compensation in the Bill; when the regulator may recommend but the Secretary of State may at his discretion interfere; when the reality is that the regulator is free to set standards and compensation but we do not know what they will be; when he is free to require information but the penalty for not providing it is only £2,000—the equivalent of two seconds of BT's profits; and when he is to be required to publish information but can get away with reasonable excuses, surely we need tougher requirements set down in the Bill and in regulations.
  We need them, first, on compensation. We need a guarantee that it is automatic in every possible case, a commitment that is based on an escalating value year by year—in other words, an incentive for increased efficiency —and a guarantee that it also includes provisions for penalty fines on the utility company when it fails to provide a proper service.
  On the disclosure of information, the issue must not just be what the regulator can receive, but what the customer can receive. I am talking not just about prices, but about costs, rates of return, the numbers of inquiries, regional and local information and even league tables about standards and improvements in service. Furthermore, there should be a requirement, which I believe the public will welcome, that utility directors should come before a new Select Committee of this House as part of a freedom of information Act to give full information about the profits, performance and pricing policy of those utilities.
  On consumer representation, when it is absolutely clear that changes must be made; when the National Consumer Council, as the Minister must concede, has called for these changes, as have many other organisations; when the Gas Consumers Council has expressed specific fears that its role is not included in the legislation; when the whole purpose of the legislation, as the Prime Minister said, was supposed to be to increase the power of the consumer, but there is nothing specifically saying that the Gas Consumers Council or, indeed, specific consumer councils, such as the NCC, will be consulted; when, most of all, we know that £8 is being spent, for every person who has applied for shares of BT, on advertising the sale, but for each consumer only 15p a year goes to financing the Gas
  58
  Consumers Council, that is why we need strengthened consumer representation. That is why the Secretary of State should consider amendments now.
  Mr. Lilley: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why none of his proposals—on close inspection, most of them do not go as far as measures that we already have in place—were introduced when the industries were nationalised: the state to which he wishes to return them?
  Mr. Brown: We are dealing with the issue of regulating the industries that have been brought into the private sector by the Government. Let us consider what should be done to provide proper regulation.
  The Gas Consumers Council and other similar organisations are angry about the terms of the Bill, because it contains no provision for them to be consulted. However, their existence and their role was recognised in previous legislation. If the Secretary of State said that he would agree to amendments to recognise the role of such organisations, that would be welcome to many of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will talk about energy efficiency and environmental standards later. Certainly the Government's record is lamentable and the proposals in the Bill are inadequate. The job of the water companies is supposed to be to ensure that we have the best and cheapest water available. Now they have become an adventure playground for dabbling in hotel and leisure complexes, television companies, employment agencies, direct mail companies and even gift shops. What guarantees do we have that the directors and managers of those companies are devoting their energy to their principal duty—the provision of the cheapest and best water available to the ordinary consumer?
  The Bill depends on whether the Government are serious about acting against the vested interests of the utilities. Let us be clear about the profits involved. Last year, British Telecom made £3 billion, British Gas made £1·6 billion, the electricity companies made more than £1 billion, National Power and PowerGen made £700 million, and the water authorities made £1·3 billion. In total, last year, the utility companies made £8 billion, the equivalent of £350 for every household.
  The Secretary of State is not prepared to answer the central question that I put to him earlier—does he believe that those profits were excessive? He refuses to tell us. Whatever measure one takes to calculate the profits made by British Gas or British Telecom, most people would accept that they are excessive.
  When one considers what the regulators have said, and even what stockbrokers have said, one understands that in the past few years the Government have stood by and done absolutely nothing while excessive profits have been earned by the privatised utilities. The consumer wants the Government to take action on that, but the Government refuse to do so.
  The profits from British Telecom are even ahead of those generated by the Baby Bell companies of the United States. They are ahead in terms of the operating margin, the operating return net profit, the operating return on new profit and the cash surplus per line. British Telecom is making excess profits on every indicator that can be produced, but the Government will do absolutely nothing about it.
  Mr. David Nicholson rose—
  Mr. Brown: No, I have already given way on a number of occasions.
  The gas regulator has revealed that British Gas is making more profits per household than British Telecom, but the Secretary of State for Energy will do nothing about that.
  What about the electricity companies? That industry sums up the whole sorry problem. On 22 October, the regulator wrote to the regional electricity companies in England and said that they were overcharging their franchise customers. He named the price charge by every regulated company, and added that he believed that it would be appropriate for them to act now. Although the director general will not publish the reply, his office has confirmed that not one of those electricity companies is proposing a price cut. That is why we need action from the Government to deal with excess profits and the need for further price cuts.
  Although British Telecom profits have been excessive, local telephone call charges are still the highest in western Europe. In 1974, the connection charge for a telephone was £40, in 1979 it was £45 and now it is £139. The price has gone up almost every year under the Government, but they tolerate a system that means that that charge will rise even further in the years to come.
  Gas prices among large industrial users are the second highest in Europe, after those of Germany. The price of water has risen faster than anywhere except Italy. Domestic electricity prices have risen faster than anywhere except Italy and Greece. Surely that makes the case for a price review, for action on profits and for a new price formula to be introduced immediately.
  Nothing has happened, even though the regulators have admitted that profits are excessive. Nothing has happened, even though the stockbrokers have said that such profits are excessive. Nothing has happened, even though some of the regulators have produced proposals to change the regulatory system. What have the Government done? Absolutely nothing. The Secretary of State will not admit to himself what the regulators, the stockbrokers and many others have stated—that the profits are excessive. If he will not admit that, there is no likelihood that the Government will do anything about it.
  The Government will, of course, tell us that they are acting to protect consumer rights. They tell us that they will enact legislation to provide such protection. However, the moment that the Bill comes into conflict with their central theme of more privatisation, the Government will back away. The Secretary of State's speech proved that. They will not act against excess profits and they will not enforce a system of price cuts even though the case has been made for them. The Government will not take action on directors' pay. The consumer deserves a far better deal than that.
  When the telecommunications, gas, water and electricity industries were privatised, extravagant claims were made. In 1984, the then Minister for Trade said:
  "We offer millions of BT customers a newly enshrined set of rights and benefits."
  People cannot see those benefits today. In 1985, the Government said of gas privatisation:
  "We have built in powerful safeguards to protect consumers against abuse of the monopoly position."
  That is not so.
  We were told that there was adequate provision in the Telecommunications Bill
  60
  "for the general protection of consumers' interests."
  The fact that the Government have now introduced this Bill means that that claim did not turn out to be true. In 1988, the Minister responsible for water privatisation said:
  "Privatisation…will contribute towards the reduction of prices."
  However, prices have gone up and up again.
  In 1990, when it came to the electricity privatisation, we were told:
  "There will be no significant real terms increases in prices for domestic customers…except in exceptional circumstances."
  It has turned out that exceptional circumstances have ruled in every year since then.
  We now have the citizens charter and the Bill, the very existence of which is an admission of failure. It is an admission that everything that Ministers said when privatisation was forced through about the consumers being protected and safeguarded and about their interests being advanced by the mere fact of privatisation have not been realised.
  The Bill is the first embodiment of the principles enshrined in the citizens charter. The Prime Minister has declared that that charter will transform public services and utilities. The Prime Minister believes that some of the problem lies with identifying the civil servant, and he has sought to overcome that by introducing more name tags. The real redress will not be found by blaming the civil servant for what goes wrong while ignoring the need for a strengthened commitment from Government to invest in our public services.
  Increasingly, the citizens charter is offering a right to complain about a public service—a right which, in many cases, one does not have—and the right to complain about the service provided by a utility which one simply cannot afford. The real answer is to recognise that standards in public services are the central theme. They should come above all considerations, including the ideology of privatisation. Instead of providing an alibi to be called in aid during the further decline in those services, the Government should take action essential to protect the consumer interest.
  The basic conclusion must be that, even when there is a consensus on the need for major changes to protect the consumer through representation and via ombudsmen; even when there is anger about salary excesses and excess profits; even when the Government say that they are taking action to safeguard the consumer through the citizens charter, privatisation comes first. The Government are not prepared to cross the line between putting privatisation first and their public responsibility to take action on those abuses.
  The Prime Minister said that he wants to be remembered for the citizens charter. The citizens charter will be remembered for promoting name tags, moving traffic cones and missing the point. Despite all the expensive advertising and public relations, the Bill is half-hearted and superficial and puts the failed 1980s agenda before the real agenda, which puts consumer interests first. According to the Prime Minister, the citizens charter's role is to punish incompetent administration, ensure a high quality of service and give recourse for negligence. Nowhere has there been greater maladministration and lower quality of service than from a Government who have imposed the poll tax and failed to deal with the other abuses with which the Bill should deal.

  61
  The Prime Minister rightly says that the citizen needs the right of redress. He should give us the right of redress now—an election to get rid of the Government.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: Not for a long time have I heard a speech so lacking in substance and consisting totally of demagoguery based on malice and jealousy—characteristics that we naturally associate with the Labour Front Bench. I am worried further by the apparent failure of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to understand the legal nature of a prospectus. If clear undertakings are given in a prospectus, the arrangements cannot be changed.
  The terms of the Bill are well known. They change the arrangements, and to make further changes would not be right in legal terms. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to appreciate that. Nor does he appear to be capable of doing simple arithmetic. If the prices of British Telecom's services have fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms since 1984 when it was privatised, and if its prices have risen faster than the RPI in the 12 years since 1979, it follows that its prices rose substantially in real terms before it was privatised. There were always excessive price rises in nationalised industries—[Interruption.]
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is having difficulty in containing himself, can say whether the nationalised industry cut its prices in real terms by 27 per cent. in seven years.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those circumstances apply to British Coal? In the past five years, the price of coal has stayed the same while, curiously, the price of electricity has risen by 30 per cent.
  Mr. Smith: The point that I was making was that prices in British Telecom and other nationalised industries rose faster than inflation, because there was no incentive for them to become more efficient. Fortunately, there was an incentive for British Coal to become more efficient, even though it remains in the public sector.
  If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is so concerned about excessive profits and pay for company directors, he should have said a little more about Labour's policies to deal with them. If one tries to regulate profits and not prices, there is no incentive for the industry concerned to be more efficient. The Americans have learnt that lesson, and, as other countries privatise their industries, they now look to the British model, which controls prices and allows profits to rise if a company becomes more efficient.
  If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the excessive salaries of directors, the solution lies in the hands of institutional shareholders. There are many institutional shareholders in those privatised companies. Many are trade unions or county councils controlled by the Labour party. Why do they not take an interest in that? Rather than all the rhetoric from the Dispatch Box, a more constructive approach would be for some of the institutional shareholders to take a greater interest.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not say that a Labour Government would intervene directly to control directors' salaries, and I was glad to hear that. However, even to allow regulators to
  62
  become involved in the directors' salaries would create a dangerous precedent. I entirely agree that the salaries should be performance-related. We have learnt from the profits of British Telecom, which are deemed to be excessive, that, although strict price controls have been placed on British Telecom—it is now required to increase its prices by RPI minus 6£25 per cent., which, as my right hon. Friend said, will mean price reductions in cash terms —it has still made substantial profits. That shows the extent to which it was previously inefficient, and the scope that still exists for efficiency.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that competition in telecommunications does not work? Although Mercury charges less for a local call than British Telecom, that has not depressed the price of British Telecom's local calls, because the vast majority of consumers cannot gain access to the Mercury system. Therefore, the competition and the price mechanism are not working.
  Mr. Smith: I agree that the most effective control over prices is competition. We heard very little about that from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. Much the best way to tackle the problem is to introduce increased competition into the market, which is how we shall serve consumers best. We have seen increased competition in telecommunications with the arrival of Mercury for industrial customers, but we must find ways to introduce competition throughout the market.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will probably agree that it was right to have managed competition in the telecommunications market, because if we had allowed all sorts of companies to compete, none of them would have become established. We were right to allow Mercury to become established in the market, and it is now right to open up competition to more companies. Naturally, the objective should be to have perfect competition in the telecommunications market, but that is difficult to achieve and we are probably still some way from achieving it. All the changes in technology may mean that it will happen faster than we think. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the paramount importance of competition.
  There is a clear relationship between the quality of customer service and the degree of competition in a given market. The telecommunications market is an obvious example when it comes to the supply of telecommunications equipment. The market was opened up by the 1981 Act, the supply of equipment has been liberalised and the consumer has benefited. Mercury has become established in that market. There is considerable competition in electricity generation, and industrial customers are already benefiting. As for the Post Office, there is competition between Parcel Post and private operators, which works well because Parcel Post must compete in an open market.
  According to my constituents, the worst examples of lack of competition are British Rail and the Post Office letter monopoly. Those are both monopoly industries, and the customer has no choice. As a result, they are grossly inefficient, with an appalling quality of service. We need to think about ways of tackling that and introducing competition into those markets.
  Mr. Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Post Office letter monopoly should be lifted? If so, how

  63
  would rural residential householders benefit? Would not the universal tariff have to go, causing rural prices to rise? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?
  Mr. Smith: I had the misfortune to be drafted on to the Standing Committee that considered the Telecommunications Bill in 1982–83. I say "the misfortune" because one of the Committee members was a nice man called John Golding, who spoke for 11½ hours on one amendment. His speech is now in the Guiness Book of Records. It was no coincidence that he was sponsored by the Post Office Engineering Union.
  An argument in that Committee was that the telephone service's rural customers would suffer. Special arrangements therefore had to be made to protect rural customers. The same would have to be done for letter services. We need to think of ways of achieving greater competition while at the same time protecting customers' interests, to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East drew attention.
  Where there is the fullest competition, it is important to have an effective regulator. When we were considering the Bill in 1982–83, it was difficult to anticipate exactly how the independent regulation of a newly privatised monopoly would work in practice, because there had been no such creature before. We knew that British Telecom was then performing badly. One sometimes had to wait months to have a line installed, and the number of public call boxes out of order was legion—about half of them did not work at any one time. We knew that improvements to the quality of service to customers had to be made and we thought that the best way to do so would be to set up an independent regulator. Oftel was the first to be established, under its director Sir Bryan Carsberg. I believe that the office proved an effective regulator in practice.
  It is obviously important to have the right system of regulation. I should be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East whether he thinks that we should regulate profits or whether it would make more sense to regulate prices and thus encourage improved efficiency. We want substantial profits in some of the industries, because two thirds of the profits are reinvested in new capital and fixed assets.
  Mr. David Evans: More than that —100 per cent.
  Mr. Smith: I am told that, after tax, 100 per cent. is reinvested. It is not widely recognised that easily the most important source of new investment in the United Kingdom is companies' retained profits, which is why high profitability is so important. It is essential to have high but not excessive profits. That is particularly important in the water industry, where there is a need for substantial new investment. Everyone knows that, if we are to achieve higher environmental standards, we must have higher investment in the water industry. One of the great advantages of privatising the water industry was that, instead of queuing up for capital at the door of the Treasury, water authorities would queue up at the door of the Stock Exchange to borrow money or issue shares.
  It is impossible to secure effective regulation in the public sector. That is why it was not done before. It is easy to say now that we should have regulated the monopolies when they were in the public sector, but I do not believe
  64
  that it would have been possible in practice. There would have been a fundamental conflict between the regulator's objectives and the needs of other Government Departments, particularly the Treasury. That is why I believe that there is an urgent need to privatise the remaining public sector industries, particularly British Rail and the Post Office letters service.
  It is important to have a sensible balance between the regulator and shareholders. Excessive regulation would make it impossible to persuade people to invest in the company the new capital needed to improve services. However, by and large, we have achieved a sensible balance between the regulator and shareholders during the past seven years.
  It is interesting to compare the performances of the different regulators. I have examined the annual reports of the different offices mentioned in the debate. Different approaches are taken by the various offices. Oftel is the most experienced regulator of the four. I am glad that the National Audit Office has decided to carry out a review of Oftel's operations and to report to the Public Accounts Committee, because I believe that it is right that, after a period, a Committee of the House should examine how the regulator is performing. I understand that that review is about to begin, and I believe that it will be followed by reviews of the other regulators.
  Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of comparative competition in water regulation—the comparison of the performances of different monopoly suppliers in various parts of the country—because there is no real competition in the water industry. If comparative competition is important, as I believe it is, it is equally important not to allow too many mergers between water companies, because we must maintain substantial numbers of firms so that we can compare their performances. I am glad that the Bill will, for the first time, introduce competition between water suppliers. Even if that competition is only at the margin, it will help water customers. Those people sited close to the boundaries between water suppliers will benefit from the proposal.
  The annual report of Ofgas shows that it has had a tremendous struggle with British Gas to obtain the necessary information to regulate properly. It is important that the Committee considering the Bill should consider whether Ofgas has adequate powers because, unfortunately, British Gas still has an effective monopoly of the market.
  There is an urgent need for increased competition in the industrial gas market and the proposal in clause 32—to get rid of the monopoly eventually and, meanwhile, to reduce to 2,500 therms the category of customer to which the monopoly applies—is welcome and will make a significant difference in practice. My right hon. Friend said that some of those customers were not small—for example, county councils, as education authorities, are large gas users, but they found that British Gas assessed each school separately for the purposes of regulation. The proposal means that they will be able to take advantage of the introduction of competition, as will many other organisations in the public sector, as well as businesses in the private sector.
  The office of electricity regulation is in its early days, but there is plenty of competition in that market. It is important to encourage competition in electricity generation, so that customers, especially industrial ones,

  65
  have the maximum choice. The electricity regulator already has substantial powers, and it is right that the Bill should bring the other regulators up to that level.
  It is important to have satisfactory complaints procedures. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said that he wanted ombudsmen; the Government should consider that proposal and their response to it. There should be codes of practice, so that customers know exactly how their complaint will be handled and how the system works.
  It is important that, when we ring one of the monopoly suppliers, we know to whom we are talking. The person should be required to give a name so that, if the complainant calls back, he or she can ask to speak to the same person and is not given the run-around, as often happens in large organisations where a caller is passed from one office to another, which is extremely irritating.
  Initially, the complaint will be dealt with internally, whatever external system we agree on. It is important that those inside the organisation who handle the complaints should be independent of the organisation about which the complaint is being made. There is no point in someone complaining to the organisation that has cut off his telephone; those to whom we complain should be independent of the suppliers.
  Mr. Rowe: I wish to make a point that, although small, is of great importance to consumer satisfaction. It would be extraordinarily good if companies taught their staff to give not only their first but their second names. The constant reference to "Tracy" or "Andy" is extremely unhelpful when, some days later, one attempts to get back into the system.
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right: those receiving complaints should give their full name when customers ring up, so that they know who to ask for in future. That is especially true of people called Smith or Brown.
  Where customers are not satisfied with the system for dealing with complaints, it is important that there should be a proper procedure for resolving disputes between the customer and the business. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East rightly said that Oftel still receives thousands of complaints about British Telecom. However, before British Telecom was privatised, there was no independent organisation to which one could complain, only British Telecom itself.
  Before water was privatised, a constituent complained to me about the charge that Thames Water proposed to make to lay new pipes to a house that my constituent was building. The only person to whom one could complain was the chairman of Thames Water. That was an unsatisfactory arrangement within a monopoly supplier. Now we can complain to an independent office, which is a major step forward.
  There should be independent investigation of these matters. For instance, we all know that the meters monitoring our telephone calls are unfortunately not in our homes. The meter is the telephone exchange, so we cannot check our bills against the meter. Many people feel that they have been overcharged, often because while they were out someone else in the family made a call without telling them. On other occasions, complaints are legitimate, which is why it is important to maximise itemised billing so that people can check the numbers that
  66
  they are alleged to have called. That has started to happen in a big way. I can now show my wife how often she has called her mother over the past three months—a great step forward. We can see who has been making phone calls and what the charges have been, and that might encourage people to phone in the evening when the rates are lower.
  If people are still dissatisfied with an itemised bill, they should be able to complain, and the regulator should be able to check the complaint independently. He should be able to send in consultants or whoever is necessary to look at the systems of a business; he should not have to rely on undertakings given him by BT—so systems evaluation is important.
  I am disappointed that British Rail is not included in this Bill, because I wish that some of its provisions applied to BR. The citizens charter has a few things to say about BR, and I was glad about that, but earlier today I tried to discover what had happened to the charter's provisions on British Rail. According to the citizens charter, there are to be both a passengers charter and new conditions of carriage. The citizens charter states that the passengers charter will be published in the autumn, and the new conditions of carriage will be published in November.
  Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the train is late, as I learned in a phone call today. Neither document will be published this year: they will be published early next year. That is a considerable disappointment to me, but it is entirely in line with British Rail's timekeeping.
  On Friday, there was a debate in the House about the service on the Southend railway line, which, by common consent, is the most notorious in the country. Replying to my hon. Friends who raised the subject, the Minister said:
  "The process of total route modernisation has already begun. The Chiltern line once suffered by far the worst service on Network SouthEast"—
  the Chiltern line serves my constituents—
  "although I am reluctant to say that, having heard my hon. Friend's complaints about their line. I understand that the Chiltern line was worse even than theirs.
  Mrs. Gorman: Impossible."
  It is not impossible; it still is worse.
  "Mr. McLoughlin: I said that I was reluctant to say that.
  The Networker turbo diesel trains are now being delivered and will run to new, faster timetables in the new year."— [Official Report. 15 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1407–8.] So they will. At the moment, the service is still no better than it was when I became a Member of Parliament, and as usual I received two letters today complaining about its quality.
  How shall we deal with this problem? British Rail's serious management problem is that it is still not sufficiently customer-oriented. There is an urgent need to break British Rail down into manageable units and to privatise it. There is an urgent need for independent regulators to do what this Bill provides they should do. There should be guaranteed standards and compensation for British Rail customers. There should be overall standards for British Rail. There should be information on performance against those standards, and it should be published.
  British Rail should have procedures for handling complaints. In my experience, when there are complaints to British Rail, I have to organise meetings between the management of the line and the customers complaining about the service. That is the best way to get things done now, but it is not satisfactory. There should he proper procedures for handling complaints about British Rail,

  67
  and we need disputes resolution procedures, too. In short, the excellent provisions of this Bill should be extended as a matter of urgency to British Rail. With that proviso, I am happy to give the Bill a warm welcome.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: It is always a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). Although one may not agree with it, what he has to say is always considered and well argued. I was particularly encouraged by his response to the idea of an ombudsman—it was in sharp contrast to that of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman conceded that it was an idea worth considering, whereas the Secretary of State mocked it from the outset. The hon. Gentleman's contribution stood better in the traditional approach of the House in the past two decades to issues relating to consumer affairs. There has been an attempt to find a consensus. That is not to say that there has been universal agreement, but there has been an attempt to discover what is best for the consumer.
  I recall leading for the Opposition in the early 1970s on the Fair Trading Act 1973. We opposed various stages of the Bill, regretting the fact that it did not cover consumer safety; but, on Third Reading, I committed our party at the Dispatch Box—this was just before an election—to honouring the existence of the Office of Fair Trading and the appointment of John Methven as director general. That was how, for many years, the parties approached these matters and it is why I greatly regretted the style adopted by the Secretary of State. I am sorry that he has gone, since I do not like criticising him in his absence.
  It was not so much the right hon. Gentleman's arrogance to which I objected—we are accustomed to that. What I regretted most was his ignorance. He made great play of the Opposition never, as he put it, having supported the consumer. That only shows how little parliamentary experience he has. Perhaps he has been promoted a little too rapidly and a little too high.
  I remind the Secretary of State and his Ministers that the National Consumer Council, which he quoted several times, was set up by Shirley Williams and me when the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection was still in existence. We set up an independent Ministry of consumer protection: this Government closed it down. We set up a national network of consumer advice centres: the Government closed them down. We gave more funding to the citizens advice bureaux: the Government even tried to axe the NACAB grant, but had to back down.
  It was particularly offensive to hear the Secretary of State talking about price increases in the gas industry before privatisation, as though he were not a member of a party and Government who decreed that gas prices had to rise arbitrarily, unilaterally and unnecessarily by 10 per cent. above general price increases for three years in succession. When compounded, that amounted to an increase of more than 30 per cent. utterly unnecessarily imposed so as to fatten up the privatisation turkey—and the Government have the cheek to tell us how much better things are now.
  I consider myself highly privileged to have been the first Minister for consumer protection in a completely independent consumer protection Department. The
  68
  consensus that I have described is still enshrined in legislation. Before the 1974 election, the Consumer Credit Bill was going through the House. It fell at the election. I picked it up after the election and modified it in the light of the amendments that we had tabled when we were in opposition. With the co-operation of Conservative Members, we enacted it. My greatest contribution to human happiness was either the decision to abolish the cartel on cross-channel ferries or, less delicately, the decision to abolish monopoly price fixing for condoms.
  In the 1970s it was recognised that for decades there had been a growing imbalance between the consumer and the supplier or manufacturer. Changes in marketing methods, such as mass marketing on top of mass production, kept the customer further and further away from the suppliers of goods. The complexity, technology and chemical make-up of goods made it more difficult for people to understand what they were buying and to make a judgment at the time of purchase. More important, the cost of legal action to seek redress had become so prohibitive that the consumer had little chance of taking legal action against suppliers. That is significant in terms of the ombudsman proposal.
  We tried to switch the balance, and there was a move on both sides to do that. There was an attempt to push the balance back in favour of the consumer, but privatisation has achieved the opposite because it has resulted in a major shift of power away from the consumer to the producer. The House is debating a complex Bill presented by a Government who for 12 years have said that legislation is not needed on consumer protection issues. They have said that there is too much legislation and that voluntary codes are required. The Government are not saying that now. We are hearing a different song.
  The Government should be honest enough to recognise that their actions have prejudiced the consumer. The Bill is a confession because in it the Government say, "We have done wrong by you, consumer." The firms listed in the Bill are not minority suppliers, because everyone in the United Kingdom is a consumer of at least one and probably several of the services covered by it. Every consumer has been disadvantaged by the privatisation of those industries, and the Bill is the Government's attempt to make amends.
  We all know that the privatised monopolies have become virtually unaccountable and are an embarrassment to Ministers, who try to put a bold front on enormous salary increases. They do not disagree with them instinctively, but they are politically embarrassed. The Government wish that such increases were not happening, but realise that they can do nothing about them.
  Wales is not the most prosperous part of the United Kingdom and there is great bitterness there over the antics of Welsh Water. Three years ago the chairman of that company had a salary of £46,000. He increased it to £76,000 in the first year, which was a modest 65 per cent. increase, and he doubled that increased salary in the following year. His salary is now £143,000, which means that it has more than trebled in just a couple of years. The only productivity gain that he can show for it is in the courts. Welsh Water has dragged many old-age pensioners and under-privileged people through the courts of Wales because they have fallen down on the odd instalment on their water charges. While those people are being credit

  69
  blacklisted because of the actions of Welsh Water, the chairman of the company plays computerised monopoly in his Cardiff headquarters.
  I am willing to wager that the Government will not present proposals before the election about the salary of top civil servants. That is because comparators are involved, and what is happening in the private sector will have repercussions in the public sector. We shall be given all manner of reasons why there should not be a top salary review, or whatever it is called since the former Prime Minister tore up the negotiating arrangements for the civil service. Conservatives will be embarrassed and will find it difficult to defend increases in civil service salaries. However, they will have to accept those increases because of what they have allowed to happen to salaries in the comparator industries.
  The privatised boards have given themselves an inbuilt incentive to exploit their monopoly position. When they were privatised I was on the Opposition Front Bench and did the job so well that I am no longer there. I was there when British Telecom was privatised and I warned of the grave dangers in turning public monopolies into private monopolies. The new board is able to award itself performance bonuses based on monopoly profit and to take share options on share values which reflect that monopoly profit.
  The members of those boards would be saints if they did not seek to take advantage of the position in which the Government have placed them. That is exactly what is happening. They are making hay while they can. Their snouts are in the trough. A coat of arms for the Government would consist of a silver trough with Tory snouts rampant and in the corner there would be a cardboard box, symbolising the situation in which far too many of our people find themselves.
  Mr. Rowe: The right hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct,. A former Prime Minister accused Conservatives of selling off the silver.
  Mr. Williams: That is correct, and the privatised noses are in among the privatised silver, getting the benefit. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman makes an amusing debating point and is not advancing it as part of a serious political argument.
  Many of the ideas before the House are well worth examining. For example, the proposal for an ombudsman is sensible. The difference between the overall strategic regulatory power of the directors and that to deal with the often small complaint from the consumer is important. I am delighted that Professor Carsberg is here listening to the debate. However, he cannot be doing his job properly in his supervisory and regulatory role if, at the same time, he is bogged down in a morass of consumer complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) mentioned a number of consumer problems with these industries. The Government would be well advised to look constructively and positively at the suggestion that there should be an ombudsman.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am not sure that there will be a conflict, in principle, if the regulator regulates both economic matters and complaints. I should have thought that it was a good idea so that he could see, from time to time, individual complaints about the businesses that he has the responsibility for regulating.
  Mr. Williams: I shall draw a comparison with the Act that I mentioned earlier, whose survival for so long is a sign of its success—that establishing the Office of Fair Trading. The Director General of Fair Trading has an overall strategic role in making proposals for regulating the market and protecting the consumer, but he does not deal with individual cases. Information on individual cases is referred to him in so far as it might help him to frame proposals for orders and changes in the law. There is a distinction. For example, the West Glamorgan consumer protection department deals with the problems of the local small shopkeepers and the Office of Fair Trading collates information from it and from all the other consumer departments so that it can identify whether there is a general abuse that needs remedial action.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will serve on the Committee that will examine the Bill, although I am not trying to condemn him to that if he does not wish to be there, because I think that we might be able to find some common ground. That there is some common ground is shown by the welcome that the hon. Gentleman gave to the concept of the Public Accounts Committee looking at the regulators and to our slightly wider suggestion that there should be a Select Committee to deal with the matter. There is something new here which, with good will, both sides of the House could pick up and use.
  I have two personal proposals to make—to my party, as I know that they will not be welcomed by Conservative Members. I am not saying that unpleasantly: I am just recognising that there is a philosophical divide between us. First, I hope that my hon. Friends will commit themselves to referring every one of these privatised monopolies to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission during our first period of Government. British Telecom and the water authorities should be the first to be so referred.
  My second recommendation is that both parties think in terms of a return to an independent consumer protection Department. It was too narrow in its previous incarnation. Too many Whitehall battles were fought because, for example, tourism had to stay with trade, with the result that a whole series of issues that should have been in the consumer department were not.
  I make that suggestion for this reason. Someone has to appoint the director and the ombudsman, if we have one. They have to report to someone at parliamentary level when they have completed their analyses. It is imperative that that voice, at the Government end, should stand equal in Cabinet with the voice speaking on behalf of the commercial and industrial interests and that that voice should be independent. Therefore, I hope that the prospect will appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Looking around the sparsely attended Chamber, I had a feeling that I might catch your eye sooner or later. I am glad to be able to contribute briefly to the debate on the Bill, although I can see that there will not be a meeting of the minds. In any socialist society, competition is absent and, because it is absent, services are usually non-existent.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his excellent speech. I am sure that all my colleagues are as delighted as I am to support this excellent Bill, not least because it builds on the

  71
  firm foundation organised during the passage of our privatisation measures. The attitude taken to privatisation is one of the key differences between the two parties. We as Conservatives believe in privatisation, as do the Russians, the Poles, the Czechs and the Slovaks. Very shortly, the Albanians will also approve of it. However, tonight we have heard that the Labour party will never approve of it.
  The Labour party's amendment shows that it is still wedded to clause 4 and to renationalisation, despite the fact that the leader of the Labour party said recently:
  "We must learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives."
  If he meant that, the Labour party would not have tabled the amendment.
  The more astute Labour Members recognise that, with £35 billion-worth of promises under their belts, renationalisation in the event of a Labour Government would be most unlikely. Therefore, their secret agenda is how best to strangle the utilities with as much bureaucracy and red tape as possible.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) criticised the £8 billion of profits from the various companies which would yield about £2 billion or £2·5 billion of taxation to the Exchequer. He is prepared to forgo that. If he were here, it would be interesting to know how that deficit would be reflected in Labour party policy. What would it cut as a result? To promise £35 billion-worth of extra expenditure without the benefit of privatisation revenues is absurd. To promise £35 billion-worth of extras and then to renationalise these concerns—as has been said, it might cost as much as £10 billion—is not just absurd but highly irresponsible.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister have achieved in the Bill a delicate balance between encouragement of the private utilities so that they remain profitable and strengthening consumer interests, without excessive bureaucracy. As a result, I have never been less tempted to support an Opposition motion, although I assure my hon. Friend who is the Whip on duty that I am never tempted in that direction.
  The amendment is opposition for the sake of opposing, but of course the Labour party has opposed every privatising Bill. I wonder whether, if Labour Members present were Members not of this but of a similar Parliament in an eastern European country or in Russia, they would be taking this attitude. I am disappointed with the amendment principally because it says that the Bill
  "fails to establish independent consumer ombudsmen".
  This is bad, Surely they mean "ombudsperson".
  I wonder whether Opposition Members have looked at the excellent background paper produced by the Library research division, entitled "The Regulation of Privatized Utility Companies", which was published on 1 July and is available in the Library. The paper goes to the core of the argument and the answer to it is to be found in paragraph 1(a) at page 1. I should think that Opposition Members normally get that far into a document. The passage states:
  "Reference is often made to the regulators by name. Thus it is said that a particular decision was taken by Sir Bryan Carsberg rather than by Oftel. This approach is not adopted in order to personalise the issues but to reflect the legal position. The Acts of Parliament which carried out the privatisations and established the powers of the regulatory
  72
  agencies lay the various duties upon the Directors of the various industries and not upon the regulatory agencies as corporate bodies. Each agency is there to assist the director and not legally to share in the decision-making process. One cannot say, for example, that `Oftel decided something by a narrow vote' or that personnel changes in an individual agency will change the approach."
  We arrive now at the crux of the matter, and it is described as follows:
  "The actual decisions are made by the Directors of each agency separately."
  As I have said, I have quoted from the first page of the background paper, which is available from the Library.
  When the Opposition call for an independent consumer ombudsman, I suggest that that is exactly what they have under the present arrangements. I believe, however, that the regulators have much stronger powers than those for which the Opposition are calling.
  The issue does not stop there, because the Opposition's amendment suggests that the Bill
  "fails to strengthen consumer representation; fails to give sufficient priority to energy saving and environmental protection".
  The protection of customers has been successfully achieved since privatisation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced several examples. British Telecom's prices—the undertaking has been the subject of some criticism in the press—have decreased by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1984. Surely that is good. We have heard that the price of gas will be 5 per cent. less than the retail prices index next year. That may mean that there will be no increase in gas prices during the forthcoming year. That will be excellent and will be a far cry from the situation that we faced during 1974–79 under the Labour Government, when prices tended to rise by 2 per cent. every month, not every year.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, for the first three years of Conservative government from 1979, the price of gas increased by 10 per cent. annually. Does he agree that that significant factor should be included in the argument that he is advancing?
  Mr. Knapman: Opposition Members probably look forward to occasions when they can dig out figures of the past. It should be remembered, however, that the prices charged by all the privatised concerns are controlled by the various regulators and that the price increases are less than the rate of inflation. That should be good enough for hon. Members on either side of the House.
  The new regulator following the privatisation of the electricity industry has guaranteed 10 standards of performance. At long last consumers have redress—and in some instances compensation—if service is unsatisfactory. Surely that lies behind the excellent initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which led to the citizens charter.
  We should be interested in hearing rather more about the Opposition's sudden interest in consumer protection. I have no doubt that it would result in countless quangos that would be dominated by their trade union friends, who always represent the vested interests of the Labour party, which include the producer and the single parrot cry, "More money."
  Consumer protection is easily achieved if two golden rules are observed. First, there must be competition. Secondly, there must be regulation where necessary. The two rules must always be applied in that order. If there is competition and then regulation, the consumer is usually

  73
  protected. We can prove that reasonably satisfactorily by having regard to the position of the electricity supply industry now compared with what it was about 10 years ago.
  How was the price of electricity arrived at about 10 years ago? There was the price of coal and no one is sure how that was determined. We had rather dominant trade unions that decided that wages must be at certain levels, the cost of which was incorporated on a cost-plus basis. The monopoly Central Electricity Generating Board examined the figures and said, in effect, that they amounted to 80 per cent. of the total cost of power generation and that it had to add its own costs. It would then make an assessment of likely capital needs for building new power stations. The costs that were reached at that stage were sent off to the distribution companies, which had to add their costs. At the end of that process, the poor consumer was lumbered with the most expensive energy in Europe. That is about the truth of what happened under the Labour Government.
  Against that background, it is clear that the consumer is protected by OFFER. It is for the distribution companies to purchase as cheaply as they can, through their joint ownership of the national grid, from the competing generating companies. The generating companies have a diversity of supply from several suppliers, including the coal industry. That has had the desired effect.
  Miners have broken previous production records, and they are much more efficient now than 10 years ago. That must be a credit to them. I hope it will not be much longer before their industry is in a position to be privatised as a reward for their endeavours. In short, the industry is now consumer-driven, whereas 10 years ago it was producer-driven. That is because the Labour Government always pandered to vested interests.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: And Conservative Governments have never done so?
  Mr. Knapman: I note that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) disagrees with me. His party has voted against every privatisation measure. Perhaps he will tell us whether he believes that Mr. Arthur Scargill, who played a vital part in determining the price of coal, had the interests of consumers at heart.
  The Labour party claims also to be interested in environmental protection. We know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clashes with National Union of Mineworkers-dominated delegates in the House. It is rather pitiful that some Labour Members are mere delegates when the rest of us have the privilege of being representatives. An Opposition Front-Bench spokesman complained recently that he was under undue pressure from the National Union of Mineworkers.
  Another example has been provided by what was the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill. I had the privilege of taking the measure through the House last year in the teeth of opposition mounted by the NUM. The Bill merely sought to take in water inlet pipes together with water outlet pipes to permit a combined cycle gas turbine station to be constructed. The Labour party opposed the Bill at all stages. I wonder whether it argues that combined cycle gas turbine stations are less or more harmful to the environment than—
  Dr. Kim Howells: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Does he agree that some of
  74
  us are worried about combined cycle operations, not for the reasons that he has given, but because we are going to be very slow in burning a premium fuel simply because accountants have not allowed gas-fired power stations? They are much cheaper to build and one gets a return on one's money much quicker than from building a coal-fired or nuclear power station. It is not an environmental consideration; it is an accountancy one.
  Mr. Knapman: I think that both considerations may apply. Most people suggest that coal is a less satisfactory fuel for the environment than others. The Opposition's amendment suggests that the Government have failed to give
  "sufficient priority to energy saving and environmental protection"
  Surely the CCGT stations are more suitable for protecting the environment than coal-fired stations. I am not saying that that is the end of the argument, but in the terms of the Opposition's amendment it is quite clear that what I am saying is correct.
  The question of profits has greatly exercised the minds of Opposition Members. In 1990–91, British Telecom made £3·1 billion before tax; that yielded roughly £1 billion to the Exchequer. On what has the £1 billion been spent? Has it been spent on hospitals, roads or schools? Can any hon. Member tell me what will happen if the profit disappears and what will be cut from Labour's programme if the money is no longer available? What incentive will there be for efficiency if profits are reduced? That is the central issue.
  Surely a 20 per cent. reduction in prices since 1984, along with increased profits and taxation liabilities, constitutes a virtuous cycle. The old nationalised telephone network was grotesquely inefficient; it was hugely overmanned, for instance. Although it has been slimmed down, British Telecom is still considerably overmanned in comparison with most similar countries on the continent. Ten years ago, in many areas it was hardly worth bothering to cross the street to use a telephone box, because it would be certain to have been vandalised. Now, 98 per cent. of telephone boxes are working at any one time.
  Those using directory inquiries used to experience an exceptionally long wait: on Sundays, they would be lucky to obtain an answer at all. Now, there is a rapid response to such calls—and, usually, a charming Irish accent to accompany it. There was an even longer wait for telephones themselves. The "black, bakelite and basic" telephones described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were so basic that most people did not even possess one. A business subscriber would crawl right to the bottom of someone's priority list, but for the ordinary residential subscriber the chances of obtaining a telephone in a reasonable time were nil. That is another example of a consumer-driven industry replacing a producer-driven one.
  I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that debated the Water Bill in 1989—a Bill that was taken through its stages very competently by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment. The Bill's prime objective was the separation of the provider of services from the regulator of standards. Labour, of course, opposed it; the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) opposed it fluently and at great length.

  75
  Having opposed privatisation on every possible occasion, Labour cannot now seriously claim to be interested in the plight of consumers. It was a great step forward to separate the poachers from the gamekeepers. The Opposition merely propose the establishment of a quango to oversee some nationalised industry; that would not work here, any more than it would work in Russia. The poachers and the gamekeepers are working independently and working very well. This Bill will strengthen that process, in the light of experience since the privatisations.
  My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs have achieved an excellent balance between the respective and varied interests involved. The Bill is very much in the interests of the consumer and the purchasing public, and we should give it our enthusiastic support.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I am grateful for my second opportunity in a week to contribute to a Second Reading debate. I shall confine my remarks to clauses 1 to 10 of the Bill, which deal with telecommunications. I see this as an opportunity to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984 in the interests of consumers, and I hope that whichever Minister takes the Bill through its Committee stage will adopt some of the amendments to that Act that I have been suggesting for some time.
  I intervened on the Secretary of State's speech to ask whether he was satisfied with the conduct of Oftel, and, in particular, with that of its director general, Sir Bryan Carsberg. In my dealings with him, Sir Bryan has taken effective action, subject to the limitations imposed by the House. I suspect, however, that he would have liked to do more. Judging by his correspondence, and by conversations that we have had, I believe that—had it been the wish of successive Secretaries of State—he would have wished to deal with some of the worst abuses of the telecommunications industry. Monopolistic abuse has never been more apparent in any of the other privatised utilities.
  In his recent statement on the citizens charter—the precursor of the Bill—the Prime Minister said:
  "In the parliamentary session ahead, I want the public to watch who it is who really supports the consumer."
  In the six years since the privatisation of British Telecom, the dogmatism that presides over all privatisations has never been more acute than in that industry. It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends that I refer especially to the advent of premium-rate services.
  Premium-rate services began almost on the day of privatisation. The so-called services fell into six main categories—chatlines, recorded messages, one-to-one services, live services including sports commentaries, competitions and similar interactive games, and information services. That last service presents the most serious problem, as it used to be possible to dial a number free of charge to obtain information about sport or the weather.
  The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Normal charges applied to such services.
  Mr. Lewis: I accept the Minister's correction. It was possible, for the normal charge, to hear the test match score, a weather report or a road report. Now, subscribers must pay the going rate of about 35p
  People have now realised that there is money to be made through the development of sleazy services—and of respectable ones. I have often spoken in the House about the abuse of the chatline service, which joins up to a dozen people in conversation; I shall say more about that later. There are recordings of filthy stories—and also of stories conning people into believing that, for 30p or 40p, they will receive something that, in fact, they will not receive. No real control over such services exists, although various attempts have been made to impose it.
  The one-to-one services exploit women in our big cities in a Dickensian fashion. Women in economic straits—one-parent families, for instance—are given so-called jobs; for about £2 an hour, they are expected, during "convenient hours", to talk dirty to pornographers and other people who telephone at night to engage in crude conversations.
  People can dial into a football commentary on a Saturday afternoon. Does the Minister know anyone who would use his own money to listen in to a football commentary for two hours at 30-odd pence a minute? I am also certain that many of the competitions on telephone lines contravene the law. Money and holidays are offered as prizes, but I have no clue whether anyone has been successful in those competitions or whether the prizes were delivered. Oftel cannot do a damn thing about that. It cannot control what is happening because so many people are involved in the supply of those services and there are so many services that it is impossible, under present conditions, for them to be controlled.
  Such services are provided by someone who goes along to British Telecom, rents a line and agrees a price—perhaps a 50 per cent. cut for the sake of tonight's argument—and someone with no bona fides or track record and whose circumstances have not been investigated, can set up one of those services. That person might be sleazy or respectable or anything between the two.
  Over the past six years I have raised in this House many problems relating to those services. Let us consider their cost. Many thousands of people are still saddled with extraordinary debts because of the costs of the services that I have described. Chatlines are particular promoters of that problem. There are examples of 13 and 14-year-olds running up telephone bills of £7,000. Bills of £3,000 to £7,000 a quarter were normal. Whenever I argued for chatlines to be controlled, Ministers took no notice.
  I believe that Sir Bryan Carsberg wanted to do something about that problem. However, as always, the Government did not care two hoots because the money was pouring in. The embarrassment which that might have caused the privatisation process was swept under the carpet.
  I am surprised that Conservative Members have not intervened to say, "Why let a 13-year-old have access to a telephone to run up that kind of a bill?" That is the easy way out and that is the way out taken by British Telecom and by Conservative Members on several occasions. Many youngsters were caught in a trap. The parents were unaware of those huge bills until they dropped on their doormats.

  77
  Three years ago, there were three attempted suicides —one in Scotland, one in the north-east and one in the north-west involving youngsters who had run up such enormous bills. The Government did not show much interest in that. There was certainly no interest shown by those on the Treasury Bench. However, those are the problems that have occurred as a result of privatisation and what flowed from it.
  The worst kind of pornography has been and still is being peddled on such telephone services. I have no doubt that such telephone services provide a way into prostitution. British Telecom and the other network providers take a share of the money generated through those services.
  We must also consider the new crimes that are being committed. A newspaper article on 25 October reported that an ingenious telephone tapper had tapped into people's telephones and had run up a £13,000 sex line bill. He also ran up a £10,000 bill at his place of work. After the matter had been through the courts and the man had been dealt with for stealing electricity, British Telecom said that the householder who had been fleeced of £13,000 would have his bill settled. However, his employer's £10,000 bill would not be settled. Surprise, surprise, that man was sacked, but he is just one of many who have keyed into that new crime.
  Another example of that crime occurred not very long ago in the Wirral. A poor old chap went on holiday to visit his relatives for a few months. While he was away his flat was broken into. A chatline operator in the area, in league with the man who broke into his flat, helped to run up a bill of tens of thousands of pounds. After lengthy arguments, the case was settled, but there are many such cases affecting consumers about whom the Government say they now care enough to do something about them in the citizens charter.
  The campaign against such services has lasted for the best part of six years. I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with successive Ministers. I have tabled innumerable early-day motions and obtained Adjournment debates about those services. I have used every device open to me in the House to raise the matter, but I have been unable to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984. When the Minister replies tonight, I hope that he will confirm that he will accept some of the amendments that I will table if I am drafted on to the Standing Committee, as I hope to be.
  The Minister, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's predecessor cannot claim that all this is new to them. It is well known to the point of tedium. Far be it from me to bore the House, but I believe that these issues must be pressed home.
  All along, the reaction of Ministers has been, "Leave it to the regulator." However, in such circumstances, the regulator does not have enough power. The Government have rejected the idea of amending the 1984 Act and I hope that that will be corrected tonight. The thing that makes me laugh is that the House authorities have recognised that there is a problem. During the summer recess, 0898 numbers were barred from House of Commons telephones —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) may say, "Shame"—
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: No, I did not.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, she did not say that and I hope that she has not been using those numbers. I must stress that I am not guilty of the accusation that I have carried out my research on 0898 numbers by using House of Commons telephones.
  If we leave it to the regulators, what powers do they have? The problems have become worse. In the early days, some four years ago, Sir Bryan Carsberg issued an instruction to British Telecom on some aspects of the premium-rate services, but BT rejected the solution. All that Sir Bryan could do then was to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported that it was a whitewash. That was doubly unfortunate, because, within a week of the inquiry closing, one or two of the worst cases of abuse came to light. One of them involved a suicide attempt. Had that occurred before the inquiry closed, there might have been a different outcome. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's suggestions did not match what was needed to control premium-rate services.
  However, in 1986, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services was set up —a puny organisation. Its creation was doubtful in the first place because, in a sense, it was created by British Telecom—granted, it was at the behest of Oftel, but its funding was through British Telecom. If that is not a gamekeeper-poacher syndrome, I do not know what is. Funding is now also provided by Mercury and by one of the aircall networkers. None the less, that organisation, which was set up to monitor and regulate, is being funded by the people who are making the most money out of it. That cannot be right.
  When I have argued for a statutory committee I have been told, "Oftel has sufficient powers. ICSTIS is doing a wonderful job." ICSTIS is not doing a wonderful job, partly because it is under-resourced for the job that it is expected to do. It has approximately £1 million in funding. We are talking about a multi-million pound market for premium-rate services, thousands of lives, hundreds of operators, and large amounts of money ranged against that so-called supervisory committee. That is not good enough if we are serious about consumer interests.
  Since 1986, ICSTIS has produced four draft codes of practice. Each code of practice has been more expensively produced than the last, and each one has been like King Canute trying to turn back the tide of abuses in premium-rate services. That organisation cannot succeed in the circumstances that I have described. It has talked about the control of advertisements. Even Ministers cannot have escaped seeing in the newspapers busty young ladies advertising lusty services on the telephone.
  It was suggested that the price of such calls had to be clearly printed upon advertisements. Some prices can hardly be seen with the naked eye. That organisation cannot have the time, staff or energy to make sure that its own codes are adhered to. It also called for caution in respect of under-18s who are likely to phone chatlines and so on. How in heaven's name can one seriously expect a monitor to judge whether a person on the telephone might be 16, 15 or 14? Publicans have enough difficulty when they confront people. How in heaven's name can someone be expected to make such a judgment on the telephone?
  The other significant move was the introduction of a compensation scheme. The service providers—those who get the rake-off—must now pay a deposit which goes into

  79
  a pot that is supervised by an independent arbitrator. It is a tortuous process, to say the least. Significantly, if such a service must be regulated in that way before it is even delivered to the consumer, there must be something wrong with it. It is addressed to the wrong people, it is delivered in the wrong way, and much of what is being delivered is unworthy of the House.
  What has been BT's reaction? BT originally told me that it was technically impossible to call-bar an exchange. In May last year, after a long argument, it decided that it could call-bar an exchange, provided that it was a digital exchange. At that time, only 50 per cent. of customers were on a digital exchange. I regarded call-barring as a step forward and gave it a cautious welcome in the House. At that time, we were told that BT, in the next round of bills, would insert a "billstuffer"—a leaflet giving information about how one could obtain call-barring at the exchange. That circular has still not gone out. Is it because BT wants to be as dilatory as it can because it is still raking in the money? Also, why has it not instructed most of its regional managers in how to operate the service?
  People still say to me, "I have been in touch with BT. I have a dispute with my bill. How can I pay £3,000?" My first question is, "Have you been told about call barring? That is the first step, and then we will go through the rest of the process to try to right the wrong." Invariably, they have not been told about call-barring. I do not expect the regulator to be able to work with that kind of minutiae.
  The latest innovation is the separation of numbers. Again, I give that a qualified welcome—only a qualified welcome. The separation of numbers means that entertainment numbers will be separated from serious information numbers. That innovation was requested six years ago. I think that it was an initiative of Sir Bryan Carsberg. It has now been taken on board. What worries me is that, if a service needs to be split into two separate types of numbers, what clientele and what services are being separated? The answer must be that we are separating dirt from serious information. I question whether dirt has any place on the national telephone network. It is tantamount to making sleaze respectable.
  The chairman of ICSTIS says that we must not moralise about the services that people buy on the telephone. We must do so. We must take a stand on the matter. Anybody can pick up a newspaper and see reams of advertisements for sleazy services. Anyone can misdial. Sons or daughters—we should be especially worried about daughters—can misdial and hear some of the most appalling, vile rubbish that one could imagine. There is no room for that on our national telephone network.
  I have no doubt that the Minister will flash back at me later and say, "What about section 43, which bans the commission of illegal acts, bad language and so on?" By splitting up the numbers the Minister is saying, "To blazes with section 43. It does not matter." I accept that he cannot do that but it would be tantamount to doing so. The House must say that we shall not have sleaze services on the telephone. If I am accused of moralising, I admit it.
  So far, I have tested the Prime Minister's new-found commitment to defending the citizen against tyranny. One such tyranny is premium-rate services. Another problem is phantom calls. One Conservative Member spoke about his delight at being able to obtain itemised calls. Of course,
  80
  that is a major step forward. We look forward to that facility being available to all telephone subscribers. But itemised bills have shown up a large number of phantom calls.
  Consumers are setting up organisations throughout the land to challenge the appearance of phantom calls on their telephone bills. Phantom calls are being made on their telephones. I have had cases of old couples who live alone and know that no one has ever had access to their phone. Once in dispute, they have received an itemised bill which showed whole strings of calls on 0898 numbers. Oftel has loads of records of such cases which the Minister could examine at his leisure.
  Phantom calls are made in various ways. They may be made by employees of British Telecom. At one time British Telecom denied that that could happen but now it accepts that it does. There are also the characters who go into the woods with bits of wire and tap into other people's telephones.
  Phantom calls cause social problems. Let us imagine a middle-aged couple who challenge their bill and find that many of the calls were made on 0898 numbers. Perhaps the wife will ring the numbers to see what they are. She may find the most appalling pornographic services on that number. The first thing that she thinks is, "Is my husband going round the bend? Is something going wrong with my marriage?" By and large, unregulated premium-rate services have caused all sorts of social problems which we cannot continue to ignore.
  I have already mentioned unauthorised use of telephones but it is worth labouring the point. We have talked about unauthorised use in the home and the people who tap into phones and about British Telecom employees tapping into other people's lines. But another worry is what happens in the workplace. I invite Conservative Members to think about that. They claim to be the friend of the small business man. I have given innumerable examples to successive Ministers of business men who have been ripped off by unsupervised employees or, more often, those who work for security firms which have been engaged by the company. Business men find that employees of the security firm spend three quarters of their time on the telephone on 0898 numbers.
  Employees may run up enormous bills for those small businesses. Small businesses in my constituency cannot stand such costs. Of course, it is against the law and if people are found out they will be sacked, but British Telecom is not prepared to write off those debts. I can understand that because they must run into many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. I spoke earlier about football commentaries. Who would spend 30-odd pence a minute on such a service? It works out at about £20 an hour plus VAT. Only someone who is using someone else's telephone would do so.
  One can imagine a security man on the two to 10 shift on a Saturday afternoon. His favourite team is playing and he cannot go to watch it. He has a phone there and he will spend someone else's £20-odd to listen to the match. I cannot believe that that is right, that we cannot regulate it or that we should ignore it.
  It is simple to do something about the problem, if there is the will to do so. I do not know the figures because they are a secret. I do not know whether Oftel has the figures. British Telecom will always hide behind commercial confidentiality. Now that we do not have a Postmaster General whom we can bring to the Dispatch Box at

  81
  Question Time we cannot find out what is going on in the industry. We do not know what is going on in the privatised industries, especially British Telecom.
  I want to know whether the Prime Minister, through his Minister, will back the citizen against the obscene profits made from premium-rate services and against the abuses of which I have spoken. Many people are making money out of premium-rate services. They include advertisers in newspapers. I have here one of this morning's newspapers which has a whole page of advertisements for such services.
  British Telecom, the system provider, also makes money from premium-rate services. So do television companies which advertise the services at night. Inordinate amounts of money are made. I argue that we should put the citizen and the consumer first, before those who make the profits. I have argued that strenuously for a long time. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to put the consumer first.
  How can we sort out the problem of premium-rate services? I make two suggestions and I defy anyone to say that they cannot operate well. The first is a system of contracting in. I want the Minister to listen carefully to what I am about to say. I am a Labour Member of Parliament and I suggest that we should give the consumer choice. I want the consumer to be able to choose whether the telephone in his or her house is geared to receive 0898 numbers, or whatever number is agreed when the regulations come in. I am arguing for choice.
  The authorities in the House have made a choice on our behalf not to allow the telephones to receive 0898 numbers. I want that facility to be replicated outside. As a free citizen and a subscriber to the telephone service—I spend a considerable amount of money on my telephone —I want to be able to say to British Telecom, "Thank you, Sir Ian Vallance,"—or is it Mr. Vallance? I do not know whether we have knighted him yet—"I do not want to receive 0898 services on my telephone." I want to sign a piece of paper just as I have to do if I want to move a line. I recently had a new extension put in my home. British Telecom did not put that extension in before I signed a piece of paper. I want the same thing to happen with premium-rate services. I am talking about choice.
  I should also like direct billing to be introduced. British Telecom will thank me for that. If a service provider sells a service, whether bawdy, serious or whatever, the provider should be responsible for its own billing, collection and debt collection.
  The Minister frowns—I ought to go slowly. At present the system provider takes a cut in the sum total covered by the bill. British Telecom pays the system provider by cheque monthly, according to the amount on the meter, which means that it has paid out before it has submitted its quarterly bill to the consumer. If the consumer receives a bill for £3,000 and is on income support there is no chance that it will be paid. British Telecom pays the characters who operate such services before it has collected the money and has to go debt collecting if it does not get the money.
  If the services that such people are providing are wholesome and if the consumer wants them, the system providers should be responsible for collecting their own cash, like any other commercial enterprise. Therefore direct billing is the second prerequisite. I am certain that newspapers such as the one that I have here would be carrying fewer adverts which cause enormous offence to ordinary people—adverts such as "Horny", "Talkback",
  82
  "Dial a mistress", "Mistresses in all areas, home phone numbers given"—that is supposed to be against the rules —"Hard adult line", and "Straight dirty sex talk." Those services are available on the British Telecom telephone network. It is an absolute disgrace in a civilised society.
  I have a full page of similiar advertisements here. I might have read some of them out if one of our male colleagues had been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall spare your embarrassment out of respect for you.
  Such advertisements cause enormous offence to ordinary people. Tabloid newspapers do not carry as many as this rag, which I shall not give advertising space by naming tonight. Respectable people are outraged that such things are still taking place. The House has been listening to similar arguments for six long years.
  I have made two serious propositions, which will cure many of the problems. My final suggestion is that the Bill be forgotten and replaced by a statutory supervisory committee. For the sake of getting the message into Ministers' skulls I repeat my first two propositions: a contracting in system to give the consumer real choice; and a direct billing system to regulate the problem in a commercial way.
  The Government cannot be proud of the situation, they should not be proud of it and they ought to join Opposition Members in Committee to do something serious about it at last.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I must apologise as I shall not be here for the wind-up speeches. I shall refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) later as it was rather more constructive than the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who opened the debate for the Opposition. His speech was singularly sterile and he spent a large part of it making fairly obvious points. They were obvious coming from the Opposition, but there was a certain amount of assent from Conservative Members about some of the salary increases for chairmen and chief executives of the newly privatised companies.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was singularly unfair when he said repeatedly that there was no ministerial response to those increases and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State heard him. I recall my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy commenting that some of those increases were beyond the pale.
  However, I shall dwell not on those matters but on a general issue which is valid. As industries pass from the nationalised to the private sector, previous distortions and holding down salaries will become apparent and a rectification of salary levels will have to take place to enable the companies to compete with the private sector in this country and with similar organisations abroad.
  I regret that so many of the utilities hoiked up the salaries of the chairmen and chief executives without considering those of senior and middle management, or of the professional, scientific and technical grades which they need to attract to do their jobs competently. In both my constituency and the House I have been critical of the way in which the utilities have handled that matter.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was scathing about what he described as the excessive profits of the

  83
  utilities. The Labour party cannot have it both ways—it has criticised the Government in the past 10 years for the low level of investment in the water industry, while ignoring the fact that the last Labour Government slashed investment in that industry.
  Where will investment come from if not from profit? Are not the bulk of those profits being ploughed back into investments in the industries to enable, them, as in the case of British Telecom, to compete in a competitive and technically advanced world? It is vital to carry out the vast work in the water industry that the last Labour Government and this Government in their early years neglected. The fact that there will be £28 billion of investment in the water industry in the next 10 years, the bulk of it from profits, is an achievement. That is one of the most important arguments in support of privatisation.
  I welcome the Bill and the debate on Second Reading which will enable me to mention various aspects of some utilities. The debate also enables us to review the progress of privatisation and the success thereof. To start with, we must judge by constituents' letters and queries. In the past year and in this Parliament I have received a number of complaints about British Telecom—not a large number, but perhaps a score every nine months.
  I must inform the hon. Member for Worsley that a number of those complaints refer to the chatline scandal that he mentioned. I shall not develop that argument as he has stated his case, but I pay tribute to his pioneering work on the subject. Of course, such calls can be traced. When a wife finds that a massive bill has built up as a result of calls to such numbers—as happened in a case in my constituency—every other member of the family goes to considerable lengths, such as visiting a priest, to deny that they made the calls. What does that do to relationships within the family? The hon. Member for Worsley made his point and I endorse it.
  As for British Gas, I must confess that, with one exception, I have received no complaints. That may be because I live in a semi-rural constituency. Although most of Taunton and Wellington are on the gas main, the rural areas are not. I shall mention the availability of electricity to some of my more rural constituents in a moment. It is a great tribute to British Gas that I encountered no complaints.
  I hope that the Bill will help in this further regard. At a recent meeting with my branch of the National Farmers Union, some fruit growers told me how gas prices affect them. The case is always made that competition, particularly from Holland, is more heavily subsidised. There is an article in Under Glass about it. In the 1970s many growers were happily converting to gas on interrupted supply contracts. When British Gas was privatised, that arrangement came to an end, so the debate on energy costs has been reopened.
  A case is given of a grower, not in my constituency, who has 2·25 acres of tomatoes. He burns about 120,000 therms a year. Until 18 months ago he praised the use of gas. In 1988–89 he was paying about 27p a therm. During the season the price for him has been raised to 32·3p a therm and he is told that for the following season his price will go up to 35·84 a therm. He says that those price levels make it very difficult to make a living and he fears that the size of his undertaking makes him a prey. His neighbours,
  84
  whose undertakings are twice the size of his, still pay 27p a therm—5p less than he does. He reckons that that makes a difference of £12,000 to his income.
  British Gas softened its position slightly when it announced a tiering of prices, depending on quantity used, but that applies only to growers using up to 25,000 therms. As I have said, the Dutch price is below that. In May, any Dutch user of 10,000 therms upwards was paying 21·5 a therm. The matter was drawn to my attention by Mr. Newton-Scanlon of Nailsborne nurseries in my constituency. Most hon. Members with semi-rural constituencies will know of people who face similar competition from the Dutch and similar problems with British Gas. It is pointed out that Ofgas has behaved well and pursued the matter vigorously. I hope that we may be able to pursue the matter in Committee.
  I had little controversy from my constituents about the privatisation of electricity. A small but significant number who knew quite a lot about the industry wrote to me two years ago about the chosen method. I must pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for the way in which he has overcome what might have become considerable difficulties in the privatisation process. I think that we have a satisfactory arrangement now.
  In a rural constituency, people expect to be off the gas main—they do not expect to have gas. However, these days they expect to have access to electricity. I am sorry to say that there are still small groups, perhaps only a dozen, such as those in a particular valley near Winsford on the edge of Exmoor, who are not yet connected to the grid. They have pursued the matter and tried as a group to explore what the cost would be to be linked to the grid. These are small-scale farmers who face the sort of difficulties that many farmers face at present. They have been told that it would cost about £10,000 per family, which is beyond their means. Therefore, they must generate their electricity and their own generator is costly and not always reliable. Again, I hope that we may explore that in Committee.
  About two years ago, when the matter was first raised with me, I tabled a written question asking what estimates the Minister or the electricity industry had of the number of people in England who were not connected to the grid. I obtained the reply that that information was not available. It is in the public interest that that information should be available. We should know how many of our fellow citizens—it is only a tiny minority—are unfortunate enough not to be connected to the electricity grid in England and, I imagine, in Scotland and Wales.
  I have been slightly critical of the electricity industry, but I pay tribute to the way in which, in the past few days, South Western Electricity has responded to my representations by some constituents assisted by me. It was proposing to shut down the supply one Saturday to do urgent maintenance work at the Wellington sewage plant. That would have meant considerable difficulty for one or two firms and shops.
  This morning, I received a letter dated 14 November saying that the SWE engineer had advised my constituents that it was not feasible to change the shut-down date, but had offered technical assistance so that a small generator could be used as an alternative supply for the duration of the shut-down. That was accepted; my constituents arranged to hire a generator and, as far as everyone is aware, those businesses could function throughout the

  85
  shut-down period last Saturday. I welcome that. It shows a utility responding to reasonable representations—in this case, from small industrial customers. I hope that it is a harbinger of the way in which matters will progress.
  British Telecom was the first major utility to be privatised. We have heard legitimate criticisms from the hon. Member for Worsley and a fair amount of flak from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, so it is important to place it on record that BT's prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since 1984 and will fall by a third by the end of the present price cap in July 1993.
  The price formula governing BT prices has been strengthened three times since privatisation. It now stands at RPI minus 6.25 per cent. That means that the cost of a range of calls will fall in cash terms next year. As a result, a three-minute cheap-rate call now costs less in absolute terms than it did in 1981. There is a reduction of 50 per cent. in real terms. BT's new low user scheme means that 2 million people will pay half the normal rental and get 30 free call units per quarter.
  In my first year as the Member for Taunton, I had several complaints, particularly from villages and small towns in rural areas, about telephone boxes. Many hon. Members will have had similar complaints about the inadequacy of call boxes. Tremendous tribute should be paid to BT—I am not saying that this removes my criticisms of the salary increases of the chairman or chief executive—that since 1984 the number of call boxes has increased from 77,000 to 98,000 and that 96 per cent. of those boxes work at any one time. That is an increase from only 75 per cent. in 1987. It is a considerable achievement, and we should see similar performance achievements in the other utilities.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill will provide Oftel with powers to set guaranteed standards of service for residential and small business customers and that, if a designated operator fails to meet guaranteed standards, he can be required to pay compensation to the customer. I also welcome the fact that, if a customer and a designated operator disagree on whether standards have been met or compensation is due, either may ask the director to settle the dispute. The director's decision will be final. I welcome the measures taken, and I hope that we can explore them in detail in Committee.
  I referred earlier to problems with the gas industry, but, as a general rule, British Gas has performed extraordinarily well since privatisation. Gas prices for domestic users have fallen by 14 per cent. in real terms, and those prices are among the lowest in Europe. The prices charged to some European businesses may be lower, but, on average, European households using gas for central heating pay 40 per cent. more than British ones.
  An important fact was revealed last week when a number of my hon. Friends and I met the south-west and west midlands branches of the Gas Consumers Council. We were told that disconnections for debt are at their lowest level since records began. I welcome that.
  I also welcome the proposals in the Bill which mean that a further 7 per cent. of the supply market will be taken out of the monopoly. That will enable new customers to benefit from competition as they will be allowed to buy gas from anyone on better terms and at a lower price. Such customers may include the market gardeners whom I discussed earlier as well as small and medium-sized manufacturers who use gas to operate their furnaces and larger retailers who use gas for heating.
  86
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said that certain provisions in the Bill will mean that schools which use gas for heating can group together and thus achieve economies of scale in the cost of their gas. I hope that those measures will be successful.
  Certain basic superstitions were expressed about the privatisation of part of the water industry. Responsibility for sewage remains under public control, which is correct. The privatisation was controversial because of the widely held belief that water was some sort of natural, God-given commodity that we enjoyed without the interference of nasty industrial money-making processes. Anyone who knows anything about how water, of varying quality, reaches our taps, must realise that that process relies on major investment and infrastructure.
  Such investment is also important to attain the environmental requirements that we all desire for our rivers, beaches and the disposal of sewage. People have come to recognise the necessity for the privatisation and the way in which it was undertaken. They also welcome the great investment that is now being made in the water industry.
  There are complaints about water charges, and I receive my fair share of them. Earlier, an hon. Member referred to the way in which water charges are assessed. That issue is probably not relevant to the Bill, but we may be able to squeeze in a debate about it in Committee. For the majority of people, water charges are assessed on rateable values and that produces a number of inequalities. I hope that the water companies will make rapid progress in the introduction of meters and charges that are more closely related to the amount of water used. Such progress is important given that, in many cases, rateable values are 15 years old.
  A number of building companies in my constituency have long complained to me about the infrastructure charges on new houses. I shall not develop that argument now, but I understand that the director general of Ofwat has expressed reservations about whether infrastructure charges are the most suitable way in which to recover the costs of extending water and sewerage systems. As part of his public consultation on his paper "Paying for Water", the director general has said that further thought needs to be given to those charges.
  In a letter to me on 30 September, the secretary of Ofwat wrote that the director general
  "will be examining the position of infrastructure charges within the overall charges for each company in considering responses to his consultation paper on 'Paying for Water'."
  I welcome that, because we need to pay attention to the way in which infrastructure charges for new housing operate. We must consider whether they are fair to the businesses involved and whether they serve the interests of reviving the building industry, which is in considerable difficulty.
  I share the regret expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that British Rail does not come within the purview of the Bill. I use the InterCity link between Taunton and Paddington, and I do not encounter the ghastly problems faced by my hon. Friends who represent Essex and other southern regions. However, we are all irritated when there is a delay or rolling stock breaks down for no apparent reason. It is also irritating, although it may seem a trivial point, when a train running

  87
  on a Sunday—I accept that it may happen at any time —which is scheduled to have a buffet car does not have one.
  I welcome the proposal to encourage British Rail to pay compensation to travellers when particularly bad service has been provided. That will mean that the consumer feels that he has got something back for the dreadful service he encountered and it is the means by which to tot up the number of occasions on which a particular service has had to offer such compensation. One would then get an idea which services are badly managed.
  In the debate on the Queen's Speech, I said that I did not wholly endorse the privatisation pressures on British Rail. That argument must be examined carefully, although I accept that there is scope for improvement in the management of British Rail. A sensible process of privatisation may enhance that management. Although British Rail does not fall within the purview of the Bill —who knows?—we may have the occasional debate on it in Committee.
  It is important to remind the House of what underlies the Opposition's response to the Bill as well as their carping about the process of privatisation. The Opposition make such criticism despite the fact that the privatisation of the telecommunications and gas industries is widely accepted as successful. There is also a growing recognition that the electricity and water privatisations undertaken in this Parliament will also be successful. I accept that time is needed to prove that.
  Despite the fair and effective words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, deep down the mentality governing the Opposition is a desire to nationalise, renationalise and control. I remind the House of remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. He is now cleansed and purged, but in December 1974 in Labour Monthly—I accept that he was a young man at the time—he said:
  "There is no need to be apologetic about the extension of public ownership or the establishment of workers' control. They are now prerequisites of the economic survival of Britain."
  We should gently remind people of those words.
  Ten years later, in October 1984, he said in Marxism Today:
  "The process of renationalisation … is basic to my view to democratic socialism."
  He may wish us to forget those words. The record of Labour's pledges to renationalise show that the hankering is still there. The two targets for Labour's first round of renationalisation are the water companies, for which the market capitalisation is £8·2 billion, and the National Grid Company, which would cost an estimated £1·7 billion. In addition to all their other spending commitments, that is a cool £10 billion for the first round of their renationalisation proposals.
  In case anyone doubts my reference to those commitments, the Labour energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said:
  "We have said all along that we will bring the National Grid Company back into public ownership. It will be a high priority, I assure hon. Members".—[Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 234.]
  We must remember that.
  Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend remind me where high priority comes in the list of top priority, high priority and prime priority?
  Mr. Nicholson: I hope that my hon. Friend will develop that interesting linguistic point in his own speech.
  Labour Members have given so many priorities and made so many commitments to health, social security, industry and overseas aid that the poor shadow Chancellor must be desperate. "Opportunity Britain", which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said was a moderate document, said:
  "The provision of water is so fundamental that it is a priority"—
  not a high priority—
  "for return to the public sector".
  In an interview last September in Director, the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed Labour's
  "pledge to return the water companies to public ownership."
  Labour does not stop with those utilities and companies that have been privatised in this Parliament. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has made it clear that other industries remain on the shopping list. For example, he said in Business of May 1990 that BAA plc—formerly the British Airports Authority—was one of the
  "areas which we are going to turn into public utility companies. We are not going to leave them as private sector companies".
  I am not sure how an area can be nationalised, but I leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who may wish to pursue the linguistics of the matter.
  When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was pressed in that article about whether Labour's plans would involve nationalisation, he half backtracked and said:
  "I have already told you more than I should".
  That suggests that the Labour party have a secret agenda. The only renationalisations on the record are electricity and water, but there may be a little list, as in the run-up to previous elections, when they had programmes for sections of industry all over the place. Perhaps their plans are being kept under wraps and we shall have more leaks from the more honest or indiscreet Labour spokesmen in the coming months.
  I always enjoy quoting the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on local government finance. He was Labour's trade and industry spokesman some time ago. In The Sunday Times of 6 November 1988, when he was part of a process of reforming, modernising and purging the Labour party, he said:
  "Our purpose in looking at more flexible forms of common ownership is to enable us to represent more faithfully the objectives of clause 4, to which I remain personally committed".
  That is what the Labour party really wants. I thought that the hon. Member for Dagenham was the face of the new 1990s Labour party, but he is personally committed to clause 4.
  We all know what the Leader of the Opposition would like to do. If he ever obtained the power, I am sure that he would not require much pressure from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to drive him that way. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that the Labour party may have to keep quiet about certain plans if it is to win, but that when it had won it could scrap nuclear weapons, nationalise a few industries and possibly —who knows?—start to take Britain out of the European Community. There, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I stray into a debate that we shall begin on Wednesday.

  89
  I welcome the Bill and the measures of reform and guarantee that it gives to customers. I believe that it is welcomed by the utilities, the regulators and most of the press who have commented on it. Indeed, it is welcomed by most people except the Labour party. Although we may regret that, we should not be surprised.
  8. 15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Bill is certainly necessary, although it is rather late and its fundamental objectives are rather weak. The Secretary of State made more extravagant claims for the Bill than its content would justify. To some extent, it increases regulation on the margin, which is welcome and necessary, and proposes some competition on the margin. However, it does not deal with the fundamental problems in a radical way. Indeed, as several hon. Members have already said, it is a confession by the Government of how they have mismanaged the entire privatisation programme.
  During his opening speech, I asked the Secretary of State a question to which he did not give a full or satisfactory answer—why had not the Government sought to introduce those measures before they privatised monopolies, rather than wait until the customers had suffered the consequences of several years of high prices and not necessarily improved services?
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has already been mentioned and it has been suggested that it will have to be involved again. One of the problems is that the Government's momentum to privatise was determined for ideological reasons and on a tight time scale. As a consequence, it was not possible to privatise in a way that put customers' and consumers' interests first because the overriding interest was the Conservative Government and ensuring maximum take up. The potential shareholders' interests were far more important than those of the consumers. Indeed, it was necessary for the Government to carry the management of those companies with them so that any radical measures to expose the industries to serious restructuring or competition were not on the agenda.
  It was well known that Sir Dennis Rooke made it clear to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) that the privatisation of gas should be on his terms, and those were the terms on which gas was privatised. On the first major privatisation—that of British Telecom—the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) gave the game away when he said:
  "I have decided against breaking up BT before offering it to the public. To do so would require a delay of many years in order to put British Telecom's accounts into a form that would make piecemeal disposals possible".
  The idea was considered but rejected because it did not meet the Government's timetable. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere made extravagant claims at that time for the purposes of privatisation which, had they been fulfilled, would have made today's Bill unnecessary. He said:
  "In the past, it seems, we have never been concerned enough to regulate our monopolies. Customers have had little redress against BT, or the Post Office before that. It has been impossible to judge whether increases in telephone charges could be justified. After all, when people point to the profits, a monopoly can turn in large profits year after year, whether it is efficient or not."—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 30–34.]
  That is the crucial point about the argument about British Telecom's current profits.
  Mr. Redwood: How do the duopoly policy in telecommunications and the restructuring of the electricity industry fit that picture? Did the electricity industry management welcome it?
  Mr. Bruce: The point about the duopoly policy in telecommunications has already been made by the statistics. The proportion of the telecommunications industry that is outside British Telecom control does not constitute a duopoly. It is a monopoly with a little managed competition on the fringes. That managed competition may increase in time but it is stretching credibility a long way to suggest that a company that accounts for more than 96 per cent. of the market does not have a monopoly. In that respect, the Minister's intervention is not valid, but he may have a point in relation to electricity.
  The right hon. Member for Hertsmere blew the whistle on his colleagues when he disarmingly said that, when he privatised electricity, he would not make the same cock-up as they had done with British Telecom and British Gas. He did not, but he made a different one. He created two competing monopolies which are causing considerable unrest within the industry.
  Only this weekend, industrial users in the electricity industry have been looking to break up power generators and introduce competition, and there is a suggestion that the Director General of Electricity Supply might yet refer the electricity industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the issue of industrial prices, as happened with British Gas.
  The interesting factor in all those arguments is that my hon. Friends who sat on the respective Committees or spoke on the Second Reading of Bills associated with privatisation said at the time that the Government were privatising monopoly, not introducing effective competition and regulation, and the matter would have to be examined again. We were rubbished then, but we have been vindicated, and the matter will not rest when the Bill has been passed. Anyone who believes that the Bill goes far enough or is radical enough to satisfy customers' interests is living in cloud cuckoo land. Several more pieces of legislation will have to be enacted before there is effective competition or regulation within the privatised industries.
  Despite the much-vaunted claims of Conservative and Labour Members about their faith in competition, it is interesting that a truly radical step to introduce competition into the privatised utilities has yet to come. Last week, the Liberal Democrats published proposals for breaking up British Telecom into a number of components to provide effective and proper competition, and create regional corporate headquarters of benefit to our regions, which find that massive monopolies concentrate their headquarters elsewhere in the country—by definition, in one place.
  If effective competition is to be introduced, whether in gas supply, telecommunications, water or electricity, there will have to be a division of the market into effective competitors. That has not taken place. At present, we are the only party prepared to grasp the nettle and to recognise that consumers' interests require both effective competition in the marketplace—the Government have a long way to go before they create that—and effective regulation where the market cannot produce a solution. The Bill

  91
  provides a little extra competition and regulation on the margin, but it does not fundamentally transform the regime.
  The Bill was brought forward in response to the outcry from consumers and the industry about the way that, over the years, they have been ripped off by the privatised utilities and the fact that, while the regulators have made a contribution—no one would deny that—they have not done anything like enough and do not have the necessary power or resources to advance consumer interests and issues.
  I want to make it absolutely clear so that the Minister and the House are in no doubt that, despite my criticisms, the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill, as any such measure is preferable to no measure at all. The Labour amendment is strange and perhaps a little revealing. It suggests that the Labour party has no interest in trying to explore the use of competition. I agree with comments made by some Conservative Members that there is still a desire within the Labour party—as there has been in their approach to every privatisation—to maintain the huge corporate structures in the hope that they can renationalise them or, through the back door, do it on the cheap. If the Labour party cannot afford to buy back the structures, it wants to create such a stranglehold on the regulator that it can manage and run the industry without owning or controlling it. If the amendment is put to the House, we shall vote against it.
  The question still remains as to why privatisation has so far failed and what could be done to try to ensure that we pick up the pieces in the interests of the customers and consumers. I find it difficult to believe that, in a company the size and scale of British Gas, no matter how ingenious and committed the regulator is—I have received considerable help and support from Mr. James McKinnon, the director of Ofgas, who has been able to use his resources—a work force of 28 will be anything like enough to shadow it. The other regulators have similar staffing levels.
  I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned one of the regulator's disadvantages. His ability to question, challenge, direct or intervene in the marketplace is dependent on the fundamental information that he can obtain about the costs involved. It is difficult to see how the regulators can effectively achieve their goal with the resources currently available. The Government must give the regulators more resources, thus giving them more power and the ability to follow up that power effectively and in detail.
  One reason why we are in the present difficulties is that the Government were driven by their short-term considerations, the need to secure revenue and to ensure successful flotations. They are still haunted by that problem. The electricity industry is looking for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which may yet happen. In addition, the second flotation of British Telecom is imminent and creating some controversy.
  I was interested to read in yesterday's edition of The Independent on Sunday that the flotation is being regarded with much cynicism, even by people in the City. It says that the flotation and premium will
  "plainly not be of the same magnitude as in the water and electricity privatisations, but the Government has injected enough 'greed factor' into the issue to underpin it."
  92
  That illustrates the standard practice of offering a premium on the flotation that has to be underwritten by the taxpayer. In this case, the Government have provided a sum from taxpayers' resources to ensure that there will be no hiccup after the flotation.
  The article in The Independent on Sunday mentions the "novelty of over-allocation" and states:
  "This allows the Government to spend up to £400 million 'stabilising' the BT share price in the immediate aftermath of the issue. If the price shows signs of slipping by more than the market as a whole, Warburgs will step in and prop it up. Warburgs call it 'market management'. A ruder description might be 'market manipulation'. 'Isn't this what the Guiness chaps went to jail for?' asked one fund manager last week. Well, not exactly, but we all know what he means."
  That is an apposite comment about how £400 million of taxpayers' money is being used to protect the Conservative party from possible embarrassment. It is quite a tidy sum to put in an election fund.
  The article concludes with a demonstration that the Bill does not hold many fears for the City and does not seriously change the regime. It states:
  "For most investors, privatisation has nearly always been money for old rope. Despite the present negative background noise, there's no reason yet to suppose the BT issue won't be the same."
  So much for the Government's sabre rattling, and their claims that they are getting to grips with effective regulation and it will all be different. We have it on good authority that those in the City consider it a minor change on the margin and believe that there is still much money to be ripped off from the consumers so that they do not need to worry too much about the Government causing them further serious embarrassment.
  While I support the Bill, I do not do so because I believe that the Government are anywhere near solving the problem. They are merely taking small, halting, cosmetic steps towards it, with a few useful changes on the margin. We welcome the fact that the Government will allow water to be supplied across boundaries and will be interested to see what effect that potential competitive pressure will have. But I do not think that anybody believes that there will be a massive development of water pipes shooting across boundaries all over England to take advantage of that clause.
  The Minister seems to be nodding, but if this is so, why do not the Government pursue similar legislation in the context of gas, electricity and telecommunications? The Liberal Democrats have proposed a policy of breaking up telecommunications into regional companies, which would have the benefit of bringing down the cost of local calls, which are the highest in the industrial world due to the ineffectiveness of competition from the duopoly of which the Minister seems so proud. The fact Mercury offers cheaper local calls has little impact on the market because most people do not have access to Mercury.
  It is interesting that the Government are anxious to explore electricity and water but are not prepared to grasp the nettle of the other utilities. We need to create real competition. We must fundamentally restructure these industries. If the Government were serious about the ideological claim that they make for these measures, as opposed to their evident short-term political opportunism, they would be prepared to consider breaking up the utilities, thereby opening them up to genuine competition. That would have the added advantage of stimulating the regions in the process.

  93
  I concede that the Labour amendment refers to the need for regulators to be accountable to Parliament and public. I do not think that an ombudsman is necessarily the right answer. One possible route, favoured by the Labour party, may make sense—that there should be a Select Committee charged with being the body through which directors of utilities and regulators would be accountable to this House.
  We should also consider combining the regulators into one organisation instead of their remaining independent in each industry. They all have the same approach but they must have a learning curve and they could benefit from exchanging experiences. I hope that the regulators meet and discuss these matters informally already, but it would be helpful if they operated from the same office using the same staff, thereby securing economies of scale, and exchanged experiences that make them more effective regulators.
  When the history of this period is written, the success of the privatisation programme will not go down as the greatest achievement of the Conservative regime. I am not a fan of that regime but I admit that there have been some achievements. Ultimately, the democratic reform of the trade unions will probably go down as the greatest achievement of the Conservative regime in the 1980s. Conservative Members have said that all types of regimes all over the world, regardless of political persuasion, are carrying out privatisation and that it might even have had to be contemplated by a Labour Government. But the Government have been found wanting in many areas of the execution of this policy; they have failed to consider the consumers' interests paramount and they have squandered taxpayers' money to secure good flotations. They have privatised monopolies which have been out of control, and then, late in the day, they have had to introduce weak and ineffective means of controlling those monopolies.
  The Government have not followed the logic of their own professed ideology—of introducing effective competition. It remains our conclusion that consumers' interests can be served only if we promote competition at the core of services and effective regulation when competition cannot deliver. The Government are moving too slowly in both directions. They have a great deal to be ashamed of in respect of competition, and their rhetoric falls far short of its practical application.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I do not think that this Bill will impinge in any noticeable way on my private interests, but it would be better to be safe than sorry, so I declare that for many years I have held a consultancy with Chevron United Kingdom. In so far as it has an interest in the provision of gas, it might have a tangential interest in this Bill.
  It is unfortunate that we have so far heard little about the massive achievements of some of the great utilities. British telecommunications have advanced tremendously in the past decade, and we have every reason to feel proud of that industry. In that advance, British Telecom has played a major role. It would perhaps have sat more happily with Conservative philosophy if it had proved possible to create a more substantial competitor for British
  94
  Telecom in the early years. It would have been an improvement if a series of competitors, as suggested by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), had been built up.
  But the Government had to start where they were: with a sluggish and backward-looking monopoly, heavily overmanned and with many out-of-date technologies. It was quite ready to be destroyed by international competiton. Now, British Telecom is consulted by companies from all over the world for its expertise; we should be proud of that, and the Government should take some credit for it.
  The same is true of British Gas, which has also achieved some remarkable advances, especially in the ways in which it looks after consumers. It takes great care, for instance, to advise those whose gas supply may be affected by works done on mains outside the house or on feeder lines, and that is a model to other services of how to keep consumers informed. British Gas, like other modern industries, manages to lay mains nowadays with a minimum of disruption and considerable speed. We should not over-indulge in the British disease of looking only at what is wrong and not giving credit to what is going well.
  I do not know how many hon. Members share my perception that complaints from the public about these great utilities have fallen off in recent months, but that is certainly true, to judge from my postbag. The possible exception is water, which was given a massive amount of bad publicity, mainly by paranoid Opposition Members. In the short term, that led to a marked increase in the numbers complaining about water.
  It has been entirely beneficial, however, that the public have come to understand that water is not a commodity that costs nothing provided it rains. Neither is its quality maintained without effort. The British public, who are becoming increasingly sophisticated by the day, as our mailbags show, have suddenly realised that a great deal of work goes into providing water. In my part of Kent, we do not blame the water companies: we blame God. It does not rain in Kent any more, and we face severe shortages. Still, the public debate about water has been wholly beneficial. It has done the water companies a great deal of good and will lead to substantial improvements.
  Before it is too late, the Minister should take a last look to make sure that he is as convinced as his Department sometimes tells me it is that the terms of competition between companies that were already private and the newly privatised ones are as level as is maintained. The old private companies are being asked to seek a return on their assets and are receiving little assistance, whereas the newly privatised companies will find such a return much easier to make. That is not good for competition or for the companies.
  The most important development in the water industry has been the major drive to eliminate wastage. The vast majority of leaks in the system are now on private property and a move to metering is certain. Although I value the separateness of the great utilities and the possibility in some cases of competition between them, there are areas in which co-operation is essential. One is the reading of meters. It would be absurd and enormously expensive to have gas, electricity and water meters read separately. It is not yet possible to read meters by remote control. That will come much sooner than any of the companies believe, but until it does there must be sensible co-operation, which I am glad to see is beginning to develop.

  95
  One of the consequences of leaving big utilities in the public sector is that maintenance does not feature high enough on the investment priority ladder. The same applies to education. Kent is notorious for the way in which its schools are not properly maintained, and when companies get into difficulties it is always the maintenance programme that is cut. One of the encouraging features of the privatised water companies is the way in which they have invested massively, not only in the development of new sources of supply, but in upgrading what was in many cases a Victorian legacy.
  I commend the proposal by David Bellamy in his charter of 10 points, some of which seem more attractive than others, that industrial companies should have to take water from rivers at a point below their outfall. That is an admirable proposal and should be taken seriously, because it would certainly sharpen up many company acts.
  It has been suggested that the big utilities pay little heed to the consumer, but that is not my experience. It is noticeable, for example, that disconnections of gas and electricity are at their lowest level for 15 years. That is a remarkable achievement in view of the hard times through which many people are passing, and I hope that the companies will improve on it. As the companies have established, many disconnections are out of all proportion to the offence of not being able to pay the bill.
  I welcome the news that Oftel will be able to examine the scale of deposits for the installation of new telephones. I am still not satisfied with British Telecom's policy of demanding direct debits from certain types of customer. It is bizarre for British Telecom to insist on direct debit for service personnel. If there is one group of people in the country who cannot lightly baulk at paying their bills, it is service personnel, who are accountable to the armed forces and cannot easily moonlight.
  I share the view expressed by many of my hon. Friends that it is a shame that the Government cannot include British Rail in their legislative framework. My views on British Rail are not wholly unknown to hon. Members. I agree with Sir Bob Reid's good analogy that, when your ball is in a bunker, you do not ask how it got there, you fight to get it out. The time has come for me to pass on beyond the many complaints that I have had about British Rail and its workings in an attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole.
  It is plain that British Rail has an impossible position to maintain. In many respects, it is expected to make a return on investments and is bound to act commercially. But it is also regarded as the only source of advice to Government on railway matters. Those two things can come into conflict.
  I have had personal experience of that during the evaluation of the alternative routes to the Channel tunnel. I have good reason to believe that the analysis of those routes was skewed by British Rail with the clear intention of retaining, if it could, a commercial edge. I do not blame it for trying to do that, but it is indicative of the mess in which Governments find themselves when companies which should be in the private sector and competing are confused and have to play the role of adviser. I look forward to seeing British Rail joining the other utilities in the private sector, and I welcome the hints about how that will be achieved.
  96
  I must respond to the diatribe on salaries by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). When Labour seeks to distract from the meat of an argument, it always turns to executive salaries. I absolutely reject the proposition that private sector salaries should be limited by politicians or civil servants. However, they are of central concern to shareholders, who are often quite cavalier about that element of expenditure in their companies.
  They should be performance-related, as has been clearly postulated in the document "Competing for Quality" which was launched today. That relationship to performance should operate from to the top to the bottom and there should be no exceptions. It would be a valuable exercise for institutional investors—including, for example, the trade union pension fund holders about which we have heard—to create some kind of pro forma in which, for example, the number of consumer complaints was one of the yardsticks against which to measure performance.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Might not the shareholders be extremely pleased with the chief executive who both protects the monopoly position that has been passed on to the utility and exploits it to the shareholders' advantage, to the detriment of the consumer? The hon. Gentleman's suggestion does not solve the problem.
  Mr. Rowe: In those circumstances it does not. There are difficulties within the relationship between companies and the shareholders which entitle the latter to ask questions about whether salaries should be doubled. It is hard to imagine a performance that warrants a doubling of salary. A fairly narrow comparison across a small range of carefully chosen companies to arrive at a figure that is satisfactory for the individual concerned is the wrong way to go about things. The creation of expensive escape packages before someone has even joined the company requires closer analysis. I should like a larger performance-related element in the pay of senior executives of these companies, as there is in every other company.
  We have heard the obvious arguments about prices. There is clearly disagreement across the Floor of the House, but my understanding is that the performance of these public utilities has improved markedly since privatisation. The fall in British Telecom's prices, which is set to be 33 per cent. in real terms by July 1993, is impressive. I hope that we can all applaud that.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worsely (Mr. Lewis), who spoke so eloquently about the 0898 numbers, is not here. He did us a service by reminding us that lines are being used for purposes that none of us could approve of or applaud. If we can take steps to control those numbers, so much the better. It occurred to me that perhaps he should try to bring a prosecution against BT for living off immoral earnings.
  The difficulty of control is enormous. Many of the things that the hon. Gentleman said were wrong. For example, it is both impractical and wrong to expect the Government or the law to regulate the use of the telephone. There are now inexpensive mechanisms on the market that allow people to keep an eye on their bills, to itemise their bills or to lock up their telephones. To expect business managers not to notice for months on end that their security guard is misusing the telephone suggests an unacceptable dereliction of management.

  97
  It is nonsense to say that we should not have made the changes we did. The position of the consumer in nationalised industries is infinitely worse than that of the consumer in the privatised utilities. One has only to look at the unfortunate passenger on British Rail, who gets no explanation of why his train is cancelled or there is no one to buy a ticket from, to realise that.
  When Conservatives are seeking a distraction from the main argument, we like to talk about the Labour party and nationalisation. I do not propose to do that at great length, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) did so to considerable effect. However, it is important to remind the public that clause 4 remains in the Labour party's constitution. It genuinely believes in nationalisation, and even if Labour Members dress it up and say that they are proposing to bring these private utilities back into public hands through local authority control, that is not likely to set the steeples ringing cheerfully with public enthusiasm in Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Liverpool or Maidstone.
  We all have quite enough experience of how local authorities run public organisations. The Labour party should not hide its commitment to nationalisation behind devolution to local authorities. We do not like local authority mangement of businesses either.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Three hon. Members are rising and there are 26 minutes left before the Front Bench speeches will begin. The arithmetic is obvious.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: I am aware of the time, having sat here for three hours. I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be as brief as possible. I have already thrown away four pages of notes, and I shall stick to five points and try to get through them as quickly as I can.
  Many aspects of the Bill will have to be scrutinised in great detail in Committee, and I hope that I shall be allowed to be a member of that Committee. For example, one of the most important considerations for the water industry is how the domestic consumer will be charged. I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we shall he able to table amendments to introduce a system that will allow consumers the opportunity to decide on the system that they use.
  We do not need to wait for the completion of the water industry's metering trials to find out what is acceptable about meter charging. Since the advent of the poll tax in 1990, there has obviously been no rateable value on new houses, so all but a handful of water companies insisted on putting water meters into new homes and charging on a volume basis.
  This has caused considerable anxiety, as I can report from experience in Sheffield. There was a tremendous outcry because people's water bills shot up not by two but by three or four times overnight. Many of the consumers on social security or low incomes were beside themselves with anxiety, especially those with large families, who naturally use more water. It is deplorable that parents have to teach their children not to wash their hands after using the toilet. This should not be allowed in modern society. It is going back to the bad old days, and it will mean a deterioration in our hygiene standards.
  98
  Fortunately, Sheffield city council was able to form a partnership agreement with Yorkshire Water. A system has been devised to help some people, although it is limited to those in council houses. The housing department makes arrangements for the payment of water charges through the rent system. The scheme started in October this year, and of the 700 council tenants invited to participate, 440 have chosen to be charged by the council and to pay for their water services, in the rent, on the basis of a notional rateable value, as an alternative to meter charging.
  I have many examples, but I shall give the House only three. A consumer who would pay £7·40 a week on the metered charge would pay £4·10 through the notional rateable system. Another consumer who would pay £8·15 on the metered charge would pay £4·12 on the basis of the notional rateable system. Someone who would pay £3·30 on the metered charge would pay £3·57 under the other system. In my final example, the consumer chose to pay a little more to be in the partnership scheme, perhaps so he or she could use as much water as would be needed.
  Those who have been forced on to metered systems in Sheffield and Yorkshire, for example, seem drastically to have reduced their consumption of water. The Yorkshire authority did not believe that consumption would be reduced so much in some instances, and inspectors were given instructions to make inquiries. Considerably reduced consumption poses a serious risk to personal and public health.
  Under some schemes, even reduced charges will seem excessive to some consumers. Far too many families have to live on income support, and the benefit that is calculated for water charges is currently £2·08 a week. If someone's water charges exceed that amount, he or she will have to decide what essentials to forgo in order to afford, perhaps, the "luxury" of a bath once a week.
  My personal view on disconnections is not necessarily shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I feel strongly, however, that the most important feature of a standard of service is the obligation to supply. That obligation ceases to apply if a consumer is in debt to the utility. Sadly, many consumers have low incomes, and for those people debts arising from the supply of water, electricity and gas are unavoidable.
  This deplorable state of affairs leads to disconnections. The annual disconnections for water, electricity and gas are 7,560, 60,920 and 18,009 respectively. The barbarous practice of disconnection for debt is unnecessary and inhuman. I hope that there will be an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to stop it.
  Age Concern welcomes the policy of gas and electricity suppliers that have decided not to disconnect older people during winter months. It believes
  "that disconnection is largely a redundant policy … we would like to see the power to disconnect customers removed from all utilities."
  I could not agree more with that sentiment.
  Disconnection for debt has been shown to be unnecessary by NORWEB, the North Western electricity board. It has virtually stopped disconnections. Typically, gas and electricity companies disconnect several hundred consumers a quarter because they have not paid their bills. In the past two quarters, NORWEB disconnected only six consumers for debt. Instead, it provides consumers with pre-payment meters instead of disconnecting them, and thereby neatly substitutes a pay-as-you-go arrangement for the credit billing that leads to the problem of debt.

  99
  The fact that NORWEB has chosen this procedure through commercial self-interest shows that requiring other companies to follow suit will hardly damage their profitability. A service standard requiring that suitable payment arrangements be made available to all consumers, including those with low incomes, will end the problem of disconnections. I hope that such a standard will be incorporated in the Bill.
  As pre-payment metering for water is unavailable—in any case, I believe that it is unsuitable—the ending of disconnection of domestic water supply for debt has to take a different route. Water is essential for every family. Without it, life in our society would be an impossibility. I want to see the power to disconnect for debt withdrawn, and, as for other goods, action for debt in the county court established as the ultimate sanction for non-payment for water services.
  Withdrawing the disconnection sanction would occasion some difficulty and cost for companies. It has to be recognised however, that water companies, as monopoly suppliers of essential services, hold an extremely valuable franchise. On that basis, they must be prepared to shoulder public service obligations. Moreover, some companies have shown that they can go a long way towards recovering debt without using the sanction of disconnection. The companies' disconnection rates are very different, which shows that companies could be flexible in their approach if they chose to take that course.
  Thames water authority, for example, disconnected only seven domestic consumers for debt last year, whereas the Yorkshire authority, which operates in my constituency, disconnected 1,492. I do not believe that the difference in the figures can be explained by socio-economics.
  It is my personal view that, when it comes to telephones the difference in philosophy—
  Mr. Terry Patchett: How does my hon. Friend interpret the figures of the water authority in the area that he represents relative to those of other water authorities?
  Mr. Michie: I can only assume that Yorkshire Water has not been as co-operative as we think it should be when helping consumers who are in debt. All companies should adopt the best example provided by others.
  Telephones should be provided for everyone, but that is not going to happen now. I agree with Age Concern that single old-age-pensioners and single parents are the most vulnerable members of society. They should have access to telephones, and it should not be beyond the wit or the finance of British Telecom to provide services that it and the consumer can afford.
  At present, there seems to be no overall national standard. Regrettably, for a sizeable proportion of consumers, paying the gas bill, or obtaining and paying for a much-needed telephone, is a real struggle. I want to be sure that services to meet those consumers' particular needs are quite as good as services for consumers in general. The poorer section of society should not be classed as a nuisance; they have every right to enjoy access to these utilities, and every need for them, and finance
  100
  should not be a bar. I hope that amendments can be tabled to empower regulators to set standards with special relevance to such people.
  There is much concern about accountability in consumer representation. Age Concern points out that there are different systems for different utilities. Electricity and water have regional consumer committees, which are not independent; they are subordinate to the regulatory bodies. Gas consumers have recourse to a national body, but it does not seem to be accountable to the regions. I hope that the Committee stage will produce a guarantee of accountability.
  I hope that, if I am chosen to serve on the Standing Committee, what I say will be taken seriously. It is vital to all consumers that something is done: after all, the utilities are monopolies, and consumers cannot go elsewhere.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: The Bill is an exercise in retrospective pragmatism. It undoes all the disastrous consequences of the Government's dogmatic drive to privatise without real regard to consumer rights or the protection of the public interest. Their intention is clear from the British Telecom experience. Competition is limited, and it is not free; it is rigged. There is discrimination against BT and in favour of rival operators. The Government have loaded the dice of market forces in their favour.
  When left to its own devices, competition does not necessarily protect the citizen. An example is BT's necessary obligation to its shareholders to maximise its rate of return. Because competition is greatest in the business sector, tariffs have been rebalanced to favour business at the expense of the residential customer. Where is the Government's commitment to consumer rights there?
  Elevating competition to the status of a cure-all loses sight of the major policy and strategy questions that epitomise the Government's cavalier disregard of the real interests of the British economy and British industry. Its operation is extremely contradictory. Let us take the asymmetry rule. BT's access to markets is unfairly restricted; that is important, given its inability to offer entertainment services, for instance.
  Local cable television operators, which are largely owned by American-controlled companies, can provide both voice telephony and entertainment services. That stops British Telecom upgrading the local loop with fibre optic cabling, which would revolutionise communications in this country, and that means that the residential market will lag behind. The ordinary citizen will not be able to obtain broad band or cable television on a massive scale, because only British Telecom could provide that.
  Competition is also one-sided because of the way in which reciprocity operates. In America, BT cannot own more than 25 per cent. of a designated carrier using the air waves—such as the major telephone companies, or the regional Bells, as they are known. It also cannot provide cable television. However, American and other foreign companies can walk into British markets and do precisely that. We are virtually inviting foreign companies to colonise our telecommunications market if we do not have the same access to their markets. The Government have failed abysmally in that respect. All that prevents BT being

  101
  a major international player as the international telecommunications market congregates into five or six major operators.
  Another problem that has existed for the past seven years and which is present in the Bill is the inability of the regulator to be made accountable to Parliament. For example, the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications is more powerful than the average junior Minister; I say that with respect to the Minister for Corporate Affairs, who is in the Chamber at the moment.
  The director general is not answerable to the electorate or to Parliament. I have examined the records, and I discovered that only once in seven years has Sir Bryan Carsberg been questioned by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. On 19 July 1989, he was questioned for an hour. I do not impugn his integrity or professionalism. I am simply saying that he is not accountable to Parliament, and that issue must be addressed. A quasi-judicial power is invested in his quango. He does not have to give evidence or reasons for his decisions. That is a major constitutional shortcoming.
  The alternative policy that we must address is not just to leave the question of the regulation of British Telecom to one-sided regulation or to the whims of the market. Instead, we should set a new agenda covering BT's vital strategic role in providing the best possible infrastructure for British industry and residential customers. It is very worrying that BT's capital investment has fallen alarmingly over the past few years.
  We must give the British telecommunications industry a platform from which it can compete with the rest of the world, and exploit its technological lead and expertise. We must ensure that BT is a major player in the global telecommunications market and therefore protect Britain's interests.
  We must also ensure that it continues to play a vital role in the microelectronics sector, because the rest of British industry depends crucially on that. We must also ensure that BT provides proper quality of service to the customer. The price-capping mechanism is inadequate to achieve that.
  We must ensure that BT has good employment practices and that a key priority is given to its social responsibility—particularly to low-income customers and extended services over advice and information provision. Its protection of low-income customers, particularly old-age pensioners, is not adequate at the moment, and that point must be addressed. We must also recognise that BT's market penetration in Britain is proportionately nothing like it should be in comparison to the United States or our European competitors.
  Those issues must be addressed by a new Labour agenda for regulation and protection of the consumer. None of them are addressed by the Bill. Our argument is that BT is too important a provider of a key telecommunications service simply to have the maximisation of its shareholders' dividends as its overriding priority. For Labour, the priority is to serve the consumer, not the shareholder.
  9.13 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: In the years since the state-owned monopoly gas industry was privatised, it would have been churlish to argue that the regulatory body, Ofgas, has not tried hard to carry out its duties in the
  102
  most effective fashion. Its director, Mr. James McKinnon, and his staff of 28 have recently been accused of worrying British Gas to death. It is difficult to see how they could do it, but they have been accused of it.
  If there is one matter in which Mr. McKinnon has not done too well it is in breaking up the monopolistic powers of British Gas and providing competition to that company. The central problem is that British Gas had all the assets which its competitors needed to compete. It was allocated the North sea supply agreements, it had control of the gas grid, and it had the customers. In other words, even if British Gas was prepared to pipe a competitor's gas down its own lines to one of its former customers, that could not happen, of course, if the competitor did not have any gas in the first place.
  Between them, Mr. McKinnon, the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission sensibly concluded that competition in the industrial market could not begin until the competitors had some gas, and they forced British Gas to agree, in February 1990, not to buy more than 90 per cent. of North sea gas —which I suppose is some progress at least. However, it is not enough to meet the demands which the 1990s have imposed upon the Government—to fulfil their commitment to reduce carbon dioxide output from power stations.
  The accountant-led regional electricity companies decided that the best means of doing that was to install efficient combined-cycle gas power stations. As I have said, I have grave reservations about that. Bolting together those stations is not the complete answer to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It raises serious questions about the way in which we manage our natural resources.
  Competition in the generation of electricity has suffered similarly from the creation of a huge duopoly, National Power and PowerGen. They have been hardly more helpful than British Gas in letting others into their market. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), pledged at his party's conference this year that he would respond to that unfairness by threatening to "smash" the British Gas economy by separating out the network, by making it pay for the use of its own lines, and generally by sticking the boot into what he portrayed as a monopolistic fat cat. He resisted the temptation to mention, of course, that his own party had created the unfairness in the first place, five years ago.
  The Bill will provide the House with an opportunity to examine the central contradictions inherent in some of the most important utility privatisations. I have tried to show how the privatisation of British Gas as a monolith—albeit a regulated one—has worked against the promotion of real competition in gas supply, which is a crucial factor, given the new role of gas as a fuel selected for base-load burn for electricity generation.
  I am no admirer of monoliths, state-owned or otherwise; I have too much experience of the bone-headed, moribund policies and managerial style of British Coal for that. Nor am I in favour of regulators who try to second-guess decisions which properly should be made by the managers and staff of our utilities. The strictures of command economies have been seen to be wanting or to be complete failures, and in no circumstances should regulators be seen as a substitute for top-heavy bureaucracies, whether they are located in Whitehall, Moscow or anywhere else.

  103
  There are potential roles for regulators, however, which are absolutely essential if the rhetoric of encouraging competition and caring for the environment is to mean anything. The electricity privatisation White Paper of 1988 suggested that regulation would "wither away". Well, attitudes change, and, as the Bill makes clear, it appears —to the contrary—that, as more and more players enter the market, so it becomes more and more likely that a diversity of disputes will regularly appear—disputes which Professor Littlechild of OFFER will be called upon to solve.
  In addition, he will have to address the duties laid down in condition 5 of the public electricity supply licence, which imposes a duty on him and OFFER to acquire electricity at the most reasonable price for a wide portfolio of sources —fossil, non-fossil and renewable. That is intended to ensure that they build a diversified power supply in terms of source and contract length.
  I am sorry that there is little in the Bill to encourage either the proliferation or the growth of the independents or a diversity of fuel supply. If condition 5 does not bear fruit, it is difficult to see how the private monopolies and duopolies and the rigged markets can be challenged with any degree of effectiveness.
  I hope that the Bill will be subject to amendments in Committee which will highlight its deficiencies and ultimately provide the regulators with the wherewithal to introduce real competition and real respect for our natural resources and our environment.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State presented the Bill as proof that the Government were the new friend of the consumer. That claim might have carried more weight if Conservative Members had not spent so much time last year defeating the Consumer Guarantee Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). It ill becomes the Government to make that claim today.
  There is one area of agreement in the Bill: that there is a need to provide greater consumer protection. There is no doubt that the creation of private monopolies has generated a new level of anxiety about the potential to exploit consumers as never before.
  Indeed, in the water industry, that fear, coupled with the moral outrage that something as fundamental as water should be made the subject of the profit motive, led to the public perception of its privatisation as one of the most outrageous acts of the Government. Public experience of the privatised water companies has done nothing to allay public fears. Unfortunately, our worst fears at the time of privatisation have been confirmed.
  I shall deal with the water industry in some detail in a few moments, but first I say a few words about the Bill as a whole and about some of the points already made in the debate this evening. The Bill is, at best, a wasted opportunity. It is a collection of measures that do not add up to the scale or depth of protection that is required for customers today. The Bill does nothing about some of the most critical areas of concern, such as profits. It was significant that the Secretary of State refused to answer my
  104
  hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) when he asked whether profits were excessive in the industries under consideration.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Lady say briefly what the Bill should do about profits?
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall come to that, especially with regard to the water industry. The public have been staggered at the water companies' priorities. Having put up prices by so much, the water companies spend a great deal of time on diversification. They buy hotels and franchises in television companies. Indeed, one chairman said that he spends more than half his time on diversification. That shows that he does not attach the importance required to the essential problems that he should tackle as chairman of a water company.
  Conservative Members were not anxious to talk about salary increases such as the increase given to the chairmen of British Telecom and Yorkshire Electricity. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made a half-hearted attempt to deal with salary increases, but then said that they should be performance-related, which ruled out any justification for the increases that we have seen this year.
  Among other things, the Secretary of State claimed that the Bill would improve competition. I shall deal with that, and especially with competition in the water industry. Ever since privatisation was proposed, Ministers have suggested that privatisation and competition went hand in hand. In the water industry, that is patent nonsense. I was glad that the Secretary of State acknowledged today that the scope for competition in the water industry was extremely limited.
  It is a clear fact that consumers, have no alternative. As consumers, we cannot say that company A is cheaper than company B so we will switch to that company, or that company C has water which meets European standards so we will switch to that one. Everyone knows that that is impossible. The only choice, and people are exercising it, is to buy bottled water. One of the most staggering features of the past few years is the sales of water, which increased from 1,000 bottles a week five years ago to 1 million litres a day. Many consumers have totally lost confidence in the water companies: those sales are their verdict on privatisation.
  As regards competition, no one could suggest that more than a few people would have any real choice even if the inset provisions were used, or if new suppliers came on the scene. There will never be a time when competition in the water industry will offer real choice of supply to consumers.
  What has happened in the electricity industry, where there is more scope for competition, since privatisation? There was a scurry of activity immediately after privatisation. The 12 newly privatised regional companies rushed to compete to supply established sizeable users of electricity and to compete for some new projects. Now, even before the first anniversary of privatisation, only three of the electricity companies are chasing work outside their areas, and that number may diminish further.
  The so-called great benefits of competition have not materialised. Like the water companies, electricity supply companies are content, for the most part, to operate as regional monopolies in the private sector. The customer is clearly extremely vulnerable with a private monopoly and requires further consumer protection.

  105
  For many consumers, prices are the first area of concern and that is not surprising. Price increases in the water industry present a sorry picture. Each year since privatisation was proposed, there have been massive increases in water charges way ahead of inflation. I remind the House that a few years ago water bills were a relatively minor item. In 1979–80, the average domestic water bill in England and Wales was £41·98. This year, the average is £154·51—a 368 per cent. increase, at a time when the retail prices index has risen by 146 per cent., and there are prospects of more to come.
  The Government fixed the original K factor which led to the present price increases. Although the Secretary of State did the original price fixing, now that the industry is privatised, further levels of K will be determined by the regulator.
  In the summer, the Director General of Water Services thought that he had a case for issuing interim adjustment notices to the water companies which would have limited their scope for price increases and the amount by which prices could increase this year. Because the water companies heard about the director general's considerations, they came to an agreement with him behind closed doors which resulted in some of the companies not pushing their price increases to the maximum—or not quite.
  Such an arrangement may appear to be in the interests of the consumer—no one wants prices to rise more than is absolutely essential, but we should ask why that agreement was reached. It was because the water companies had windfall profits about which the director general knew. Our problem is that no one in the House has the information to decide whether the agreement reached by the regulator and the water companies was fair and just. The information on which that agreement was reached has not been published. Therefore, we do not know whether we are talking about high or marginal excess profits.
  The nature of that agreement is contrary to all that the Director General of Water Services has said on previous occasions about the importance of public participation in these debates and, indeed, of openness and transparency. He said that there should be transparency in decision making. In this case, transparency was replaced by a heavy cloud.
  Secrecy is no friend of the consumer. What has happened in the water industry reinforces the point made earlier that regulators cannot be the consumers' friends when they are reaching secret deals with the industries that they are regulating.
  It is not just the level of prices that is causing problems. There is also the difficulty of the structure of price increases. Many of my colleagues who represent Yorkshire constituencies will share my concern that Yorkshire Water has loaded a great deal of its price increase on to the standing charge. Welsh Water has likewise tried to move towards a flat rate charge and, indeed, is implementing a flat rate water charge of more than £200 a year for all new consumers. That means that companies are hitting hardest those who can least afford to meet their bills. When we see the level of price increases, it is not surprising that the number of households getting into difficulty with paying their water bill has increased dramatically.
  During the passage of the Water Bill, the Government gave way at a late stage and accepted that no one should
  106
  have their water disconnected without a court order. Some companies—unfortunately, not all—have regarded that as a restraint.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is my hon. Friend aware that last week Yorkshire Water sent out nearly 1,000 threatening letters to people all over Yorkshire, including three pensioners in my constituency, because two mailbags had gone missing and their cheques had not been received by the company? Yorkshire Water should have known that they were regular paying customers. Instead of treating them as such, the company sent out threatening letters, causing great alarm. It knew on 15 November that two mailbags had gone missing, but it kept silent about it. The local media could have been used, yet the company chose not to do so, causing great alarm and distress to my constituents.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. It is significant that many people who have never been in debt in their lives are receiving threatening letters or even summonses as a result of the trigger-happy approach of some water companies which should know better.
  I suggest to hon. Members who serve on the Committee discussing this Bill that they look carefully at the moves under way in the water companies to remove the need for a court order before a disconnection. I trust that members of the Committee will resist any move to allow disconnections without a court order.
  There are other problems with the price structure. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) touched on the problems associated with water metering. Small business men are being forced to accept compulsory water metering with almost no discussion with the water company. Compulsory metering can lead to a doubling of their bills. I know of one publican in my constituency who is facing compulsory metering; it may send his water bill into four figures—more than doubling what he pays now—yet neighbouring pubs are being left untouched. So much for fair competition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley also drew attention to the owners or tenants of new properties that do not have a rateable value. My hon. Friend and other colleagues have fought Yorkshire Water on this and because of their efforts a new scheme has been introduced in Sheffield. The city council has implemented a landlord agreement with Yorkshire Water to provide an option for charging and collecting on a national rateable value basis.
  Today the Secretary of State said that the choice between metering or payment on a rateable value basis was not a matter for the regulator. It is true that the Water Act allows the water companies to determine their method of charging. Today the Secretary of State revealed that, if water companies choose to introduce compulsory water metering, the Government will sit back and do nothing about it. Owners or tenants of new properties should enjoy the same rights as the owners or tenants of existing properties. They should not be subject to compulsory water metering, which is aimed solely at increasing the revenue of the water supply companies.
  Another issue of vital interest to customers which has not been addressed in the Bill is the quality of water supply and environmental considerations. They represent a vital part of consumer protection. In Britain, 11 million people receive drinking water that does not meet European Community standards—standards that were established in

  107
  an EC directive of 1980 and which should have been implemented by 1985. Now, in 1991, we still have a major problem with drinking water quality.
  Public confidence is not helped by the Government's attempt to introduce domestic derogations. A letter has been sent by the European Commission about 4,536 infringements of the EC directive on drinking water. I have a practical suggestion that would help all our consumers. Everyone is entitled to know whether their drinking water supply meets the EC standard, so information on water quality should be stated on the bottom of every bill. Then all consumers would know where they stand. I hope that my hon. Friends who serve on the Committee will table amendments to that effect.
  Environmental considerations affect other industries. At the time of the electricity privatisation, the Government made their priority clear when they got Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to issue a letter for inclusion in the prospectus to the effect that the electricity industry would not be forced to push ahead with flue gas desulphurisation as quickly as it should. That letter was designed to take the pressure off the industry to ensure a sucessful flotation. It meant that the industry could waive the potential costs of the clean-up. In other words, the Government put privatisation before environmental considerations and before cleaning up the industry.
  In May, I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment asking for assurances that National Power and PowerGen would not have the information relating to their pollution authorisations omitted from the public register. The Secretary of State has not replied, so we must fear the worst. It is a sad fact that not one of our power stations will have been cleaned up by the time that the Government leave office.
  During the passage of the Electricity Bill, my hon. Friends tried time and again to introduce amendments to compel energy providers to give due attention to energy conservation measures and energy efficiency—to make more than token gestures. Time and again the Government voted them down, even though energy conservation measures could do so much, not only to advance environmental protection but to improve the quality of life for many of the poorest people in this country.
  Last week, Dr. Brenda Boardman, probably Britain's leading expert on the subject, produced a report showing that 7·5 million householders in Britain are suffering from fuel poverty. Many of them are pensioners or people with young children. It is a sad indictment of this Government that, had the programmes of the Callaghan Government been in force for the past 12 years, an extra 5 million households would have had the benefit of home insulation.
  Ministers have had ample opportunity to show their priorities. On every occasion the Government choose to put ideology before consumers, taxpayers, the environment and common sense. Today, the Secretary of State said that there will be no changes to the Bill that could affect BT's share prices. Back Benchers said that that was necessary for legal reasons due to the timing of the flotation, but who chose the timing? That shows the Government's priority.
  The Government put the electricity privatisation before the environment. The Government spent £3·3 billion of
  108
  taxpayers' money to give away the water industry, not for the benefit of taxpayers or consumers, but for the benefit of shareholders and, above all, top management, whose salary increases and outrageous perks add insult to injury. If the Government were serious about looking after consumers' interests, they would not be content with the measures in the Bill. It must be obvious to anyone who has listened to today's debate that only the Labour party puts the interests of consumers and the environment before the interests of shareholders and top management.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): What an extraordinary performance the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave. She asked us to go back to the golden age of Callaghan. All that one can say is that he was better than the current Labour party leader. I do not want to return to a world in which the lights go out, there is no money in the country, we have to turn to the International Monetary Fund, and investment in the leading industries has to be cut back. That is the state to which the Labour party would return us.
  It was because the Callaghan Government ran out of money to spend on the water industry and the big utilities that they encountered such problems. The hon. Lady did not seem to realise that the diversification policy of those industries cannot be cross-financed from the core businesses—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Lady would listen, because she might learn something and avoid mistakes in future. Under the rules of the water industry, the diversifications cannot be financed from the core businesses, but are clearly segregated by the regulator.
  The hon. Lady complained about what she called secret deals to cut price increases. I welcomed moves to cut price increases and did not find that they were being done in secret—I read about them in the newspapers and elsewhere. The hon. Lady was also worried about methods of debt recovery, but admitted that legislation states that a court order is needed. As a result, the number of such procedures is well down on previous years because the process is much better. I hope that she will welcome that.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister resist any attempts to change the position in the water industry and any attempts to remove the need for a court order for disconnection?
  Mr. Redwood: The Government have announced no change of policy. The Government's policy, of which we are proud, remains the same.
  The hon. Lady also said that she was worried about people buying more bottled water. Perhaps she does not realise that that is a characteristic of people becoming more prosperous. Perhaps she does not realise that they are buying private water which is in competition with other private water.
  Hon. Members make strange predictions when we try to introduce measures to improve such industries and their performance. When the measures to privatise British Telecom were being debated in the House, Opposition Members said that the public telephone box was threatened with extinction. We have heard in this debate that, far from being extinguished by these policies, it is flourishing. Many more call boxes are working, and there are many more of them.

  109
  Hon. Members told us that rural services, emergency services, call boxes and provision for the blind and disabled would all have an uncertain future under privatisation, yet in each case the future has been better, thanks to the privatised industry and the regulatory world that we have created. The leading Opposition spokesman, on Second Reading of the BT legislation, said that privatisation would be a "devastating blow". Perhaps he had in mind profits collapsing or the inability of the industry to finance its capital programme. Tonight, however, the Opposition come to complain that the industry is too successful and making too much money, even under the tight price controls that the Government and the regulator have imposed.
  I am happy that BT is profitable. I want it to have the money for the investment that it needs to build the phone service that we require for the 1990s. I am also confident that BT is not achieving that by exploiting customers because of the tight price controls which Labour could never offer, since in its day the company was nationalised and did not work nearly as well.
  We have had a good if somewhat sparsely attended debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) made some extremely good points about prospectuses, competition and the regulatory task. Opposition Members should study them before going into the Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a miscued attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He did not understand my right hon. Friend's point about how the Government have stood up for consumers by introducing competition and the right kind of legislation. He should reflect on the Secretary of State's opening remarks, which were clear and helpful to customers, as this Bill will be.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked why we were introducing a Bill on this subject. The answer is that our policies are evolving. What we have achieved so far has been extremely good, so we want more of it. We recognise the need—the Government always have recognised it—for regulation, when there are elements of monopoly. We also believe that competition is superior to regulation, so whenever possible we promote competition so that the need for regulation is not as great.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) understood all these points and put them clearly to the Opposition. At the same time, he made a good contribution on the difficulty in which Labour will find itself, if it is ever in government, with its massive plans for overspending. Indeed, Opposition Members did nothing to clear up the uncertainties about the huge expenditure on which they would have to embark to renationalise these industries before messing them up again as they did in the 1970s when they were under national control.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud pointed out that a regulator is much better than an ombudsman. If the person sorting out complaints for consumers is also the person regulating the industry and setting the prices, he is in a much stronger position. That gives the regulator much more clout. How could the ombudsman improve on that?
  The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) made a sincere if overlong speech on premium-rate services. I read in the guide to Members of the House that he is the embodiment of the success of Government policies. He sports a fax number, a pager, a messenger service number
  110
  and several telephone numbers, as listed in that excellent publication. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is proud to join in the consumers' society that has been created by our policies.
  Mr. Roger King: A yuppie socialist.
  Mr. Redwood: I thought that phrase went out with the 1980s. We shall have to think of a new one, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lewis: Would the Minister like my complaints about the service by fax, pager or mobile phone?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall be happy to receive them in any form in which the hon. Gentleman cares to send them—but they should probably go to the independent regulator, as he well knows. Like him, I do not like sleazy and unpleasant chatlines or dirty recorded messages. That is why powers were taken in the legislation to stop just that sort of abuse. That is why licence powers are being used to control it and why this Bill, soon to go to Committee, will give the director general still more powers, should he want to use them. I am sure that he will hear from the hon. Member for Worsley if he does not want to use them.
  I do not think it right to ban all these services. I do not want to stop people listening to football commentaries or cricket scores. These services are subject to gradation and it is difficult to distinguish between them sometimes. Of course we want to ban the disgusting material, and the powers exist to do so. I want to give people a choice, and the system that we have set up through ICSTIS and the regulator will do just that. The hon. Gentleman defeated his own argument by saying that 0898 numbers are barred in the House in order to stop hon. Members exploiting them.
  Mr. Lewis: The Minister misses the whole point. Large organisations such as this can impose such a bar, but domestic customers cannot, nor should they be expected to do so. The small business man with two men and a dog working for him cannot afford the call-bar facilities that are in the House. I am trying to get the Minister to remove his blinkers and do something in favour of the small person.
  Mr. Redwood: Call barring is available to all those using digital exchanges, which now cover large chunks of the country and will shortly cover the whole country. I am happy to add my voice to that of the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the facility is understood all over the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) welcomed the Bill. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield posed the best question of the debate when they asked whether it could apply to rail. I do not know whether I have the best answer to that, but I remind them that the Bill relates only to those utilities that have been privatised and to which a policy of independent regulators applies. The task would be more complex and would require other policy issues to be considered in relation to industries that are still nationalised.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for giving one or perhaps two cheers for the Bill and for saying that his party would support it. He took a rather wrong-headed view of the history of the development of competition in these industries, although he will not be surprised to learn that I agree with his criticisms of the

  111
  Labour amendment. He seemed to be unaware that there had been a further post-duopoly review and that competition within the telecommunications industry is being opened up generally. I hope that on reflection he will agree that that is good.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) justifiably praised British Gas and British Telecom for elements of their services which are now very good. He asked whether competition between the old private companies and the newly privatised ones is fair. Wearing my competition hat, I shall be happy to examine any evidence which suggests that competition is not fair. If my hon. Friend can make a case, we shall have to think about the issue. I entirely agree that salaries should be performance-related and subject to shareholder control.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) did not mention BT's low-user scheme, which is a major advance and solves some of the low-income consumer problems that the hon. Gentleman described. He did not mention the point missed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, that disconnections are now at a low level.
  The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) easily won the prize for the longest words in the debate, but that does not mean that his speech had the best content. For example, he thought that BT should be allowed to offer entertainment services but seemed to be unaware that it could and had applied for cable franchises. He also seemed unaware of the great progress in laying fibre optic cable around the country, mainly between cities. That has come about because of our liberalisation policy and as a result of the investment moneys that British Telecom and others have available.
  I agreed with the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) about the problem of a shortage of gas. However, I did not agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's other points, especially about his hatred of combined cycle gas. That is the technology that the new electricity industry wishes to build because it is environmentally better and cheaper. Those are two good reasons for pursuing such schemes. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware of the great progress being made in building an independent and renewable sector in electricity.
  In the long tirade by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), there were about 10 debating points and if time permits I shall try to answer them. I shall begin by correcting an error in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that there had recently been 102,000 complaints against British Gas. I am told by British Gas that that is untrue, and that the hon. Gentleman has taken the number of inquiries and complaints made to the Gas Consumers Council. That includes people ringing up to ask where they can pay their bills, which is hardly a complaint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the correction that, far from there being 102,000 complaints, British Gas received 23,000.
  The hon. Gentleman's first request was for a widespread review of the prices, policies and performance of these industries. Where was he during the past year's review of the telecoms industry? Is he aware that the duopoly policy was re-examined on the stated date and competition was introduced generally? Is he aware that, in the case of telecoms, the price control formula started at
  112
  retail prices index minus 3 and went on to RPI minus 4·5 and only recently has been increased to RPI minus 6·25? Where else in the world can one get a pledge of a 6·25 per cent. real cut in telephone prices year after year? If the hon. Gentleman goes to France—a country he seems to admire more than ours—he will find that it has introduced a price formula that is far less tough than ours on BT because it knows that its nationalised industry would find it difficult to match the performance of BT.
  If the hon. Gentleman would listen rather than talk, he would learn that the price formula for gas has also been revised: where it was minus 2 on the controllable costs it is now going to minus 5—another tough target. I hope that, the hon. Gentleman will welcome these tough targets and recognise that they mean that when the time is right, these matters are reviewed and the customer gets a better deal because we make sure that he does and that the regulators do their job excellently.
  I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's attack on the standards of the work of some of the regulators. I should have thought that hon. Members would have got behind the work of the regulators, who are standing up for the interests of the customer. He asked where OFFER's telephone number was. It is on the back of the bill. [Interruption.] I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks in the right telephone directory.
  My hon. Friends have already dealt with the Labour party's idea for ombudsmen, and I have also mentioned it in my reply to them. The regulators have stronger powers than ombudsmen could have, not only with the new powers in the Bill but with their existing powers.
  The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he believes his own propaganda. Halfway through our policy discussions in preparation for the citizens charter and the Bill, he obtained a leaked document containing the views of some officials. He claimed in the press that it set out Government policy, but it was a million miles away from our policy. He is now upset that it is not our policy and keeps saying that the views in it must be the views of Ministers. They are not—it was a working document from officials; Ministers' views were set out in the citizens charter as they are set out in the Bill. They are different from the views that he is saying are ours, and I wish that he would retract that.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there was not enough consumer representation. Perhaps he should read the Bill, in which there are several references to the Gas Consumers Council. The regulators will consult widely with consumer groups and customers before setting out standards, in conjunction with the industries.
  The hon. Member has been trying to make out that the Government have been putting profits, the success of BT and the shareholder interest before our policy. How can the Labour party say that in the year when we opened up the whole of industry to competition, in the year when we tightened the price control and made it clear that the customer is high on our list of priorities? His claim is absurd and he should withdraw it immediately. We have set out the policies for customers, and that was what motivated the main changes this year in our telecoms policy.
  Much of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, which lacked content, was taken up by a series of jealous tirades against the pay of people in the private sector who have satisfied shareholders, directors and other representatives of their need for a pay rise. He

  113
  claimed that complaints were up but nobody ever thought of complaining when the Labour party was in power because there was not a proper procedure, and in many cases the service was so bad that people did not bother. The hon. Gentleman then said that he was thinking of municipalising water. Heaven help us! I know that the House will reject that idea.
  I know that the House will vote overwhelmingly for the Bill, which I wholeheartedly recommend.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 278.

  Division No. 11]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Fisher, Mark

  Allen, Graham

  Flannery, Martin

  Anderson, Donald

  Flynn, Paul

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A,

  Beckett, Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Gould, Bryan

  Benton, Joseph

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cox, Tom

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Crowther, Stan

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Cryer, Bob

  Lambie, David

  Cummings, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Eadie, Alexander

  McKelvey, William

  Edwards, Huw

  McLeish, Henry

  Enright, Mr Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  114

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Rooney, Terence

  Martlew, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maxton, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Meale, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell. Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Short, Clare

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Murphy, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William

  Strang, Gavin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Parry, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wilson, Brian

  Redmond, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Richardson, Jo

  Robertson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Allason, Rupert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alton, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amos, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Carr, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Chope, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Beith, A. J.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellotti, David

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Benyon, W.

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cran, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

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

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowis, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

  115

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evennett, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Farr, Sir John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Favell, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Fearn, Ronald

  Kilfedder, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Knapman, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knox, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Latham, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  French, Douglas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lord, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maclean, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gregory, Conal

  Mans, Keith

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marland, Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hague, William

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Moate, Roger

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howells, Geraint

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Irvine, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jackson, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  116

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thorne, Neil

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shelton, Sir William

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trippier, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Speed, Keith

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Speller, Tony

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Watts, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Nicol

  Wilkinson, John

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  COMPETITION AND SERVICE (UTILITIES) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to provisions of the Act in sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

  Youth Training Guarantee
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The non-implementation of the youth training guarantee is of great importance to individual young people and to the nation's future. There will be no decent future for our young people unless they acquire skills, and no future for Britain unless its population is educated and trained to world standards. To catch up with Germany by the end of the decade, Britain's productivity growth must exceed Germany's by 3 per cent. a year, but we cannot do that with an under-educated and under-trained work force.
  In the debate on the Queen's Speech, foolhardy and complacent Ministers tried to foster the illusion that our training matched Germany's. Although, no doubt, some British training compares with that of Germany, many of our young people get absolutely no training whatsoever, and that is a scandal. Many young people enter employment offering no training, and many more do not get even that. They leave school with no job and no youth training place, either. They start their young lives by being thrown on the scrap heap at 16, 17 or 18. In Germany, all young workers get a thorough, three-year externally examined apprenticeship. Here, the Government like to claim that those without jobs are guaranteed a two-year YT place, but even that, something inferior to the German model, is not being delivered. It is a fraud.
  Through the mouths of Employment Ministers, the Government claim and pretend that there is a YT guarantee. Continually, they stand at the Dispatch Box and repeat the mantra that they are committed to the guarantee. So that is all right; it sounds good. The innocent might imagine that something will flow from that, but I smell a rat when I hear the word "commitment". What does it guarantee? Very little at all. The Government do not deliver the so-called guarantee. It has conveniently been handed over to the training and enterprise councils, but then the Government cynically deny them the resources to do the job.
  The truth is that Ministers who mouth those grandiloquent guarantees know little of what is happening on the ground. They hide behind the TECs, they do not listen to constituency Members who know what is happening in their areas, and they do not listen to the TECs, either. I discovered that when I reported to the House that hundreds of young people in the London borough of Newham had no jobs or YT places. All they got was the usual complacent, superficial parroting of the empty nonsense about commitments and guarantees.
  Ministers do not know how many young people are without a YT place. The TECs themselves are often vague. The people who know are in the careers service. Last Friday, I received a letter from the Newham career service. It told me the figures in east London. The figures are from 10 October, and they show Barking and Dagenham 437, Havering 539, Redbridge 537, Tower Hamlets 911, and Waltham Forest 566. The figures for Newham are dated 14 November, so I hope that we do not hear Ministers say that they are not up to date. In Newham, there are 519 young people without a job; 58 say that they are not interested, so that means that 451 are seeking a YT place.
  118
  I randomly tried a number of careers offices, and I received a fax showing the situation in Derbyshire: Alfreton 56, Derby 832, Ilkeston 184, Long Eaton 105, Matlock 37, and Swadlincote 103. In total, in Derbyshire there are 1,317. A fax from Leeds shows that there are 873 there. Another one from Birmingham shows 538 there. I have information from Leicestershire showing 1,300. In Lambeth there are 586, the Wirral 444, Newcastle 342,
  Gateshead 2f, and West Sussex 544. I emphaasise that those figures are all random, and they show that hundreds of young people all over the country are denied a job or a YT place.
  As the Secretary of State knows, the Select Committee on Employment has received letters from 69 TECs, and those letters have been placed in the Library. Those letters tell us that more than half the TECs are not meeting the youth guarantee. Five TECs have reported having more than 1,000 youngsters awaiting offers of training places, and another five have between 500 and 1,000 waiting. Many TECs explain graphically that they have inadequate money and that employers are offering too few work experience places because of the recession.
  One of the major causes is the Government's cuts in expenditure on training. Department of Employment expenditure has fallen by 42 per cent. in the past five years. Expenditure fell as unemployment fell, but it has continued to decline as unemployment has rocketed again. In the past year, unemployment has risen by a massive 47 per cent., but instead of rising by a similar amount, expenditure in 1991–92 will be 10 per cent. less in real terms than in 1990–91. Next year, instead of the required substantial increase that is needed, there will be a derisory and inadequate increase of 2 per cent.
  In 1993–94, the downward path will resume, with a further fall of 6·5 per cent. To measure the scale of the cuts, in 1994–95, the real value of all Departments' expenditure is planned to be 82 per cent. more than it was eight years earlier. But the Department of Employment's expenditure is planned to be 34 per cent. less than eight years earlier. Resources for employment training have been cut this year and for youth training are roughly the same, even though the need is so much greater.
  I have here some of the letters which the Select Committee has received from the TECs. The one from Avon says:
  "there is difficulty at present in meeting the YT guarantee in Avon. The main cause is a lack of work placements due to the present economic climate."
  The letter from Bedfordshire says:
  "our budget is based largely on an historically low number of unemployed people in the County."
  But between July 1990 and July 1991, the percentage of unemployed doubled. The letter continues:
  "The TEC cannot address the guaranteed programmes for young and unemployed people in isolation from this economic background. In addition to insufficient budget in a time of deep recession … we now realise that TECs are facing an unmanageable task. We are required to operate demand led programmes with cash limited budgets."
  The letter from Bolton-Bury TEC says:
  "On Youth Training there are currently approximately 500 young people within the guarantee group who are awaiting placement with an employer. The Managing Agents have cited the recession as the reason for the shortfall of placements."
  The letter from Calderdale says:
  "Negotiations with the Department are taking place on an increase in funding but have proved difficult to achieve so far. The Department of Employment are insisting that the TEC

  119
  use funds earmarked for other projects to meet the Youth Training guarantee. This is causing considerable disquiet amongst TEC Board members who do not wish to see long-term plans hijacked by such short-term changes in the demand for national programmes arising from the recession… Many employers are reluctant to become involved either because they have a shortage of work or they cannot afford the financial contribution expected of them."
  The Calderdale TEC says that it has many young people waiting.
  CambsTEC in Cambridge says:
  "Over recent months, CambsTEC has become increasingly concerned about Youth Training's ability to meet the increasing demands placed upon it, due to the limited employment opportunities presently available to young people."
  It says that unemployment has doubled in its area this year. As of 12 September 1991, 200 young people in the CambsTEC area were waiting for a youth training place.
  The chief executive of the central London TEC says:
  "I know that we are not alone in our concern about our ability to meet ET and YT guarantees, given current levels of funding. This, combined with the effects of the recession on training demands and budgets, and the problems of placement of trainees with employers and into jobs, leaves us with an almost unsolvable problem without further funds."
  She says that the TEC is struggling to manage but is far from achieving an acceptable position as yet.
  The City and Inner London North TEC says:
  "The most recent figures indicate that there are around 490 young people on the waiting lists of YT providers and another 461 on Careers Service waiting lists."
  The Dorset TEC said that it was struggling to manage but that it might manage
  "with the provisos that the average length of stay on the scheme remains one year".
  It is supposed to be a two-year scheme. In Germany, it is three years. Yet the Dorset TEC said that it could manage only if the scheme was cut in half.
  Greater Nottingham TEC says:
  "the current recession has had the effect of reducing the number of employer placements available. Without these placements YT providers are unable to provide the "job training" required for National Vocational Qualifications, secure contributions from employers towards the cost of training and, consequently, meet the guarantee of a YT place."
  It cannot meet the guarantee. It said:
  "We are working closely on this matter with the Careers Service, who advise us that currently we have outstanding approximately 800 youngsters".
  The Greater Peterborough TEC says:
  "Within the Youth Training programme we have about 150 young people actively seeking a place for training who at the moment have not been given an offer … the fundamental problem is that the unit cost on which the funds are allocated being for this programme are too low … we would hope that more money will be available to meet the guarantee because again, it is not a genuine guarantee, it is a demand-led guarantee and if we are funded on the basis of historical take-up this is bound to change when the economic climate changes, as has been experienced recently. If it were a guarantee then we should be funded accordingly."
  The Heart of England TEC says:
  "there will be an estimated likely shortfall of 400–450 places."
  Northamptonshire TEC says bluntly:
  "It became clear to us in the early summer that we would not be fulfilling our Youth Training guarantee."
  Lincolnshire TEC says:
  "The funding package assumes a contribution towards the overall cost of the training from employers, usually by paying wages or meeting the allowance cost in the case of
  120
  unemployed trainees. A high proportion of trainees are placed with small employers … Without that contribution the funding package simply does not add up."
  The Central England TEC tells us that the system of
  "funding must be commensurate with the Government's guarantee. This has not been the case so far this year with several results",
  one of which is that
  "Government credibility has been severely tarnished, particularly with regard to perceived dedication to improved training."
  Humberside TEC says that it cannot get employer placements, so it is not getting "NVG III provisions" and the quality of training is falling.
  The Isle of Wight TEC says that it notified the Department of Employment in August that it might be unable to meet the YT guarantee within the funds allocated for the purpose. It says:
  "Such concentration on meeting the Government guarantee, and use of funds originally earmarked for other purposes for YT, inevitably means that other aspects of our proposed programme may suffer and that we also neglect the long term development of Youth Training itself."
  Manchester TEC tells us that there are
  "between 1,200–2,000 young people in the Guarantee Group wanting to join YT for whom there were unlikely to be places available before Christmas."
  Milton Keynes TEC says:
  "495 young people are registered with the local Careers Office with 14 notified job vacancies and no Youth Training vacancies."
  I have a thick wad of these letters which I would love to read out, so that they would be put on the record. However, I want to leave sufficient time for the Minister to answer.
  Where does that leave the Government's so-called guarantee? Looking pretty sick. Some TECs have told us that it is not their guarantee but the Government's. Under the YT programme, the Government are paying less and expect the employer to pay more. The scheme is based on employer participation, TECs cannot deliver without employers and their contribution, but the employers have given no guarantees and recognise none.
  Due to the recession, employers are struggling to survive. They are making many staff redundant, and they are largely pulling out of the programme, thus leaving a huge hole in numbers and finance.
  TECs do not themselves provide programmes; they contract out to training providers. However, trainers are also pulling out, because the sums do not add up, it is not worth their while and quality is suffering.
  The Minister will know of one trainer, Astra Training Services, because he paid it to take the skill centres away.
  Astra says:
  "many training providers are currently in financial difficulties and are leaving the training market. This damage to the training infrastructure may take years to repair … The current Government funding regimes for both ET and YT are reducing the numbers of providers and offer insufficient incentives to encourage new organisations to enter the market."
  It also tells us:
  "Although there are now additional opportunities to expand our share of the YT market, the funding arrangements are considered inadquate to make such a move worthwhile. There is evidence to suggest that both ET and YT providers are finding the current funding insufficient to justify a continuing role. Some have withdrawn voluntarily; others have been forced into liquidation by their creditors. Thus whilst there are increasing opportunities to bid for a larger share of this business, it would be financially imprudent to do so."

  121
  So the trainers are pulling out. In my area of east London, the TEC has asked the careers service to canvass for places because the training providers are not coming up with them. I am not criticising the TEC: it does not have the resources.
  What, finally, is the reality? What is the convoluted chain of command? The Government proclaim their commitment. The TECs are given the responsibility. The employers, although they are expected to contribute, do not want to know. Many training providers pull out because it is not worth it. At the end of the line, the local authority careers service is called in to rescue what remains of this shambles. That is the much-vaunted commitment. That is the travesty of the guarantee.
  The way forward is for the Government to admit that the guarantee is not being delivered and that it is being overwhelmed by the recession. They must go back to the drawing board and review the whole of youth training. They should sit down with some of us who are interested in these matters and draw up a quality scheme that works. Otherwise, they will continue to fail thousands of our young people and our country's training needs.
  10.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on raising this important topic. The House knows that he takes a great personal interest in the training of young people, not only in his constituency but by virtue of his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Employment.
  First, I reiterate the Government's guarantee to young people. It is that all young people under 18 who are not in full-time education or a job and who are seeking youth training are entitled to be offered and, if necessary, re-offered any number of times entry to a suitable YT programme and to receive such training. All young people falling into that category but over the age of 18 who have not been available for YT because of disability, ill health, pregnancy, a custodial sentence, remand or language difficulty are entitled to an offer of a suitable YT programme and to receive such training. That is the guarantee.
  Despite the hon. Gentleman's figures, a moment's reflection will enable the House to recognise that managing the delivery of a guarantee of this kind for hundreds of thousands of young people is not a simple, straightforward operation. For a start, there is the question of how to plan and predict the numbers of young people who will exercise their entitlement. We know that there are in principle X young people who could qualify for that entitlement—that information is available from the census—but their choice whether or when to exercise it is not predictable. When one thinks about that, it becomes apparent how complex the matter is.
  The first critical factor, which emerged clearly in our debates this year, is the staying-on rate in full-time school and college education. Young people who have completed GCSEs at 16 can choose whether to stay on at school or college, or come out into the labour market and, possibly, take an entitlement to YT. We do not know what the staying-on rate will be until the autumn, and it is capable of further revision during the year.
  Many young people—I am in no way blaming them—are unclear about their personal plans. Many will
  122
  register with the careers service. That is where the hon. Gentleman gets his numbers from. However, they do not necessarily always turn up for an interview when it has been arranged for them. Many of them will be interviewed for YT but will take a job outside YT, and why not? Many may drop a non-YT job or be made redundant from it and then seek entry to a YT course. Many may start a YT course and leave it to take a job. Such considerations make it difficult to anticipate the numbers involved. They also shed light on the excessively clear figures produced by the hon. Gentleman—those figures are partial.
  Despite the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman, planning and managing the delivery of the YT guarantee is not and cannot be an exact science by the nature of the case. Nevertheless, the Government stand firmly by the guarantee. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have accepted for some time that particular difficulties might be experienced in certain TEC areas. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have been in close touch with each TEC in recent months about the position in its area.
  We have always said that no TEC would be prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee. We have negotiated with TECs where demand has been shown to warrant it. The hon. Gentleman appeared to misunderstand that, where demand has been shown and where a TEC has used the resources available to it, we have authorised the provision of further places. We shall do so again if experience shows that it is needed.
  During the debate on the Loyal Address, the Secretary of State confirmed that we have reached agreement with the great majority of TECs so that they have the resources to deliver the YT guarantee. A handful of TECs have not yet reached full agreement, but we are continuing in negotiation with them.
  As the position relating to school leavers is clarified —it is not yet clarified because people may choose in January of February to leave school—or as new information becomes available, some TECs may find it necessary to bid for additional resources. We will be prepared to discuss that.
  The system assumes a close and continuing dialogue between the TECs and the Government. There is also a dialogue between the Select Committee and the TECs, which is fine. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Committee, on his initiative on opening that dialogue, which is in line with the spirit of the TEC movement. However, the hon. Gentleman should be careful about the way in which he handles that correspondence.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted from recent correspondence and it is important to remember that everything depends critically on timing. I have already demonstrated that by drawing attention to the uncertainties surrounding the planning. Very few TECs would have been able to answer before the deadline of 14 October with any actual knowledge of the extent of the staying-on rate this autumn. However, the TECs were required to answer before that deadline and most answered in September. Perhaps I should have asked the hon. Gentleman the date of the letters from which he quoted.
  The facts about the staying-on rate emerged only in October. As the House knows, there has been a marked and welcome increase in the staying-on rate in full-time education. We are all pleased about that. As a result, the

  123
  gloomy apprehensions that were widely entertained in September have not been realised, because of the facts that emerged in October and November.
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman had a fair crack of the whip and I must conclude soon.
  I do not like to chide the hon. Gentleman, but he must be careful about causing alarm and confusion about the national state of the YT guarantee by quoting from the TEC letters. I would also level that charge, perhaps more pointedly, at the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who unashamedly used those letters in a debate a week ago. The fact is that only one TEC was quoted as not meeting the guarantee, but there is an offer on the table of further underpinning money.
  I could bandy quotations with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East. If one considers the letters from the TECs—I emphasise that they were sent at a time when the facts about the staying-on rates were not yet available and the predictions were gloomy—which were quoted in the recent debate, it is clear that significant passages were omitted.
  Wolverhampton TEC said:
  "We expect to meet the Government's guarantees on both ET and YT."
  What could be clearer? The Heart of England TEC, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield quoted in that debate, said:
  "Providing our estimates of those entering the YT and ET guarantee groups over the next few weeks remain accurate"—
  it recognised the timing problem—
  "and sufficient placements are forthcoming, the guarantees in Oxfordshire can be met."
  Shropshire TEC, which was also quoted in that debate, said that it expects to meet the YT guarantee and foresees no difficulty meeting the ET guarantee.
  124
  I could continue quoting TECs ad nauseum. At the time of that exercise, most of the TECs were confident about meeting YT guarantees and, in the light of the staying-on figures. They are even more confident now.
  I wish to emphasise the positive features of the YT programme which I know the hon. Member for Newham, North-East appreciates. There are 260,000 young people in training in England and Wales—data for Scotland are not available. That is a huge number. Since 1983, we have trained more than 3·1 million young people on YTS and YT. We have increased the financial provision for YT, including training credits, from £842 million in 1991 to £853 million in 1992, which is a vast increase in expenditure since we came into office 10 years ago. Some 87 per cent. of those who complete YT go into jobs or further education; 66 per cent. of those who complete YT gain a qualification; and 80 per cent. of YT trainees say, when asked about it, that they found the experience useful or very useful.
  Despite the criticism and even hostility that Opposition Members and members of the Labour movement sometimes express, the YT programme has been a considerable success. I urge the Opposition to weigh their words on the matter because some of their comments may be reported outside the House in a way that would damage a cause that they share with us—the interests of youth training. It is important that young people should not be given the impression, for whatever reason, that youth training is inadequate or unavailable, or that there is no point in their applying for it. There are 260,000 young people on YT schemes in England and Wales and many opportunities exist.
  I urge the hon. Member for Newham, North-East to support the youth training programme and not to use language that may give the impression to people who are not in a position to understand that the programme is not worth applying for because they may not find a place, or that it is hopelessly overstretched. The programme is good and successful, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Production
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the National Farmers Unions of England and Scotland and the Farmers Union of Wales to encourage their members to continue producing beef, lamb and pig production to meet consumers' requirements.

  Mr. Curry
  At the Prime Minister's seminar on food marketing on 15 November my right hon. Friend the Minister announced two important new initiatives to help farmers produce what consumers want. A new group marketing grant, worth £5·4 million over the next three years, is being introduced to encourage groups of farmers to develop and expand. Within the Ministry a new market task force has been set up to identify and disseminate information on broad market opportunities to farmers. All sectors of the industry have welcomed these new initiatives.

  I am pleased that the National Farmers Union has also announced a new food from the countryside initiative to bring farmers and customers together, and to help farmers develop the necessary business skills.

  The message to livestock and other producers is that they should collaborate and get closer to the market. That will provide opportunities to increase the market share for British food at home and abroad.

  Milk
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay compensation to commercial producers of sheeps' and goats' milk who are suffering financial hardship.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each of the claims for set-aside which have been scrutinised during 1990–91 giving the location of the farm and the size of payment involved; and if he will list the cases where the participants failed to receive the payment, with the reasons in each case why they did not comply with their undertakings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Moreover, data identifying individual farms cannot be provided without breach of confidentiality.

  All set-aside claims are properly scrutinised, but it is not my Department's policy to publish details of its inspection arrangements, as this could seriously impede effective enforcement. Inspections in England during the 1990–91
  2
  set-aside year identified 18 serious irregularities and a number of additional cases involving minor breaches of the scheme rules. Payments were withheld or recovered in full or in part in 39 cases.

  Aerial Photography
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's aerial photography, including the counties covered, the frequency with which the photographs are taken, what is identified, and to what use the photographs are put.

  Mr. Gummer
  The aerial photography unit, which is part of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, undertakes aerial survey work both in support of the activities of my Department and as a commercial service. Aerial surveys have covered sites in all counties in England and Wales. Many sites are photographed only once, others at infrequent intervals. The environmentally sensitive areas have been photographed at three-yearly intervals to assist in my Department's long-term monitoring programme. Other work for my Department is used in a wide range of applications related to environmental monitoring, land use, crop husbandry and disease studies. Commercial applications include photography in connection with land use and planning, coastal and flood protection, conservation and landscape inventories and crop trials.

  Property Sales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the properties and their locations which he has sold during 1990–91; if he will list in each case their estimated value and the amount realised at the sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Details of the property sold in the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 are as follows:

  Property

  1Estimated value £

  Sale price £

  385, Kirkstall road, Leeds

  2550,000

  550,000

  Land at Pill Heath Andover, Hampshire

  3

  7,000

  No. 2, The Cottages, Lee Valley Experimental Husbandry Farm, Hertfordshire

  59,500

  51,000

  No. 1, High Barns, Boxworth, Cambridgeshire

  466,667

  70,000

  No. 2, High Barns, Boxworth, Cambridgeshire

  466,667

  67,000

  The Hermitage, Batchmere, West Sussex

  565,000

  65,000

  Land at Bury Hill, Potton, Bedfordshire

  6500,000

  525,000

  Notes:

  1 Estimated value when first marketed.

  2 Property sold to the Leeds Development Corporation at price determined by the District Valuer.

  3 Part of a larger piece of land offered for sale. Price agreed by the District Valuer.

  4 One of three identical houses valued together at £200,000.

  5 Property sold to sitting tenant.

  6 Sold by tender.

  Surplus property is disposed of in accordance with Treasury guidelines. I am content that the prices achieved for these properties reflect their true open market values.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his planned allocation of money to Suffolk and Norfolk for river and flood protection and sea defence coast protection, in the light of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The provision for flood and sea defence and arterial drainage underlying the autumn statement announcement will facilitate an increase in grant to the National Rivers Authority in England from £30·1 million in 1991–92 to £37·7 million in 1992–93. This should fund an increasing capital works programme of about £80 million in 1992–93.

  In recognition of the particular problems of that area, an increased allocation for capital works of £7 million will be made to the National Rivers Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk and the basic rate of grant in that district will be raised from 45 to 55 per cent., plus the existing 20 per cent. supplement for tidal and sea defence work. The increases in allocation and grant rate are conditional on the local flood defence committee, including county council members, agreeing to increase levies to fund the programme of works.

  The provision for grants to local authorities, internal drainage boards and maritime district councils in England for flood and coastal defence works amounts to £24·7 million in 1992–93. Such authorities within Norfolk and Suffolk will decide on priorities within their areas of responsibility and any scheme proposed will be considered for approval and grant aid by the Department.

TRANSPORT

  Road Closure, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call in the application to Ealing council for the closure of Berkeley avenue from Oldfield lane, North to Greenford road.

  Mr. Chope
  If a private development requires the closure of a highway it is for the developer to make application to the Secretary of State for Transport for the necessary order under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No such application has been made in respect of any development affecting Berkeley avenue.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to publish the data received by the vehicle inspectorate on the incidence of safety-related defects in motor vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department publishes details of safety-related design and manufacturing defects which result in recall campaigns by the vehicle manufacturers. Details are published bi-annually and circulated to all major United Kingdom public libraries, the Consumers Association, trade associations, motoring journals and to the police and local authority trading standards departments.
  4
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to require motor manufacturers to provide information as to the number of complaints received as to defects in motor vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department and the vehicle manufacturers agreed in 1979 that manufacturers would provide information to the Department on safety defects in vehicles and components, under a voluntary code of practice. Since this and subsequent additional codes were put in place, 897 recall campaigns have been initiated by the manufacturers, involving 7·8 million vehicles.

  Pedestrian Accidents
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the proportion of the population in the higher age groups who are statistically shown to be involved in pedestrian accidents while crossing roads.

  Mr. Chope
  The police complete a standard report form for each injury road accident of which they become aware, in Great Britain. This report includes information on the age and activity of all casualties in those accidents. The table shows the number of people over 60, in five year age bands, who were injured while crossing roads in Great Britain in 1990, the resident population in each of those age bands, and the rate of casualties injured while crossing the road per 100,000 population.

  Pedestrian casualties injured while crossing roads: By age: Great Britain 1990

  Age

  Number of casualties

  Population (thousands)

  Rate per 100,000 population

  60–64

  1,455

  2,828·4

  51

  65–69

  1,605

  2,778·2

  58

  70–74

  1,681

  2,116·9

  79

  75–79

  1,898

  1,830·1

  104

  80–84

  1,517

  1,217·4

  125

  85 and over

  952

  850·3

  112

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the control times on pelican crossings to be lengthened.

  Mr. Chope
  The timing of phases at crossings is set on the basis of traffic and pedestrian flows and the width and layout of the crossing. Trials have been carried out with new equipment that provides for the length of the pedestrian crossing phase to meet demand. The results of these trials are being evaluated.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 13 November,Official Report, column 522, on directional signing for Heathrow, if he will bring forward the planned 1994 revision to an earlier date.

  Mr. Chope
  I regret that as the planned revision is a complex project involving the redesign and replacement of 10,000 existing signs, it would not be practical to bring it forward, but if my hon. Friend has any specific problems with signing at Heathrow I shall be pleased to have the matter investigated.

  Freight Operations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the number and location of continental-gauge freight terminals and depots required in the United Kingdom following the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has already announced the locations of the nine intermodal terminals it proposes to use to feed channel tunnel freight on to British Rail's existing track network. These will handle intermodal and other freight traffic which will be moved in wagons compatible with British Rail's existing structure gauge, subject to certain limited gauge enhancements on specific route sections.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Civil Aviation Authority has made a further response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the CAA's provision of navigation and air traffic control services to civil aircraft published in July 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Civil Aviation Authority publishes its second, interim, response today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The authority's initial response, made in December 1990, said that the authority had accepted all but one of the MMC's 40 recommendations and that work had already begun on implementing many of them. This work has continued, and the authority has made progress in such important areas as consultation with users on charges and airspace planning; introducing improvements to project management; and laying the foundations for more efficient and effective manpower planning.

  I shall be keeping in close touch with the chairman of the CAA about the programme of change which the CAA has instituted in response to the MMC's recommendations.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest available estimates of the number of vehicles using the Woolwich free ferry; and what were the comparable figures at a similar point in each of the preceding five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The average number of vehicles carried per day was as follows:

  Number

  October 1991

  2,740

  October 1990

  2,590

  October 1989

  2,840

  October 1988

  2,930

  November 19871

  440

  November 19861

  1,860

  1 Figures for October are not readily available.

  SK Link
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a full investigation and inquiry into all the circumstances relating to the sinking of the SK Link including the spreading of the fire from the engine room to the cargo.
  6
  Mr. McLoughlin
  A comprehensive investigation into the fire and subsequent explosions on the Swedish registered ro-ro cargo ship Stora-Korsnas-Link 1 is being carried out by the marine accident investigation branch as the fire broke out when the vessel was in UK territorial waters, off the River Tees. The Swedish authorities are also investigating the incident.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of arrangements for the transportation and handling of the cargo on board the SK Link.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Swedish registered Stora-Korsnas Link 1 was carrying a cargo of forest products and two containers of sodium chlorate which were stowed at the after end of the main deck. These were loaded at Gavle, Sweden for Hartlepool.

  The Department is investigating the circumstances surrounding the loading of the cargo in co-operation with the Swedish authorities.

  Fire Fighting at Sea
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of those occasions when county council fire services have used good will agreements to assist with fire fighting at sea within the 3-mile limit of United Kingdom coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since 1 January 1989, fire services around the coast of the United Kingdom have assisted with fire fighting at sea within the 12-mile limit of United Kingdom coastal waters on 15 occasions. Arrangements for use of fire services in fire fighting at sea are made by the local fire authorities as part of emergency contingency planning involving all relevant emergency services, including HM Coastguard and local port/harbour authorities rather than good will agreements.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent he relies on the availability and expertise of the county council fire services in coastal areas for fighting fires within United Kingdom coastal waters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Availability and expertise of fire services in coastal areas for fighting fires within United Kingdom coastal waters is dependent upon local emergency contingency planning arrangements, and the nature of the incident.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he made of driverless traction systems before deciding to adopt such a form of control on the docklands light railway; and what assessment was made by the chief inspector of railways of the reliability of such transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the provisions of section 11 of the London Docklands Railway Act 1984 the London Transport Executive was required to submit to the Secretary of State for his approval plans of its proposals with respect to, among other things, signalling and rolling stock. These plans were assessed and approved on behalf of the Secretary of State by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate.
  7
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the docklands light railway to discuss its meeting of its quality of service objectives in relation to reliability and punctuality of(a) the bus service and (b) the rail service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Peter Levene has just been appointed as the new chairman of the docklands light railway and one of his primary tasks is to ensure that the quality of docklands light railway services improves as quickly as possible. London Transport is responsible for providing or securing the provision of bus services in docklands, as elsewhere in London. It has been set exacting service quality objectives some of which it has achieved ahead of the April 1992 target date.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of docklands light railway to discuss the provision of information to the public regarding major changes of routes and the replacement bus service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Transport makes every effort to publicise changes to its bus routes in docklands. I understand that, in order to publicise the next major changes in November and December, London Transport plans to place advertisements in local papers and to distribute 100,000 free newspapers in the area. This is in addition to the on-bus publicity and press releases which normally accompany London Transport bus route changes.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which bodies and councils he consulted before announcing his decision to transfer responsibility for the docklands light railway to the London Docklands development corporation; if he will publish the results of those consultations, including a list of those councils which supported and those which opposed the proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 12 November. The decision in principle to transfer the DLR to the LDDC will be subject to formal consultation under section 10(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. We shall consult LRT and LDDC, those councils through whose area the DLR runs or will run, and the London Regional Passengers Committee.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to introduce primary legislation to transfer responsibility for docklands light railway to the London Docklands development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: No. Powers are already available to LT under section 9 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.

  Local Safety Schemes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount of money requested by local authorities for local safety schemes in the transport policies and programmes submissions for 1992–93.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of £84·6 million.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff within his Department have specific responsibility for(a) setting objectives for meeting targets of pegging carbon dioxide emission by 2005 and (b) monitoring those objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The transport policy unit with a staff of 13 is responsible for co-ordinating the Department's work on environmental matters including carbon dioxide emissions.

  Motorway Service Stations
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often his Department inspects facilities provided at service stations on motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  Inspections are made annually to ensure compliance with the terms of leases granted by the Secretary of State.

  Copeland
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to visit Copeland.

  Mr. Chope
  I last visited Copeland in August and shall be in West Cumbria shortly for the commencement of works on the Dalton bypass.

  West Cumbria Transport Plan
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will receive a deputation from West Cumbria led by the hon. Member for Copeland to discuss the proposals in West Cumbria's "Transport Plan for Survival in the 90s".

  Mr. Chope
  When I have received a copy of the plan I shall consider the hon. Member's request.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on West Cumbria's "Transport Plan for Survival in the 90s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received one formal representation from the West Cumbria transport study group.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he intends to make to the report of the West Cumbria transport study group "West Cumbria's Transport Plan for Survival in the 90s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: I understand that a summary of the report was published on 7 November. I have not yet seen a copy of the full report, but it will be studied carefully before any response is made.

  Juggernauts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from local authorities concerning measures to deal with overloaded juggernauts on roads.

  Mr. Chope
  Various representations are received during the course of regular liaison meetings with local authorities.

  Lorry Loads
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation to empower county councils to confiscate lorries found to be above the load limits.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Local authority trading standards offices already have powers to prohibit overloaded vehicles from further movement and to prosecute drivers and operators. Licensing authorities have the power to revoke operators' licences where there is persistent or serious overloading.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult the Association of County Councils over measures to curb the hauliers of cargoes transported on overloaded lorries.

  Mr. Chope
  There is regular discussion with local authority associations, including the Association of County Councils, on overloading issues, and how to deal with them.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments his Department has undertaken on the number of road accidents which have been caused by overloaded lorries.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Tees and Hartlepool Port (Cargoes)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many metric tonnes of(a) chemical and (b) petrochemical cargoes were carried into and out of the United Kingdom via the Tees and Hartlepool port in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise figures for the import and export of chemicals and petroleum products through Tees and Hartlepool in 1989–90 and 1990–91 are as follows:

  1989–90

  Thousand tonnes 1990–91 (provisional)

  Chemicals

  Imports

  1,454

  1,386

  Exports

  2,349

  2,008

  Total

  3,803

  3,394

  Casualties: by built-up and non built-up road, road user type1 and severity: 1982 to 1990

  Number of casualties

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Built-up roads

  Pedestrians

  Killed

  1,473

  1,535

  1,509

  1,442

  1,477

  1,362

  1,413

  1,395

  1,357

  KSI

  17,254

  17,191

  17,885

  17,945

  17,595

  16,279

  16,525

  16,228

  16,086

  All severities

  58,096

  58,579

  60,357

  58,428

  58,079

  54,684

  56,071

  57,495

  57,608

  Pedal cyclists

  Killed

  187

  186

  189

  166

  151

  168

  142

  177

  152

  KSI

  4,748

  5,189

  5,309

  4,562

  4,225

  4,189

  4,034

  4,204

  3,748

  All severities

  24,984

  27,389

  27,551

  24,070

  23,268

  23,419

  23,230

  25,596

  23,701

  Motorcyclists

  Killed

  593

  517

  523

  425

  399

  401

  336

  322

  313

  KSI

  15,643

  14,073

  14,165

  12,923

  11,652

  9,850

  8,869

  8,553

  7,531

  All severities

  55,382

  50,253

  49,969

  44,394

  41,032

  35,965

  33,551

  32,986

  30,095

  10

  1989–90

  Thousand tonnes 1990–91 (provisional)

  Petroleum Products:

  Imports

  1,987

  1,647

  Exports

  1,330

  1,556

  Total

  3,317

  3,202

  Provisional Car Licences
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many provisional car licences were issued in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 1,010,663 provisional car licences were issued in 1990–91.

  Road Fund Taxes (Evasion)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prevent the evasion of British road fund taxes by coach operators registering their vehicles in Eire but operating them within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Bilateral agreements with other EC states —and the treaty of Rome—provide exemption from vehicle excise duty for temporarily imported vehicles registered in other EC states. All passenger service vehicles used for journeys in the United Kingdom must comply with the relevant regulations, including those relating to cabotage.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide additional information to that published on 11 November in his "Road Safety Report 1990–91" disaggregating further the information in charts A and B into numbers of casualties at different levels of severity for each road user type in urban—speed limits up to 40 mph—and rural—speed limits over 40 mph—areas separately.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is given in the table. "Built-up roads" refers to roads with speed limits of 40 mph or less and "Non built-up roads" refers to speed limits over 40 mph.
  11

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Car Users

  Killed

  690

  581

  631

  590

  561

  555

  485

  534

  528

  KSI

  14,607

  11,129

  12,097

  12,329

  12,005

  12,391

  12,068

  11,823

  11,646

  All severities

  86,771

  74,284

  82,147

  85,488

  90,642

  91,309

  97,018

  104,174

  108,211

  Non built-up roads2

  Pedestrians

  Killed

  396

  378

  359

  347

  364

  341

  340

  311

  337

  KSI

  1,709

  1,586

  1,576

  1,524

  1,461

  1,381

  1,354

  1,245

  1,273

  All severities

  3,323

  3,082

  3,115

  2,958

  2,793

  2,769

  2,765

  2,581

  2,614

  Pedal cyclists

  Killed

  107

  137

  156

  120

  120

  112

  85

  117

  104

  KSI

  1,219

  1,207

  1,286

  1,090

  1,026

  942

  843

  926

  850

  All severities

  3,152

  3,183

  3,387

  2,928

  2,861

  2,774

  2,615

  2,910

  2,717

  Motorcyclists

  Killed

  497

  445

  444

  371

  363

  322

  334

  361

  346

  KSI

  7,044

  6,240

  5,844

  4,878

  4,814

  4,046

  3,784

  3,935

  3,588

  All severities

  14,156

  14,234

  13,851

  12,196

  11,244

  9,836

  9,283

  9,638

  8,942

  Car Users

  Killed

  1,753

  1,438

  1,548

  1,471

  1,670

  1,651

  1,655

  1,892

  1,841

  KSI

  19,378

  15,915

  16,899

  16,778

  17,681

  16,695

  17,276

  17,861

  17,467

  All severities

  63,116

  56,122

  61,472

  63,963

  68,532

  68,156

  73,680

  80,490

  82,307

  1 Excludes drivers and passengers of LGV, HGV, PSV and other vehicles.

  2 Includes motorways.

  School Buses
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the regulation allowing three children below the age of 14 years to occupy a two-seater bench in a school bus; and if he will revoke this regulation.

  Mr. Chope
  In the last 12 months we have received about 30 representations about the concession which allows three seated children under the age of 14 to count as two passengers.

  There are no plans to change the regulations at present.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library his Department's reports into the incidents involving the snagging of fishing nets by the Royal Navy or NATO craft on 18 February 1987, Summer Mourne, 16 September 1987, Heroine, 6 December 1987, Prevail, 27 October 1988, Brilliant Star, 3 December 1988, Mount Eden, 17 April 1989, Laurel, 28 June 1989, Huntress, 12 September 1989, Contestor and 13 November 1989, Scotia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Reports into shipping accidents enable the Department to establish the cause of the accident and to consider what further action is required in the interest of marine safety. Before the setting up of the marine accident investigation branch—MAIB—in July 1989 there was no provision for making reports available for general release, unless the accident was subject to public inquiry. None of the incidents listed by the hon. Member led to such an inquiry.

  With the setting up of the MAIB, provision has specifically been made in the relevant regulations for the reports of investigations submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to be published. However, such investigations are usually reserved for serious accidents involving loss of life and the incident involving MFV Scotia did not come under
  12
  this head. The MAIB has no record of the incident involving MFV Contestor on 12 September 1989. The hon. Member will be aware that it is the intention to publish the report of the chief inspector into the sinking of the Antares. Copies of that report will be placed in the Library.

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates he received letters from the European Commission, and the dates of his replies, in respect of the environmental assessment of the M3 Bar End-Compton, the east London river crossing and the Hackney-M11 link road, respectively.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: The dates of the Commission's letters and the dates on which replies were forwarded to the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels are as follows:

  Commission's letter

  Response

  M3 Bar End-Compton

  26 March 1991

  21 May 1991

  East London River Crossing

  24 October 1989

  20 December 1989

  Hackney-M11 Link Road

  21 June 1990

  8 August 1990

  The article 169 letter was received on 17 October 1991.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received a copy of a faxed letter from the European Commission to Mr. Peter Kunzlik of Hammond Suddards relating to the issuing by the Commission of an article 169 letter in respect of the M3 Bar End-Compton.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: A copy of this letter was sent to officials on 29 August 1991 by a private individual.

  London Docklands (Byelaws)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what byelaw-making powers the docklands light railway and the London Docklands development corporation respectively have; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: London Transport byelaws currently apply on the docklands light railway. In the ownership of the London Docklands development corporation, the docklands light railway would have powers as an independent railway undertaking to make byelaws under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 as applied by section 84 of that Act. The London Docklands development corporation does not itself have byelaw-making powers.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a breakdown of the planned expenditure on(a) new construction and improvement, (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenance on trunk roads by his Department for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: Provisional plans for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are in the Department of Transport's report for 1991, Cm. 1507. Decisions on any reallocation of provision for these years and on the allocation of the resources available for 1994–95 following the autumn statement have yet to be made.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place copies of all correspondence and the minutes or notes of all meetings or discussions between Ministers and officials in his Department, and representatives of United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service on the subject of the proposed withdrawal of legal aid for immigration and asylum matters in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Nationality Applications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of staff within his Department who deal solely with applications for British nationality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at the end of October 1991, 163½.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisons in England and Wales holding category A prisoners on 1 November.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty-three.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of category A prisoners in prisons in the United Kingdom as of 1 November.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Six hundred and two in England and Wales. The position in Scotland is a matter for my right 14
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and in Northern Ireland for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the review by the prison service into the current policy for the classification and treatment of remand prisoners, at present given a provisional category A classification, is complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This review is being finalised in the light of a security audit conducted by Mr. G. H. Lakes CB, MC, former deputy director general of the Prison Service and Mr. R. Hadfield QPM, chief constable of the West Midlands police, into arrangements for holding and managing category A prisoners. The audit report was received by my right hon. Friend on 1 November and is currently being considered.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of applications received for naturalisation for each of the months in the current year and the number currently outstanding.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of applications for naturalisation received in the nationality division's caseworking groups in each month of this year is as follows:

  Month

  Number

  January

  1,514

  February

  1,274

  March

  1,430

  April

  1,056

  May

  1,288

  June

  1,397

  July

  1,177

  August

  1,250

  September

  1,403

  October

  1,774

  In addition, there are approximately 5,500 applications of all types for citizenship awaiting allocation to caseworkers.

  As at 12 November 1991, the number of applications for naturalisation awaiting determination was 45,081.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time it takes to deal with a naturalisation case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For the certificates of naturalisation issued in October 1991, 31 months.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to open additional offices dealing with naturalisation and immigration cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None at present.

  Aldington Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit Aldington prison to discuss its future with the governor and prison officers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I hope to visit Aldington prison, but no date has yet been fixed.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to move to central European time;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the effect of a move to central European time on the young, the elderly, outdoor leisure pursuits and the business community.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The effects of a move to central European time were discussed in the Green Paper "Summer Time: A Consultation Document" Cm722, to which I refer my hon. Friend. The responses to the Green Paper revealed considerable differences of opinion within the United Kingdom about the options for future summer time arrangements. Policy on those arrangements therefore remains under consideration.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those EC member states which are not on central European time.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Greece, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

  Staff Vacancies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies he has in each grade at Lunar house, Croydon and the Liverpool nationality office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 30 September there were three vacant posts in the immigration and nationality department in Croydon, and 16 in the nationality division in Liverpool, as against planned targets. Most of the vacancies were in the grades of executive and higher executive officer. The 16 posts in Liverpool will be filled before the end of the financial year. Additional posts are being created and additional staff recruited to the immigration and nationality department, in particular to meet the needs of increased asylum work.

  Circuses (Wild Animals)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will introduce legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses;

  (2) if he will introduce regulations to prevent wild animals in circuses from being ill treated or from being confined for long periods.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Circus animals are protected by the Protection of Animals Act 1911 as well as the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. These Acts together provide for, among other things, the registration of trainers, the inspection of premises by local authorities and the prosecution of anyone who causes any animal unnecessary suffering. This gives animals both general and specific protection and we have no plans for further legislation.

  Prison Building
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish details of the new prisons due to be opened in each of the next five years as a result of his Department's prison building programme; and if he will give the location of each prison and the number of places to be provided.
  16
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twelve prisons constructed under this Government's prison building programme have been opened to date. The remaining prisons in the programme are currently estimated to come into operation as follows:

  Prison

  Location

  Type

  Number of places

  1992

  Elmley

  Sheppey, Kent

  Training prison

  620

  Bullingdon

  Arncot, Bicester, Oxfordshire

  Local prison

  649

  Wolds

  Brough, North Humberside

  Remand prison

  320

  Holme House

  Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland

  Local prison

  649

  Woodhill

  Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

  Local prison

  579

  High Down

  Banstead, Surrey

  Local prison

  649

  Blakenhurst

  Redditch, Worcestershire

  Local prison

  649

  Lancaster Farms

  Lancaster

  Young offender institution

  374

  1994

  Doncaster

  Doncaster, South Yorkshire

  Local prison

  779

  Police Cells
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current cost of keeping a prisoner in a police cell for one night.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The current average daily cost of keeping a prisoner in a police cell is £221.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisoners held in police cells on the last day for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 15 November, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,640 prisoners were held in police cells.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost for the most recent 10-year period for which figures are available of keeping remand prisoners in police cells; and what is the comparable figure for keeping them in prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The costs for each complete financial year since 1981–82 of holding prisoners in police cells are given in the table.

  Financial year

  Actual cost £ million

  1981–82

  —

  1982–83

  3·4

  1983–84

  10·8

  1984–85

  3·4

  1985–86

  2·2

  1986–87

  6·2

  1987–88

  24·9

  1988–89

  64·9

  1989–90

  12·4

  1990–91

  53·5

  In 1990–91 the comparable cost of holding the prisoners in Prison Service establishments would have been £14·8 million. Figures for previous financial years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that prisoners are placed in prisons nearest to their homes with particular reference to prisoners from Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, the inmate's home area is taken into account when allocating him or her to a training prison following sentence. It is also open to a sentenced inmate to request a transfer, for example to make it easier for relatives to visit.

  Prisoners normally serve their sentences in the jurisdiction in which they were convicted. However, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides that a prisoner may be transferred to another United Kingdom jurisdiction on request. Requests are considered under criteria announced to the House on 23 June 1989. A review of these arrangements is in hand in consultation with the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Hewell Grange
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the institutions to which 102 young offenders were transferred from Newell Grange during September 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  During September 1991 a total of 102 young offenders were transferred from Hewell Grange to other open young offender institutions at Prescoed (Usk), Finnamore Wood camp, Hollesley Bay Colony, Thorn Cross and Hatfield. This enabled Hewell Grange to convert from a young offender institution to a category D open prison for adult males.

  Car Thefts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to tackle the problem of young people under 17 years stealing cars.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 7 November at column 229.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands regarding the progress of the investigation into the Birmingham pub bombings following the release of the Birmingham Six; how many officers are engaged in the inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. These are matters for the chief constable of the West Midlands.

  Riots
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount of damages paid by police authorities to residents in Brixton, the St. Paul's area of Bristol and Toxteth for damage to property following riots in those areas.
  18
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan police district, the Avon and Somerset and the Merseyside county councils were the relevant compensation authorities for claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 arising from the disorders in Brixton, Bristol and Toxteth in 1981. The Home Office was not involved in the processing of claims.

  Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis detailing what charges have now been brought against Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi; where he is being detained; and whether police inquiries have been completed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the commissioner that Mr. Bedi has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the Secretary of State in respect of false asylum claims and with conspiracy to defraud financial institutions in relation to mortgage applications; that he has been remanded in custody to Her Majesty's prison Brixton but is currently undergoing treatment in Kings College hospital; and that the police inquiries into his activities have been completed.

  Police Inquiries
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from(a) the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall as to the cost of each of the two investigations into the Birmingham Six and (b) the chief constable of West Yorkshire as to the cost of the inquiry into the West Midlands serious crimes squad; and how these bills are to be met.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. These are matters for the chief constables and police authorities of the forces involved.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the monetary value of assets which have been sequestrated from drugs dealers over the past five years; how the money has been used; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will direct that the sequestrated or confiscated assets of convicted drugs dealers are invested back into the communities where the dealers operated, and specifically devoted to local schools and anti-drugs projects.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: The latest figures, which are in respect of confiscation orders made in 1987, 1988 and 1989, are given in table 7.25 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1989", a copy of which is in the Library. These show that over £17 million was ordered to be confiscated in those years. The current estimate by the national drugs intelligence unit of the cumulative total of confiscation orders made since the Drugs Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987, up to the end of 1990, is in excess of £27 million.

  Under present public accounting arrangements confiscated money is treated in the same way as fine revenue, and paid directly into the Consolidated Fund from which Government expenditure generally—including substantial support for drug-related work—is financed.

  In April 1991, my right hon. Friend announced that assets confiscated here under drug confiscation agreements

  19
  with other countries will be recycled, through a new fund, to support work against drug misuse. Any gifts to the United Kingdom from overseas Governments, made in recognition of our co-operation in international investigations, will also be available to the fund. The fund will be available for one-off projects to help in the fight against drug misuse, either in the United Kingdom or abroad. Projects may include special investigations or equipment for the police service or HM Customs and Excise, education publicity, and treatment and rehabilitation. The first payments from the fund will be made in April 1992. We hope to announce shortly the list of projects to be funded from this source.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Begging and Sleeping Rough
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were(a) prosecuted for begging, (b) convicted of begging, (c) prosecuted for sleeping rough and (d) convicted of sleeping rough in each police district in Northern Ireland in the year ending 31 December 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Six persons were prosecuted and convicted of begging in Northern Ireland during 1990. All six incidents occurred within the Belfast area. There were no prosecutions or convictions for sleeping rough.

  Terrorist-related Offences
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual clear-up rate for terrorist-related offences since 1970; and if he will give a breakdown according to paramilitary affiliation so far as available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: The table details the total number of notifiable offences known and cleared and the detection rate in Northern Ireland since 1970:

  Year

  Known

  Cleared

  Detection Rate percentage

  1970

  24,810

  10,069

  40·6

  1971

  30,828

  9,822

  31·9

  1972

  35,884

  7,525

  21

  1973

  32,057

  8,850

  27·6

  1974

  33,314

  9,676

  29

  1975

  37,239

  7,771

  20·9

  1976

  39,779

  9,367

  23·5

  1977

  45,335

  9,940

  21·9

  1978

  45,335

  10,535

  23·2

  1979

  54,262

  11,308

  20·8

  1980

  56,316

  14,391

  25·6

  1981

  62,496

  16,802

  26·9

  1982

  62,020

  11,768

  19

  1983

  63,984

  17,775

  27·8

  1984

  66,779

  20,491

  30·7

  1985

  64,584

  22,581

  35

  1986

  68,255

  25,336

  37·1

  1987

  63,860

  27,743

  43·4

  1988

  55,890

  25,226

  45·1

  1989

  55,147

  23,808

  43·2

  1990

  57,198

  21,475

  37·5

  Information regarding the detection rate for terrorist-related offences is not available.

  Security Force Operations (Deaths)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the total number of people who have died since 1970 during security force operations; how many of these people were members of a paramilitary organisation; and if he will list their affiliations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: Since 1970 a total of 299 persons have been killed in Northern Ireland by the security forces. It is not possible to state how many of these persons were members of a paramilitary organisation.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations Environment Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what report has been prepared on progress made at the seminar held on 9 and 10 October, sponsored by the United Kingdom and the United Nations Environment Programme, on the role of United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in the United Nations conference on environment and development to be held in June 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of the Environment is currently providing financial assistance through the United Nations Environment Programme-United Kingdom for a series of non-governmental meetings and seminars in preparation for the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development.

  The report on this seminar will be an important contribution to the preparatory process for the conference. The United Nations Environment Programme-United Kingdom committee is currently preparing the report and it should be published by the end of January 1992.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government intend to put forward at the fourth preparatory committee meeting for the United Nations conference on environment and development to be held early next year.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are currently considering their plans for next year's fourth preparatory committee meeting for the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make it his policy to appoint a woman to succeed Lord Charteris of Amisfield as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund; whether he has received any representations to this effect; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect shortly to announce a successor to Lord Charteris of Amisfield, whose term as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund ends on 31 March 1992. I have received confidential advice from a number of quarters, and the final choice will depend on the aptitude and relevant experience of available candidates of either sex.

  Museum and Gallery Trustees
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will take powers to remove from office trustees of national museums and galleries who have been convicted of serious offences; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans at present to take such powers.

  EC Powers
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to veto any extension of EC competence into economic policy and economic advice.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government support the co-ordination of member states' economic policies. A process of multilateral surveillance of national economic policies has been established under the 1990 convergence decision, under which the Council of Ministers can publish non-binding recommendations directed at particular member states. The Government have argued in the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union that treaty provisions must be consistent with the principle that member states should retain primary responsibility on economic policy.

  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to veto any extension of EC competence into the field of social security.

  The Prime Minister
  Some limited EC competence in the field of social security already exists in article 51 of the current treaty of Rome. The Government see no case for any further extension.

  Women Cabinet Members
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to have women in his Cabinet.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: I look forward to appointing a woman to my Cabinet from amongst the strong group of women Ministers in the Government. There are excellent candidates among the six Ministers of State.

ENERGY

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to appoint a replacement for Mr. J. E. Marrow on his Department's study team on wave energy; and if he will make a statement on the composition of the team.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the early stages of the wave energy review, Mr. J. E. Marrow and Dr. T. Thorpe worked part time in support of the work of the steering group. Since then, Dr. Thorpe has been engaged full time on the review and as the methodology evolved the emphasis has moved to use of consultants for specific aspects of the work.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish the results of the 1989 United Kingdom study announced by the then Minister of State, Baroness Hooper, on 6 April 1989.
  22
  Mr. Moynihan
  The steering group reviewing wave energy is due to complete its work at the end of the year. Two progress reports were circulated in 1990 to the wave energy community and an interim report will be published shortly. A final report is expected to be published early in 1992.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the amount of coal imported for each year since 1979, from Poland, Colombia, South Africa and Bolivia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is as follows:

  (thousand tonnes)

  Country of Origin

  Poland

  Colombia1

  South Africa

  Bolivia

  1979

  658

  —

  38

  —

  1980

  446

  —

  66

  —

  1981

  142

  —

  80

  —

  1982

  320

  —

  67

  —

  1983

  509

  —

  58

  —

  1984

  1,359

  —

  257

  —

  1985

  1,418

  89

  725

  —

  1986

  1,217

  56

  312

  —

  1987

  1,083

  319

  188

  —

  1988

  1,270

  574

  276

  —

  1989

  1,055

  874

  346

  —

  1990

  1,043

  1,506

  356

  —

  21991

  411

  1,857

  438

  —

  1 Some imports previously recorded by Customs and Excise as originating in the Netherlands have been re-allocated to other countries including Colombia. This re-allocation has been carried out for 1991 and an estimate of Colombian imports previously classified to the Netherlands has been included for 1990. Figures for earlier years have not been re-allocated.

  2 January to September.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mining Accidents
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list(a) the number of miners employed by British Coal, (b) the number of the work force employed in opencast mining and (c) the number of fatal accidents and injuries in British Coal mines and opencast mines for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that British Coal currently employes approximately 54,000 colliery industrial workers. British Coal does not collect details of the number of people employed by the opencast coal industry, but an approximate total, taking into account those employed directly and indirectly at British Coal's contract sites and licensed opencast sites, is likely to be in the order of 17,000. Information on the number of fatal accidents and major injuries in the coal industry is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what consultations he has had with retailers of white goods concerning the introduction of a voluntary energy efficiency labelling scheme for refrigerators, freezers and other domestic electrical appliances; and if he will make a statement;
  23
  (2) what consultations he has had with (a) the Electricity Association, (b) the 12 regional electricity companies' chairmen and (c) the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances concerning a voluntary labelling scheme for domestic freezers and refrigerators and other domestic electrical appliances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On 5 October last year the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), called a meeting of representatives of retailers, the electricity industry, manufacturers and consumers to discuss the findings of a report on the energy efficiency of domestic electric appliances which had been prepared for my Energy Efficiency Office. At that meeting my EEO proposed that a voluntary energy efficiency labelling scheme should be developed. Subsequently, my Energy Efficiency Office consulted the chairmen of the regional electricity companies and the Electricity Association who agreed to proceed with the development of a voluntary scheme. My officials recently met the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances to discuss the scheme and have written to major manufacturers and retailers of domestic appliances to fully inform them of the scheme and invite them to participate.

  All 15 electricity supply companies have agreed to participate and the scheme was launched, by the Secretary of State on 12 November.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to introduce compulsory energy rating schemes for dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's intention is that home energy labelling should be sufficiently developed to enable it to be incorporated into the Building Regulations when these are next amended. In the mean time, it is one of the aims of the Government's publicity campaign, with the title "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", to encourage the take-up of home energy labels. The Government will be discussing with the commission and other member states EC proposals on home energy labelling in the context of the SAVE programme.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assistance his Department is prepared to give to local authorities to encourage them to improve heating efficiency in all their dwellings to achieve a good score on the energy rating scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government, under the Department of the Environment's greenhouse energy efficiency demonstration programme, are providing £60 million over three years for selected projects to improve the energy efficiency of local authority housing stock. More widely, the Department of the Environment's estate action programme provides local authorities with additional resources to improve their housing estates. In 1990–91 some 20 per cent. of the estate action budget, representing some £35 million, was geared towards energy efficiency improvements.

  In addition, my Energy Efficiency Office's best practice programme is providing assistance in the form of technical advice, information and guidance to local authorities through its publications, workshops and seminars.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the energy directorate 24
  of the European Commission concerning the introduction of a directive on the relative energy efficiency of domestic electrical appliances; and what is the likeliest date for its introduction for (a) freezers and refrigerators and (b) other domestic electrical appliances.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has been fully consulted by the European Commission on its proposals for a directive on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources of household appliances. The proposed directive is a framework directive which sets out the procedures to be adopted by member states to ensure that domestic appliances displayed for sale bear energy labels which give potential purchasers information on the energy consumption of the appliances.

  There is at present no timetable for discussions on the preparation of the subsequent implementing directives which will set out specific requirements for energy labels for individual types of appliance. However, it is expected that freezers and refrigerators will be one of the first types of appliance to be covered by an implementing directive and this is likely to be ready for introduction early in 1993. Other domestic appliances will be dealt with quickly thereafter.

  My Energy Efficiency Office has therefore worked with the regional electricity companies—RECs—to introduce a voluntary energy labelling scheme which was launched on 12 November. Refrigerators and freezers in all the RECs' showrooms will by now bear energy labels that tell customers how efficient the appliance is compared to similar appliances and how much electricity it will use in a year.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has commissioned a comparative energy audit of incineration of material solid waste and separation of waste at source followed by recycling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The choice between waste management options should be based on an assessment of all the associated costs and benefits, and not just on the cost of energy. The Government are continuously reviewing these options. Waste management paper No. 1 provides advice on how the costs and benefits should be assessed. This paper is currently being revised.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Privatisation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public assets which he intends to privatise to reach the £8 billion income from sales outlined in his autumn statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government expect £8 billion of proceeds in 1992–93. The precise components of the forecast are subject to future decisions on, inter alia, the balance between debt and equity proceeds.

  National Heritage Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the exchequer if he will list the circumstances under which landowners are released from their obligation to comply with their undertakings for which they have been granted exemptions from inheritance tax for national heritage land of outstanding scenic, historic or scientific interest: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no circumstances in which landowners are released from their undertakings and continue to benefit from conditional exemption. If an undertaking is broken or comes to an end on the disposal of the heritage property, inheritance tax is normally chargeable, except in the case of a gift or bequest where the new owner gives a fresh undertaking.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations to which he supplies information about the land which is granted exemption from inheritance tax for national heritage land of outstanding scenic, historic or scientific interest; from what date they are able to give this information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Where a claim is made for conditional exemption the Inland Revenue consults the relevant heritage advisory body. The main advisory bodies for land in England and Scotland are the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, and for land of scientific interest the respective Nature Conservancy Councils. In Wales and Northern Ireland the relevant bodies are the Countryside Council for Wales and the environment service of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland. Information about individual cases is covered by the normal rules of tax confidentiality. However heritage bodies are able to supply information about public access to heritage land including conditionally exempt land, although land will not be identified as conditionally exempt.

  Tobacco
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast revenue from tobacco taxes in 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Revenue from excise duties on tobacco is forecast to be £6·1 billion for 1991–92.

  Debt
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the figure for the annual amount of corporate debt in the United Kingdom for each year from 1978–79(a) expressed in actual terms and (b) expressed at current prices;

  (2) what was the annual amount of personal debt in the United Kingdom for each year from 1978–79 (a) expressed in actual terms and (b) expressed at current prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures, on a calendar year basis, are as follows. Financial year figures are not readily available.
  26

  Total liabilities at market values

  (£ billion, end of year)

  Industrial and commercial companies

  Personal sector1

  Real terms2

  Current prices

  Real terms2

  Current prices

  1978

  404·1

  165·2

  159·2

  65·1

  1979

  396·5

  189·8

  164·4

  78·7

  1980

  390·4

  218·4

  163·2

  91·3

  1981

  415·8

  247·0

  184·5

  109·6

  1982

  460·0

  292·5

  202·9

  129·0

  1983

  513·2

  341·9

  229·2

  152·7

  1984

  571·1

  402·3

  252·8

  178·1

  1985

  621·0

  455·8

  282·6

  207·4

  1986

  744·2

  562·3

  321·5

  242·9

  1987

  800·6

  640·7

  357·9

  286·4

  1988

  861·8

  744·4

  397·2

  343·1

  1989

  1,017·7

  936·3

  430·7

  396·2

  1990

  929·5

  929·5

  441·7

  441·7

  1 Includes unincorporated businesses and non-profit making bodies serving persons as well as individuals.

  2 End-1990 prices based on the GDP(E) at factor cost implied deflator.

  Public Services (Opinion Poll)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the opinion poll he has commissioned to investigate public attitudes towards public services, if he will indicate(a) how much the survey will cost, (b) how many members of the public will be involved in the survey, (c) when he expects the questionnaire to be finalised, (d) when he expects the survey to be completed and (e) when the results will be published.

  Mr. Maude
  I have not yet commissioned an opinion survey.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 501, what was the net effect of each of the changes set out in the Chief Secretary's answer of 12 November in each month since it was introduced.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following is the available information:

  (a) Adjustments to statistics of oil exports: Prior to October 1989 direct exports of crude oil were under-recorded in Customs and Excise data, and in the trade figures published by the Central Statistical Office, by amounts which average £40 million—440,000 tonnes—per month in the first three quarters of 1989. Since October 1989 this under-recording has been eliminated, but some oil exports are still reported with a delay. The Central Statistical Office therefore includes in its statistics estimates of the amount of exports still to be reported. The adjustments for the latest month have averaged £12½ million—120,000 tonnes—per month over the last three months.

  (b) Improved seasonal adjustments: Some indication of the impact of regularly updating seasonal adjustment factors can be obtained by comparing the adjusted figures initially published for each month with the revised figures published a month later, though these revisions also incorporate any necessary amendments to raw data. Since January 1990 when the regular updating was initiated the revisions to the balance of visible trade, irrespective of sign, have averaged £30 million per month.

  (c) Progressive development of detailed methodology: The various refinements referred to in the earlier reply are such that they have been integrated into the monthly cycle of processing and without

  27
  retrospectively reconstructing the statistics using the old methodology it is impossible to determine what their effect has been.

  £20 Note
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the size of the new £20 note.

  Mr. Maples
  I have received a number of letters concerning the size of the new £20 note. However the size and design of banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank of England.

  Contracted-out Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on extending contracting-out of services in central Government and the national health service; and if he will list those individual services his Department considers most suitable for putting out to tender.

  Mr. Maude
  This information is given in the White Paper "Competing for Quality" which is published today.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to increase resources for the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  I announced on 6 November increased funding of £1·07 million for the SFO in the current financial year in view of the additional demands placed upon it by the BCCI case. Subject to parliamentary approval, expenditure provision of an additional £5·4 million has also been agreed for the SFO for 1992–93.

  Women Judges
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Government are taking to ensure that more women are appointed to high judicial office.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has repeatedly made clear his wish to appoint more suitably qualified women to judicial office. The number of women in the legal profession in the appropriate age groups and with the right experience will increase significantly over time and will undoubtedly lead to the welcome appointment of more women judges.

  Immigration Cases
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the length of the waiting time for the hearing of immigration cases.

  The Attorney-General
  It is estimated that at present an average appeal to an adjudicator is determined within five to 12 months of its receipt by the immigration appellate authorities. This includes the time taken by the parties themselves to prepare for the hearing, which is typically between two and six months.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there are for solicitors and barristers at the Crown prosecution service.
  28
  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service currently has 231·5 vacancies for lawyers, in a revised total manpower requirement of 2,136. A total of 112 legal trainees are in post.

  Judges
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) High Court judges, (b) circuit judges and (c) registrars of county courts are at present in office; and how many of them are (i) black, (ii) Asian and (iii) women.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested, at 1 November 1991, is set out in the table. Records are not held on the ethnic origins of all office holders, but the numbers relating to black and Asian origin are believed to be as given.

  In office

  Black

  Asian

  Women

  High Court judges

  82

  —

  —

  2

  Circuit judges

  450

  —

  2

  20

  County Court District judges1

  230

  —

  —

  10

  1From 1 January 1991 the title of County Court Registrar was changed to District Judge.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to bring about a reduction in the length of time taken to conclude immigration appeals; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The workload of the immigration appellate authorities—IAA—has increased significantly in recent years. There was a 60 per cent. increase in 1988, 30 per cent. in 1989, 30 per cent. in 1990 and the increase for 1991 is projected to be 15 to 20 per cent. In response to these increases, the Lord Chancellor's Department has recruited additional staff and part-time adjudicators for the IAA to help keep waiting times for cases to be determined to a minimum. The Lord Chancellor's Department has also installed a multi-terminal case-tracking system at Thanet house in London and this will be operational by January 1992. This system will allow the IAA to monitor accurately and frequently the movement of appeals and so assist in the efficient disposal of cases, and help reduce waiting times for cases to be determined.

  Furthermore, the Government intend to create a right of appeal for asylum seekers refused refugee status. The draft asylum appeals procedure rules set out the procedure and timetable envisaged for asylum appeals, and the recruitment of additional staff and adjudicators will facilitate their speedy and efficient disposal.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people are awaiting hearings at the immigration appeals tribunal.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 31 October 1991, a total of 547 appellants were awaiting a hearing before the immigration appeal tribunal. This figure represents 389 cases.

  Sara Thornton
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will arrange for a copy of the judgment in Rv. Thornton, Court of Appeal, 29 July 1991 to be placed in the Library.
  29
  The Attorney-General
  I have, as requested, arranged for a copy of the judgment in Rv. Thornton, Court of Appeal, 29 July 1991 to be placed in the Library.

WALES

  GCSE
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has made any assessment of GCSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department provided financial support for a study by University college, Swansea, of the impact of the General Certificate of Secondary Education on the teaching of history, geography and Welsh. The university published its findings earlier this year and I believe the study is a valuable contribution to the pool of knowledge about the teaching of GCSE. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the report and arrange also for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of expenditure on(a) youth training and (b) employment training in 1991–92; and what is his estimate for each of these programmes in 1992–93 in actual and real terms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates of expenditure on youth training and employment training in 1991–92 should be available soon. Provision for expenditure on these programmes in Wales for 1992–93 has not yet been determined and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps will be taken to reduce unemployment in north Pembrokeshire during next year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies operate a wide range of measures aimed at combating unemployment. The Welsh Office and all the other bodies will continue to look for and respond swiftly to opportunities that arise which have the potential to reduce unemployment.

  I have asked particularly that the Welsh Development Agency and the West Wales training and enterprise council look together at action which needs to be taken, in consultation with the local authorities, to alleviate the effects of the proposed closure of Royal Navy armaments depot Trecwn.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the additional money announced for home improvement grants will be available for discretionary grant applications in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  With the £80 million additional resources which my right hon. Friend announced last week, the provision for mandatory home renovation 30
  grants next year will be £143 million. Further provision will be made for local authority spending on discretionary grants. My right hon. Friend will be announcing details of Welsh local authority capital programmes in due course.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of applicants for home improvement grants who did not qualify after losing community charge benefit.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No application for house renovation grant will have become ineligible for assistance as a result of losing community charge benefit.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) mandatory and (b) discretionary home improvement grants were made in Wales in 1989, 1990, and his latest estimate of the number for 1991; and how much these grants have cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The grants system based on the Housing Act 1985 was replaced by that of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in July 1990, from which time approvals for grants were made only under the new Act. However, since then, a number of grants already approved under the old Act have been completed. The numbers and amounts of completed mandatory and discretionary home improvement grants under the old and new Acts are given in the table:

  Grant completions under the Housing Act 1985

  Mandatory (intermediate)

  Discretionary (improvement, repair and special)

  Number

  Amount (£)

  Number

  Amount(£)

  1989

  2,511

  6,954,543

  17,563

  58,889,413

  1990

  2,172

  6,195,853

  22,940

  77,722,006

  1991

  665

  2,203,782

  6,801

  29,891,532

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Grant completions under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Mandatory

  Discretionary

  Number

  Amount (£)

  Number

  Amount (£)

  11990

  55

  329,138

  78

  62,171

  21991

  900

  6,962,429

  105

  885,786

  1Covers the period July to December 1990.

  2Covers the period January to June 1991.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Smoking
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to curb smoking among teenage girls in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales—HPAW—features the prevention of smoking predominantly in its Youth Life Wales programme, which includes support for school health education and other youth sector projects. Two life education centres are currently touring schools throughout the Principality. The authority also contributes, along with ASH in Wales and Tenovous cancer information centre, to the running of Smokebusters Wales/Mygu Mwg Cymru. This anti-smoking project was launched on 30 October 1991 and is aimed at children between the ages of nine and 13. The Department is supporting the project financially.
  31
  The HPAW in association with other organisations has mounted a number of national and local campaigns including No Smoking Day in Wales. The authority also encourages public transport operators and the retail and catering trade to provide no-smoking areas, to help to create supportive environments which discourage smoking.

  Much sterling work with young people is also being carried out by district health promotion units of district health authorities. My Department also provides financial support for ASH in Wales.

  More generally, it is an offence to sell cigarettes to anyone under 16 years of age and the Government are examining means of tightening up the law on illegal sales.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes have been repossessed as a result of mortgage payment defaults(a) in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, (b) in Mid Glamorgan and (c) in Wales in 1990 and the latest number known for 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Only the total numbers of warrants of repossession are available; those relating specifically to mortgages are not collected separately. However, separate data are available on the number of repossession orders made following mortgage actions. The numbers given in the table relate to totals of orders made through courts within an area and as such do not correspond directly to the number of homes within that area on which orders were made.

  Repossession orders made following mortgage actions1

  1990

  1991 (January to September)

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney2

  253

  315

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,170

  1,203

  Wales

  4,962

  5,388

  1 Figures include suspended orders, whereby the mortgagees are given an opportunity to clear their debts.

  2 Total of orders made through the courts of Bargoed, Caerphilly and Merthyr Tydfil.

  Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Caravans (Parking)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he is having with local authorities in mid-Wales regarding the overnight parking facilities for touring caravans in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None, except in respect of a request to issue directions to Powys county council under section 9 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 in relation to gipsy sites.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many overnight parking sites there are in Wales for touring caravans; what were the corresponding figures for 1970 and 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally except in relation to gipsy sites. There are currently two transit sites for gipsies in Wales; one at Welshpool and one at Llandegai near Bangor. Comparable figures for 1970 and 1980 are not available.
  32
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many caravan sites there are in Cardiganshire; what are the corresponding figures for 1965, 1975 and 1985, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally except in relation to gipsy sites. Statistics supplied by the local authority show that there were no authorised gipsy sites in Ceredigion district in July 1985 or in July 1991. No figures are available for 1965 or 1975.

  Universities
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has made to help Welsh university colleges meet the demands of increased numbers of students expected in the next five years in terms of(a) capital available for buildings and (b) staffing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The existing system of funding the universities has enabled a higher proportion of young people to enter universities by providing an incentive to institutions to expand efficiently. The proposals set out earlier this year in the White Paper "Higher Education —A New Framework" are aimed at ensuring that the higher education sector, as a whole in Wales, is better placed to meet the increased demands that will be put on it over the rest of this decade and beyond: under our proposals detailed decisions about future funding will be taken by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in Wales for which management agreements are currently being negotiated, giving details of the damage threatened in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not held centrally, and is treated as confidential by the parties to the agreement.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance is given to the Welsh Development Agency about identifying and handling possible conflicts of interest in the employment of consultants where one of the principals in the consultancy is employed in a senior capacity by the Welsh Development Agency; and if he has any plans to revise this advice.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Current guidance is contained in "Non Departmental Public Bodies: A guide for Departments". The WDA staff rules on the disclosures of possible conflicts of interest comply with the guide. The guide is kept under review.

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 415, how many representations he has received supporting the application for national health service trust status from Pembrokeshire health authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Thirty-one respondents have written in to support the application, with a further 21 expressing no clear opinion.

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of holdings of agricultural land owned by his Ministry in each county in Wales in(a) 1980 and (b)

  1980

  1990

  Area of holding to nearest hectare

  Number of holdings

  Area of holding to nearest hectare

  Number of holdings

  Number of tenants

  Clwyd

  159

  5

  19

  3

  3

  Dyfed

  32

  5

  2

  1

  1

  Gwent

  32

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Gwynedd

  60

  3

  32

  1

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  24

  2

  27

  3

  3

  Powys

  13

  3

  34

  7

  6

  South Glamorgan

  12

  2

  8

  1

  1

  West Glamorgan

  26

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Information on the number of tenants in 1980 is not available.

  The substantial decrease between 1980 and 1990 in the amount of land owned or held by the Secretary of State reflects the ongoing process of rationalisation by the Department to ensure disposal of any land or property which is surplus to requirements.

  In addition in 1990 the Secretary of State owned or held on long lease the following three holdings at the Pwllpeiran experimental husbandry farm in Dyfed:

  Hectares

  Holding 1

  —647·47

  Holding 2 (999 year lease)

  —1318·6

  Holding 3

  —158·2

  1Managed by Forestry Commission.

  Information on land held in 1980 for experimental purposes could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Forestry Commission land in Wales is vested in the Secretary of State. A total of 11,000 hectares of agricultural land were held in 1980.

  Figures for 1990 are:

  Number

  Area

  4,467

  Number of tenancies

  100

  Number of grazing lets

  48

  Information is not kept centrally on the number of holdings or the distribution by county. This information and a breakdown of the 1980 figure could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursing Statistics
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on(a) the establishment and (b) the actual numbers of district nurses, midwives and health visitors practising in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Complete information on staff numbers is available only for all nursing and midwifery staff, and not for occupational groups such as district nurses, midwives and health visitors. At 31 September 1991, the whole-time equivalent number of nursing and midwifery staff in Wales was 27,991. Information on establishment is not available centrally.
  34
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 6 November 1991]: The information is shown in the table:

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textile and Footware Factories
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) footwear factories and (b) textile factories he has visited in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Leigh
  My ministerial colleagues and I have regular contact with representatives of the footwear and textile industries and have visited several factories over the past year.

  Post Office
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to privatise Post Office Counters Ltd;

  (2) what plans he has to privatise Parcelforce;

  (3) what plans he has to privatise Post Office Letters.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have no present plans to privatise the Post Office or any constituent part of it.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of the real unit cost target for 1992 in respect of the Post Office.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government set efficiency targets in the form of a cumulative percentage change in real unit costs —RUC—for Royal Mail Letters and for Post Office Counters Ltd., but not for Parcelforce, in recognition of the strongly competitive environment in which it operates.

  The current RUC targets relating to the three-year period 1989–90 to 1991–92 are minus 1 per cent. for Royal Mail and minus 2 per cent. for Counters. New targets for 1992–93 onwards have not yet been set.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations were abolished as a result of an initiative taken by his Department's deregulation unit over the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The deregulation unit is responsible for monitoring and co-ordinating progress under the
  35
  deregulation initiative. The initiative has three aims: to abolish unnecessary regulations and licences; to improve the clarity and effectiveness of all rules and regulations where these remain necessary; and to ensure that the compliance costs to business are assessed and taken into account in developing new regulations. The initiative covers regulation by central and local government in the United Kingdom as well as regulations originating in the European Commission. On 13 May, I announced publication of "Cutting Red Tape for Business", the latest record of achievements under the initiative. A copy is in the Library. The benefit of these achievements is cumulative and, taken together, they have saved business many millions of pounds in time and administrative effort.

  For example, self-employed people whose annual turnover is below a certain threshold now need only send the Inland Revenue a simple three-line statement of profits instead of full accounts. The threshold has recently been raised to £15,000. Again, the annual turnover threshold for VAT registration has been increased by 38 per cent. from £25,400 to £35,000, keeping small businesses out of the VAT net for longer. The unit would welcome suggestions of new areas for action.

  Libya (Trade)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report details of trade between Britain and Libya in each of the past five years to the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Investor Protection
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the review of investor protection and advice to investors will be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board's review of retail regulation is a matter for the board.

  Cigarettes
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the market share of imported cigarettes.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on the market share of imported cigarettes is published in table D4 on page 67 of the 1990–91 report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Caravans
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has estimated the number of caravans needing to be brought up to current safety standards; what assessment he has made of the availability of sufficient expertise to complete this task by 29 February 1992; if he has estimated the cost of attention and certification likely to fall upon the holiday parks industry; if he is willing to consider financial aid to those unable to meet the cost; and if he will make a statement.
  36
  Mr. Lilley
  I welcome the constructive attitude taken by the National Caravan Council and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association on this matter of improving caravan safety following the tragic fatalities earlier this year. All parties involved have demonstrated that the first consideration must be the safety of caravan occupants.

  It has been estimated that there are 300,000 caravans distributed over 300 sites. Of these, it is thought that nearly all will need modification to bring them up to the current safety standards for water heater flues. I welcome the speed with which the industry has organised training courses to ensure that there are enough competent people to complete the work by the start of the next holiday season. It is expected that most modifications will be made by the site staff in the closed season, with the average cost for the parts to complete the work expected to be approximately £15 per caravan.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken by the Government to obtain the elimination of the discriminatory tariff and taxation faced by Scotch whisky exported to the Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers and senior officials, in London and Seoul, raise the problems facing the Scotch whisky industry in the Korean market as a result of discriminatory tariffs and taxation with their opposite numbers in the Republic of Korea at every opportunity.

  In addition, we are discussing the possible handling of a GATT case with the European Commission.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken by the Government to ensure that exports of Scottish whisky to Canada continue to be recognised and protected under Canadian legislation.

  Mr. Redwood
  Both the British Government and the European Commission have represented strongly to the Canadian authorities that the existing protection provided by Canada should not be withdrawn. The Canadian Government are considering these representations now that the formal period for public comment on their proposed amendments to the existing legislation has ended.

  Banks
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to meet the chairmen of individual banks to discuss their status as an independent financial adviser; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with regulators under the Financial Services Act 1986 on ways to encourage banks to provide independent financial advice or advice based on tied association with a provider but not both; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The arrangements governing the provision of investment advice under the Financial Services Act, which are primarily a matter for the Securities and Investments Board, are being considered as part of its review of retail regulation.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he has reopened negotiations with NCM of Amsterdam on the terms for the acquisition of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department;

  (2) what further progress he has to report on the proposed sale of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to NCM of Amsterdam; whether there will be further invitations to tender or re-tender for the sale; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his most up-to-date assessment of the date for completion of negotiations with NCM of Amsterdam regarding the sale of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  Negotiations with NCM have been continuing since its selection as preferred purchaser, which was announced to the House on 1 July this year. Substantial progress has been made. The negotiations are now nearing completion and the sale is expected to take place on 1 December 1991.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make it his practice to answer questions on the supply of arms by British companies to Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not the practice to comment on individual export licence applications.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether British companies have supplied cluster bombs to the Yugoslav National Army.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. All export licences for military equipment to Yugoslavia were revoked on 3 July 1991.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his current assessment of the contribution that British firms made in supplying materials that were used by Iraq to detonate nuclear initiators.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 November 1991]: We have not received full details of information obtained during the inspections in Iraq carried out by the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  I am, therefore, not yet able to assess whether any British firms supplied materials used by Iraq to detonate nuclear initiators.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will detail the breaches of the arms embargo with Iraq now known to his Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Inspections in Iraq by the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have revealed the names of many companies, around the world, which have traded with Iraq, including some from Britain. It is possible that more names will be revealed as time goes on.
  38
  The information provided by these agencies is being carefully reviewed, but there is no evidence that the vast majority of the United Kingdom companies that have already been named have done anything wrong. Until the invasion of Kuwait, trade with Iraq was not illegal provided strategic export controls were not breached.

  Prosecutions for offences under the Export of Goods (Control) Order are a matter for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on current cases.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the document published recently giving guidelines of practice by Her Majesty's Government of information technology goods and services.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the "Review of the Information Systems/Information Technology Procurement Processes" undertaken by CCTA—the Government centre for information systems —and involving extensive consultation with industry and Government departmental customers. A management summary entitled "1991 Update" was published recently and I have placed a copy of this in the Library. A comprehensive guide giving detailed advice on best practice is due for publication next week and a copy of that will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

SCOTLAND

  Govan Dry Docks
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the organisation Clydebuilt about the future of Govan dry docks; and what replies he has sent.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  None.

  Begging and Sleeping Rough
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were(a) prosecuted for begging, (b) convicted of begging, (c) prosecuted for sleeping rough and (d) convicted of sleeping rough in each police district in Scotland in the year ending 31 December 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Neither begging nor sleeping rough is, by itself, a criminal offence in Scotland.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Lord Advocate will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North dated 22 July 1991 requesting a fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of certain of his constituents in a house fire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Lord Advocate's private secretary replied to the hon. Member on 13 August 1991 and 18 October 1991 indicating that inquiries were still proceeding into the circumstances of the deaths of certain of the hon. Member's constituents in the house fire to which he refers.
  39
  The procurator fiscal's inquiries are not yet complete. Once they are, the report will be submitted to Crown Office for the consideration of Crown counsel and the decision will then be taken whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held. Once it has been taken, the Lord Advocate will advise the hon. Member of the decision.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the total deficit of hospitals and units with trust status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 57 first-wave trusts are currently not reporting an overall deficit.

  Spokes Inquiry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the recommendations of the Spokes inquiry report, Cm 440, have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Spokes report made 30 recommendations. Four of these—recommendations 22, 25, 26 and 27 —are covered by the care programme approach, HC(90)23/LASSL(90)11, which health authorities in collaboration with local authority social services departments were required to implement as from 1 April 1991.

  A clarification of health and local authorities statutory duties to provide after-care for former mentally disordered hospital patients—recommendation 23—is contained in the Mental Health Act 1983 code of practice, laid before Parliament in 1989.

  The Royal College of Psychiatrists has prepared a document entitled "Good Medical Practice in the Aftercare of Potentially Violent or Vulnerable Patients discharged from Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment" which it plans to circulate to its members in December 1991— recommendation 24.

  The new diploma in social work is being introduced. This allows students to specialise in their final year of training. One area of specialist study is mental health. The training of social workers for approval under the Mental Health Act 1983, section 114, now lasts for 60 days and local authorities are also expected to provide their approved social workers with refresher training—recommendation 21.

  The Housing Corporation's special needs housing programme provides accommodation for people with special needs, including the mentally ill, at the rate of 3,000 bedspaces per year. In addition, revenue funding for special needs is due to increase from £36·5 million to over £95 million in the period 1990–93. The needs of single mentally ill people will continue to receive high priority —recommendation 28.

  The remaining recommendations are regarded as matters of good practice on which no further Government action is required. The recommendations have been drawn to the attention of health and local authorities and the relevant professional bodies which are expected to have taken them into account in developing their own working and training procedures.

  Counterfeit Medicines
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on the import, production and sale of counterfeit medicines in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what steps he is taking to eradicate the import, production and sale of counterfeit medicines in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the damage being done to British pharmaceutical companies by the import, manufacture or sale of counterfeit medicines.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 restricts the disclosure of information regarding any alleged importation, sale or production of counterfeit medicines. Any reports of alleged import, production or sale of counterfeit medicines in the United Kingdom are urgently investigated by the enforcement unit of the Medicines Control Agency. The United Kingdom licensing system covering the import, sale and production of medicinal products is continually kept under review to ensure appropriate safeguards against counterfeit products are maintained. No information is available about any damage being done to pharmaceutical companies arising from alleged trade in such products.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration was given in the preparation of the Green Paper "The Health of the Nation" to the 1985 targets set out by the World Health Organisation in respect of housing and equal access to education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The World Health Organisation, which has warmly welcomed the approach taken in "The Health of the Nation", has made it clear that its health for all by the year 2000 initiative—HFA—is meant to be adapted to the specific needs of individual countries. All aspects of the WHO approach were taken fully into consideration in preparation of the Green Paper proposals for a health strategy for England. The Green Paper also included a report on England's progress towards meeting the HFA targets.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how environmental, transport, housing, food and agriculture considerations were integrated in the Green Paper "The Health of the Nation."

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government recognise the importance of a wide range of factors affecting health. This was reflected in the prominence "The Health of the Nation" gave to the responsibilities of specific Government Departments. We have established a ministerial group on which the 14 Government Departments are represented, to oversee development of the health strategy and co-ordinate the Government's contribution to it.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often progress towards health for all is assessed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Progress towards the World Health Organisation health for all by the year 2000 targets is reviewed periodically. The last two reports of progress
  41
  were published in the Chief Medical Officer's report "On The State of the Public Health for the year 1989" and in an annex to "The Health of the Nation", June 1991, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Reforms
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much consultation occurred on the recent national health service reforms before they were instituted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The NHS reforms White Paper "Working for Patients", was published in January 1989. The Government have always been prepared to consider constructive proposals for implementation of the policies it set out. The NHS and Community Care Bill was introduced to Parliament on 22 November 1989, where it was subject to the scrutiny of both Houses, and the NHS and Community Care Act received Royal Assent on 29 June 1990. Under the Act NHS hospitals and other units seeking to apply for NHS trust status are obliged to conduct a three-month period of consultation with their local community health council and other bodies as appropriate.

  Asthma
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the reasons behind the apparent increase in the prevalence of asthma.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Unfortunately, and despite the availability of effective preventive therapy, the prevalence of asthma and the occurrence of acute asthma attacks has been rising. This is not a phenomenon confined to this country. New Zealand and the United States of America have seen similar increases. There are a number of possible reasons, including increased levels of pollution, but firm evidence that this is a cause of the increased prevalence of asthma is lacking.

  Community Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist to facilitate co-ordination between Government Departments on community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Close contact is maintained through ministerial and official groups.

  Back Pain
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many awards the Health Service Superannuation Branch makes each year to staff suffering back pain or back injury for(a) National Health Service permanent injury benefit and (b) National Health Service temporary injury benefit;

  (2) what is the number of claims each year for national health service ill-health retirement pensions because of back pain or back injury;

  (3) what is the amount of national health service ill-health retirement pensions paid out each year for retirement due to back pain or back injury;

  (4) how many claims the national health service's superannuation branch receives each year for (a) national health service permanent injury benefit and (b) national health service temporary injury benefit, due to back pain or back injury;
  42
  (5) what is the total amount of (a) permanent injury benefit or (b) temporary injury benefit paid out each year to national health service staff suffering back pain or back injury;

  (6) how many ill-health retirement pensions awards the national health service makes each year for retirement due to back pain or back injury;

  (7) what is the total number of awards paid for (a) national health service permanent injury benefit and (b) national health service temporary injury benefit;

  (8) what is the total number of claims each year for national health service ill-health retirement pensions;

  (9) what is the total amount of national health service ill-health retirement pension paid out each year;

  (10) what is the total number of claims each year for (a) national health service permanent and (b) national health service temporary injury benefit;

  (11) what is the total amount paid out each year for all awards of (a) national health service permanent injury benefit and (b) national health service temporary injury benefit;

  (12) what is the total number of ill-health retirement pension awards the national health service makes each year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In England and Wales during 1990–91, the NHS pension scheme received approximately 7,400 applications for ill-health retirement pension of which 7,092 were awarded. In the same year, approximately 1,200 permanent injury benefits were claimed and 1,097 were awarded. Six hundred and thirty of these were one-off lump sum payments, the remainder included a continuing pension. By the end of the year, continuing injury benefit pensions totalled 2,636. Total permanent injury benefit expenditure for the year was £6,493,000, including one-off lump sums and pensions increase. Total temporary injury allowance expenditure was £1,441,000.

  Details of temporary injury allowance numbers, separate costs for ill-health retirement pensions and applications, awards or expenditure divided by medical condition are not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There are parallel schemes for the NHS in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Information for these is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the European Community's HELIOS programme promoting the economic and social integration of disabled people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have supported all aspects of the European Community's HELIOS programme promoting the economic and social integration of disabled people since it was agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1988. In order to determine what benefits the programme has provided for United Kingdom participants, an independent evaluation of the United Kingdom's part in the programme is being prepared by a team of researchers from Southampton university.

  Discussions are currently taking place in the Council's working groups to establish a further five-year programme, HELIOS II, to run from 1992 to 1996.

  Hospices
  Sir Robert Rhodes James
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total value of extra help provided by the Government for hospices over the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have earmarked funds of £17 million this year to enable health authorities in England to increase the support they give to voluntary hospices, bringing the total estimated NHS contribution to £41 million. This is in addition to the cost of specialised palliative care services provided directly by the NHS, estimated at £21 million. These sums do not include social security benefits for hospice residents, which I understand the Department of Social Security does not separately identify.

  Nasogastric Feeding Tubes
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of nasogastric feeding tubes being available on prescription from general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am not able to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 11 November at column 409.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received on the banning of tobacco advertising; how many of these were in favour and how many against; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 614 representations have been received on this subject; these contain arguments both in favour of and against banning tobacco advertising.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the waiting time for patients needing radiotherapy treatment for cancer at each hospital in the Northern regional health authority area in May 1991; and what is the latest waiting time for those patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no patients waiting for in-patient radiotherapy treatment at any of the hospitals in the Northern region in May 1991 or at present. Out-patients—non-urgent cases—in Newcastle general hospital were waiting for an average of four weeks in May 1991; this has increased to an average of six weeks. New facilities costing £3·2 million now coming on stream will reduce the waiting time to four weeks by early spring 1992.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the level of funding to the Northern regional health authority to provide for the repair of inoperative radiotherapy equipment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Northern regional health authority is currently investing £3·2 million at Newcastle general hospital in the most up-to-date radiotherapy facilities in the United Kingdom including the latest linear accelerator equipment. The regional health authority announced on 9 November that an additional £190,000 has been allocated to the hospital for an additional 44
  consultant and radiography staff. It is expected that this will have a speedy effect on waiting times. Non-urgent cases waiting times will reduce to about four weeks by February 1992.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Northern regional health authority area who were on the waiting list for radiotherapy treatment have died in the current year before receiving treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate a full inquiry into the treatment of cancer patients in the area of the Northern regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. I understand from the chairman of Northern regional health authority that 4,600 patients have been treated by the Northern RHA in 1990–91: an increase of 11·3 per cent. over the previous year. This level of radiotherapy treatment is entirely consistent with levels and patterns of treatment in England as a whole.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to fulfil the commitment given in his response to the tenth report of the Social Services Committee in Session 1989–90 on the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967 that he would draw to the attention of medical schools the recommendation that candidates for places at such schools should not be asked questions about their attitudes to abortion, and upon what date that action was taken.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials of the Department of Education and Science wrote to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the United Kingdom on 9 May 1991 asking them to draw the attention of medical schools to the Committee's recommendation. The CVCP wrote to the deans of medical schools on 24 May 1991.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the monitoring system for advertisements for hospital posts referred to in his response to the tenth report of the Social Services Committee in Session 1989–90 on the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967; how many breaches of guidelines have been monitored; and what action has been taken in each of those cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These monitoring arrangements have identified one breach of the guidelines. The health authority concerned was contacted and withdrew the advertisement.

  Patients Charter
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom are likely to fall within the ambit of the patients charter at any one time.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The rights set out in the patients charter apply to everyone entitled to NHS care in England, and
  45
  the national standards defined in the charter apply to all NHS providers in England. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the weight of the current national health service-issue wheelchair for the disabled; when was the last significant change in the design and weight; and what plans he has for introducing and making available through the national health service a new, significantly lighter weight design of wheelchair.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The target weight for an adult self-propelled wheelchair, including leg rests, foot rests and arms, detailed in the current NHS performance specification is 361b. The NHS purchases wheelchairs to performance specifications which in 1990 replaced the previous Disablement Services Authority design specifications. Lighter weight wheelchairs from a number of suppliers are also available through the NHS.

  Oral Health Strategy Group
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names and current responsibilities of the members of the oral health strategy group convened by the chief dental officer together with the group's terms of reference; and if he will make a statement concerning the discussions which took place at the meeting held on 4 and 6 October.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The oral health strategy group. comprises:

  Members

  Mr. R. B. Mouatt (Chairman)—Chief Dental Officer, Department of Health.

  Miss M. R. Edwards—Assistant Secretary, Department of Health.

  Professor J. J. Murray—Department of Child Dental Health, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  Professor C. J. Smith—Department of Oral Pathology, Charles Clifford Dental School, Sheffield.

  Mr. N. B. A. Entwistle—Advisory Board in General Dental Practice, Faculty of Dental Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons of England. Senior Dental Officer, Community Dental Service dental research and information unit, University of Wales.

  Mr. W. Allen—General dental practitioner and Regional Adviser in general dental practice.

  Mr. R. C. Ward—Consultant in dental public health, East Suffolk Health Authority.

  Dr. S. Griffiths—Regional Director of Public Health, SW Thames Regional Health Authority.

  Professor M. A. Lennon—Department of Community Dental Health, University of Liverpool.

  Professor A. Sheiham—Department of Community Dental Health, University College and Middlesex Hospitals, London.

  Mr. G. O. Taylor—Consultant in dental public health and Regional Dental Officer, North Western Regional Health Authority.

  Miss J. Todd—Statistician, Dental Practice Board. Professor N. H. F. Wilson—Department of Conservative Dentistry. Turner Dental School, Manchester.

  Mr. R. Thompson—Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales.

  Mrs. F. M. Baker (Secretary)—Dental officer, Department of Health.

  Observers

  Mr. N. K. Colquhoun—Chief Dental Officer, Scotland.

  46

  Mr. D. M. Heap—Chief Dental Oficer, Wales.

  Mr. W. Collins—Chief Dental Officer Northern Ireland.

  The group's terms of reference are:
  To revise the 1981 oral health strategy and to advise on the development of an oral health strategy for England, in particular to:

  define oral health;

  assist in the development of a consultative document which would invite nationwide comment on the development of an oral health strategy;

  identify areas of oral health where there is a need for and an opportunity to effect a reduction in avoidable oral disease and where concerted activity could bring major measurable health gain;

  set a framework of the best possible information on current status against which progress could be measured;

  establish clear targets which could be translated into effective action to meet them and to indicate the manner in which those targets might be achieved."

  The first meeting of the group considered the opportunities for health gain afforded by a new oral health strategy and the issues to be addressed in the consultative document. Issues considered ranged over health promotion and education, models of disease prevention, inter-agency activity, consumer participation, care delivery, and primary and secondary care boundaries.

  Adult Population
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current adult, over 18 years, population of the United Kingdom extrapolated from the latest available census information.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom population aged 18 and over at mid-1990, the latest available, is estimated to be 44·28 million. The corresponding projected population at mid-1991 is 44·42 million according to the Government Actuary's latest, 1989-based, projections. These figures take no account of the 1991 census. Estimates of the population at mid-1991 reflecting the 1991 census are expected to be available in September 1992.

  Mr. Frank O'Noroe-O'Neil
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate what additional assistance is available to Mr. Frank O'Noroe-O'Neil of 29 Lamberton road, Braintree, Essex, in meeting the cost of his prescriptions, an eye test and spectacles for three distances.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Help under the NHS low income scheme is available for those with limited financial resources who do not otherwise qualify for exemption from NHS charges. No claim has been received from Mr. O'Noroe-O'Neil. Officials will contact him to explain the exemption arrangements and how a claim for help may be made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what account the House of Commons Refreshment Department has taken of the recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy.
  47
  Mr. MacGregor
  As part of a continuing policy of seeking to provide nutritious and appetising food of a good standard for Members, their staff, and staff of the House, the Refreshment Department retains and follows the advice of a qualified nutritional consultant. That advice takes account of the various studies and conclusions of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, including those contained in the recent report of the panel on dietary reference values.

  Crèche
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, columns 59–60, if he will undertake to inform the Transport and General Workers Union parliamentary branch of the progress of discussions on and plans for the establishment of a nursery on the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is anticipated that, as appropriate, Members, the staff associations representing their staff, the House of Commons Whitley committee and the Departments of the House will be brought into discussions on any plan to establish a child care facility in the parliamentary estate.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of accidents reported each year by all employers to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is provided in the table.

  Injuries to employees reported1 to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates

  Year2

  Manual handling injuries3

  Back injuries

  Back injuries caused by manual handling

  Manual handling injuries reported to other HSE inspectorates4

  1986–87

  45,985

  29,610

  20,372

  5

  1987–88

  46,967

  29,958

  21,031

  2,208

  1988–89

  47,823

  30,312

  21,315

  1,707

  1989–90

  49,231

  30,693

  21,706

  1,304

  1 Fatal, major and over three day injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  2 Years commencing 1 April.

  3 Injuries caused by handling, lifting, carrying and awkward movement.

  4 Reports made to HSE's mines, quarries, explosives and nuclear installations inspectorate.

  5 Not available.

  On 7 November the Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document containing proposals for regulations and guidance aimed at reducing this toll of injury. The proposals are also a response to the European Commission directive on manual handling the implementation of which is due by 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of manual handling or back injury-related accidents reported each year by the
  48

  Occupational injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive1, under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 19852 1986–87 to 1989–903

  Number of injuries4

  Year

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Members of public5

  Total

  1986–87

  161,442

  1,734

  13,859

  177,035

  1987–88

  157,831

  2,068

  11,953

  171,852

  1988–89

  158,376

  2,701

  11,593

  172,670

  1989–90

  161,884

  3,221

  10,251

  175,356

  1 Excludes injuries reported to local authorities and HSC agency inspectorates, namely the petroleum engineering division of the Department of Energy and the railway inspectorate.

  2 Includes a small number of injuries reported to the explosives inspectorates under explosives legislation.

  3 Year beginning 1 April.

  4 Fatal, major and where appropriate, other injuries causing incapacity for work for more than three days.

  5 Members of public injured as a result of someone else's work activity—over three-day injuries are not reportable for members of the public.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of manual handling or back injury-related accidents reported each year by all employers to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total number of manual handling or back injury-related accidents reported each year by all employers to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 is set out in the table. Column 1 gives the number of manual handling injuries and column 2 the number of back injuries. Column 3 shows the number of back injuries which arise from manual handling injuries.

  national health service to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of injuries reported each year by the national health service is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The table shows the total number of manual handling related or back injuries to employees occurring in all medical and other health services between 1986–87 and 1989–90.
  49

  Date of accident1

  Number of reported2 injuries

  Manual handling related3

  Back injuries

  Back injuries caused by manual handling

  1986–87

  2,937

  2,259

  1,861

  1987–88

  4,113

  3,124

  2,644

  1988–89

  4,471

  3,456

  2,931

  1989–90

  4,943

  3,768

  3,202

  1 Years beginning 1 April.

  2 Fatal, major and other injuries causing incapacity for work for more than three days reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985.

  3 Injuries caused by handling, lifting, carrying and awkward movement.

  On the 7 November the Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document containing proposals for regulations and guidance aimed at reducing this toll of injury. The proposals are also a response to the European Commission directive on manual handling, the implementation of which is due by 31 December 1992.

  Redundancies, Merseyside
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been declared redundant on Merseyside over the past three months.

  Mr. Jackson
  The provisional number of confirmed redundancies received for the Merseyside area in the three months to September was 2,210.

  Co-operatives
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money his Department has set aside for aiding the development of co-operatives in the present financial year; and how much of the money has been allocated or granted to(a) the United Kingdom Co-operative Council, (b) other organisations concerned with the promotion or development of co-operatives and (c) directly to co-operatives in the form of pump-priming grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  The amount available to support innovative projects in the co-operative sector is up to the amount that might otherwise have been spent in maintaining the Co-operative Development Agency until 1993; that is, up to £300,000 per annum.

  In the present financial year £45,000 has been allocated to the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. No further sums have been allocated at present, but the Department is considering proposals from a number of organisations.

  Dangerous Cargoes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the report on the transportation of hazardous cargoes and dangerous substances by road or rail or marine transport.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Health and Safety Commission's report on the major hazard aspects of the transport of dangerous substances was published on 12 November 1991. Sir John Cullen, chairman of the Commission, launched the report at a press conference on the same day.

  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Restart Interviews and Job Clubs
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people in Coventry have attended a restart interview since 1 April; what were the results of those interviews; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many people in Coventry have attended a restart interview since 1 April 1991; how many of those interviewed then (a) started work, (b) began training under employment training, (c) started in a job club, (d) started a restart course or (e) attended an enterprise allowance scheme awareness day; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many people in Coventry in the last 12 months since April 1990, and the six months since April 1991 have joined job clubs; how many have left; how many leavers got jobs; how many entered another positive outcome; if he will publish that information broken down by the ethnic origin and by gender; and what are the comparable figures for the west midlands region as a whole.

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

  Working Hours
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce statutory rights for people working less than eight hours a week.

  Mr. Jackson
  None.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for Coventry the figures of unemployment, broken down by age, sex and duration.

  Mr. Jackson
  Unemployment figures by age and duration are available only on a quarterly basis. The latest, relating to July 1991, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Figures for October 1991 will he published on Tuesday 19 November.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the top 10 constituencies with the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  For areas with different sized work forces, such as parliamentary constituencies, the only meaningful comparisons are based on unemployment rates. These are not available at the level of parliamentary constituencies.
  51
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons under the age of 21 years are unemployed in the Liverpool travel-to-work area at the most recent date.

  Mr. Jackson
  Unemployment figures by age and duration are available on a quarterly basis and provide separate figures for those under 20 years of age. In July 1991, the latest available date, there were 6,804 unemployed claimants aged under 20 in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage rate of unemployment in Liverpool, Riverside constituency at the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The smallest geographical areas for which unemployment rates are available are travel-to-work areas. The unemployment rate in October 1991 for Liverpool travel-to-work area was 14·7 per cent., 6·2 percentage points lower than at the peak in January 1986. The figures are on the unadjusted basis and comparisons are affected by changes in the coverage of the count over the period and by seasonal influences.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table to show, for each of the last 12 months, the number of(a) unemployed in Coventry, (b) the number of vacancies available at (i) the local jobcentre and (ii) the careers office and (c) (a) divided by (b).

  Mr. Jackson
  The information on unemployment and jobcentre vacancies can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Information for vacancies at career offices in Coventry can be found in the west midlands regional press notice, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on unemployment figures for Liverpool and Merseyside at the latest date.

  Mr. Jackson
  In October 1991, the unadjusted level of unemployment in the county of Merseyside was 93,485. In the Liverpool travel-to-work area, part of which falls in the county of Merseyside, the unadjusted level of unemployment was 71,150.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of manufacturing jobs in the northern region in 1979 and the number in 1991 or the latest date available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table.

  Employees in manufacturing in the Northern Region

  Thousands

  June 1979

  410

  June 1991

  261

  TECs
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has issued any strategic guidance to training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.
  52
  Mr. Howard
  I issued my strategic guidance for 1992–93 to TECs on Friday 15 November. The guidance sets out the key issues I would like TECs to address in their plans for the coming year. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I issued a joint statement setting out ways we see the relationship between TECs and his Department being strengthened. I have placed copies of the guidance and the joint statement in the Library.

  Libya
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the resumption of direct flights between the United Kingdom and Libya to assist British workers and businesses operating there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to propose the resumption of direct flights between Britain and Libya. Any such move would be particularly inappropriate in view of the charges that Libyans were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is providing to British businesses to try to obtain contracts in connection with(a) the great man-made river project and (b) the Melita power station in Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. We have neither encouraged nor discouraged British companies who wish to trade with Libya. This has been a matter for their commercial judgment alone.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek an assurance from the Libyan authorities that they do not supply arms to terrorists.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our considered response to the charges that Libyan officials were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Relations remain very poor, and particularly so in the light of the charges that Libyan officials were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

  Iraq
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what inspections have so far been carried out by the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Agency in Iraq under the terms of Security Council resolution 687; and what contribution Britain is making to their work.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are actively supporting the work of the United Nations special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency—IAEA—as they carry out their mandates under the relevant Security Council resolutions. They have so far completed 20 inspections. These are listed in the table, together with details of the assistance given by Britain. A further two inspections are currently in progress.

  In addition to providing assistance for specific inspections, a senior British expert on chemical and

  53
  biological defence matters is a full-time member of the special commission. Other British experts have taken part in ad hoc specialist meetings, one is chairman of the chemical warfare destruction advisory panel who also took part, together with the British member of the commission, in two fact-finding missions to Iraq on chemical weapons. We have made available to the United Nations information on Iraq's weapons capabilities. The Government also suport in principle the nuclear industry's

  Date1

  Inspection2

  United Kingdom inspectors3 /Technical experts

  Equipment/Assistance provided

  14–22 May

  UNSCOM 1—first nuclear inspection by the IAEA.

  —

  Eight landrovers and trailers.

  9–15 June

  UNSCOM 2—first chemical weapons inspection.

  Three

  Chemical agent monitors, individual protective equipment, tropical bleach and Fullers' Earth for decontamination, sampling kits and RAF transport. CBDE, Porton Down analysed sample.

  30 June to 7 July

  UNSCOM 3—first ballistic missile inspection.

  One

  —

  22 June to 3 July4

  UNSCOM 4—second IAEA nuclear inspection.

  One

  Use of British landrovers.

  6–19 July

  UNSCOM 5—third IAEA nuclear inspection.

  Two

  Analysis of centrifuge components.

  27 July to 10 August

  UNSCOM 6—fourth IAEA nuclear inspection.

  Two

  —

  2–8 August

  UNSCOM 7—first bilogical weapons inspection.

  Five, including the leader

  Chemical agent monitors, individual protective equipment, sampling kits, Standby Assay Kits, tropical bleach and RAF transport. CBDE Porton Down analysed samples.

  8–15 August

  UNSCOM 8—third ballistic missile inspection.

  One

  —

  15–22 August

  UNSCOM 9—second chemical weapons inspection.

  One

  CBDE, Porton Down analysed samples.

  18–20 July4

  UNSCOM 10—second ballistic missile inspection.

  —

  —

  30 August to 8 September

  UNSCOM 11—third chemical weapons inspection.

  One

  Chemical agent monitors, individual protective equipment. CBDE Porton Down analysed samples.

  30 August to 5 September

  UNSCOM 12—fourth chemical weapons inspection.

  One

  Chemical agent monitors, and individual protective equipment.

  6–13 September

  UNSCOM 13—fourth ballistic missile inspection.

  One

  —

  14–20 September

  UNSCOM 14—fifth IAEA nuclear inspection.

  —

  —

  20 September to 3 October

  UNSCOM 15—second biological weapons inspection.

  Two, including the deputy leader

  Chemical agent monitors, individual protective equipment, sampling kits, kits, Standby Assay Kits, tropical bleach. CBDE Porton Down analysed samples.

  21–30 September

  UNSCOM—sixth IAEA nuclear inspection.

  Two

  Assistance with cataloguing and translating documents.

  6 October to 9 November

  UNSCOM 17—fifth chemical weapons inspection.

  Five in Iraq, including the deputy leader and a CBDE Porton Down analytical team, plus a further CBDE Porton Down analytical team in the area.

  Chemical agent monitors, sampling kits, individual protective equipment, gas chromatograph—mass spectrometer, infra-red spectrometer, fume cupboards and generator, tropical bleach and Fullers' Earth

  54
  readiness to assist the IAEA, in partnership with French industry, in the IAEA's task of recovering irradiated nuclear fuel from Iraq.

  We shall continue strongly to support the work of the special commission and IAEA, and encourage others to do likewise. It is vitally important for the security of the region and the world that Iraq should not be allowed to retain or redevelop its weapons of mass destruction.
  55

  Date1

  Inspection2

  United Kingdom inspectors3/Technical experts

  Equipment/Assistance provided

  1–14 October

  UNSCOM 18—fifth ballistic missile inspection.

  Two

  —

  11–22 October

  UNSCOM 19—seventh IAEA nuclear inspection.

  One

  —

  22 October to 2 November

  UNSCOM 20—sixth chemical weapons inspection.

  One

  Chemical agent monitors and individual protective equipment.

  1 Dates for entry/exit into/out of Iraq.

  2 UNSCOM denotes "UN Special Commission".

  3 Not including UN or IAEA employed UK nationals.

  4 Brought forward at short notice.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency in the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction under Security Council resolutions 687 and 707.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have made substantial progress in dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction—WMD—capability in the 22 inspections which have been mounted since May 1991, despite deception and obstruction by Iraq in flagrant breach of its obligations under Security Council Resolutions 687 and 707.

  SCR 687 required Iraq to make a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all the items related to its WMD programmes. In making its original declaration, Iraq denied having a nuclear weapons programme or a biological weapons programme, and declared only some 11,000 chemical munitions and only 52 ballistic missiles, with no mention of a supergun. Revised declarations by Iraq and subsequent inspections have revealed: an enormous covert nuclear weapons development programme; a biological research programme for military purposes; some 46,000 filled chemical munitions, 79,000 unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of chemical weapon agent and some 3,000 tons of chemical precursors; 62 ballistic missiles and supergun assemblies and parts. We do not believe that the full extent of the Iraqi WMD programmes has yet been uncovered.

  Under the terms of SCR 687, items relating to Iraq's WMD programmes are to be destroyed, removed or rendered harmless. Inspectors have so far supervised the destruction of 62 ballistic missiles; 10 missile launchers, 18 fixed Scud missile launch pads, 11 dummy missiles, 32 ballistic missile warheads, 127 missile storage support vehicles, a substantial amount of rocket fuel, an assembled 350 mm supergun, components for 350 mm and 1,000 mm superguns, 1 tonne of supergun propellant and over 11,800 unfilled chemical munitions. In addition, inspectors have confirmed the destruction, by coalition bombing, of several missile repair and production facilities. Plans are now in hand for the destruction of the chemical munitions and bulk agents. Destruction of the equipment used in Iraq's nuclear weapons development programme has begun and the IAEA is preparing to remove nuclear weapons usable material from Iraq.

  At present sanctions apply to all exports to Iraq other than food, medicine and essential civilian supplies for humanitarian purposes. Under paragraph 22 of SCR 687
  56
  sanctions will be lifted only when the Security Council agrees that Iraq has completed all the actions concerned with the destruction of its WMD. Even then all states will be required to prevent the sale or supply to Iraq of arms, weapons technology and military training facilities for the foreseeable future, that is, until a further decision of the Security Council.

  Moreover, Iraq's ability to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction in future should be precluded by the stringent monitoring and verification regimes embodied in two detailed plans approved under SCR 715 on 11 October. One plan, submitted by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 10 of SCR 687, covers chemical weapons, biological weapons and ballistic missiles. The other, submitted by the director general of the IAEA pursuant to paragraph 12 of SCR 687, covers the nuclear field. The plans entered into force with the adoption of SCR 715 and will remain in force until otherwise determined by the Security Council.

  Kenya
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Kenya regarding their relations with Renamo.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the beginning of this month, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs sent a message to the Kenyan Foreign Minister expressing the hope that Kenya would continue to use its influence in the region to promote peace in Mozambique. The Secretary of State also thanked President Moi of Kenya for his part in persuading Renamo to cease attacks on the Limpopo corridor.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Yugoslav National Army requesting it not to use cluster bombs in the present fighting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our EC partners have repeatedly called on all sides to respect the ceasefire agreements in their entirety.

  Mr. Anson Na Yong
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the post in Guatemala about the death of British citizen journalist, Mr. Anson Na Yong; what statement has been issued by the post or his Department
  57
  on Mr. Yong's death; when letters from the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists to him about Mr. Yong's death will be answered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The British embassy in Guatemala is following the Guatemalan investigation into the murder of Mr. Anson Na Yong closely. An initial report was received and forwarded to the United Kingdom coroner. The embassy is pressing for a further progress report.

  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government or British diplomatic posts to issue statements on the death of British nationals overseas.

  The International Federation of Journalists, whose letter was acknowledged on 14 August 1991, asked to be kept informed through the National Union of Journalists. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replied to the National Union of Journalists on 14 October 1991.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Open University
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent he proposes to enhance the broad coverage of the Open university's methods of imparting higher education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The university is playing a prominent part in the development of new course delivery methods and technologies, with the support of the block grant it receives from the Department of Education and Science. I have every confidence that it will continue to do so when it is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  English GCSE
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research was undertaken before the proposal to change the GCSE key stage 4 assessment system in English was introduced.

  Mr. Eggar
  HM inspectorate has reported that coursework is of a variable quality, may fail to bring out the best in pupils at both ends of the ability range, and may be inadequately moderated. It has, however, reported that it has a generally positive effect on pupil motivation.

  Student Support
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what local education authorities have made no provision for discretionary awards to students in 1991–92 and 1990–91;

  (2) what local education authorities in the United Kingdom have reduced their budget provision for discretionary awards to students at (a) further and (b) higher education levels in real terms in 1991–92 relative to provision in 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information is not yet available about local education authorities' outturn expenditure on discretionary awards to students in 1990–91, or their budgeted expenditure in 1991–92. The 1991–92 revenue support grant settlement increased standard spending on education by 16 per cent. over 1990–91. It would have 58
  allowed authorities collectively to spend 9 per cent. more in 1991–92 than they themselves planned to spend in total on education in 1990–91. This would have permitted some growth in overall discretionary award provision if authorities so chose. I am not aware of any authority ceasing to pay discretionary awards altogether.

  Human Tissues
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what co-ordination exists between human tissue banks to prevent human material from going to waste.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Medical Research Council, which receives grant aid from my Department, provides funds for the foetal tissue bank at the Royal Marsden hospital, London and for nine brain tissue banks. The foetal issue bank is a national facility supplying material to more than 100 centres in the United Kingdom. It operates according to guidelines published in the "Review of the Guidance on the Research Use of Foetuses and Foetal Material"—the Polkinghorne report, Cm. 762. The M RC is reviewing the activities of the brain tissue banks to ensure that there is optimum co-ordination between them and their users. The health departments, university departments and medical schools may also be supporting other tissue banks. Information is not held centrally about these.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the advantages and preferred use of human tissues compared with animal tissues in research, testing and education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. This is a matter for the academic and research community.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the number, location and type of human tissue storage facilities which exist for the purposes of research, testing and education in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Such facilities may exist at higher education institutions, research establishments and hospitals. The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to expand the number of human tissue storage facilities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No evidence has been put to my Department which would indicate that such an expansion was needed.

  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools which(a) he, (b) the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and (c) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), have visited in their official capacity since assuming their different offices, with the date, purpose of visit, type of school and local authority concerned, in each case.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the

  59
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) have visited the following schools during our periods in office:

  Secretary of State

  Monday 26 November 1990

  Ribston Hall GM Grammar School

  (Gloucestershire)—General visit

  Wednesday 30 January 1991

  Stockingford First and Middle Schools

  Alderman Smith High School

  (Warwickshire)—General visit

  Wednesday 1 May 1991

  Jewish Free School

  (Camden)—General visit

  Thursday 9 May 1991

  Chaucer Technical School

  Canterbury High School

  (Kent)—General visit

  Friday 17 May 1991

  St. Pauls C of E VA School

  Hills Road 6th form College

  St. Ivo Secondary School, Huntingdon

  (Cambridgeshire)—General visit

  Friday 7 June 1991

  Rushcliffe School

  (Nottinghamshire)—To speak with Rushcliffe Teachers

  Tuesday 11 June 1991

  Bourne GM Primary School

  (Lincolnshire)—Visit to the first GM primary school

  Wednesday 12 June 1991

  Valley End CE Primary School

  (Surrey)—To look at SATs for 7 year olds in progress

  Wednesday 19 June 1991

  Chestnut Grove Secondary School

  (Wandsworth)—To talk to Parents and Teachers about opting out

  Friday 21 June 1991

  Harry Carlton Secondary School

  Djanogly CTC

  (Nottinghamshire)—General visit

  Monday 24 June 1991

  Westminster School (Independent)—Lunch with HMC

  Tuesday 16 July 1991

  The Arnewood School, New Milton

  (Hampshire)—Visit to the 100th GM school

  Tuesday 10 September 1991

  Old Swinford GM School (West Midlands)

  (Dudley)—General visit

  Wednesday 9 October 1991

  Fleetwood High School—General visit

  Rossall School (Independent)

  (Lancashire)—Meeting with Independent Heads of Independent schools

  Wednesday 16 October 1991

  RNIB Rushton Hall School, Rushton—General visit

  Friday 18 October 1991

  Nottingham High School

  (Nottinghamshire)—To address School Politics Society

  Friday 1 November 1991

  Rutland 6th form College

  Oakham School (Independent)

  (Leicestershire)—General visit

  60

  Tuesday 5 November 1991

  Holgate School, Hucknall—To participate in cross "Thank You" presentation by Armenian school children

  Wednesday 13 November 1991

  Leigh CTC (Kent)—General visit

  Minister of State

  Monday 3 September 1990

  Velmead County Junior School—General visit

  The Wavell Secondary School (Hampshire)—General visit

  Wednesday 5 September 1990

  Cyril Jackson Primary School (Tower Hamlets)—General visit

  Hallfield Infant and Junior School—General visit

  North Westminster Community Upper School—General visit

  St. Marylebone CE Secondary Girls' School—General visit

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School (GM) (Westminster)—General visit

  Friday 7 September 1990

  Deptford Green School—General visit

  Brindishe Primary School (Lewisham)—General visit

  Friday 28 September 1990

  Sevenhills Infant and Junior School (Leeds)—General visit

  Gateshead CTC (Gateshead)—General visit

  Thursday 4 October 1990

  Pope John RC Primary School—General visit

  Fulham Cross School—General visit

  Addison Primary School (Hammersmith and Fulham)—General visit

  Wednesday 17 October 1990

  Canterbury Cross Junior and Infant School (Birmingham)—General visit

  Friday 19 October 1990

  Longhill Secondary School—General visit

  Woodingdean County Primary School (East Sussex)—General visit

  Tuesday 6 November 1990

  Queensbridge School (Birmingham)—General visit

  Wednesday 7 November 1990

  Grandpont Nursery—General visit

  Cheney Upper School (Oxfordshire)—General visit

  Thursday 15 November 1990

  Holme Middle School (Bradford)—General visit

  Monday 19 November 1990

  Grove Street Primary School—General visit

  The Oldershaw School—General visit

  Eastern St. Marys CE Controlled School (Wirral)—General visit

  Friday 30 November 1990

  Central Newcastle High School (Independent)

  (Newcastle upon Tyne)—General visit

  The Kings School (Independent)

  (North Tyneside)—General visit

  Friday 25 January 1991

  Christchurch Junior, Middle and Infant School

  (Hertfordshire)—General visit

  Friday 1 March 1991

  Greenhead Grammar School

  (Bradford)—General visit

  61

  Monday 4 March 1991

  Padgett Street—General visit

  Victoria Primary School

  (Staffordshire)—General visit

  Tuesday 5 March 1991

  Kingshurst CTC

  (Solihull)—General visit

  Monday 15 April 1991

  Primrose Hill High School

  (Leeds)—General visit

  Wednesday 22 May 1991

  Roundhay St. Johns Primary School

  (Leeds)—Turf digging ceremony

  Wednesday 12 June 1991

  Broadfields Infants and Junior School—General visit

  Holland House

  (Barnet)—General visit

  Thursday 13 June 1991

  Lauriston Primary School—General visit

  Haggerston Secondary School

  (Hackney)—General visit

  Tuesday 18 June 1991

  Harehills Middle School

  (Leeds)—General visit

  Monday 24 June 1991

  Grendon Primary School—General visit

  Barry Lower School—General visit

  Kingsley Park Middle School (GM)

  (Northamptonshire)—General visit

  Monday 1 July 1991

  Fairfield High School—General visit

  Kingstone High School—General visit

  Michaelchurch Escley Primary School

  (Hereford and Worcester)—General visit

  Wednesday 3 July 1991

  Sir William Collins Secondary School

  (Camden)—General visit

  Monday 15 July 1991

  St. Stephen's CE First School

  (Leeds)—Presentation of awards

  Monday 22 July 1991

  Canon Slade School—General visit

  Turton High School

  (Bolton)—General visit

  Tuesday 23 July 1991

  Alma Primary School

  (Enfield)—General visit

  Tuesday 24 September 1991

  Surbiton High School (Independent)

  (Kingston upon Thames)—Presentation of Awards

  Monday 7 October 1991

  Belle View Girls' School

  (Bradford)—Visit CALTEC project

  Wednesday 6 November 1991

  West Leeds Girls High School

  (Leeds)—Launch of West Leeds Inner City Project and General visit

  Mr. Michael Fallon, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  17 September 1990

  Alderman Leach Infant and Junior School, Darlington (Durham)—General visit

  62

  25 February 1991

  Grangefield Secondary School, Stockton

  (Cleveland)—General visit

  13 March 1991

  Brighton Hill Community School, Basingstoke

  Four Lanes Junior School, Basingstoke

  (Hampshire)—General visit

  15 March 1991

  Bramley Sunnyside Infant School

  Newman Special School

  Brinsworth Comprehensive School

  Badsley Moor Junior School

  (Rotherham)—General visit

  22 March 1991

  Sir Thomas More RC VA School, Newcastle

  (Newcastle upon Tyne)—General visit

  Woodlawn Special School, Whitley Bay

  (North Tyneside)—General visit

  18 April 1991

  Whitefield School, Walthamstow

  (Waltham Forest)—General visit

  30 April 1991

  Eastnor Parochial VC Primary School, Ledbury

  John Kyrle County High School, Ross-on-Wye

  (Hereford and Worcester)—General visit

  20 May 1991

  Harrogate Grammar School

  (North Yorkshire)—General visit

  24 May 1991

  Heckmondwike Grammar School, Heckmondwicke

  (Kirklees)—General visit

  17 June 1991

  Beehive Lane County Primary School, Chelmsford

  Chelmer valley High School, Chelmsford

  (Essex)—General visit

  5 July 1991

  Huntington Junior School, York

  Mill Hill County Primary School, Northallerton

  Northallerton Grammar School

  (North Yorkshire)—General visit

  10 July 1991

  Portesham School, Dorchester

  Hardye's Comprehensive School, Dorchester

  Castlefield Comprehensive School, Dorchester

  St. Osmund's Middle School, Dorchester

  Manor Park First School, Dorchester

  (Dorset)—General visit

  12 July 1991

  Seaham Comprehensive School, Easington

  Peterlee Tertiary College, Peterlee

  (Durham)—General visit

  15 July 1991

  Little Thurrock Primary School, Grays Thurrock

  Aveley Comprehensive School, Purfleet

  (Essex)—General visit

  16 July 1991

  Bishop Ramsey CE School, Ruislip

  (Hillingdon)—General visit

  17 July 1991

  Okehampton Primary School

  (Devon)—General visit

  27 July 1991

  Rokeby Boys' Independent Prep School, Kingston

  (Kingston upon Thames)—General visit

  63

  18 September 1991

  Truro Sixth Form Centre

  Tresillian County Infant School, Truro

  Roseland Community School, Tregony

  St. Gluvias County Primary School, Truro

  Heamoor County Primary School

  (Cornwall)—General visit

  19 September 1991

  St. Agnes CE vC Primary School

  Tresco vC Primary School

  Isles of Scilly County Secondary School

  Carn Gwaval vC Primary School, St. Mary's

  (Isles of Scilly)—General visit

  27 September 1991

  King Edwin Primary School, Mansfield

  Rufford Comprehensive School, Mansfield

  Colonel Frank Seely Comprehensive School

  (Nottinghamshire)—General visit

  4 October 1991

  Borrowdale CE Primary School

  Ethenside Comprehensive School, Cleator Moor

  Fairfield Junior School, Cockermouth

  (Cumbria)—General visit

  11 November 1991

  Broomhaugh CE First School, Riding Mill

  Queen Elizabeth County High School, Hexham

  (Northumberland)—General visit

  Sport (Sponsorship)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the amount of financial sponsorship of sport by the private sector each year over the last 10 years, showing the percentage change.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government welcome the contribution of private sector sponsorship towards the funding of sport in the United Kingdom. The mutual benefits to sport and business are clear from the increase in such funding over the past 10 years. The available figures are:

  Year

  Sponsorship (£ millions)

  Per cent, increase

  1980

  30

  —

  1981

  60

  100

  1982

  85

  42

  1983

  100

  18

  1984

  110

  10

  1985

  125

  14

  1986

  145

  16

  1987

  160

  10

  1988

  180

  19

  1989

  210

  17

  Sports Council
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the annual grant aid provided for the Sports Council since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's annual grant aid to the Sports Council of Great Britain since 1979 has been:

  Year

  £ millions

  1979–80

  15·580

  1980–81

  19·288

  1981–82

  21·032

  1982–83

  28·002

  64

  Year

  £ millions

  1983–84

  27·123

  1984–85

  28·603

  1985–86

  30·112

  1986–87

  37·349

  1987–88

  37·150

  1988–89

  38·412

  1989–90

  41·877

  1990–91

  143·747

  1991–92

  46·653

  1 Plus an extra £1 million.

  British Boxing Board of Control
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the British Boxing Board of Control.

  Mr. Atkins
  I had a constructive meeting with the BBBC on 16 October. My purpose in calling the meeting was to encourage discussion between medical specialists and the BBBC on safety in professional boxing. I understand that, as a result, the BBBC is intending to instigate regulations to include most of the recommendations proposed at that meeting.

  Manchester Olympic Bid
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Manchester Olympic Bid Committee; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment and I met the chairman of the bid committee together with representatives from the British Olympic Association and Manchester city council on 5 November to discuss progress with the bid.

  School Swimming Facilities
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the survey of school swimming facilities to be completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  Schools and local education authorities have been asked to complete and return survey questionnaires to the Department by 22 November 1991. The survey is intended to provide a picture of the access schools have to swimming pools; the number of pools on school sites; the recurrent costs associated with swimming provision; and the cost of building learner pools where necessary. This information will help determine when a requirement can be introduced for all primary age pupils to be taught to swim.

  Sport (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to curb drug abuse in national and international sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have sought to counter doping through the establishment in 1988 of the Sports Council's independent drug testing programme, and through the announcement in February 1991 of a carefully targeted package of measures to tackle steroid misuse including the creation of a new criminal offence of
  65
  supplying steroids to minors. Internationally, the Government have ratified the Council of Europe's anti-doping convention which came into force in 1990 and have signed a trilateral anti-doping agreement with the Australian and Canadian Governments.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding rate relief for sports clubs and its effects on extra-curricular school sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have had many representations on the subject of rate relief for sports clubs, several of which concern its effects on sport beyond the curriculum. The Government are particularly keen to encourage more links between schools and local sports clubs in order to provide opportunities for sport outside school hours. We recognise the value of the facilities that many non-profit making sports clubs provide for the local community. That is why we have retained the arrangement from the previous rating system whereby non-profit making sports clubs can receive up to 100 per cent. rate relief at the discretion of their local authority. The Government will refund to local authorities 75 per cent. of any relief awarded. The preliminary results of a Department of the Environment survey show that more non-profit making sports clubs received more relief in 1990–91 than in 1989–90, the last year of general rates.

  Sport Expenditure
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the Government's annual expenditure on sport in 1979 and in the last year available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Central Government's annual grant to the four Sports Councils of the United Kingdom in 1979–80 was £21·490 million and the estimated outturn for 1991–92 is £60·49 million.

  Local government gross revenue expenditure in England and Wales on sport and recreation in 1979–80 was £333 million and in 1989–90 it was £1,028 million.

  Champion Coaching Project
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the champion coaching project.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am delighted that earlier this year I was able to announce an additional £700,000 for the Sports Council to fund champion coaching. This pilot scheme is being run by the National Coaching Foundation and is providing sporting opportunities beyond the school curriculum for more than 6,000 children in 24 areas across England and in 11 sports. Six hundred local coaches will also be trained to work with young people. Champion coaching will provide examples of successful local partnerships which I hope will encourage the creation of further sporting opportunities for young people at local level.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table listing(a) the amounts of capital allocations for county and voluntary controlled schools for 1992–93 for which each local
  66
  education authority in England has bid, (b) the amount of capital grant for voluntary aided schools in their area which each local education authority has asked of his Department and (c) the totals of (a) and (b) for each local education authority and with totals in respect of (a), (b) and (c) for England, and for each region.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested is provided in the table. The figures are taken from the capital plans for 1992–93 submitted by each local education authority to the Department. It must be borne in mind that, in most cases, the bidding process produces figures which far exceed any sum which the authorities concerned seriously expect to receive or need to spend in the year in question.

  Capital Expenditure Bids 1992–93 Bids for annual capital guidelines (ACGS) for county and controlled schools and bids for capital allocations for voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  (£000s)

  County and controlled schools

  VA and SA Schools

  LEA

  Barking

  6,032

  467

  Barnet

  8,022

  1,201

  Bexley

  11,413

  1,918

  Brent

  15,884

  71

  Bromley

  6,702

  71

  Croydon

  15,120

  1,000

  Ealing

  27,633

  798

  Enfield

  13,460

  1,927

  Haringey

  5,256

  214

  Harrow

  16,865

  95

  Havering

  6,434

  50

  Hillingdon

  8,937

  100

  Hounslow

  16,540

  847

  Kingston

  1,946

  99

  Merton

  8,808

  174

  Newham

  13,017

  390

  Redbridge

  6,271

  66

  Richmond

  3,968

  *388

  Sutton

  8,205

  1,821

  Waltham Forest

  19,505

  0

  Total outer London

  220.018

  11,697

  City of London

  0

  0

  Camden

  3,292

  1,160

  Westminster

  18,767

  3,146

  Greenwich

  5,334

  340

  Hackney

  8,041

  193

  Hammersmith

  5,329

  1,712

  Islington

  9,718

  2,256

  Kensington

  5,976

  1,677

  Lambeth

  6,773

  1,141

  Lewisham

  13,287

  815

  Southwark

  3,244

  826

  Tower Hamlets

  14,484

  1,520

  Wandsworth

  31,477

  120

  Total inner London

  145,722

  14,906

  Birmingham

  29,760

  4,550

  Coventry

  8,816

  2,849

  Dudley

  7,058

  1,377

  Sandwell

  6,056

  409

  Solihull

  1,766

  910

  Walsall

  3,769

  20

  Wolverhampton

  14,281

  760

  Total West Midlands

  71,506

  10,875

  Knowsley

  5,718

  235

  Liverpool

  14,995

  4,972

  St. Helens

  4,406

  1,040

  67

  (£000s)

  County and controlled schools

  VA and SA Schools

  Sefton

  4,665

  1,879

  Wirral

  6,854

  230

  Total Merseyside

  36,638

  8,356

  Bolton

  3,349

  6,307

  Bury

  2,807

  330

  Manchester

  29,020

  1,538

  Oldham

  8,235

  1,138

  Rochdale

  12,757

  474

  Salford

  9,228

  707

  Stockport

  2,643

  34

  Tameside

  3,697

  336

  Trafford

  3,223

  1,656

  Wigan

  8,266

  1,567

  Total Greater Manchester

  83,225

  14,117

  Barnsley

  7,233

  100

  Doncaster

  1,071

  10

  Rotherham

  5,770

  64

  Sheffield

  19,986

  1,124

  Total South Yorkshire

  33,460

  1,298

  Bradford

  27,433

  1,219

  Calderdale

  3,220

  46

  Kirklees

  5,795

  798

  Leeds

  39,449

  5,570

  Wakefield

  10,295

  206

  Total West Yorkshire

  86,192

  7,839

  Gateshead

  8,599

  757

  Newcastle

  24,804

  1,171

  North Tyneside

  7,954

  454

  South Tyneside

  6,738

  84

  Sunderland

  8,637

  1,384

  Total Tyne and Wear

  56,732

  3,850

  Avon

  8,904

  568

  Bedfordshire

  7,860

  865

  Berkshire

  21,703

  350

  Buckinghamshire

  12,412

  957

  Cambridgeshire

  27,817

  1,809

  Cheshire

  26,912

  3,012

  Cleveland

  6,357

  392

  Cornwall

  18,476

  344

  Cumbria

  19,402

  1,989

  Derbyshire

  41,748

  657

  Devon

  19,165

  2,578

  Dorset

  20,581

  2,900

  Durham

  27,604

  1,562

  East Sussex

  51,921

  586

  Total allocations and annual capital guidelines for England in cash and constant terms

  Schools

  Local Authority schools and colleges

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  Local Authority schools and colleges and voluntary aided and special agreement

  Cash

  Constant index

  Cash

  Constant index

  Cash

  Constant index

  81–82 prices

  81–82 prices

  81–82 prices

  81–82 prices

  81–82 prices

  81–82 prices

  1981–82

  355

  355

  100

  24

  24

  100

  379

  379

  100

  1982–83

  338

  316

  89

  22

  21

  87

  360

  336

  89

  1983–84

  295

  263

  74

  19

  17

  71

  314

  280

  74

  1984–85

  300

  255

  72

  25

  21

  87

  325

  276

  73

  1985–86

  315

  254

  71

  31

  25

  104

  346

  279

  74

  1986–87

  297

  231

  65

  28

  22

  92

  325

  253

  67

  1987–88

  306

  227

  64

  32

  23

  97

  338

  250

  66

  1988–89

  387

  267

  75

  43

  30

  123

  430

  296

  78

  1989–90

  352

  228

  64

  56

  36

  150

  408

  264

  70

  1990–91

  485

  290

  82

  74

  44

  184

  559

  334

  88

  1991–92

  538

  300

  85

  84

  47

  195

  622

  347

  92

  1992–93

  590

  315

  89

  96

  51

  214

  686

  366

  97

  68

  (£000s)

  County and controlled schools

  VA and SA Schools

  Essex

  58,584

  163

  Gloucester

  16,294

  2,277

  Hampshire

  21,795

  534

  Hereford and Worcester

  11,168

  1,156

  Hertfordshire

  23,519

  509

  Humberside

  22,411

  947

  Isle of Wight

  6,425

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  96

  0

  Kent

  39,215

  3,403

  Lancashire

  31,020

  5,279

  Leicestershire

  25,923

  890

  Lincolnshire

  26,435

  794

  Norfolk

  9,347

  628

  North Yorkshire

  10,160

  733

  Northampton

  8,087

  489

  Northumberland

  7,343

  857

  Nottingham

  20,549

  1,353

  Oxfordshire

  20,179

  2,315

  Shropshire

  10,403

  12

  Somerset

  9,071

  2,866

  Staffordshire

  18,048

  2,364

  Suffolk

  18,343

  569

  Surrey

  19,319

  *3,077

  Warwickshire

  10,802

  1,058

  West Sussex

  11,093

  759

  Wiltshire

  12,175

  708

  Total Shire Counties

  778,666

  52,309

  Total England

  1,492,158

  125,247

  Notes:

  1 The figures should be treated with caution. They represent the initial bids made by local education authorities and take no account of subsequent amendments to those bids.

  2 All figures are in thousands.

  3 The bids for capital allocations at voluntary aided (VA) and special agreement (SA) schools do not include bids for Minor Improvement Projects. Grants for minor works will be allocated to LEAs by formula.

  4 VA and SA schools bids marked "*" include an estimate for committed projects (ie based on 1991–92 submissions) since LEA bids for such expenditure have not yet been received.

  School Grants
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish an updated version of the table given in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn, 22 November 1990,Official Report, columns 184–86, to include estimates for expenditure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The updated information requested is provided in the table.
  69
  Notes:

  1 All figures are in # million. All figures are rounded.

  2 Constant prices are calculated at 1981–82 prices using the latest DGP deflators. The index for 1981–82 is set at 100.

  3 The cash allocation figure for voluntary aided and special agreement schools for 1992–93 is provisional.

  4 The Department provides grant aid at a rate of 85 per cent. on governors' capital expenditure at voluntary aided and special agreement schools.

  5Capital grant figures for the voluntary aided sector for 1981–82 are not separately identifiable from a single building grant figure which includes repairs and maintenance. The capital figures shown for this year are based on an apportionment of the building grant figure using the average ratio between capital and repairs during 1982–83 and 1985–86.

  6 Prior to 1981–82 local authorities did not receive block allocations, but were notified annually in the context of a rolling programme of a limit on the value of the building starts in the following year.

  7 Local authority allocations for 1989–90 and subsequent ACGs exclude institutions which were transferred to the PCFC sector in 1989–90.

  Parents Charter
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many parents there are in(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom with children up to the age of 18 years in full-time education who will be assisted by the parents charter.

  Mr. Eggar
  Up-to-date information on the number of families with children in full-time schooling is not readily available. The latest available pupil numbers show that in 1990–91 there were 7 million pupils up to age 18 studying full-time in schools in England. The latest available equivalent figure for the United Kingdom, for 1989–90, is 8·4 million.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to lay before Parliament the statutory order to introduce modern foreign languages into the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today published the document setting out the attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum, and have laid an order which will bring this document into effect from the beginning of the next school year for pupils starting key stage 3—those aged 11 in September 1992.

  The introduction of the requirements for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum will ensure that pupils follow challenging courses of study, leading to high standards and worthwhile levels of achievement by pupils of all abilities.

  My right hon. Friend and I have also today laid a new order under section 3(2)(b) of the Education Reform Act which specifies in a single list instead of two schedules the languages eligible to be the national curriculum foundation subject.

  Copies of all these statutory documents have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to lay before Parliament the statutory order to introduce the geography short course for key stage 4 in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Following publication in March of the national curriculum geography order, I have published today a document setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for the geography short course at key stage 4 and have laid an order which will bring this document into force from August 1994.

  The publication of this document will ensure that pupils who at age 14 are not taking a course in geography leading to GCSE, are offered the choice and flexibility to continue
  70
  to study geography. I expect that the short course will facilitate the development of useful combined GCSE or vocational courses: for example, geography with history, economics or a modern foreign language. My aim is to create the conditions which will enable pupils to maximise their potential.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making a separate order to introduce geography short course arrangements in Wales.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students were recruited to courses of initial teacher training in 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A survey undertaken by my Department shows that 28,792 students entered courses of initial teacher training in England and Wales in October 1991. This is a dramatic increase of 4,998 or 21 per cent. over 1990. Intakes to primary courses were 13·5 per cent. higher and intakes to secondary courses were 32·4 per cent. higher than last year. There were increases of 35 per cent. or more in intakes to courses in the secondary shortage subjects of mathematics—42 per cent.—science—38 per cent.—technology—57 per cent.—and modern languages —35 per cent.

  Overall recruitment into teacher training this year is at its highest level for any year since 1976. It is especially encouraging to see particularly good increases in shortage subjects. It shows that teaching is once again an attractive career option for young people and that we should not face any serious problems of teacher shortage over the next four years.

  I am placing in the Library the detailed results of the survey.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning aid for overseas development in eastern Europe this winter.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have a continuing programme of technical assistance to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union under the know-how-fund. We discuss this regularly with recipient Governments. I am not aware of our having received any recent requests for further development assistance which relate specifically to the forthcoming winter.

  OECD
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Development Ministers of OECD countries on aid matters over the last month.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I met the director general of the Japanese Economic Co-operation Bureau on 30 October. We had wide-ranging discussions on aid issues.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what overseas aid projects now taking place in Sri Lanka are helped with funding from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chalker
  I announced to the House on 22 July the withdrawal of our conditional offer of £3 million assistance for Sri Lanka and said that any new major commitments would be considered in the light of Sri Lankan Government policies and practices including the position on human rights. No such projects have been agreed since then. A list of ongoing projects agreed before July has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  British Waterways
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing Government support for British Waterways at 1991 prices for each year since 1979, and planned support for the next three financial years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The table shows in current prices the Government's grant to the British Waterway Board—BWB—in the years 1979–80 to 1991–92, together with BWB's external financing limit, EFL, which covers grant and borrowing from the National Loans Fund, for the same period.

  Grant

  External financing limit

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  1979–80

  22·8

  52·7

  25·7

  59·5

  1980–81

  25·6

  50·0

  30·0

  58·7

  1981–82

  28·4

  50·6

  31·6

  56·3

  1982–83

  37·6

  62·6

  39·3

  65·4

  1983–84

  39·8

  63·3

  40·8

  64·9

  1984–85

  41·8

  63·3

  42·8

  64·8

  1985–86

  43·5

  62·5

  44·1

  63·3

  1986–87

  43·9

  60·9

  44·8

  62·2

  1987–88

  44·0

  58·0

  45·0

  59·3

  1988–89

  45·9

  56·3

  44·9

  55·1

  1989–90

  48·1

  55·5

  46·5

  53·6

  1990–91

  49·3

  52·8

  49·4

  52·9

  1991–92

  48·5

  48·5

  48·5

  48·5

  The BWB's external financing limit for 1992–93 has been set at £51·1 million, with guideline figures of £49·3 million and £46·4 million for the following two years.

  The figures for grants fluctuate from those in the BWB accounts, since the accounts figures are amounts receivable in respect of the year, while the above figures are the amounts actually paid in each year.
  72
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a regulatory agency for British Waterways.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what implications the policies contained in Cm. 1559, the citizens charter, have for waterways users or customers of the British Waterways Board.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I expect the board to take full account of the principles of the citizens charter in the customer charter it is developing. In particular, I expect to see that it has effective means for dealing with complaints from users and customers.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the British Waterways Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), met the chairman of the board on 11 November to discuss a number of matters of current interest, including financing; the board's proposed customer charter; and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the British Waterways Bill.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Since this private Bill was deposited on 27 November last year, a number of letters have been received from hon. Members, and the public, concerning various clauses. The replies have made it clear that it is for the promoters, British Waterways Board, to satisfy Parliament of the case for the Bill.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation affecting the regulation of navigation rights on inland waterways.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No; but as recommended by the Environment Select Committee, we are starting a review of the navigation functions of British Waterways Board and the National Rivers Authority. It is too early to say whether legislation will result from this review.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue the consultation paper on implementing the EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Many aspects of the directive have already been implemented, for example through the registers on pollution emissions set up under the Environmental Protection Act. I hope to issue a consultation paper on full implementation in the new year.

  Wildlife Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department has carried out or commissioned within the last two years on(a) the epidemiology of diseases of wild animals and (b) marine mammal strandings, including small cetacean species.
  73
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has commissioned the following studies, some of which cover both issues to some extent.

  (1) Directorate of Rural Affairs. Wildlife Disease Investigation Review by the Natural Environment Research Council. Final Report published in February 1991 and obtainable from NERC.

  (2) Water Directorate. Effects Monitoring using marine mammals by NERC Sea Mammal Research Unit. Final report awaited.

  (3) Water Directorate Seal Epidemic and Pollutant levels by NERC/SMRU. Summary of main findings presented to the British Association for the Advance of Science 91 Conference held in Plymouth in August 1991. Published by the Association.

  (4) Water Directorate Thymulin in Seals by United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals. Final report available from DOE.

  (5) Water Directorate. Variation in the prevalence of fish disease in Scottish Coastal Waters by Scottish Office, Agriculture and Fisheries Department Laboratory. Final report expected in 1992.

  (6) Water Directorate. Wildlife disease—Co-ordination and sampling of marine mammal strandings by the Institute of Zoology, London. Final report expected in 1993.

  Leicester (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit Leicester.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no plans to visit Leicester in the immediate future.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to ratify the Montreal protocol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom ratified the Montreal protocol in 1988. Next month we intend to ratify the amendments to the protocol that were agreed at the second meeting of the parties held in London last year, if possible in concert with our Community partners.

  River Quality
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants are available for improving river water quality and regenerating waterside land.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grants specifically aimed at improving river water quality are not available from my Department. The responsibility for monitoring and regulating river water quality lies with the National Rivers Authority. There are a number of initiatives, such as derelict land grant, which may provide assistance in the regeneration of waterside land.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the figure of £900 million of public expenditure in energy efficiency improvements in the public sector housing stock set out in his first annual report of the ministerial group on energy efficiency was arrived at; and to which financial year it relates.

  Mr. Yeo
  This figure is based on the proportion of annual expenditure on the public sector housing stock, directed at the improvement of heating and insulation, identified in the 1986 English house condition survey. The estimate of £900 million relates to the financial year 1990–91.

  Local Authority Pension Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 November Official Report, column 16, if the equalisation of survivor benefits will extend to past contributions.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The intention is to provide equal benefits for widows and widowers in respect of service from 6 April 1988. In addition, women will be able to bring earlier service into account if they wish, either by means of reductions in their future lump sums, or by paying additional contributions. Children's pensions will be payable from 6 April 1988 in respect of the whole of their deceased parents' service.

  Council House Sales
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the total figure held by each district authority in the south-west in capital recepits from the sale of council houses for(a) 1990 and (b) the total held at the end of the first financial quarter for the current year.

  Mr. Yeo
  The total of usable capital receipts held by each authority at 31 March 1991 is given in the table. Capital receipts held from the sale of council houses are not separately identifiable. Data on the stock of receipts are collected on an annual basis only.

  Usable receipts held at 31 March 19911

  '000

  Bath

  2,691

  Bristol

  2,696

  Kingswood

  1,011

  Northavon

  3,164

  Wansdyke

  3,881

  Woodspring

  3,369

  Caradon

  1,032

  Carrick

  1,402

  Kerrier

  174

  North Cornwall

  2,207

  Penwith

  1,440

  Restormel

  954

  Isles of Scilly

  292

  East Devon

  4,324

  Exeter

  5,428

  Mid Devon

  9

  North Devon

  3,951

  Plymouth

  16,259

  South Hams

  3,485

  Teignbridge

  1,239

  Torbay

  4,164

  Torridge

  1,510

  West Devon

  1,989

  Bournemouth

  2,887

  Christchurch

  6,160

  East Dorset

  1,873

  North Dorset

  8,739

  Poole

  977

  Purbeck

  2,295

  West Dorset

  1,753

  Weymouth and Portland

  6,936

  Cheltenham

  2,257

  Cotswold

  0

  Forest of Dean

  1,198

  Gloucester

  920

  Stroud

  2,752

  Tewkesbury

  411

  Mendip

  1,230

  Sedgemoor

  1,425

  South Somerset

  2,547

  Taunton Deane

  1,724

  West Somerset

  1,898

  75

  '000

  Kennet

  22

  North Wiltshire

  2,268

  Salisbury

  5,344

  Thamesdown

  10,491

  West Wiltshire

  5,835

  1 Latest available information.

  Cable Laying, Yorkshire
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what application was submitted to the appropriate local authority for planning permission to lay a new cable between Menwith Hill station and Hunter's Stones post office tower in north Yorkshire; who submitted the application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: No application has been received by the local planning authority or my Department in respect of new cables between Menwith Hill station and Hunter's Stones post office tower in North Yorkshire.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information his Department has on the number of people without permanent accommodation or in temporary accommodation for each local authority area in the first three quarters of 1991;

  (2) what information he has on the number of people in private sector housing provided by each local authority in the first three quarters of 1991;

  (3) what information his Department has on the number of people in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation for each local authority area in the first three quarters of 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: The available information relates to households dealt with by local authorities under the homelessness provisions in part III of the Housing Act 1985, which is reported quarterly to the Department.

  I have today placed in the Library a table for the second quarter of 1991—the latest available—showing (a) the number of households who applied to local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act, (b) the number for whom local authorities accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation (c) the number in temporary accommodation at the end of June and of those, (d) the number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (e) the number in private properties leased by local authorities and (f) the number which having been accepted remain in their current accommodation until permanent accommodation becomes available.

  Additionally the number of persons sleeping rough on census night was published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its "Supplementary Monitor on People sleeping rough", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now proposes to bring into force section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: Section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act is closely
  76
  linked with and will be implemented together with the waste management licensing provisions of the Act. Under the target timetable for the implementation of part II of the Act, announced on 25 June 1991 by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, these provisions are due to come into effect in April 1993.

  The consultation paper "Improving environmental quality—the Government's proposals for a new, independent Environment Agency" issued on 3 October 1991, stated that the timing of these provisions will need to be reviewed in the light of the emerging timetable for the agency.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the experience of each member of the London Docklands development corporation in running public transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: The present chairman of the London Docklands development corporation previously served as deputy chairman of London Regional Transport and was the first chairman of the DLR; Sir John Garlick was formerly permanent secretary of the combined Departments of Transport and Environment; and Sir Robert Reid, formerly chairman of British Rail, is an LDDC nominee to the board of DLR Ltd.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he plans to give the same statutory powers to the London regional passengers committee regarding consumer representation on docklands light railway once it has passed to London Docklands development corporation as currently exist under London Transport's management of docklands light railway;

  (2) what powers the London Docklands development corporation has to call upon the British transport police; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he plans to ensure that travelcard and through ticketing arrangements will continue to operate on the docklands light railway once it has been transferred to the London Docklands development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: These are all matters to be resolved as part of the process of transfer of responsibility for the docklands light railway from London Regional Transport to the London Docklands development corporation.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future management of the docklands light railway once the London Docklands development corporation has been wound up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]:No date for LDDC's wind-up has been set. But when the issue does arise, in keeping with the Government's overall policies, I would expect the docklands light railway to be operated by the private sector.

  Local Government Finance, Gloucestershire
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps using his powers under the local government legislation to prepare a report on the finances of Gloucestershire county council.
  77
  Mr. Key
  No. My right hon. Friend has no such powers.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in England for which management agreements are currently being negotiated, giving details of the damage threatened in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is confidential to English Nature and the owner-occupier of the SSSI.

  Tenants Charter
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants in(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom currently have statutory rights under the tenants charter.

  Sir George Young
  At 1 April 1990, in England, there were 4,370,000 tenants of local authorities and 563,000 tenants of housing associations, making a total of 4,933,000. The Department does not hold figures on the total number of secure tenants who meet the conditions of part IV of the Housing Act 1985 and have statutory rights under the tenants charter. For information about Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I refer my right hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Contributions
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people at the upper earnings limit pay national insurance contributions on overtime payments.

  Mr. Jack
  At least 3 million people benefit from the existence of the upper earnings limit and this includes those who normally earn below the upper earnings limit but whose earnings in any one week including overtime exceed the weekly limit. The upper earnings limit ensures such people pay national insurance contributions on only part of their earnings from overtime.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail the movement in pensioners' real earnings(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) 1979 and to the latest date and compare each with the underlying movement in average earnings for the same period.

  Mr. Newton
  My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that the average real value of the earnings of those single pensioners in work, or pensioner couples where one or both were working, increased by 36 per cent. between 1979 and 1988. This compared with a decrease of 6 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. The average real earnings of the whole economy rose by 1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979 and by 25 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of a single pensioner and a pensioner couple on income support; and what is the total weekly value of their income from all benefits.
  78
  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) earlier today.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give an estimate of the trend in pensioners' real incomes since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the average total net income of single pensioners and pensioner couples increased by 34 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.

  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the increase in income support rates for a pensioner couple aged over 80 years as a result of this year's uprating.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A pensioner couple aged over 80 years will see an increase in their income support of £7·70 at the April 1992 uprating. This is an increase of 8·7 per cent. We have increased the higher pensioner premium by £1·50 for couples and £1 for single people, in addition to the 7 per cent. increase in income support personal allowances and premiums. This premium is payable to disabled pensioners aged 60 to 79 as well as those aged over 80.

  Elderly People (Services)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken to improve DSS service to the elderly.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are continually improving our services to the elderly. The recent introduction of the local office computer network has already resulted in a speedier service for pension claims and inquiries. For example, retirement pension claims which were taking, on average, 20 days to clear in 1990–91 are now taking only 16 days.

  National Insurance
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the weekly cost to someone on(a) £25,000 a year and (b) £30,000 of the removal of the national insurance upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Jack
  If the national insurance upper earnings limit were to be removed, someone on earnings of £25,000 or £30,000 a year would pay extra contributions of approximately £8·17 or £16·82 respectively each week.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are expected to benefit from the increased funding from residential care and nursing home income support limits announced in October 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) earlier today.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total full-year cost of increases in income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes announced in the last two years.
  79
  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated full-year cost of the April 1991 increase in residential care and nursing home limits is £225 million and for the April 1992 increase £190 million.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on help available to people with disabilities in the form of grants from the European Community.

  Mr. Scott
  The EC does not make grants to individual disabled people. However, disabled people do benefit from the EC's programmes which I listed in my reply to the hon. Member on 12 November at column 475.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will receive a deputation of Sheffield people with disabilities to discuss the distribution of European Community grants.

  Mr. Scott
  If the hon. Member will write to me with details I will certainly consider the request.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received any recent representations about the funding by the European Community for helping people with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received no such representations recently.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money from the European Commission budget has been spent on projects for disabled people in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Scott
  We are seeking the information requested direct from the Commission. I will write to the right hon. Member.

  Sir Patrick Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the moneys available from the European Community for helping people with disabilities in member states.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) on 12 November at column 475.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount income support for a single person will be reduced, pursuant upon the introduction of the council tax, based on today's rate of payments made to compensate for 20 per cent. community charge payments, assuming no increase in the cost of living.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether it is his intention on enactment of the Local Government Finance Bill to take into account in the re-rating of social security benefits the abolition of the obligation to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of the community charge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 3.8 of the Government's consultation document "A New Tax For Local Government", which is in the Library.
  80
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the proportion of his Department's spend to be transferred to local authorities when his policy of community care is implemented.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We shall transfer to local authorities, via the Department of Health, the expenditure which would otherwise have been incurred by this Department on the care element of income support for people who enter residential care and nursing homes after 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 12 November,Official Report, column 477, what is the estimated cost for 1991–92 of the adjustments made to income-related benefit levels in April 1989 in respect of the 20 per cent. poll tax contribution, excluding the first 50p of the adjustments for single persons and the first £1 for couples.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The full cost of the adjustment made to income-related benefit levels is estimated to be £580 million at 1991–92 benefit levels. Reducing the personal allowances for all the income-related benefits by 50p for single people and £1 for couples would save an estimated £210 million.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–7–8 Family Expenditure Surveys at 1991–92 prices and benefit levels.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions to simplify the war pensions scheme; and when changes are expected to be implemented.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Copies of the scrutiny report which made proposals, inter alia, for the simplification of the war pensions scheme have been given to members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and various other ex-service organisations for them to comment. The report was discussed at the June meeting of the committee and will be discussed again at its next meeting on 5 December. Comments are still being received and in general they are supportive. Any changes agreed as a result of these discussions will be implemented as soon as possible. One small change, the absorption of dependency allowance into the basic war disablement pension, has already been announced to be implemented from next April following the unanimously favourable response to this improvement.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each quarter since October 1989, how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants in Coventry have(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rules, showing those whose claim was in doubt due to (i) not actively seeking work, (ii) refusing suitable employment and (iii) availability for work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon.
  81
  Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants applied for grants or loans under the social fund during the 1990–91 financial year in Coventry; how many were turned down and for what reason; what was the average size of the grant, crisis loan or budgetary loan in the year; and if he will provide comparable figures for the first three and six months of 1991–92.

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

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make inquiries to ascertain the number of districts currently paying social fund loans where there is considered to be serious risk to health and safety.

  Mr. Scott
  All Benefits Agency districts are currently paying social fund loans to applicants where there is considered to be a serious risk to health and safety.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what social fund directions concerning the provision of assistance to people entering, or returning to, the United Kingdom from abroad have been issued in the last 18 months; and what they are, to whom they apply, the period for which they are in force and where they are published.

  Mr. Scott
  On 7 September 1990 special, temporary, arrangements were introduced to provide help from the social fund for people returning to or entering the United Kingdom, where the entry or return was as a result of war or hostilities in the country which they left. or a neighbouring country. These arrangements were made as a result of the Gulf crisis.

  Details of the special arrangements were published in the main social security leaflet "Which Benefit" (FB2) and also in various other leaflets. The availability of this help was also mentioned in the annual report on the social fund 1990–91, Cm 1580, presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 July 1991.

  I have today sent the hon. Member a copy of the Secretary of State's directions, which give effect to the special arrangements, and a copy will be placed in the Library. The directions apply to any person who fulfils the conditions laid down in them. The directions will be withdrawn on 27 November, since the purpose for which they were put into place no longer exists. The directions are as follows:
  "Settlement or resettlement loan
  Direction 3A. A Social Fund payment may be awarded to assist an eligible person to meet, for a temporary period following his entry or return to the United Kingdom from another country, reasonable settlement or resettlement expenses where his entry or return is a result of war or hostilities in that or a neighbouring country.
  Travel grant
  Direction 4A. A Social Fund payment may be awarded to assist an eligible person with reasonable travel, accommodation or subsistence expenses arising from his or a member of
  82
  his family's entry or return to the United Kingdom from another country where the entry or return is as a result of war or hostilities in that or a neighbouring country to the extent that those expenses have been or are likely to be necessarily incurred whilst in transit between the port of entry and his likely place of stay in the United Kingdom.
  Direction 6A. An award within direction 4A is referred to in these directions as a travel grant and shall not include a determination that it is repayable.
  Settlement or resettlement loans and travel grants
  (a) Eligibility
  Direction 29A. A person is eligible for a settlement or resettlement loan under direction 3A or a travel grant under direction 4A if he is aged 16 or over and the conditions of that direction are satisfied and the applicant has no available or insufficient resources to meet the expenses to which that direction relates at the date when the application is determined.
  (b) Effect of capital on settlement or resettlement loans Direction 29B. Where the total capital resources available to the applicant and his partner exceed £500 (£1,000 if the applicant or partner is aged 60 or over) any settlement or resettlement loan which would but for this direction be awarded, shall be awarded only to the extent that the amount exceeds the amount by which the available capital resources exceed £500 (£1,000 if the applicant or partner is aged 60 or over).
  (c) Maximum amounts
  Direction 29C. The maximum amounts which may be awarded—

  (a) under direction 3A is £2,500 but, if an amount has already been awarded under that direction to the applicant or his partner, the maximum amount must not exceed the difference between any sum already repayable to the Social Fund by the applicant or his partner in respect of any award under that direction and £2,500;

  (b) under direction 4A in respect of the applicant and each member of his family is £500."

  Local Offices (Coventry)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current targets for his Department's offices in Coventry for meeting(a) delivery and (b) accuracy for benefits administered.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The setting of targets for district offices 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.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) permanent and (b) temporary staff were employed in each category in his Coventry offices on 1 January 1991, 1 May 1991 and at the latest convenient date; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The staffing of district offices 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.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the services his Department offers for people in Coventry; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Customer service in local offices 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.

  Pension Schemes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the regulations following his review of the disclosure requirements for occupational and personal pension schemes, including unit-linked personal pension plans, to which he referred in his answer of 20 December 1990,Official Report, column 318, will be laid.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Draft regulations on disclosure requirements for occupational and personal pensions schemes, including unit-linked personal pension plans, were referred to the Occupational Pensions Board. The board has now reported to the Secretary of State and regulations will be laid shortly.

  Mrs. Edith Hirons-Wing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that Edith Mary Hirons-Wing of 9 Molesworth road, Cobham, Surrey receives her pension book this week.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that a retirement pension order book was sent to Mrs. Hiron-Wing on 1 November 1991.

  Mrs. Mary Trotter
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mrs. Mary Bryant Trotter, reference FY/123/63A, submitted a claim for night allowance; and if he will ensure that a decision on her claim is sent to her within the next week.

  Mr. Scott
  Mrs. Trotter applied for higher rate attendance allowance on 13 March 1991. The result of her application together with payment in full was sent to her on 15 November 1991.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set up an inquiry into the extent of closing of benefit claim offices during official opening hours.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so. Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 90, what information is available concerning the closure of benefit claim offices during official opening hours; and what procedures or regulations govern closure during official opening hours and what discretion is left to the local managers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The closure of benefit claim offices 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.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 83, on transitional protection, if he will
  84
  break down the number of income support transitional claimants by pensioners, long-term sick and disabled, families with children and others.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Pensioners

  10,000

  Long-term sick and disabled people

  5,000

  Families with children

  5,000

  Others

  10,000

  Total

  25,000

  Note: Figures may not sum to total due to rounding.

  Source: Based on modelling using data drawn from the May 1990 Annual Statistical Enquiry of Income Support recipients.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much rates of family credit will change in April 1992.

  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much rates of family credit will change in April 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  In April 1992 all the rates which are used in the calculation of family credit will be increased by 7 per cent. Families receiving family credit will also gain from the increase in child benefit.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Coventry are currently receiving family credit; and what were the figures six and 12 months ago.

  Mr. Jack
  Operational issues of family credit are 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.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the total value to a two-child family of the three increases in child benefit which will have taken place in the year to April 1992.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the total value to a two-child family of the three increases in child benefit which will have taken place in the year to April 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) earlier today.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the full-year cost of the last two increases in child benefit and next April's proposed increase.

  Mr. Jack
  The full-year cost in 1992–93 will be over £1 billion. This represents an increase of 22 per cent. compared with the expenditure for 1990–91.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Housing)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of his Department's plans to ensure there is sufficient housing provision for members of the armed forces prior to their discharge into civilian life.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Serving members of the armed forces are provided with accommodation, if they require it, as part of their conditions of service.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential properties his Department currently owns in the Woolwich area; how many of these are empty; how many have been disposed of during the past five years to(a) public housing bodies or (b) private purchasers; and how many are currently being leased to public housing bodies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the Ministry of Defence owned 628 such properties in the Woolwich area, of which 87 were empty.

  Over the past five years 100 properties have been disposed of, 90 to public housing bodies and 10 to private purchasers. Currently there are no properties on lease.

  MV Polar Circle
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the MV Polar Circle will(a) embark Royal Navy helicopters, (b) be armed and (c) embark Royal Marines during its forthcoming voyage to the South Atlantic.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For HMS Polar Circle's forthcoming deployment in the Antarctic, she will embark two Royal Navy Lynx helicopters and a small detachment of Royal Marines. The ship will not be armed.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to answer questions on plans for future nuclear tests.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Libya (Minefield Records)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available to Libya relevant second world war minefield records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Libyan authorities were provided with maps and information about British minefields in Libya in 1981.

  Northern Ireland (Duty Tours)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average interval between short tours of duty in Northern Ireland for(a) infantry battalions and (b) armoured regiments over the last decade.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been our aim that intervals between all emergency tours—deployments to Belize, Cyprus and the Falkland islands as well as Northern 86
  Ireland—are 24 months long, but this has not always been achieved. Only one armoured regiment has served in the short tour role in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years; the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment in 1990. The reduction in tension in Europe means that units based in BAOR can now be used on a more frequent basis; this should ensure that the 24-month tour interval target is usually achieved.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been made to deploy British units of the rapid reaction corps to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Units assigned to the ACE rapid reaction corps, ARRC, will be available to undertake short, unaccompanied operational tours in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—as is at present the case with units assigned to NATO. So far as United Kingdom-based units are concerned, this represents no change from the present situation. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear during the defence debate, in future, while still maintaining appropriate levels of readiness for NATO tasks, it will be possible for units based in Germany to take a greater share of these tours than when we faced the threat of surprise Soviet attack.

  Anti-Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from his Soviet and American counterparts regarding their bilateral discussions on anti-ballistic missile systems.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States has kept us and other allies informed of progress on this issue. The details of discussions between Governments are confidential.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what declassified assessments have been made available by his Department on the changes that have occurred in the development plans of Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences in the last decade.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 13 November,Official Report, columns 613–14.

  Friendly Fire
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions have been taken to prevent friendly fire incidents as a result of investigations into the incident on 26 February 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I outlined in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on 24 July,Official Report, column 706, the board of inquiry into the incident in the Gulf on 26 February recommended that a study should be initiated to identify a suitable air recognition system for future use. The board also recommended that target co-ordinates should be specifically included in mission briefs and acknowledged by pilots. Studies in pursuit of these recommendations are under way.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further action has been taken to investigate the death
  87
  of nine British soldiers on 26 February 1991 in the Gulf as a result of friendly fire, since the publication of the board of inquiry's report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 15 November,Official Report, column 704.

  Northern Ireland (Duty Tours)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what length of time is required for(a) infantry battalions and (b) armoured regiments to train for short tours of duty in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The same length of time is allocated for pre-tour training for both infantry battalions and non-infantry units, but during that time the latter receive additional tuition on those infantry skills with which they are not familiar.

  Regiments
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 338, to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), if he will set out the timetable for the merging of the Ulster Defence Regiment with the Royal Irish Rangers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The planning date for the merger of the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers continues to be July 1992. The formation of a single general service battalion from the 1st and 2nd Battalion of the Royal Irish Rangers will follow as soon as practicalities permit, but should be complete in 1993.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths have occurred in the British military advisory team to Zimbabwe over the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has been one. A sergeant was killed in September 1990 as a result of a road traffic accident.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Soviet Forces: Reductions
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any, and if so what, reductions in the armed forces of the Soviet Union have been effected in the last six months.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in the past six months the Soviet ground forces have released at least 25,000 men from service. The Soviet navy has been reduced from 1,140 to 1,079 units and the Soviet air force has made a reduction of about 50 combat aircraft and about a further 300 combat-type aircraft from training roles. There is no evidence of any reduction in the size of the Soviet air defence or strategic rocket forces.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that extremely interesting Answer. Will he indicate whether the slow process of reductions in defence expenditure in the Soviet Union is continuing? Furthermore, will he indicate whether the reduction in the naval units consists mainly of the scrapping of obsolete submarines?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, yes, reductions are continuing. The Soviet navy remains a potent threat to NATO. The break up of the Warsaw Pact has not significantly reduced the ability of the Soviet navy to threaten NATO's interests. Modernisation of the Soviet navy is continuing despite a slowdown in the majority of warship and submarine building programmes.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it correct that defence policy in the Soviet Union is now the responsibility of a council of the defence ministers of the republics? How realistic are we in lumping together the armed forces of the republics and calling them the Soviet armed forces? Will the Minister bear in mind that circumstances are changing rapidly and that a misleading impression can be given about the strength of Soviet forces?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has made a good point. I suspect that we read the same article in today's Times. The Government support President Bush's proposal for discussions with the Soviets on nuclear command and control arrangements and how they might be improved in order to provide more protection against accidental and/or unauthorised use. Our basic concern is that the Soviet's nuclear fords are safely and securely under central control and that there are no new independent nuclear states.
698
However, it is the responsibility of the Soviet authorities to ensure the security of their nuclear weapons in concert with the leaders of the republics as necessary.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the Minister have any information about the extent to which the Soviet Union continues to modernise and develop nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that we are making a significant contribution to the recent initiatives of Presidents Bush and Gorbachev with a reduction of our strike aircraft squadrons from 11 to eight, the withdrawal of all our maritime tactical nuclear weapons to land storage and by giving up our battlefield nuclear capabilities.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is there any evidence to show that the newly-established independent Soviet states are not willing to conclude the nuclear and conventional arms reductions mainly because they wish to maintain them in order to keep their independence?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have a full answer to the question asked by the noble Lord. Nuclear policy is a matter for the Soviets and the United States of America.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the position of the nuclear arsenal in the Ukraine and who has the keys?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in the light of the article published in The Times this morning the situation is somewhat uncertain.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, have the Government made representations to the Soviet governments pointing out that, if they are prepared to ease their crushing maintenance of all kinds of weapons, and cease any further development of nuclear weapons, we and our allies will be encouraged to help their economic situation and the production of food that is now urgently needed for their people?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as always the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, makes a good point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed the problem with Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin in Moscow immediately after the coup.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for repeating my question. I asked the noble Earl to what extent he has any information as to how much the Soviet Union continues to modernise and enhance its nuclear weapons armoury. He did not answer that question.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall come clean with the noble Lord. I do not have that information with me today but I shall write to him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that one of the most serious issues facing NATO members and indeed the world today is the

699
disintegration of the Soviet Union? Is it not also the case that the greatest reductions in armed forces in the Soviet Union were possibly effected yesterday or the day before by President Yeltsin and the presidents of the Ukraine and Kazakhstan taking control of their own nuclear arsenals? Do Her Majesty's Government know whether President Yeltsin or the presidents of the Ukraine and Kazakhstan carry a suitcase containing a nuclear button? Can the noble Earl shed any light on the problem?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall attempt to do so. We welcome President Gorbachev's agreement to eliminate all ground-launched short-range weapons, which is clearly a major step in the right direction. It is Her Majesty's Government's view that seceding republics should sign the non-proliferation treaty and respect their obligations under it.

Mental Patients: Community Care
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the arrangements for mental patients discharged from hospital into the community are working satisfactorily.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the care programme approach was implemented in April this year and all regional health authorities have confirmed they have complied. We have asked regional health authorities to provide thorough evaluations of the implementation after the first full year of operation. It is at this point that it will be possible to judge the full effectiveness of the new arrangements.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government have failed to implement the Mental Health Act 1983 in which they promised support and accommodation for people leaving mental hospitals, and that as a result many ex-mental patients are now homeless, living in squats, enduring squalor and not receiving proper medication.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the essential elements of the care programme approach are the systematic assessment of patients' health and social care needs and the identification of a key worker to monitor that the agreed care package is delivered. There has been a substantial increase in community care services; for instance, an increase of some 76 per cent. in day hospital places and a 51 per cent. increase in local authority day places over the past 10 years. There have also been increases in local authority residential places and in voluntary and private residential provision. The number of consultant psychiatrists has increased by 32 per cent. and the number of community
700
psychiatric nurses by 212 per cent. We may not be quite where we should like to be, but we are certainly moving in the right direction.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, those figures are welcome. However, is the noble Baroness not aware that people dealing with the situation believe that firm evidence shows that an increasing number of people in the category we are discussing are to be found among the homeless in London and other inner cities? It is obvious that those people are not being catered for. The problem is urgent. Can the Minister say when something will be done for that group, who are the people most in need?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are certainly some homeless mentally ill people sleeping rough in every significant town and city. However, by the very nature of the groups, there is little or no hard information about numbers. We are all sadly aware that there is a particular and visible concentration of such people in central London. That is why the department has implemented a special initiative to assist them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is not the accurate answer to my noble friend's Question, no? Is the Minister aware that more and more mentally ill people are appearing in court having committed petty crimes, mostly in their search for food or shelter? Unfortunately, some of those people end up in prison because there is nowhere else for them to go. That cannot be satisfactory. Surely the answer to the Question is, no.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is not so. The answer to the Question is that we are implementing a new policy. We are half way through the process of implementation. If the noble Lord has read the consultative document The Health of the Nation, he will know that it identifies mental health as one of the targeted areas. Of the £1.5 billion which has been spent by the health service on the specialist mental services, over half still supports the 40,000 beds in the old traditional hospitals. Clearly we must push ahead. The targeting intended as a result of the consultative document will ensure a planned approach to phasing out those traditional hospitals which are gobbling up so much of the resources.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that full implementation of the 1986 disabled persons Act would give mentally ill people the right to an assessment of their needs and the right to an advocate to speak on their behalf. Why have the Government consistently refused to implement all the sections of the 1986 Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the reason is that we believe that our community care plans, which have been incorporated in the National Health Service and Community Care Act passed last year, take over the responsibilities for many of those issues.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those provisions do not give mentally ill people the right to have an advocate to speak on their behalf?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, The Citizen's Charter indicates the need to help all members of the community including people with special needs. The Patient's Charter points to the special needs category as a matter on which to concentrate. A number of our initiatives, including the funding of many voluntary organisations which provide advocacy services, are directed at helping people and their carers to find the services they require.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the quality of service should be monitored? We do not need lots of percentages; we want actual figures of numbers of people and information on what is happening to them. The quality of service should be monitored and good practice developed and fully resourced. Has the noble Baroness noted the comments of her right honourable friend the Prime Minister who, in a reference to the charter, said last week that to ask for higher standards of service should need no justification?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness is asking for exactly what will be achieved by our care programme approach. As I said at the outset, we have asked regions to monitor and evaluate the effect of the new policy. The mental illness specific grant, which has been substantially increased this year, is also being monitored by the SSI. The worries of the noble Baroness are therefore being met.

ACE Rapid Reaction Corps
2.51 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood Lord Wedgwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they anticipate using units which form part of the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps for emergency operational tours or for garrison tasks elsewhere than in Germany or mainland Britain.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, units assigned to the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) will continue to be available to undertake short, unaccompanied operational tours in Northern Ireland, Belize and the Falkland Islands. With regard to the UK-based units it represents no change from the present situation. But, as the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in another place during the defence debate, in future it will be possible for units based in Germany to take a greater share of those so-called emergency tours, while still maintaining appropriate levels of readiness for NATO tasks, than when we faced the threat of surprise Soviet attack. Units assigned to the ARRC will not be drawn upon for garrisons in Cyprus, Hong Kong or Brunei.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But can he tell the House whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence agrees that conceptually the rapid reaction force is different from the forces assigned in Europe within NATO at the moment? Can he say that, as
702
such, it is indeed a rapid reaction force as opposed to what we now understand may be a nearly rapid reaction force? Also, do SACEUR and our allies in Europe agree that our units should be used for operations other than those to which they are assigned?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend asks a number of questions. The ARRC will have training standards and training and exercise schedules to validate those standards just as NATO forces do now. With regard to my noble friend's second point, assigned forces already participate in the ETP. Therefore no change is proposed. We will still be able to meet appropriate states of readiness for NATO tasks while undertaking short operational tours.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if units are to be borrowed from the ARRC for service elsewhere, how will it react rapidly? Is it supposed that we shall always have six months' notice, as we did in the Gulf war, of any necessity for the force to operate and therefore six months in which to train it?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, units assigned to NATO already take part in the ETP. Therefore again there is no change. We shall still be able to meet NATO readiness states while on short tours. In regard to the noble Lady's second point, the answer is no; ARRC units will train and exercise in peacetime for their role.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl correctly when he said that troops assigned to the ARRC will be available for garrison duty in Northern Ireland? If so, how does he explain the statement made in another place by the Secretary of State with regard to the ARRC's terms of deployment—that it must be capable of prompt deployment anywhere from the Arctic to the Mediterranean in response to any threat to NATO security frontiers? How can anyone trained specifically for garrison duties in Northern Ireland be rapidly deployed to the Arctic or the Mediterranean?
Further, perhaps I can ask the noble Earl to clear up a point in dispute. What proportion of British troops assigned to the ARRC will be territorials or reservists? As the noble Earl will be aware, NATO members were apparently told that territorials and reservists would constitute only 20 per cent. of the force. However, a ministerial letter stated that 26 per cent. of the British section of the AR RC would be territorials or reservists. Can he clear up that difference?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with regard to the first point made by the noble Lord, we are satisfied that the Army will be able to meet its future commitments. The new force structure was based on an assessment of our future commitments, both wartime and peacetime. We are satisfied that 41 infantry battalions will be sufficient to meet all our commitments, including Northern Ireland, while allowing for proper training for the Rapid Reaction Corps.

703
With regard to the noble Lord's second point concerning the Territorial Army, the great bulk of the TA element of the ARRC is in combat support roles such as the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Corps of Transport and the Royal Ordnance Corps. Those personnel do not undertake tours of duty in Northern Ireland which are carried out by regular forces.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House, should it be necessary to remove troops from Northern Ireland for the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps at a time of heightened danger when the Northern Ireland commitment has been reinforced, where those extra troops will come from to replace those removed?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The new force structure is adequate for our commitments, including a margin for flexibility and the unforeseen. However, I can reaffirm that all decisions on the amalgamations of the regular regiments are final. Those amalgamations will be implemented over the next three or four years. Should we find over that period that we have taken on a large number of extra commitments for one reason or another which the Army at its then size cannot meet, we shall clearly need to look again at the decisions taken.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would not some of those difficulties be more easily overcome if the Germans were able to make a contribution to our area of operations? What efforts are the Government making to help them free themselves in that direction, bearing in mind that it was the British Government in 1950 who imposed that prohibition on them?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the alliance as a whole is establishing the ARRC, which will be a multi-national force. Precise contributions have not yet been finalised. However, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are also contributing to the multi-national air mobile division. There will also be a multi-national division comprising contributions from NATO's southern region nations. The ARRC will also include other forces as made available by our allies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the best of British forces, being trained in desert warfare, can fight in the far north, as was the case in Narvik, they cannot be in two places at once? Would my noble friend therefore look again at his answer to my noble friend Lord Swinfen?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, again my noble friend makes a good point. As stated in previous answers, the Government believe we have sufficient forces to cover our commitments.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm the report in the Sunday papers that the King's Regiment, on a three-month tour in Northern Ireland, has had to be reinforced by a
704
sub-unit of the Green Howards? That is to be removed and we hope will be replaced by a sub-unit of the Black Watch.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not read that report in the Sunday press. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to harry the noble Earl; I do not mean to. But it is not good enough to say that his noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Elton made good points. The points need answering. Will the noble Earl be kind enough to investigate the answers to their questions? The first was in regard to how troops which are stationed in Northern Ireland and trained for Northern Ireland activities—which are quite different to the activities of the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps—will suddenly be removed in the event of a crisis and, secondly, who will replace them. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to write to me and copy the letter to the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Elton. I am sure that that will satisfy us.
Perhaps the noble Earl can answer my question too, again in writing. I am not asking for information across the Floor of the House. Can he say exactly what percentage of the British troops of the ARRC will be made up of territorials or reservists?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on all those points. However, as I understand it, if troops are to be removed from Northern Ireland, with the Soviet threat being somewhat diminished—I believe the word the noble Lord used was "suddenly"—there will be much more of a time lapse.

European Inter-Governmental Talks
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of recent developments they will now consider withdrawing from the intergovernmental conferences on economic and monetary union and political union.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government have played a full and constructive role in both inter-governmental conferences in order to ensure that the future development of the Community reflects Britain's fundamental interests. The Government will not withdraw from the negotiations, nor will they sign any agreement which does not safeguard those concerns.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Have the Government given consideration to some of the problems which exist at the moment and which could lead them into an almost impossible situation? For example, if war should break out —as it may well do with Iraq—our independent position on the Security Council may be challenged. Have the Government also considered the views expressed by many Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia? Are the Government going to answer some of the grave apprehensions of those countries were we

705
to become completely tied up in the forthcoming conferences? The Commonwealth has always stood by us and I believe that those countries are worthy of our consideration.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I shall deal with I he noble Lord's second question first. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is in regular touch with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. That is the avenue through which these matters are discussed. As regards incidents in the world in general, the conference at Maastricht will discuss stronger co-ordination of common foreign policy and impose a stronger commitment to a common foreign policy. That said, we keep an independent foreign policy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that over the past month or so the Government have given conflicting signs as to their hopes of agreement at Maastricht? Is he further aware that that has caused great confusion? We would like to be able to support the Government at Maastricht, but until they are clearer as to the range of policies involved it is very difficult to give them support. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that when the Prime Minister speaks in the debate in another place this week he will be more clear about the main point; which will have to be decided if the Government are to sign the treaty at Maastricht?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we expect to reach agreement at Maastricht, but substantial differences remain. The United Kingdom continues to negotiate constructively. We must keep our hand in those negotiations. We hope and expect to find ways forward which are acceptable to Parliament and to our European partners. I think I should say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that we have nothing against brisk debate among our supporters on matters of such importance and that, so far as the noble Lord's party is concerned, as regards increased Community competence, there is no Labour Party policy. Where immigration and asylum are concerned there is no Labour Party policy. Where qualified majority voting is concerned there is no Labour Party policy. There is no Labour Party policy as regards a common foreign policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Commission officials in Brussels are already openly discussing future inter-governmental conferences? They are saying in effect that if Maastricht does not give the Commission what it wants in the form of a super state, they will call further inter-governmental conferences until their mission is accomplished. In those circumstances does the Minister agree that it would be wise for Her Majesty's Government to invoke the Luxembourg compromise while the right still exists and call a meeting of all 12 member countries independent of the Commission so that they can jointly agree what action should be taken to curb the powers of the Commission?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will be read carefully by my colleagues. I am pleased to tell him
706
that the basic structure of Luxembourg is what we are returning to. That, as the noble Lord said, was broadly acceptable. However, there remain a large number of elements which the Government have argued against. Those include references to a federal goal, immigration policy within Community competence, qualified majority voting on foreign policy, extension of Community competence in the social area, enhanced powers for the European Parliament in the legislative field, and other matters.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, how can the noble Lord say that there is no Labour Party policy on Europe when we constantly have the benefit of these ex cathedra pronunciations from the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Bruce of Donington?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has me rarely stumped.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the desire of the leaders of the new united Germany to use these conferences to ensure that the prospect of economic might for their country never again leads them into temptation to use military might to achieve European hegemony? Does my noble friend agree that that alone is a very good reason for Britain to continue to play its full part in these crucial conferences?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with Germany, as with the rest of our Community conferences, I believe that there is an immense amount of goodwill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the proposals which will go before Maastricht are very serious? Did he see reports of the proposal from the Dutch this weekend that British people will be expected to have an allegiance to the EC or this new unitary form of government, which would affect their allegiance to Her Majesty? Before that happens, do the Government agree that we should have a referendum among the people?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have no proposals for a referendum. I note what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, 38 minutes have elapsed.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Grey, E.

707

Hanworth, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Lowry, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Renton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out; and
That a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday 27th November at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill covers three important aspects of local government—the performance standards of local authorities, the extension of compulsory competitive tendering, and the restructuring of local government. Before explaining the objectives of the Bill in detail, I should like to emphasise the thread that runs through all these provisions. It is that local government should be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people it serves.
Local government has made great strides already in the provision of efficient services and in achieving value for money. But there is much more to be done, particularly in encouraging, and perhaps sometimes cajoling, some councils to seek to emulate the performance of the best local authorities.
Part I of the Bill deals with measures implementing aspects of The Citizen's Charter. The White Paper sets out a major programme for the 1990s to improve the quality of service offered to the public and to make the public sector more responsive to the wishes of its customers. The programme sets out the mechanics for improving choice, quality, value for money and accountability. The citizen may not know or even care how services are organised, or exactly who provides them. But the citizen will almost certainly care very much about the way in which a particular service affects him or her personally. The charter will involve ordinary citizens in the process of improving local services by giving them the power to insist on value for money.
The provisions in Part I of the Bill, dealing with the performance standards of local authorities and the extension of compulsory competitive tendering, mark another step forward in turning our Citizen's Charter
708
commitments into action. The first seven clauses of the Bill refer to measuring and reporting the performance standards of local authorities; local authorities' response to their auditors' reports and recommendations; and the publication of information by the Audit Commission. I shall deal with each of those aspects separately.
The first point is that at present there is a wide gap in quality between the best local authority services and the worst and a wide range in the costs at which any given standard of service is provided. The White Paper promised legislation to require authorities to publish information showing what standard of service they are providing and at what cost. This reporting would be on a common basis so that meaningful comparisons could be made between authorities, bringing out the disparities between levels of services and cost. It is only by measuring both standards and costs on a common basis that the public can properly assess whether a local authority service represents value for money.
The second important point was that the Audit Commission would be given power to identify individual authorities by name when comparing one authority's performance with another's. We believe that establishing the facts and publicity will encourage authorities to achieve better value for money and the public to make judgments about their local authorities.
The requirement to be placed on the Audit Commission to give directions to bodies to publish information on their performance is descriptive of what they have achieved, not prescriptive of what they are to achieve. Bodies would be required to report standards and costs against a common yardstick. It may help to allay the fears of at least the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to point out that the comparisons of performance could take account of the particular standard of service chosen by an authority, as well as costs. It is important to emphasise that it will continue to be for local authorities to determine the specific standard of service they provide. The new information about standards and costs would be published in a common format so that the public would be able to make clear comparisons between one authority and another for a given standard.
Your Lordships will have noticed that a number of bodies are excluded from the proposals. That is because either their expenditure is minimal or because the nature of their work precludes meaningful comparisons. The one significant exception is health service bodies, which are excluded because they are directly answerable to the Secretary of State for Health. For health service bodies, performance standards can be achieved by administrative means, as I explained in the debate on the gracious Speech (at col. 204 of the Official Report of 5th November 1991.)
There are two points about the detail of directions to be given by the Audit Commission to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First, directions may apply to specified activities and to a limited range of bodies. That is necessary because of

709
the different duties and functions of different bodies and because time will be needed to formulate and phase in the directions.
The second point is that the Audit Commission is required to issue its direction only after consultation and must allow a minimum of three months before the start of the financial year. This will allow bodies to set up the necessary record keeping systems. If a longer period were needed, the Audit Commission would of course allow for that—if not, I am advised, it might well be challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness.
Auditors will be given a new duty to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for bodies to give effect to the directions. The provision has been carefully framed to minimise costs; it would not require the auditor to undertake detailed checks. It would, however, require the Audit Commission to undertake the studies needed to determine what directions to make on standards of performance and what information the Audit Commission should itself publish.
The second aspect of The Citizen's Charter to which I referred was local authorities' response to their auditors' reports and recommendations. All too often bodies take no action on auditors' reports and recommendations which are designed to achieve better value for money or tighter control in the interests of preventing financial irregularities. The Bill would impose a new duty on bodies to respond promptly, formally and in public. The duty would apply to what are commonly called auditors' public interest reports, which are made under the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The duty would also apply to such of an auditor's recommendations as he decided merited such treatment. Most recommendations deal with the minutiae of an auditor's work and would be expected to be left outside the scope of these proposals. Provisions are also included which would seek to ensure that the public could be fully informed about auditors' reports and recommendations.
The Bill would enable the Audit Commission to disclose information on three matters; first, which bodies fail to comply with the requirements on performance standards; secondly, which bodies contravene the accounts regulations, for example, by failing to publish their accounts on time; and, thirdly, which bodies are subject to an auditor's report, the contents of that report and the body's response.
The Bill also contains several enabling provisions relating to requirements for competition in the provision of local authority services. These provisions serve two principal objectives: first, we wish to implement the commitment in The Citizen's Charter White Paper to ensure that contractors have a fair chance to compete for local authority work; secondly, we wish to extend competition requirements to professional services.
The Government's objective is to ensure value for money in the services which local people receive. We believe that competition is the best way to secure this.
The Government's policy of requiring competition for manual services provided by local authorities has
710
proved highly successful. Marked efficiency improvements have been achieved in most of the services subject to competition. And this has generally been achieved without diminution in the quality of services. On the contrary, in many cases tighter contract specification and monitoring arising from the competition requirements has led to an improvement in quality.
Competition does not necessarily mean contracting out of service provision to private firms. Local authorities' own workforces may continue to win contracts if they demonstrate that they can deliver services as efficiently and as effectively as the private sector. Indeed one of the principal benefits of the Government's policy of compulsory competitive tendering has been the marked efficiency improvements which have been achieved by local authorities' own workforces.
Notwithstanding these successes, the Government are concerned that the framework in which competition operates has not always given the private sector a fair chance of winning contracts. Too many authorities have sought to bend the rules and cushion their in-house service organisations from the disciplines of competition. If private sector contractors do not believe that they have a fair chance of winning, they may no longer consider it worth their while to go to the time and trouble of bidding for work. The Government are determined to take action where it is necessary. We wish to secure consistency in local authority practice. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to define what is or is not anti-competitive behaviour.
The Citizen's Charter White Paper also indicated the Government's desire to extend competition to professional services. We have now looked at the experience of local authorities which already use the private sector to provide a range of professional services. We believe that there are immediate benefits available from introducing competition to engineering, architectural and property management services, arts facilities management, library support services and management of parking services. For most of these services, a well-developed private sector market exists which local authorities already use extensively.
The Government welcome the positive spirit in which many authorities have responded to the competitive challenge. A number of local authorities are leading the way in using the private sector to provide a range of professional and technical services. But other authorities have shown less enthusiasm. Noble Lords opposite will no doubt in the course of this debate tell me that competition should be voluntary, and that we should allow authorities to come to it in their own time. But the truth is that some authorities prefer to measure their power by the size of their workforces. They have not the least intention of extending competition voluntarily. The Government believe that all local taxpayers have a right to receive value for money in local services. We therefore propose to require all local authorities to subject the professional services which we have identified to competition.

711
Some of our proposals can be implemented under existing powers. But the Government recognise that tendering for some professional services may require modifications to the present tendering arrangements. We accept that for professional services such as architecture, considerations of quality are more complex than for manual services. Current procedures already allow for consideration of quality to be taken into account. But we judge that it may be appropriate to introduce into the procedures laid down in secondary legislation a quality threshold for the assessment of tenders for professional services to ensure that quality issues are addressed explicitly and fairly.
That is why the Bill contains enabling provisions for tendering procedures to be modified. We propose to use these powers when competition is extended to the construction-related areas.
The Bill contains a number of other measures aimed at improving competition and accountability. It provides for a quicker and more effective basis for action where a local authority fails to comply with the statutory requirements.
It contains a provision to require local authorities to make a copy of the detailed specification available for inspection by the public throughout the period of the contract. That will allow local people to judge for themselves whether services are being delivered to standard.
The Bill does not, however, contain provisions covering all services. In the longer term we propose to require local authorities to open up to competition core services such as finance, legal, personnel and computing. As a necessary first step, we propose that local authorities should be required to establish internal trading accounts so that the true cost of providing each discrete service within the core services may be identified. We intend to introduce separate legislation for these proposals once we have considered the responses to our current consultation exercise.
Part II of the Bill provides for the establishment of a new Local Government Commission for England. The new commission's main task will be to review the structure of local government within the shire county areas. We intend that the commission should carry out a rolling programme of reviews, examining the shire counties area by area with a view to moving to unitary authorities in these areas.
The commission will be looking for the most suitable administrative structure for each area which it examines. Responses to our consultation paper The Structure of Local Government in England from principal local authorities showed that the majority of them were keen to achieve unitary status. But 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 there should be no change to the existing structure—that is, if appropriate, that a two-tier structure should continue in some areas. We have already made it clear that we do not intend that there should be wholesale abolition of either county or district councils.
712
We believe that the best local government is local government which is built on communities and which reflects people's sense of identity with the place where they live. Local authorities based on real communities will be stronger local authorities, better able to voice local views and respond to local needs and circumstances. The Local Government Bill places a new emphasis on the importance of communities in shaping the structure of local government.
The new Local Government Commission will be required to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities as well as the need to secure effective and convenient local government in carrying out its reviews. The commission's terms of reference as laid down in the Bill are necessarily brief; the commission will obviously need further help in tackling the complex and detailed issues in each area.
Therefore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to issue guidance to the commission about the matters to which it will be required to have regard in carrying out reviews. We shall shortly be issuing to the local authority associations and other interested organisations a consultation paper about what this guidance should contain. We look forward to receiving their views on the matter.
We consider that the guidance should require the commission to assess community identities and the impact and effectiveness of any proposed new structure. It will be important for the commission to consider the most effective exercise of functions and delivery of services consistent with community identities and the wider public interest. There must be proper justification for the inevitable upheaval and costs involved in reorganisation. Any change to structure should be both worth while and cost-effective.
The Local Government Commission should consider the costs and benefits of change and the economy and effectiveness of service arrangements. It will be able to obtain advice from other expert organisations, in particular the Audit Commission, to assist it with its work. The Audit Commission will be able to advise the Local Government Commission on the likely impact of any proposed structural changes on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of service provision.
We appreciate that the prospect of any change to local government can appear alarming, particularly when it is uncertain what the outcome of the commission's reviews will be. Many of the responses to our consultation paper The Structure of Local Government in England commented on priorities for review, and we are still considering what would be the most balanced and manageable programme for the commission, including the areas where we know that there are strong feelings about change. We firmly believe that a rolling programme of reviews offers the best chance for the commission to look carefully at each area of the country and properly reflect the views of local people.
The Bill sets out a framework for the procedures the commission will follow in conducting its reviews,

713
including the arrangements for consultation with local authorities, local people and other interested organisations.
The commission will initiate a review with publicity and, if appropriate, outline proposals or options. There will then be an opportunity for local authorities and other interested parties to put forward their views and, if they wish, to submit proposals to the commission. The commission will then prepare draft recommendations and invite comments upon them. We are very anxious that local people should put forward their views about the local government structure that they want to see.
Once it has considered comments on the draft recommendations, the commission will draw up final recommendations which it will publish and submit to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. If necessary, he may ask the commission to carry out further investigations or to supply more information. Finally, he may lay an order implementing the commission's recommendations before Parliament.
As well as its reviews of local government structure, the Local Government Commission will also take on the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission. It will he responsible for any reviews of boundaries and electoral arrangements which are needed as a consequence of structural reviews and will also be able to carry out separate reviews of local government boundaries or electoral arrangements at the request of the Secretary of State. As now, there will continue to be reviews of electoral arrangements at mandatory intervals of not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years.
The Bill also provides for the abolition of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Any reviews begun by the boundary commission but not completed by the time it is abolished will be transferred to the new commission. The Bill also contains provisions to ease the transition between the two commissions by enabling the Secretary of State to implement recommendations submitted by the boundary commission before its abolition; and to direct the Local Government Commission, if it takes on a review which the boundary commission has begun, to dispense with any procedures which have already effectively been gone through by the boundary commission. Naturally, we are working with the boundary commission to secure an orderly transfer of business.
I have described how the Local Government Commission will operate once it has been established, what its functions will be and how it will arrive at its recommendations. The Local Government Bill also sets out the procedures for implementing the commission's recommendations which the Secretary of State for the Environment will follow.
Our aim is for the Local Government Commission to consider the structure of local government area by area in order that it can put forward recommendations tailor-made for each area on the most appropriate structure to meet its particular needs and circumstances. That calls for flexibility. The Bill, therefore, provides for the Secretary of State to make orders
714
changing the structure of local government area by area. Such orders will be subject to affirmative resolution procedures.
Part II of the Local Government Bill also contains enabling powers for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, subject to Parliament, to set up a residuary body or bodies or a staff commission or commissions. Such bodies have been found to be helpful in previous reorganisations; but I should add that we intend to set them up on this occasion only if the need for them is absolutely clear.
The object of the Bill is to put people first. Part I of the Bill seeks to implement important parts of the Citizen's Charter. For the first time electors would be given information in a readily understandable form which would enable them to reach judgments about the performance of their local authority. The result can only be an enhancement of accountability.
The Government believe that the ordinary citizen will also benefit from the extension of competition to additional council services. People have a right to expect their local authority to discharge its functions efficiently and at reasonable cost. That is what should matter—providing the best service to their area—not whether the service is provided by the council's own employees or by the private sector.
Finally, I cannot, of course, predict what the outcome of the proposed new commission's review will be, but we are all, I am sure, aware that many people are unhappy with the structure of local government in their area. For the first time electors will be consulted about the shape of local government that they want, and I believe that that will be widely welcomed.
I look forward to engaging in further debate as the House addresses the Bill in more detail. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Baroness Blotch.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for her exposition of this complex, although short, piece of legislation. We should like to support the Bill. That will come as no surprise to those noble Lords with a sense of history. It was as long ago as 1921 that Herbert Morrison—I cannot bring myself to call him Lord Morrison of Lambeth—published a pamphlet called A Citizen's Charter in which he said that the wise elector would not only press for a wise policy; he would vote for the candidates who really believe in that policy.
Even if it is 70 years late, the Conservative Party's conversion to citizens' rights is most welcome. It will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that more recently than 70 years ago the Labour Party, which, after all, knows a great deal more about local government than the Government ever will do because it runs most of it, has not just been putting forward proposals for greater accountability and efficiency in local government, it has been doing something about it. In April 1986, my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition introduced Labour's Charter for Local Services. We have had numerous pamphlets on the subject—Opportunity, Quality and

715
Accountability; Devolution and Democracy; London: A World Class Capital; and many more—and we have been showing how accountability and efficiency can work.
Labour councils have been taking the lead, as I shall show, in giving effect to citizens' charters. It is Labour councils that have developed the concept of guaranteed delivery; that have been taking the lead on customer contracts; producing citizens' charters for the citizens in their areas; producing information on best practice in local government services and giving advice about the progress towards that best practice across the country.
It is easy to say that we should like to support the legislation; it is much more difficult to agree with many of the provisions outlined—I use the word "outlined" advisedly—in the Bill. I wonder whether the Government paid enough attention to the difficulties which will arise when they implement the different parts of the Bill, especially those dealing with the Citizen's Charter.
I shall deal with the issue of league tables which are inherent in the way in which the Audit Commission will be expected to implement the Citizen's Charter. I understand that a good deal of debate is going on now in the Audit Commission as to how league tables can be implemented. There are those who believe that it may be possible to make do with as few as 80 measures of efficiency and equity. There are others who believe that as many as 400 different measures may be required.
It will be necessary for performance indicators for local authorities to take account of service costs, efficiency, and effectiveness and of the interests of what are called customers, although I believe that it is right to continue to call them citizens in the traditional way. We shall have to consider the amount of service provided; the use made of those services; the quality of service provided; the value for money; and, last but not least, the cost. Again, I say, "last but not least" advisedly, because it is not that we are opposed to including costs in the calculation of value for money; but there is a serious danger with the way in which the legislation is drafted that cost may be the be all and end all, at the expense of quality.
Those are difficulties which the professionals in local government, who have been trying to achieve those ends without much credit from the Government for many years, have already identified. So we shall have to come forward with many significant amendments to the Citizen's Charter provisions. Above all, we shall have to look to the Bill to do what the White Paper proposed in July and which, unaccountably, has been omitted from the Bill. I remind the Government that that White Paper talked about explicit standards of service and standards which are published and displayed prominently at the point of delivery. The Bill merely provides that they will be available for inspection by interested persons. Later in the Bill there is a great hoo-hah about what
716
is an interested person. We shall introduce amendments to reinstate in the Bill the Government's proposals for the Citizen's Charter published in July this year.
We shall also put forward amendments to require that not only should national objectives be set and published, but that there should be local objectives. Again, there should be no surprise at that: The Patient's Charter for the NHS which the Government have put forward and which the NHS itself proposes provides explicitly for local criteria as well as national criteria.
The Government's antipathy to any independence in local government is well known. Why are those provisions which are considered appropriate for the NHS not extended to local government? We shall be putting down amendments to ensure that local as well as national performance objectives are taken into account, are published, and are part of the range of information available to citizens about the performance of their local authorities.
We shall be putting forward amendments to ensure that the Audit Commission reaches agreement with the local authorities, and the local authority associations, on what the measurements should be. We shall also put forward amendments to exclude from the Bill those matters which are commercially confidential under compulsory competitive tendering.
We support, and we shall be able to do so without much difficulty, the proposed publication of auditors' reports and local authority responses. We support the publication of information on non-compliance by local authorities. But we believe that the Government's late conversion to a form of a Citizen's Charter for local authorities still smacks of the unhappy history of relations between central government and local government during the Government's lifetime. It still appears to us that the emphasis of the Citizen's Charter is on slapping down local authorities rather than on producing improved services for the people whom they represent.
I turn now to the issue of compulsory competitive tendering. As the Minister rightly said, we want the compulsory aspect removed from competitive tendering. We are not happy with many of the provisions relating to that matter. It is difficult to say that, because there is nothing in Clauses 8 and 11 which gives any indication of what is in the Government's mind so far as compulsory competitive tendering is concerned. We are used to Bills which say that the Secretary of State, "may by order" do this or something "as he thinks fit", and may specify items which can or cannot be taken into account, and what are competitive or anti-competitive conditions, and all that. That is commonplace. The Bill goes much further. This is the closest approach to the simple rule of government—that ideal legislation is that the Secretary of State shall do what he likes—that I have seen for a long time.
Clauses 8 to 11 are entirely enabling. They give all the powers to the Secretary of State; there is no indication whatever to the House or to Parliament as to what this part of the Bill will contain. That is for a very good reason. On the day the Bill was published

717
there was also published a consultative document going out to local authorities and others seeking responses by the end of January. I do not believe that the Whips will deny that it is the intention of the Government that the Bill will have left this House before 31st January. In other words, whatever may be the opportunity for another place to consider the Government's position—and I doubt whether it will have much chance to do so—as the Bill goes through this House, we shall have no idea what we are voting for or what we are being asked to support.
When the Minister rises, two weeks from now, to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill, I give notice now that I shall seek to amend that resolution to propose that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on Clauses Ito 11 and 12 to 27 and Schedules 2 and 3 of the Bill, but to exclude that part of the Bill which simply gives the Government power to do what they wish.
I know that there are countries in the world, even in Europe, where the government can put forward legislation which is not effectively debated by parliament. That is not our way, nor the way in which your Lordships would wish us to consider legislation of this kind. Anything I say about the detail of the Bill must be taken in that light; that the way in which the Government seek to proceed is entirely unsatisfactory and contrary to the responsibilities of the House as a revising Chamber.
Even if that were not so, even if the Bill were explicit and the clauses explained what the Government wished to do, what justification has been put forward for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering? Is it on the basis that savings have arisen from the compulsory competitive tendering that has taken place so far? Not at all. The Government have only collected evidence on the tender price of the newly competitive tendering process. They have not collected information on the actual expenditure, nor on the expenditure involved in letting the tenders, nor on monitoring the quality of service provided by the tenders. There is no objective, independent satisfactory evidence for the Government's assertion that compulsory competitive tendering so far has resulted in savings.
What about abuses of the competitive tendering procedures? I remind your Lordships that the Local Government Act 1988 provided for the Government to exercise sanctions if they were not satisfied with the tendering procedure. I ask the Minister to explain to the House when she winds up why there has been so little use of these sanctions. Can it be because the Government are satisfied with the bulk of tendering procedures? There is no other acceptable or plausible answer. Is compulsory competitive tendering to be extended because of improved standards? Here again, there is no evidence whatever to show that there are improved standards in local government services as a result of compulsory competitive tendering. Indeed, all the evidence is that the standards imposed by local authorities as a basis for tendering are the same as the existing standards rather than improved standards.
718
What is happening is that when the tender goes outside lower costs are being achieved by lower wages, less security, less effective monitoring of quality, less contract compliance, and no account being paid to the fair wages resolution. Again, I remind the House that when starvation wages are imposed on local authority workers, particularly women and part-time workers, that is the occasion when the burden shifts from the local authority to the family income supplement and to the social security budget. There is no real saving. What we have is misery and a benefit-dependent state; something the Government have in theory always set their face against.
The history is not good. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has moved from Lour to Troon, according to the list of Speakers, but she will recall that in Tayside the school cleaning contractors appointed by the Tayside regional council had to be sacked. It is a Conservative council like Harrogate where the council was unable to enter for the "Britain in Bloom" competition because the private contractors were too late. It is in Conservative councils like Croydon that 76 per cent. of people have expressed dissatisfaction at the quality of street cleaning.
The Government must decide whether their objective is, as they claim, to get the best value for money for local authority services or whether, as we suspect, their real purpose is to ensure that services are provided by the private sector.
There are many difficulties about the privatisation of professional financial and technical staff. I do not have time to go into them, although it would be easier to debate them and put down amendments about them if the Government would publish the PA Consulting Group report on the subject. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate in her closing speech that the Government will do that.
Above all, in compulsory competitive tendering procedures we have a conflict between the Government's proposals in the Bill and the proposals in the Citizen's Charter. I remind the House again that in the charter, published only in July this year, the whole thrust of page 33 is that the buyers shall set the standards. The whole thrust of the Bill is not that the buyers—that is, the local authorities and the people who elect them—should set the standards but that the Secretary of State should set them. That is what the Bill is about and it is what the Bill makes it possible for the Secretary of State to do.
There are other difficulties about what is called the "double envelope" procedure. I should have thought that after the shambles of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and of the competitive double envelope procedure the Government would shy away from opening one set of envelopes about quality and a second set about price. However, like the Bourbons, they learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing. There are alternatives and we shall constructively and helpfully seek to put them forward at Committee stage. Our intention is that at the end of the day we should have proposals which provide value for money and are not simply in pursuit of political dogma.
I turn finally to the major issue of Part II of the Bill which is structure. Here again we want a bipartisan

719
approach, not only because it is in the interests of us all nationally that anything that is agreed should be robust and should not be reversed after the general election when we win it, but also that it should be robust locally. It should command the genuine confidence of local authorities and their electors. It should provide a period of stability in local government which is what so many of the people writing to us now are crying out for.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence from the history of this Conservative Government that they understand the need for stability and for consensus on structure. Their approach throughout has been to take away powers and responsibilities from local authorities, but impose on them duties defined by central government. They describe this politely as producing enabling authorities.
I close with this point. In truth, the definition of enabling authorities as seen by, for example, Mr. Ridley —who saw the local authority as meeting once a year to sign the contracts and have a good lunch—is simply not adequate. The truth is that throughout the past 10 or 15 years the Government have ensured that our society has become too centralised. If one compares us with our partners in Europe, Germany has always had a federal structure. France and Spain have been moving towards a more decentralised structure. However, in this country every move taken, including many moves in this Bill, have been towards a greater degree of centralisation.
We are not opposing the setting up of a Local Government Commission. We welcome, and have welcomed, that suggestion for many years, long before the Conservatives started to speak about that. We welcome the thrust towards single tier authorities. We welcome the thrust towards greater flexibility in line with people's own wishes. Above all, we welcome the thrust towards small authorities. The theory inherent in Conservative local government reform in the 1960s and 1970s that big is beautiful has now been thoroughly exploded. However, we are worried about the assumption in the financial memorandum that the changes in structure will be virtually cost free. They will not be cost free either financially or in terms of the protection of citizens' rights. What will happen, for example, to county structure plans if we have small single tier authorities?
I note and appreciate the concerns of the Council for the Protection of Rural England on the need for consistency in environmental planning. These are difficult questions and they cannot be solved simply by setting up a Local Government Commission of five to 15 members and letting that commission get on with it. Of course the Government will not let such a Local Government Commission get on with it. The Government will lay down—one fears for party political reasons—the way in which the Local Government Commission will work. The whole programme of work of the Local Government Commission will be dominated by the directions of the Secretary of State.
I cannot envisage how the Local Government Commission for England, as planned, will work. The
720
commission needs to be much bigger and it needs to have panels which work on a regional basis. It needs to have an explicit assurance that its representatives will contain those with experience of local government; particularly those who have been councillors, but not for the area under investigation. The Local Government Commission needs to be representative of the wider community; in other words, it needs to be composed not purely of white, male, recently retired chief executives. Above all, it needs to be non-partisan. However, there are no assurances that that will be the case.
Careful thought needs to be given to the powers of the commission. At present the programme of work is to be determined by the Secretary of State. The commission should be making its own plans and it should be doing so with the deliberate intention of seeking experience in different parts of the country in terms of the different kinds of needs that exist. Many justifiable concerns have been expressed by the historic cities on the possibility that a rolling programme without any time limit may lead to confusion and even chaos. Clause 15(7) of the Bill allows far too wide a latitude to the Secretary of State in giving directions.
The commission is only to concern itself with England. By contrast, the Secretary of State for Wales in effect announced his decisions as regards local government structure and has not set up an independent commission. It seemed to many of us at the time that there was a good deal of consensus on what the new structures should be. However, I have been advised by the Association of Welsh Counties that there is no agreement. We shall have to reconsider whether Wales should have the same kind of local involvement and local decision-making as that which ought to be provided by the Local Government Commission.
I can hardly let this occasion pass without referring to London. It is extraordinary that there is no explicit proposal on whether London should remain the only capital city in Western Europe and the developed world without a city government. We shall certainly seek to ensure that there is a city government for London.
As regards the national parks, the Government agreed as recently as September that there should be independent authorities for the national parks. I have no doubt there will be amendments to that effect in the Bill.
One point about the structure debate that is dear to me concerns the issue of local neighbourhood and parish councils. I note from Clause 4 of the Bill that the Secretary of State can extend the Citizen's Charter provisions to parish councils. However, there is no indication that parish councils will be invited to take part in the restructuring of local government. There is no suggestion that they should on occasion—and where local people want this—take over powers which are now held by district councils. Local people should have that right and they should have the right to have parish councils in the cities and towns of England where—uniquely—they are denied those privileges.

721
This whole matter comes back to the Government's misinterpretation of what is meant by enabling local authorities. On the one hand, there is the view of Mr. Ridley to which I have already referred—I hope accurately —and, on the other, there is the view we hold of enabling local authorities. Our view is that such local authorities should have the will and the power to identify community needs and the resources to provide cost effective and imaginative responses to community needs. Such authorities should be encouraged to have good relationships with other agencies in local and central government. Above all, they should be encouraged to be responsible on a day-to-day basis for the citizens who live in their areas. Those concerns will he reflected in the way in which we approach the passage of the Bill through this House
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her careful and complete exposition of the contents of the Bill. The Long Title of the Bill refers to economy, efficiency, effectiveness and to structural and electoral changes. I hope that implicit in that are the concepts of fairness, accountability and democracy. I am sure we would all agree those are aims we should work to achieve.
None of us can be complacent that in local authorities run by our own parties those aims have necessarily been achieved. I hope I may pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We cannot be complacent where our local authorities are run by the Conservatives. I freely admit that we cannot be complacent in every case where local authorities are run by my party, the Liberal Democrats. I would have liked to have achieved as much innovation as my colleagues in Tower Hamlets. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we cannot be complacent about what is happening in every Labour run authority in the country. That applies particularly in London.
I welcome the fact that citizenship is firmly on the political agenda now. However, I cannot help feeling that we are misusing language. Do the provisions of this Bill and of other legislation support citizenship or do they seek to support something which is quite different, that is consumerism? The aims of the proposals should not just be to make for happier subjects but rather to give true rights to citizens. The term "charter" has an honourable history and perhaps the longest history in our constitution. However, that term is hijacked when it is applied to the half giving of half rights. The provision we see now is nothing like a Magna Charta and it is hardly even a parva charta. The currency is being devalued if we accept that what we are discussing is a true charter.
It is fortuitous that in the same Bill we have proposals for local government structure because open, representative and accountable government is the first stage in giving power to citizens. I prefer to use the term "empower" rather than "enable" as "empower" suggests what we should be working for in our local government. If we talk about a charter, we should also talk about rights. When we talk about
722
rights we should be talking about something that is legally enforceable. Perhaps it is not surprising that the first criterion is not legally enforceable rights. Many parts of the Bill are based on work produced not directly by the Government but by a firm of management consultants. I am not criticising that firm, as, like other firms in its field, it does its work well. But the firm's brief concerns management. Are we to have a country that is to be run by management consultants?
Please do not misunderstand me. I believe very firmly in performance indicators, and in monitoring trends. However, the indicators have to be highly refined. They are not simply a crude weapon with which to compare different local authorities. They should not simply be a means of assessing a national standard. Otherwise we run the risk of working towards the lowest common denominator. Above all, they have to reflect local needs. The most important indicator is customer or client satisfaction. One hopes one can indicate that the performance of the local authority is increasing and improving year on year.
High spending may not mean inefficiency. It may reflect the composition of the community that is served. With an elderly community one will have to spend more on certain services. Most important of all, it may reflect local choice. The local authority may be spending because its community is telling it that it should spend.
Perhaps I may give a word of warning. The information on which comparisons are based must be valid. Otherwise the system rapidly goes into disrepute. In my authority I have often heard officers commenting on how easy it is for different authorities to use different criteria or to forget to take certain factors into account. Unless the system is sensitive and care is taken, we shall have more confusion. That will be to the disservice of our communities. I welcome too the input of the Audit Commission. I have often found it extremely helpful. But are its members the best people to advise on quality?
We must not delude ourselves that the measures in Clauses 1 to 7 will not significantly increase expenditure. If the job is done properly, it will cost money. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be appropriate to ask the Minister at this point whether she is able to give us news today which will help us all in serving our citizens; the point has been made to me several times over the past few days. In the interests of local authorities which are trying to do their job properly and which are planning not in the long term but in the medium and short term, may we please have an announcement of the SSAs? If the Minister is able to give us news today of when the announcement will be made it will be most gratefully received.
The logic of citizens' rights does not necessarily lead to compulsory competitive tendering. Every conscientious local authority will consider competition. However, it is the element of compulsion that takes us from good practice into the area of dogma. The Government should practise what they preach. They should allow local authorities to enter into competition when the Government go out to tender. I believe that the Minister knows what I mean by that.

723
The privatisation of the royal parks is being considered at present. But local authorities are not allowed to tender. Almost above all others, local authorities have experience in running environmentally sensitive open areas.
Should we have the debate during a consultation period? Is anything more calculated to give the impression to the consultees that they are not being listened to than knowing that primary legislation is being passed at the same time? In the debate on the Queen's Speech I asked the Minister what answer she would give if the response to the consultation was, "No, this is not a path to be gone down". I hope that she will be able to reply today, if only to reassure the consultees that it is worth their responding to the consultation. I hope too that we shall have full consultation not only with local government representatives but with professional organisations and all who feel that they have a contribution to make. I am glad to see that the Minister nods.
The criteria that we have to consider relate not just to price but also to quality. It will take little skill to predict some of the responses in two areas of service. I hate to say this, but with regard to legal services I believe it likely that the charges made in the private sector will be a great deal higher than the cost of running legal services in the local authority sector. Recent research has shown that they are about three or four times higher. An Audit Commission paper was recently published on that.
Quality is difficult to assess. It involves confidence in the service that is being offered. As many noble Lords know, architects are concerned that quality, not cost, should be the prime factor. Cost is a factor, not the factor. Architects are anxious, and rightly so, that if cost is the criterion we shall see a major decline in the standards of public building. The architects have noted that in the Autumn Statement the Chancellor made provision for an accelerated school building programme. I hope that it will come about. But what will the schools be like?
There is much for consideration at Committee stage. However, the CCT provisions open the way for developments which reduce and do not add to citizens' rights. We have to recognise that democratic control over service delivery is in the best interests of the citizens. Restricting user involvement in service provision is not. Tendering can be costly. It can be an inefficient way to achieve small savings and may not achieve value for money. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to openness with regard to competing for quality. I hope that the Government will decide to publish the PA Consulting Group report on which the proposals are based.
Finally, I refer to structure. I too have noted how differently England is to be treated from Wales. I am glad that in England we shall have the greater opportunities that a commission will provide rather than a mere 21-week consultation period, of which 13 weeks was in the parliamentary Recess, as occurred for Wales.
The right structure can be achieved only after first considering the service, functions and responsibilities
724
of local government. It is time to reassert the constitutional role of local government. The review must not ignore that. A wide representative basis and a well developed consultative system give the community ways to express its views and to make choices. It is vital that the review carries out the widest possible consultation so that we have local choice in the structure. Everyone who has an interest in that consultation should be able to contribute at a local and strategic level. I fear that we shall become so locally oriented that we shall lose sight of strategic concerns.
Those who have a stake in the subject but do not live in the area must have the opportunity to contribute, for instance in the environmental area. Consultation is not easy, as I am sure every politician knows, probably to his cost. It requires an initial process, a recommendation and further consultation on potential recommendations. It is not a private process. The consultees need to know what each is saying. The best vehicle might be an inquiry. I am sorry that the Bill does not allow for an inquiry.
Local choice may tell us that there should be a unitary authority or multi-tier authorities. The debate will focus on the counties and districts. The word is "and" not "or" because it may be appropriate in some places to have both. However, those are not the only possibilities. The commission must be authorised to recommend functional change. One cannot redistribute functions between the tiers without considering those functions and being able to recommend changes to the functions of parish and town councils too. Many parish and town councils do a valuable job throughout the country. When we consider the role of a higher tier, we must allow for parish and town councils to develop to reflect the diversity and richness of our country.
Perhaps it would be surprising if I did not spend a little time on this subject. We must he able to recognise regional government if that is what people want, and they do want it in London. It is perverse not to allow strategic government for London. It must he rare for people to say that they want government. They say it in London because they have seen what central government are doing to London. It is central government who govern London and people do not think that they are serving our capital city well. Strategic government should be minimal, but it is vital that we learn the lessons of recent years, both from London and metropolitan counties. Without wishing to be too anecdotal, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to reflect aloud on my experiences in chairing a joint authority in London for the past five years. As I said, this may sound anecdotal, but I mention it as an awful warning because the proposal for joint authorities looks to me as if it may be the answer to the bits that are left undone as a result of the commission's activities. The authority that I have chaired—the London Planning Advisory Committee—is generally accepted to have worked well. We have reached a consensus on almost everything that we have done. The committee consists of representatives of each of the London boroughs and the City of London. The fact that we have reached that consensus

725
partly justifies the argument that, if they are faced with a necessary task, the boroughs will join together to perform that task, but, frankly, LPAC has done better than anyone had any right to expect.
Politics and government depend crucially on those involved being able to work well together. LPAC has succeeded because a small number of people—here I pay tribute to my opposite numbers in the Conservative and Labour groups—have managed to find a formula and to work together. When the main committee meets, rather than a sub-committee of those who know one another well, there are often new members or deputies attending. Those people, not understanding the culture of the committee, are the most aggressive and proclaim their own dogma, but I do not blame them. LPAC does not operate in a context—and there is a danger that new joint authorities will not operate in a context—which helps people to understand the committee's role. Our members meet four times a year. They meet perhaps an hour before the committee meeting for a group meeting. They attend the committee meeting and then go off again. They may even go before the end of the meeting because they have evening meetings on their own patches which must take precedence. There is no chance to develop the relationships that are necessary if an item on the agenda stands any chance of being changed through debate. The members are chairmen of their own planning committees—that is sensible as we are a London planning committee—but they have no primary responsibility for financial matters. They cannot speak with any confidence on financial matters, except perhaps to say no.
Politics is about priorities and priorities mean hard decisions is about spending. Our members have to put the case to colleagues who have little feel for the work that my committee does. I do not think that one can disaggregate different policy areas. You must look at your policies generally and the thrust of what you are aiming to achieve for the community that you serve. On the model of London, there could well be joint author: ties for planning. We quickly found that you cannot separate land use planning and transport. Anyone who looks at Docklands must agree with that. However, planning is only a means of taking forward policies for education, economic development, social services and so on. They serve the same function and the same client group; for instance, education impacts on recreation. I could give a list of such examples.
The present joint authorities have no proper context. They do not operate under an agreed umbrella. We see in London the nonsense of a research committee which is run separately from other services. It is dependent on the boroughs agreeing what they want and, if the budget is tight, you need to be extremely altruistic to fund something that you know is important but is not of immediate importance to your authority. We must learn from our mistakes. In London the grants committee has had appalling problems, but no one should he surprised at that. Its members have had to make, more or less on the hoof, wide-ranging social and other policy decisions. There
726
has been no parent authority to set priorities and it has had to decide whether, for instance, housing is to take precedence over the arts.
The professional staff serving new joint authorities are unlikely to have a large establishment. They will have to involve officers from the contributing councils. It is good to have fresh blood and not to be too incestuous, but those officers tend to be self-selecting or to be selected simply because their local authorities are able to release them. That is not a healthy way of carrying on.
However, my major criticism is that joint authorities are undemocratic. Indirect appointment means that they are not accountable and are poorly understood by the public who do not know where the buck stops. They are bureaucratically complex and inflexible. They are difficult to construct and hence probably even more difficult to change. The members find it hard to take decisions that are in the best interests of the whole area. They were not elected to do the job that they find themselves doing, so they are bound to lack a strategic vision and to express themselves in terms of local views. Quite crudely, they are there because they are the people who have time to do the job.
I hope that this does not sound as if I or my colleagues on these Benches would take a paternal or centralist view. On the contrary, we believe that government must be at the most appropriate level, which is usually the most local level. However, there are arguments for some strategic government. At whatever level, government must be representative and accountable and must command respect. The best way of commanding respect is to have an electoral system of fair votes—proportional representation in the more technical jargon—which makes the authority representative, gives it stability and helps to avoid electoral swings and extremism. The Bill seeks to provide for electoral changes. The most important electoral change is to make local government answerable to the whole of its electorate because they have voted for it by what should be the fairest of systems.
4.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Minister for her introduction to the Bill. I found much of what she had to say reassuring, particularly in the way that it showed an openness of approach to unitary authorities and to other matters. I certainly welcome that.
Local government is complementary to and undergirds national government. If we get local government wrong, parliamentary government will be weakened. For many people, services provided by or through local government—education, planning, social services and so on—are more immediate and significant than what comes to them through national government. Local government provides accessibility to people whose decisions affect their lives. Local government can create or impair a sense of local community, loyalty and identity which makes all the difference to whether people feel that they belong or

727
whether they just feel alienated. It is therefore heartening to find in Clause 13 of the Bill that any structural changes proposed by the Local Government Commission shall:
"reflect the identities and interests of local communities".
Sound local government is an essential element in people's confidence in government as a whole.
I wonder whether we should talk rather about local democracy than local government. It is the direct accessibility and accountability of local democracy that is so valuable. I fear that we may overlook that. When we come to the Further and Higher Education Bill I shall want to express my concern that it seems that further education is being withdrawn from local democracy and put into the hands of appointed regional councils. If so, that undercuts local democracy and hence will weaken accountability. If we are to have a system of education in every area, surely there has to be a democratically accountable local education authority, however much reformed.
The Bill moves towards local government becoming an enabling rather than a providing authority. That surely is sound in so far as some services can be more effectively and efficiently provided by private concerns in competition. But if a local authority is only an enabler and is not allowed to be a provider, what about those areas and concerns where there is no adequate provision and no-one is anxious to provide it? The White Paper states:
"The task of setting standards, specifying the work to be done and monitoring performance is done better if it is fully separated from the job of providing services".
Surely that assumption needs to be challenged. For instance, it would lead us to say that a headmaster should not himself teach but should stand aside, set the standards and monitor others. However, the fact is that often it is his style and enthusiasm in the classroom which set the standard. To push local authorities into becoming enablers only and never to be providers seems to me to weaken provision on doctrinaire grounds which are as presumptuous as the idea that all services must be provided by the local authority itself. I plead for a more cautious and reasonable approach in this area.
Furthermore, a local authority has a wider value than just as a service provider or enabler. It is concerned with the quality of life in the area and it should represent that concern to other public bodies, the private sector, and indeed anyone, in order to secure a desirable environment and quality of life in the locality. It should be free to voice such concern and to have some clout in so doing.
Setting up a Local Government Commission to look at the country area by area is welcome. It runs the risk of creating a blight over those areas which must wait some time before they can be looked at, but in principle the flexibility of approach that is implied is admirable. When it comes to the crunch, in many areas the question is: at what level should local authority operate decisively? Some districts have a natural social cohesion and could be effective and acceptable authorities. But others are arbitrarily drawn and some are not large enough to escape from the risks of parochialism and personal lobbying.
728
In many areas away from the metropolitical centres counties still command loyalty. They evoke a continuous sense of history and are big enough to take the larger view while still remaining locally accessible. I hope that the continuing value of the county will not be underestimated in the reviews by the Local Government Commission. However, I have to add that I am not convinced that the present system, which gives room for both county and district, is necessarily far from what we need. Unitary local government may be economically slicker but I am not yet convinced that it would necessarily be socially better.
The Bill provides for the Audit Commission to require the publication of information on the performance of local government. There is much to be said for that in the interest of cost effectiveness. But the weakness may be that the information is produced on too narrow a front, although I take seriously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. But just as the performance of schools cannot be evaluated merely on examination results and truancy rates—they should be based on other factors, such as provision for children with special needs and extracurricular activities—so local authorities should not be judged solely on one-year efficiency. What about longer term planning? What about encouragement for the arts? What about the quality of local life? What about the valuing of local history and tradition? Surely those, too, must be looked at if we are to compare and evaluate local government. Must we be relentlessly pushed into thinking that the only criterion for evaluating local government is efficiency?
In conclusion, I suggest that getting local government right is crucial if people are to have a sense of loyalty not only to the local community but to the nation as a whole. Unless people feel that they are heard and understood locally they will have little sense of loyalty to the nation. For that reason it seems to me that the Bill touches on crucial elements in our national life and we must work hard to get local democracy right.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, all noble Lords will have listened with great attention to the right reverend Prelate. I guess that almost all your Lordships agree with the very fine peroration with which he brought his remarks to a close.
I should first congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their courage in coming forward with legislation on this subject. Perhaps I may read a short extract from a speech which confirms how longstanding are the problem and the difficulties with which the Bill seeks to deal:
"I am well aware that there is probably no more ticklish question to be dealt with in the Bill than this question of areas. It invariably arouses jealousies, feelings, local passions and local rivalries in a way which has proved very embarrassing to every government which has endeavoured to deal with the complexity of existing local areas and which has, I am afraid, stood in the way of many important and useful reforms".
Those words were spoken in another place on 23rd February 1899 by Mr. A. J. Balfour. In fact they still reflect the position; namely, that being prepared to tackle the whole structure and system of local

729
government, as this Bill proposes, remains a matter involving considerable courage. I am sure that the Government are right to tackle it.
As the right reverend Prelate said, local government is of very great importance. It employs rather more than one million people. It spends annually some £50 billion and supplies some of the most important services to our fellow countrymen. Therefore it is of the greatest importance that we should get it right. The one point which seems to be generally agreed in this debate is that it is not right—certainly not completely right—at the moment. Therefore I begin by congratulating the Government on their courage in seeking to tackle the problem.
One can have different views. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who I thought had almost lost the power to astonish me, amazed me by his statement that local government was a matter in which the Labour Party was expert. I do not know how he can say that when he reflects on the mess which the Greater London Council made under Labour control; of the mess which Labour made and is still making of the affairs of the city of Liverpool; of the mess that it has made in the city of Manchester; and of the damage and injury which Labour majorities in a number of local authorities have inflicted on the people. Indeed, were it not for the fact that it would be tactless, in addressing the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to point it out, the borough of Haringey is not itself a very good example.
The Bill is of very, very great importance; it is clear that radical reforms are needed. I can say—it is a wholly non-party comment—that the 1972 Local Government Act has not worked out well. The several counties that were created under it have not even now been generally accepted. One of them was the county of Avon. Your Lordships may recall the splendid observation of that great man, the late Duke of Beaufort, who said at the time that it was sad for him that he would have to pass his declining years in a four-letter county. He was of course right.
It is therefore extremely important that we should get it right this time. I hope—and here I address my noble Friend the Leader of the House—that no attempt will be made to rush debate on the Bill or to obtain its quick passage by dint of late sittings. It is really far too important a matter for that. And your Lordships' House is so full of people who really know what they are talking about in regard to local government that it should have every opportunity to debate the issues that arise over the Bill, even if that happens to be somewhat disruptive in its effect from the point of view of the House's business managers.
As we have been told, the Bill deals in Part II with structure. That is of very great importance indeed. I find it very difficult to justify a system such as we have in many parts of the country where, by the use of a precept, one senior local authority decides on the financing of its public expenditure and then a subordinate authority is compelled to raise the money, whether under the old rating system or under the various new taxes now being devised, from the ratepayers, from the public generally or from contributors to local finance. It is really quite wrong
730
that you should have members of one body undertaking expenditure and then simply securing the means to finance that expenditure by precepting a subordinate authority, which is bound to levy its citizens not for money that it regards as necessary but for money which the superior authority regards as necessary. It undermines the whole doctrine of accountability if people on the higher authority can conduct matters in this way. It must at least tend to induce them towards expenditures which, if they had themselves to stand up and justify it to local citizens, they might be disposed to keep at a lower level.
I can give a very good example of the way the two-tier system works from the part of the world where I have my home. I am very glad in this context to see that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is to speak later in the debate, since he not only resides in Hampshire but was a most successful chairman of Hampshire County Council for many years and has a great knowledge of the area. Your Lordships may feel that the structure affecting my home is a good example of the need for the Bill. My home is located some six and a half miles from the town of Newbury but it cannot be included, for local government purposes, in Newbury because the county boundary of Berkshire comes between us. We are just on the Hampshire side. It is, I may say in parenthesis, a fantastic position since the Post Office always insists on our mail being addressed finally with the word "Berkshire" although we are, for better or worse, a couple of miles inside Hampshire.
What happens is that we are allotted now to the borough of Basingstoke, some 18 miles away to the north-east. Basingstoke levies the usual taxes or demands on us on the precept of the county of Hampshire which is located at Winchester, some 20 miles in the other direction. It is not a system of local government which is easy to defend; nor does it work particularly well for the rural areas such as the one in which I live. Indeed one gets the impression that neither of the local authorities, but particularly the one which we are technically within—the borough of Basingstoke—has any idea whatever of the problems or the situation of the rural areas. Basingstoke is a large, busy and bustling town. It has many merits, but it is not an authority with any knowledge of rural matters.
The other day an official arrived from Basingstoke to require me to put in order a rather nice old water pump. Unfortunately for Basingstoke, it is not on my land. Basingstoke did not know that; it did not bother to inquire either by post or by telephone but sent an official who, for the greater part of a day, investigated futilely a position which could have been cleared up in five minutes on the telephone. That is a good, if small, example of the disadvantage of the two-tier system. I am very glad that the Bill provides over a large part of the country, or so at any rate it would appear, for the abolition of the two-tier system. That does not mean, as I understand it, the abolition in general of counties or of county councils. Indeed some of the smaller counties may well constitute rather useful single-tier authorities. Nor does it demand the abolition of the counties as geographical expressions, with their Lord

731
Lieutenants and other positions and their general ethos. But it does suggest that the larger counties, at any rate, are too large and that it would be better to have a single tier of somewhat smaller authorities.
Of course, there has to be a compromise—everyone accepts that—between a really small and really representative local authority and an authority which is big enough to undertake the very important duties which local authorities do undertake in this day and age. Therefore it will be quite a problem for the commission, which the Bill proposes, to achieve over the country as a whole the right size of authority. As I said, it does not necessarily involve the abolition of counties in the strict sense but it means that the larger ones should not be a higher-tier authority in the exercise of local government duties. The Bill, which will take years to work out, will give the an impetus to a good reform of our local government system. That will be a major contribution by this Government to the well-being of the country.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships and therefore I shall say only a few words about the provision that, where appropriate, work should be put out to tender. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was again a little extreme in saying that where work was handed over to outside bodies it was done by people earning starvation wages. The noble Lord under-rated the strength of the trade union movement in suggesting that the contractors would receive starvation wages. The Bill extends to the professions the tendering for contract work. Few members of the professions are living on starvation wages. The truth is that in many cases they are more efficient and therefore cheaper in operation than are the local authorities' services. The local authorities which reduce the scale of their set-up and put out more work to competitive tender are in general saving a great deal of money for their taxpayers or ratepayers—whatever one must now call them. It is a useful additional provision. It will not be required by some of the best authorities but it will be needed a great deal by some of the less-efficient ones.
This is a good Bill. No doubt, as always, your Lordships' House will improve it during its passage. I hope that we shall be given the opportunity to give the Bill full and detailed discussion and so, in accordance with the tradition of this House, render a real substantial service to our fellow countrymen. I support the Bill.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must preface my remarks by declaring that I am an adviser to NALGO.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, described my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey as being astonishing and extreme. I agree that my noble friend is astonishingly good at the job he performs for the Opposition in respect of the environment. However, I do not believe that his worst enemies would accuse him of being an extremist. I agree with the noble Lord about one issue; that the House should be given adequate time properly to consider the proposals in
732
the Bill. We should not be rushed nor should we be stuck in this Chamber late at night simply and solely to meet the Government's convenience. Certainly we agree on that matter.
I support my noble friend's complaint that the Bill has been introduced before the response to the consultation paper about the proposals has been received and evaluated; that was in respect of Clauses 8 to II. The Government have stated that secondary legislation is an appropriate vehicle for the implementation of the proposals. That certainly is not the case, because Parliament's influence on final decisions will be minimal—it can be only minimal. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, must know that an order cannot be amended; it can only be opposed and voted down. Therefore, this House and another place will not have the opportunity to amend the Government's final proposals. The assurance that local government must be consulted again before orders are made—that is Clause 8(3) of the Bill—is hollow bearing in mind that earlier this year the Government commissioned PA Consulting Group to investigate possibilities for extending competition but have flatly refused to publish the findings. If the Government really mean that consultation must be meaningful why do they not publish those findings? Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer that question.
I welcome the Bill in so far as it sets up the new Local Government Commission. I agree that the general presumption that future local government units will be based on unitary authorities is correct. I also believe that in general the unitary authorities should be based on existing district councils. However, the Bill does not make clear how the Government see the future of local government. If their proposals—restricting, as they do, the power of local authorities to manage their own administrative affairs—are taken together with the intention to embark upon the widespread rate capping of councils, it appears that local authorities will simply become agents of Whitehall. The real partnership that existed between local authorities and central government when I was involved in local government has been so whittled away that one almost believes that the Government would like to appoint local gauleiters to carry out their bidding. However, at the same time they must pay lip service to elected local authorities in order to keep up democratic appearances.
If that suggestion sounds far fetched one has only to examine the clauses dealing with compulsory competitive tendering and its application to professional and technical services to see that it is not so. The powers to regulate CCT under Clause 9 are extremely wide and will introduce unnecessary and cramping rigidity into the whole process of tendering. Furthermore, Parliament will have virtually no input into the regulations because they will be introduced not through the affirmative procedure but through the negative instrument procedure. The powers will regulate the extraneous costs which a local authority can or cannot take into account in evaluating tenders. They will require local authorities to take account of government guidance on compulsory competitive tendering; they will make it possible for the

733
Government to move against the local authorities which they believe are not doing their bidding; and they will lay down the kind of publicity that local authorities must give to CCT specifications.
Those provisions are an unprecedented and unwarranted intrusion by central government into the legitimate affairs and responsibilities of locally-elected councils. There is no evidence of public demand for these additional powers nor evidence to show that they will bring any tangible benefits. That has not been shown.
There is then the issue of quality which the Government have seen fit to introduce at a very late stage. It seems to me that the only reason why that new obstacle should be brought in is that, on the previous CCT basis, in-house bids for professional and technical services would win hands down. In fact, the quality element is simply a ruse to further tip the scales against in-house services.
Decisions on those matters depend on a wide range of considerations and local government, no less than any other organisation, should be able to make its own decisions on the basis of local circumstances and knowledge. It need not and should not be subjected to the straitjacket of detailed central control as envisaged by the Government.
I ask the noble Baroness whether quality considerations will be extended to earlier defined services; for example, leisure management, refuse collection, catering and so on. I should also like to ask about services which have been suggested for future subjection to CCT. Where will the line be drawn, especially where statutory regulatory functions and the maintenance of confidential records are involved? Where will the line be drawn for future services which may be involved in CCT?
I am not convinced of the benefits of CCT. Indeed, my own experience of local government in Reading tells me that we must beware of it. The noble Baroness has served as a leader of a county council. Is she telling me that she and her colleagues did not consider those matters? In my time we looked at the architectural services. We wanted to see whether we could buy architectural services from the private sector more cheaply than could he provided by our own depart vent. We found that we could not. Further, we found that if we set up our own quantity surveying department we could save a lot more money. Why do we not leave those decisions to the people on the ground who are people of commitment and intelligence?
I turn to Part II. I have already expressed my preference for unitary authorities based on districts but clearly the commission will have its own views and will co consult others. However, the commission—I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that she agrees with this-must be seen to be completely impartial. Therefore, it must be established on a broadly based non-partisan foundation and must operate and be seen to operate free from any political interference. Its chairman or chairwoman must be politically independent. The commission should comprise people with acknowledged expertise in local government and it should be balanced in its composition.
734
Furthermore, the commission should, through the Bill, be made aware of the criteria against which its recommendations will be judged. Only two factors are mentioned in the Bill: the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and the need to secure effective and convenient local government. However, as I have already mentioned, there is a widespread and understandable fear that the Government intend to strip local authorities of any real power and to reduce them to mere agents of central government.
The proposals in Part I will undoubtedly put local authorities in an administrative straitjacket. Combined with the steady erosion of local government power over the past 10 years, that is bound to make local government fear for its future. What assurances will the noble Baroness give to local authority associations and the trade unions that local democracy will not be further undermined by this Bill? Will the noble Baroness give assurances when she replies to the debate?
How is consultation with local people to be carried out? It is essential that the views of ordinary voters are sought, not just the views of those people who have a great interest in local government. It is essential that ordinary voters are consulted. How are they to be consulted? Will there be local public meetings and polls? What means do the Government have in mind to ensure that the people on the ground are able to put forward their views?
In my view, and that of many others, the proposals that local government reorganisation should proceed piecemeal is a recipe for administrative chaos. Furthermore, it will prolong disruption of services especially among local authorities not included in the early proposals. Staff morale under those circumstances is likely to be damaged and it must be self evident that the new local authorities will attract the best staff. Those authorities reviewed at a late stage will find it difficult to recruit and retain staff. Therefore, I believe that if local government reorganisation is to be a success it is essential that there should be a thorough national review followed by implementation on a single vesting day.
The proposal to establish staff commissions is to be welcomed. However, it should be strengthened. The staff commission should be given unequivocal powers to enforce a jointly agreed code of conduct on all local authorities involved in the reorganisation process. Furthermore, a major objective of the staff commission must be to ensure the smoothest possible transition to the new system by maximising the transfer of existing staff and minimising competition for posts.
I feel sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in giving me an assurance that an explicit commitment to the principles of equal opportunities will be written into the commission's terms of reference. Perhaps she will confirm that when she replies.
Finally, this is not the Bill which the Labour Party—at least, I hope it is not—would have brought forward to achieve a lasting reorganisation of local government. We would have sought to expand the role and responsibilities of local government. That is what

735
is needed at present. Furthermore, our proposals for the future of local government would restore its confidence; indeed, that in itself would engender more interest in local democracy by the voters.
I shall join my noble friends in their attempts to improve the Bill during its subsequent stages. I hope that the Government will be receptive to our ideas and amendments.
5 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she introduced the Bill. She is aware that local government is complex, a fact that I discovered when I was elected to a rural district council at the age of 23. I was greeted by a quorum of retired admirals, generals and a few terrifying matriarchs. At an early meeting I was told with great firmness by those present that it was the policy of the council and all its committees to be unanimous. That was a warning that dissension was not to be tolerated. Although perhaps unanimity is no longer fashionable, it has an attraction when we legislate for local government. I was delighted this afternoon to learn from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—who I see is not in his place—that his party supports the Bill. Local government enters all our lives and achieving consensus is important if we are to show due respect for the intimacies of people's daily lives.
There are three points in the Bill which I hope will be addressed either through future guidance or clarification in the debate by my noble friend the Minister. First, there is the timetable. Nothing saps morale as quickly as uncertainty. I have served as a parish, district and county councillor and as a district and regional health authority chairman. Each has been reorganised and I have enjoyed the challenge of change, the only exception being the parish council, which has survived unchanged and is probably unchangeable. But successful change has had to be achieved swiftly, with urgency and a clear vision.
It is a fallacy to think that we can say to councils, "Go ye forth and evolve into unitary authorities when you feel like it". I welcome the consultation and the opportunity for local people to shape their destinies. That is important. But the Local Government Commission, once it is established, I hope will be set a tight timescale for its reviews and work at a spanking pace.
Secondly, I share the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon that there is little recognition in the Bill of the need for strategic planning. Planning for the future of the environment, for industrial growth, for roads and traffic must be done at a level which does not require the setting up of joint boards. I have grown old sitting on joint consultative committees. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am ambivalent as to their worth. In my experience they are ineffective and cumbersome and they dilute accountability, which is perhaps the most important point.
As more local services are put out to contract local authorities will primarily become purchasers of
736
services. Here again there is a parallel between local government and health authorities. As district health authorities cease to become providers of hospital services, that role being taken over by trusts, so there is a strong case for fewer district health authorities. We should learn from that and make sure that unitary authorities are large enough to carry out their new purchasing roles.
I hope too that the commission, when carrying out its review, will look at the existing county council-sized structure first and then only where necessary break it down into smaller unitary authorities rather than look piecemeal at district and borough councils and decide where and with whom they should amalgamate.
One of the great changes in our health and social policies is to encourage care in our own homes. When we get old and a bit dotty the majority of us want to stay at home and not be whisked away to an institution for safekeeping. Success in this policy is dependent on health authorities and local authorities working closely together. At the moment changes are occurring in district health authorities. As their roles change so some are amalgamating—a job which greatly concerns me in my role as regional chairman. In our region we have hesitated to go full steam ahead until the Bill is law. We need to know that our boundaries will be coterminous with the new local authorities, otherwise it will mean joint working will be very difficult indeed. We cannot afford in the NHS to wait indefinitely to make proper savings on administration. But it would be disastrous to end up with our boundaries not coterminous with local authority boundaries.
Perhaps I may again draw on my experience of both local government and the NHS for my third and last point. Recent changes in the NHS have introduced two excellent management tools: first, short-term contracts for top management and, secondly, performance related pay. I myself am on a short-term contract and I must say that it concentrates the mind wonderfully. It is an extraordinarily strong incentive to perform. So too are all the health authority chairmen throughout the country at all levels and the regional, district and family health service general managers. We expect these public servants and managers of huge budgets to perform. Non-performers cannot be retained as passengers, nor should it be exorbitantly expensive to rejuvenate their contracts. I firmly believe that we should urge the Secretary of State, when appointments are made for the new authority chief executives, to ensure that they are all on three-year renewable contracts.
Secondly, I believe that a system of performance related pay should be introduced for all chief executives and senior managers; many are on that now but not all. We should set out to reward the achievers and encourage others, and that should be linked to the Audit Commission's findings. In the case of local government the ballot box is the arbiter of the elected member's performance. When I was chairman of social services I awaited with trepidation the publication of the league tables produced by CIPFA and published annually. I know that my views are

737
contrary to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. But I found that they triggered major and painful changes to improve performance in some areas where we were not achieving. I am sure that the new powers of the Audit Commission will enhance that process.
I want the House to be unanimous for there are many here with a great knowledge of local government and concern for its future. But we must eliminate from the Bill uncertainty. We must insist on a timetable for the commission. We must have a structure for strategic planning, and we must have an idea of what the new map for local authority boundaries will look like to enable health authorities to fall into line and deliver better health and social services in unison with their local authority partners.
Finally, we must reward achievers and be able to replace non-achievers. The statutory functions of local authorities must be efficient and effective. But at parish, town or city level we must never forget or underestimate the importance and benefits of civic pride. I fear that if we lose that, vandalism will flourish, voluntary organisations will falter and local prosperity will decline.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I regret to open with an apology that I must leave the debate for a time to attend to another engagement. However, I hope to return to hear later speakers and certainly the wind-up speech by the Minister.
Like my noble friends, I welcome the Bill in general terms but oppose it strongly in specific terms. One specific term, if I may concentrate the Minister's mind—Clause 8(1) (a)—deals with compulsory competitive tendering for professional services, principally those for architects and engineers. I believe it is a great mistake. My noble friend Lady Hamwee touched on the matter earlier and I approve of what she said.
I was approached by the Royal Institute of British Architects, by the Association of Consulting Engineers and by Michael Manser, the past president of the RIBA. In any case, my views are generally identical with theirs and I should have spoken without being approached.
The Association of Consulting Engineers is slightly more in favour of compulsory competitive tendering than the architects. However, that is only in the limited sense approved of by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter; namely, that the consulting engineers like the idea of competing against local authorities for work. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that they may not always win the contract.
The consulting engineers and the RIBA agree on the undesirability of competitive tendering between professional companies. They fear that that would lead to a reduction in quality. I felt that the Minister in her opening remarks somewhat exaggerated the zeal with which the construction professions approve of the proposals. Her attitude is most clearly stated in the letter from Michael Manser published in the Financial Times on 29th October.
738
The background is that he draws attention to the distinction between everyday services which can be measured and those which cannot be measured. The services that can be measured are such everyday things as street cleaning, dealing with dustbins and other things of that nature. The professional services which the Bill is attacking are intellectual services which cannot be measured in that way. To my mind they are wholly inappropriate for price bidding, which is what the measure amounts to. They are services which deal with intellectual, emotional and sometimes even artistic quality. That is wholly different from the kind of services that I mentioned earlier on.
In his letter Michael Manser repeats what I have said about services including intellectual property, which is not easily evaluated by fee bidding. He continues:
"The architects fee, for instance, in a large construction project, is about 3 per cent. of the total capital outlay. The success of the project, commercially, in use and aesthetically is dependent upon the quality of his initial concept; if this is bad, the building will be flawed and not easily retrieved at a later stage. Because the scope of tendering is no more than about 0.25 per cent. either way, the project will be jeopardised to save perhaps 0.125 per cent. of the budget. This does not make investment sense".
I concur entirely with Mr. Manser's sentiments. The saving is infinitesimal but the aesthetic qualities in danger are vast.
In looking for that kind of quality, whether it is architectural or engineering quality—at this point I should say that "quality" is a word that does not appear in the Long Title of the Bill or among its objectives and it would be a good thing if at a later stage it could be put in—it is interesting to note that developers and such public benefactors as the Sainsbury family do not look to fee competition in choosing their architects and engineers.
Stuart Lipton and Geoffrey Bradman may well be hard-nosed capitalists, but they did not turn to fee competition at Broadgate or anywhere else. Neither did the Sainsbury family in their very generous act in rescuing the National Gallery extension a year or two ago turn to fee competition in choosing their architect. They chose what they considered to be an architect of quality and they got quality. To my mind they got the wrong quality, but it was not the cheapest. Their approach to the construction was correct. Under the terms of this Bill there would be an entirely different arrangement and an entirely different architect. Presumably the National Gallery would have been housed in Portakabins.
Does quality matter as against saving money? Of course it does. For instance, noble Lords should think of the Burrell Museum in Glasgow. It is now the third most popular public building in Scotland. It is certainly part of the reason for Glasgow being chosen last year as Europe's City of Culture. The reason why the museum is as popular as it is is not principally the Burrell collection, which is an interesting but slightly idiosyncratic collection. In many ways it is not as good as the collection which has existed for many years in the City Gallery in Glasgow and which was already very popular.
The attraction of the Burrell collection is the setting in which it appears. I refer to its physical setting in

739
terms of landscape and its architectural setting. It was an architectural quality which was chosen in competition for quality and not fee competition. We speak of quality, and Michael Manser mentions the dangers of the decline in quality which might well follow from fee competition. I wish to illustrate that not merely by asserting, as he does, that it might happen, but by drawing the attention of the House to an example where that kind of thing has already happened. In the words of a very famous Member of another place, "Why gaze into the crystal when you can read the book?".
The "book" I am going to read from is an issue of the New Civil Engineer magazine dated 29th September 1988. That is three years ago which is long enough for the news to have filtered through to the Government. The magazine reports the collapse of part of a supermarket near Vancouver in April 1988. I believe that some injuries were caused but not deaths. The collapse was the subject of a report called for by the provincial government, which I imagine was British Columbia. It states:
"The influential report blamed underdesigned roof beams for the failure".
The important factor is this:
"And the oversight is in turn blamed on cut throat competition and unrealistically low design fees in the local market".
The effect was that the report recommended that minimum fees should be restored and fee competition effectively abandoned.
I look at this proposal with considerable dismay. I see in it just the slightest whiff of ideology. I just detect it. It seems that the Government are again urging the market wherever the market can be urged, whether appropriate or not. It is part and parcel of a longstanding animus by government against the professions and against the idea of the profession.
I wish to end today by defending the construction professions against this attack. I do that very simply by quoting a definition of a profession which was coined as long ago as 1921. My noble friends—and especially my noble friend Lord McIntosh on the Front Bench—will remember the author, R. H. Tawney. They will also remember the book in which the definition appears, The Acquisitive Society. That was and still is a bible for some of the older ones among us. The definition reads:
"A Profession may be defined most simply as a trade which is organised, incompletely, no doubt, but genuinely, for the performance of function. It is not simply a collection of individuals who get a living for themselves by the same kind of work. Nor is it merely a group which is organised exclusively for the economic protection of its members, though that is normally among its purposes. It is a body of men who carry on their work in accordance with rules designed to enforce certain standards both for the better protection of its members and for the better service of the public".
That is a wholly admirable way of carrying on business. It is a great pity that business does not carry on its business in a like manner. It is impossible to sustain those standards under a system of compulsory fee tendering. For that reason, those provisions of the Bill must go.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for returning from imperfect buildings in Vancouver to the problems of setting up a new structure for local government in England. I wish to confine my remarks to Part II of the Bill and the proposed commission.
One is taken far afield—even further than Vancouver—when one becomes involved in considering local government. I found myself, at a time approaching midnight last Thursday, which is very late by my standards, engaged in what could only be called a postprandial socratic dialogue with the leaders and officers of my county council about the nature of democracy. I should like to suggest that until we have an understanding of the principles that should govern the operations of such a commission, its work will be as temporary as the operations of the Local Government Act 1972 which it is now desired at least in part to correct. That is not present in the Bill and has not, alas, been made sufficiently or emphatically clear by my noble friend the Minister.
There are four necessary components of a solution to the problem of the best organisation and structure of local government. The Bill refers to this point and the right reverend Prelate has reminded us of it. The first is that there should he a community. Only a community can effectively govern itself or would wish effectively to govern itself. Secondly, there has to be a permanent appreciation, or at least a long-term appreciation, of the functions which this structure and the bodies created under it are to perform. It is difficult to contemplate a structure without knowing what its job will be.
The third element is the role of finance. Is there to be a correlation between the structure and its ability to raise the money necessary to carry out the decisions that it takes on the functions that are allotted to it? If there is to be no such correlation, the citizen will lose the most important information available to him—information about where the money is to come from, how it is to be raised and what is to be his appropriate share of it. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Lastly—and this is true in all democratic countries—there must be some understanding of the fundamental relationship between local and central government. If they are not in harmony, if they cannot work together, whatever structure is decided upon will not fulfil the requirements.
I shall begin with functions. The right reverend Prelate rightly reminded us that it is proposed in a Bill coming before your Lordships on Thursday to remove from local government further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Those are essentially local creations. They meet essentially local needs and make no sense except in relation to the schools from which they draw their sixth formers or their followers of further education courses. It may be—it will be a miracle if he can do so—that the noble Lord who proposes the Bill on Thursday will be able to give a rational educational reason for subtracting these colleges from the local scene. It is suspected in local government circles that there is no educational

741
argument for doing so, a point with which I would agree, but that it is simply a device for lowering the demands of local taxation by replacing one important feature of local expenditure with central expenditure. If that happens it will make nonsense of our trying to discuss an appropriate structure for local government. The councillors in my county want to know whether they will have sixth form colleges and further education colleges. They want to know whether those colleges will be taken away, and if they are, what they will then be supposed to do about fulfilling their educational responsibilities.
I shall give another example from the same ill-fated Bill—I hope ill-fated—which is to come before us on Thursday. It concerns adult education. This point has been made in the press and by noble Lords who have spoken on the subject on other occasions. As far as one can see—and the language of the Bill and the language of the commentaries on the Bill are both obscure—the responsibility for what is laughingly and absurdly called leisure education, by which we mean culture, non-vocational education and genuine study, is to be taken over by local government. It may be said that local government is the right instrument because those who attend such classes presumably live locally. But there is no provision—at least there is no proper provision—to enable local government to meet the costs without piling on to students fees which many of them—all noble Lords must have had endless correspondence on this subject—cannot afford to pay. At one stage responsibilities are being taken away from local government and in the same Bill new burdens are being placed on local government. We are then asked seriously to consider what the structure of local government should be.
There are perfectly good and understandable reasons for wanting a commission on the structure of local government. However, unless it is inspired by some policy, which preferably should be one with a great measure of national consent and which sets out what central government and local government should do—as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege pointed out, this is where the interface between the health service, which is after all a local service if not part of local government, and local government comes—the elected members of local authorities, let alone their officers, will be placed in an impossible position. I cannot understand why that has not been considered.
What is proposed is an improvisation to meet some perfectly understandable complaints from people who live in four-letter counties and one or two others—complaints which could have been met by specific legislation. If there is to be a commission, it should not be representative of people with experience of local government, as noble Lords opposite suggest. It should be a commission not necessarily of political philosophers but of people who are not committed by experience, by friendship or by co-working to local government in any of its forms. It should be a commission which can look at the issues as a Royal Commission would have done in Victorian times, when we were so much better at preparing great Acts of Parliament. It should be a commission which can
742
look at the problem in general terms and which can bring to bear upon it—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey —some of the experience of other countries, which seem to do these things in some ways better than we do now. Therefore, it should have the scope to review matters together; for example, where is the community, what can it best do, what is the structure and what are the financial arrangements? If we had such a commission, it would be worth waiting for. I say that because we might then achieve a solution to this problem which would actually be enduring. A mere temporary patching up does not seem to me to be something worthy of the attention of Parliament.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I wish that I could I speak with half or even a quarter of the conviction and authority of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I am really trespassing on an area that is only partly within my province. Indeed, other noble Lords have much greater knowledge of the subject of local government than I have. I cannot claim a local authority background, but I shall just say that my comments are my own. I have not consulted with anyone on matters relating to this Bill.
In my view the Bill is to be welcomed; its modest size belies the very real opportunity which it presents to make progress on matters of local authority structure and business conduct. My comments relate primarily to Part II of the Bill and the parameters under which the proposed Local Government Commission may operate. The question of whether there should be a two-tier or a single-tier system is of less importance from my point of view, in the sense that it is not really something upon which I am competent to comment in detail.
However, there is at least one area where I think that the adoption of a unitary structure could be advantageous; namely, within national parks. At this point I should declare an interest because I farm within one—the Exmoor National Park. I am probably in the habit, rather unkindly, of referring to it as a wholly-owned subsidiary of two county councils, with all the difficulties of policy and direction which that entails. But there is another problem. In this particular instance, competition with other government organs and quangos in terms of policy and implementation materially interferes with its proper job; the differing policy objectives which it has to meet are applied differentially by other bodies. There is a case there, possibly, for the devolution of some of the functions of central government to a unitary local authority. However, I accept that the case may be a special one.
I should like to pay tribute to the invaluable work carried out by our local authorities and to the councillors who serve on their committees, many of whom are represented here today in an existing or past capacity. It is often a very thankless task. It seems that councils attract more criticism from the man in the street than sometimes is warranted. However, having said that, I hope that my next remarks will not be misinterpreted. If, as I am suggesting, there is a case

743
—I do not say that it is a general case—for unitary authorities, then there is also a compelling case for strengthening the mechanisms of public protection in the face of a substantial potential increase in locally exercised powers.
There seems to be mounting public concern—at any rate it appears to be so from the voices that I hear—about standards of honesty, integrity and competence which are being applied in the exercise of local authority powers. In many cases it is no more than people trying to get their own back on a local authority. But, in other cases, standards certainly appear to have slipped very badly. Everyone I meet, both professionally and privately, has some account to give me about the shortcomings of a local authority somewhere. Cases which have been reported in the press recently or not so recently, including those of Wiltshire and Merseyside to name but two, cannot be wholly discounted as isolated cases when popular belief holds that malpractice and worse in some local authority matters are commonplace.
Again, I can only point to what I have heard from people who make representations to me. But these matters include such things as suspect property transactions, financial irregularities and overt political manipulation. That is not the stuff on which sound and trusted administrations at local level are built. At best, it looks as if there may be a practice of sailing a little close to the wind. At worst, we may actually have a very grave problem on our hands. But, either way, it seems to me that there is something of a crisis of public confidence in the system. Further, when major decisions are taken by a small cadre behind closed doors, and discussed in open council committee only when the matter is effectively decided, citizens are deprived of the most basic elements of local democracy.
I cannot help wondering why local authorities have the power to buy land and then give themselves valuable planning consent, or manipulate a commercial position through the planning system or, for that matter, engage in property development and speculation with public funds or, worse still, amass a huge property portfolio. When, as they sometimes appear to do, those same authorities set about to prejudice the legitimate interests of individuals in pursuit of undisclosed policy objectives or attempt to deny citizens the benefit of recommendations made by government departments acting under the authority of Parliament, then I know that there is something badly wrong.
The public interest surely dictates that the administration of local affairs should be governed by the highest possible standards of conduct. Yet there is often inadequate information available. I welcome the fact that the Bill sets out to redress part of that inadequacy. Moreover, there may often be no proper forum for investigation. It is now becoming clear that it is not impossible to conceal matters from auditors. Even a local authority ombudsman is not, as I understand it, in a position to do more than recommend remedial measures; he does not have the powers to insist that they be carried out.
744
I shall be pressing for the proposed commission to have a much more detailed brief to consider what safeguards are necessary to protect the public interest. I see three objectives in that proposal. First, the interaction of the various local authority functions needs to be examined to remove so far as is possible the occasions of conflict of interest. If that means looking at the basic principles of town and country planning administration, so be it. Secondly, officials and councillors should not be put in a position where private or commercial gain is easily obtained or ultimately beneficial. Even less should the offer of inducements, as sometimes appears to occur, be encouraged or institutionalised; for example, over the matter of "planning gain" which recent legislation is only just beginning to tackle. Thirdly, and most important, there should be an impartial and independent investigative body with real teeth—an inquisition of sorts with the power to obtain total disclosure, make binding awards and enforce payments, repayments and restitution as appropriate and to unravel webs of secrecy and insist on changes in procedures where necessary.
I turn briefly to the Citizen's Charter, which is covered by Part I. I apologise to noble Lords for dealing with it in reverse order, but without the measures that I advocate the proposals contained in Part I will be worthless. I do not see what good yet more information will bring if it is not prepared in a diligent and proficient manner as a faithful representation of what is going on in public local affairs. The Government cannot easily escape that issue. We have had recent accusations—the latest in a long line of similar accusations—of political misuse of councils' positions. That must stop. Years of eroding standards now have to be reversed.
Local government must be given the power to investigate and report on the areas that I have outlined. As we move in to the single European market, there are compelling reasons for that. Other European countries have powerful watchdogs similar to those that I advocate. The cost is a price worth paying to achieve the quality control about which we have heard so much this afternoon.
Finally, I echo something said earlier: previous local government reorganisations have smacked of political convenience of one sort or another. That cannot be allowed to recur in this instance. It must be, as the Minister outlined in her introduction to the Bill, a question of what is right and proper in terms of the diligent administration of local affairs. I shall look carefully as the Bill proceeds to see that the Government deliver just that.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall follow my noble friend Lord Beloff in his interesting speech about local government structure in England, but I shall confine myself to making a few remarks about Part I of the Bill, because Parts I and III apply to Scotland while Part II does not. I shall say something about what that part of the Bill will do, as I see it, to improve the economy of many areas—rural and urban, including our cities—in Scotland. I shall also

745
comment upon the improvement that the Bill should bring not just in the services that local government develops and their user friendliness but—and this is most important—in the view that ordinary people have of their local councils and those who work in local government.
First, let me mention the economic effect of Part I. A recent important problem facing the Scottish economy and its performance as compared with that of the UK as a whole has been the historically greater domination as employers of the public sector, notably the domination of local government and the health service. That still presents difficulties. Firms and individuals in the private sector which would have liked to operate in spheres of activity covered by local government and the health service have found that there is insufficient scope in their neighbourhood and so they go elsewhere. If such firms and individuals could get started in the area they would bring a new dynamism and greater flexibility and, in time, new firms and new jobs.
In the areas of activity covered by local government, the Local Government Act 1988, which requires all local authorities in Scotland to put some services out to tender, has begun to improve the situation in some places. That is good news for everyone. Firms have come to local areas; new firms have started up; and professionals hitherto not involved in local government have become involved. But the change is far too slow. The 1988 Act deliberately provided a gentle start. Many councillors, perhaps naturally, resisted the move from running the services themselves to becoming enablers—elected representatives who act on behalf of the public in setting the nature and quality of services required and then seeking the best people available to provide them.
CoSLA has written to noble Lords based in Scotland. It assures us that its member councils have no objection in principle to the use of private sector firms for the delivery of their services. However, they do not like legislation which makes tendering obligatory. Even those councillors in Scotland who accept the advantages of competitive tendering do not find it tempting to move voluntarily into the new world of the social market. Public sector unions are strong and they can, and do, make life difficult for councillors, especially on councils controlled by the Labour Party, as many are.
NALGO underlines that difficulty in the briefing that it kindly sent me. It refers to the Bill's tendering proposals somewhat dismissively as a blind faith in unproven dogma. It may be difficult for councillors to make the change, but if Scotland's economy is to prosper within the UK's economy, and if the UK is to prosper within the European Community as a whole, this is the type of change that must be made, and made at an increasing pace.
CoSLA tells us in its briefing that during the 18 months since the 1988 Act took effect competitive tendering has not worked in Scotland. It tells us that more than half of all contracts put out to tender received not one bid from the private sector. That is not surprising. It bears out my point that in many areas private sector firms have found that they cannot
746
survive and so they do not exist to bid. In some ways, on the other hand, it is encouraging in that getting on for half the projects did produce private sector bids. That is a good start.
CoSLA does not tell us what Scottish local authorities have so far saved through competitive tendering. Research conducted by the Institute of Government Studies at Birmingham suggests a figure of over 6 per cent. of spending. That too is a good beginning if the figure includes Scotland. CoSLA also states:
"Most authorities have been forced to draft detailed specifications of work and to reorganise internal structures and responsibilities".
That is precisely what the 1988 Act aimed to achieve. One of the weaknesses of local government has been that far too many authorities never specified in detail the job to be done, whether they were doing it themselves or whether they wanted to put it out to tender. They therefore could not cost the job properly or monitor their own performance.
Competitive tendering does not merely introduce competition; it sharpens up a council's own procedures. Key members of staff nowadays are those capable of proper accurate specification and costing. That should not be a cause for complaint by Scottish local authorities. CoSLA adds that since no Scottish local authority has so far been called to account by the Secretary of State to justify anti-competitive action during a tendering process, it sees no need to strengthen sanctions against such behaviour. At the same time, it points out that Scottish local authorities themselves won 88 per cent. of all contracts they put out to tender. That seems a very high figure to me, even allowing for the fact that 50 per cent. of contracts were not tendered for by the private sector. I do not know whether it indicates that every tendering process was 100 per cent. fair to outside tenderers. I do not know whether the specifications were clear and full enough to create a level playing field.
The Bill will certainly help ensure fairness. It will make sure that anyone will be able to obtain a copy of the specifications and statement of the aims of a project and so check on fairness. It seems to me that if everything is all right in this respect in Scotland, then local authorities have nothing to fear.
The other important provision for Scotland is that the Scottish Accounts Commission will be able to require an authority to publish information about its performance so that, if they wish, the public can check one council's performance against another's. Councils will be required in law to consider reports made by the controller of audit and recommendations made by the Scottish Accounts Commission.
CoSLA does not comment on these last two aspects of the Citizen's Charter, which seem to me highly desirable. I note that the Community Rights Project a—voluntary organisation with which I worked when I took the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 through your Lordships' House—particularly commends this part of the Bill
The longstanding domination of local authorities in Scotland in local job markets and the lack of competition for their in-house provision which still exists in many areas is not only damaging to the

747
economy; it not only means that there is insufficient incentive to raise quality and improve value for money; it also leads Scottish people to think that they must accept what councils decide to provide, that there is no way of checking what is going on and therefore no point in pressing for something better. That is not good for local government in Scotland and it does not enhance anyone's enjoyment of life.
Yesterday, Scotland on Sunday referred to the Citizen's Charter as interventionist nonsense. One man's interventionist nonsense is another man's way to more cost-effective, user friendly services and a more dynamic economy in many local areas in Scotland. In due time, the public will find that out for themselves. Doubtless the detail of Part I can be improved in your Lordships' House, but at this stage I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Carnegy felt inhibited about speaking on local government in England because much of what she said translates directly from Scotland to England. Your Lordships will recall that Julius Caesar started his description of France with the immortal words:
"Gallia in tres partes divisa est".
So with this Bill, divided, as it is, into three parts. To your Lordships' undoubted relief, I do not intend to comment at such great length as did my old sixth form mentor. Like other noble Lords I hope that the measure stands the test of time.
I shall not dwell upon competitive tendering. However, it would be surprising if I did not support it 100 per cent., given that I promoted it in the health service in Northern Ireland, sometimes with a little local difficulty. I knew then, and I have had no reason to change my mind since, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in direct labour employed by public institutions. Lest that should give any comfort to the Benches opposite, I also believe that there is nothing intrinsically right about it either. What matters to me and, judging by his remarks, to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and what should matter to local government councilors—it certainly matters to the ratepayers or whatever one should call them these days—is that the service, whether blue or white-collar, should be provided effectively, efficiently and as cheaply as possible to a required standard. In other words, there should be value for money.
I do not know why it came as a surprise in parts of Northern Ireland that on many occasions I was perfectly happy that the in-house tenderer won a particular contract. It happened only after I had assured myself that the financial assumptions of the in-house contract were on a fair footing with those of the out of house competitors. How the NALGO spokesman who wrote the parliamentary brief could describe it as a "blind faith to an unproven dogma" I do not know, after many of the examples we all know about and of which we shall doubtless hear later in the debate. I suppose, in the immortal words of Miss Christine Keeler, "He would say that, wouldn't he".
748
Be that as it may, I welcome the attempts in the Bill to achieve what has become known in the jargon as a level playing field. I fail to understand, for example, why there are extra costs in managing a private contract. It suggests to me that direct labour organisations are undermanaged at the moment.
However, to return to my muttons, we have vast chunks of a megalithic government department looking at anti-competitive practices in the private sector. There is absolutely no reason why the public sector should be allowed to get away with it. As far too often happens, the public sector is used as a method of soaking up unemployment by either keeping on or, worse, employing yet more semi-productive employees. We did not pay our rates for that. We do not pay our poll tax for that—those of us who actually pay it, that is—and we shall not pay our council tax for that.
Another reason why I welcome the Bill is the inclusion of the anti-secrecy provisions or perhaps, for the benefit of my noble friend and the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Bench, I should call them the "freedom of information" provisions. I agree with them that many aspects of our national life are far too secretive. Requiring councils to publish tables of the costs and standards of the service they provide is a useful step beyond the current arrangement—provided for by Conservative legislation, I might add—whereby the costs of the district and county council services and how they are paid for in aggregate are shown separately on the single local tax bill. I hate that just as much as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
My noble friends on the Front Bench will know by this time in the debate—if they did not know it already—that both these parts of the Bill are likely to prove controversial. To me, the least controversial part of the Bill—the review of the structure of local government—is also by far the most interesting. My party burned its fingers rather badly as a result of the 1972 Act.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is an understatement!
Lord Skelmersdale: All right, my Lords, I am renowned for understatement, I have been using it all through this speech. It has been suggested to me more than once that it was that single piece of legislation, which conjured up Avon and Cleveland and destroyed Rutland, among a great many other things, that lost the government of the day the 1974 election. Of course, it is not as simple as that. No one reason is detectable, but it was undoubtedly a major factor in the areas I have mentioned as well as in Scotland, Yorkshire and Wales.
The reason for that mammoth change was a belief current in those days that we had to have authorities with a big enough population to support the various functions run by both county and district councils. The intervening years have shown that it ain't necessarily so, except in one particular respect which I shall reach in a minute.
First, I should say that I believe that the Government have been peculiarly coy about the functions of local government. They seem to believe

749
that anything carried out by district or county at the moment could equally well be done by a unitary authority. I agree, it could be. But the Government must appreciate the corollary to that statement: those functions can be done equally badly by a unitary authority, and I mean any authority of any political persuasion or of none.
Although I do not believe in the credo issued by the Association of County Councils that one must decide on the functions before one decides the level of government that carries them out, I believe that by adopting the posture that if there are to be any changes in functions, they will be introduced as and when the departments in charge of them decide that it is necessary, the Government have missed a major opportunity. No one in his right mind can be happy with the way social services, often estimable in their own way, are run. Well publicised and unfortunate events in Cleveland, the Orkneys and, more recently, Lambeth, have shown that the management of the social services leaves something to be desired to say the least.
I have not had the opportunity publicly to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for a Written Answer that she provided as long ago as February. She has probably forgotten about it. The Written Answer showed among other things that if personal social services were paid for by central government, community charge bills would be reduced by 33 per cent., provided all authorities spent at their standard spending assessment. That is a tempting enough reason indeed for centrally funding social services, but there is another much more compelling reason.
Conventional wisdom has it that this function depends most heavily on having adequate housing. That would lead a man from Mars to believe that both functions are performed by the same level of local authority. But no, that is much too simple. Not only is one the responsibility of the county and the other of the district, but the care of social services is even split between two central government departments: the DoE for the finance and the Department of Health for the regulations.
Housing, too, is becoming less and less the direct prerogative of the districts in parallel with the Government's desire for local authorities to become enablers rather than providers. There is a further reason, for me the most compelling of all, namely, that people in the care of social services, because they need community care or for other reasons, make much more use of the health services than the rest of us. All those factors, and many more that I have no time to discuss, lead me to believe that the responsibility for the social services should be given to the health authorities. If my noble friend needs a model, I suggest she leads a team over to Northern Ireland where the two go hand in glove handsomely.
A few moments ago I referred to the oddball in the Local Government Act 1972. To my mind that was the sharp end of the planning system where the final say was transferred from county to district level. I am sure that it was that one decision which led to the gigantic escalation of planning appeals and resulted in one former Secretary of State—he is not too popular in
750
certain quarters just now—coining the acronym "NIMBY" or "not in my backyard". He tried and failed to halt an inexorable rise in appeals; they have been increasing by some 30 per cent. a year in recent years. The situation has become so bad that another acronym is now doing the rounds. Some noble Lords may have heard of "BANANA" which stands for "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone". I therefore make one appeal to the local boundary commission and to the Secretary of State—whoever he or she may be—when considering whether to support, with or without alteration, the commission's findings in any area. Such areas should not be made too small. If they are too small, this country will again fall into the trap of having councillors decide a planning case when they are too local to the case in question.
I hope I have an ally here in the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. Whether this plea is heard remains to be seen, but, assuredly, planning will change as a result of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked, what price county structure plans, for example, when there is no county?
I have allowed myself to become sidetracked on to two of my hobby horses. That is, of course, a bad thing. However, I now wish to make a request that I believe my noble friend on the Front Bench will he able to agree to in the future stages of this Bill. We all remember the enormous costs that surrounded the implementation of the 1972 Act. There were new and expensive town halls and council headquarters, to say nothing of old teams of officers kept in being long after they were necessary. Such matters can and should be controlled under the terms of this Bill by the reports of the Audit Commission. However, according to Clause 16, that will only be done if the Local Government Commission requires it. That situation must be wrong. I shall develop that point in Committee. For now suffice it to say that the Local Government Commission should always hold the same views as those of the Audit Commission, not only when the latter makes a specific request.
That said, I congratulate the Government on what is in part —the part that most affects some unhappy people in this country—a populist measure. A bit of populist policy now and again is good for any party. However, if it clearly makes a volte-face in too many areas, the policy will not do a party any good in the long run. The Opposition may have achieved miracles in the opinion polls by doing just that, but I believe that, like Julius Caesar, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be able to say next Spring, "Veni, vidi, vici".
6.4 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, like some previous speakers, I shall commence my remarks by referring to Part II of the Bill. I was interested to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to this debate, having been personally involved on two occasions in local government reorganisation. There is some misunderstanding as regards local government being the product of political parties. It is no such thing. No one expressed that point more clearly than

751
the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, in a debate in your Lordships' House a few months ago. The noble Lord was the former leader of Merseyside County Council.
Local government sprang from the desire of members of the public to have a stake in what was happening in their area. On the previous two occasions that local government was reorganised under this Government, members of the public were not consulted. Local authorities were consulted, but that is not the same as conducting a grass roots survey. In the past I was the Leader of Manchester City Council. That council declared for the status quo, as it was a large unitary authority. However, that argument does not necessarily satisfy members of the public. The reorganisation in greater Manchester was a complete mess. Greater Manchester consisted of 10 authorities ranging from one containing nearly half a million people to one containing only 150,000. Anyone with any sense can see that it is difficult to combine such authorities in a unitary authority.
Reorganisation was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. In the main I believe other local authorities resented the imposition of metropolitan counties. Eventually, however, the metropolitan counties appeared to be doing a worthwhile job. They were accepted as they fulfilled a strategic role. They were often able to avoid confrontations when differences arose and promote planning, transport and industrial development. Prior to that situation the largest authority in a metropolitan district could literally call the tune.
After about a decade of that kind of organisation, the government of the day—it was a Conservative Government—decided they had had enough. They decided to adopt another system and destroyed the metropolitan counties overnight. The biggest scandal of that era was the fact that the Government abolished the Greater London Council. It is my belief—I stated this at the time—that the Government abolished the GLC because they hated the political views of the person who led that body. I do not believe that most people feel there is any other explanation for the Government's action.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said that the sooner we re-establish a central elected authority to look after the affairs of London the better things will be. The Government are simply paying lip service to democracy at local level. They destroyed the metropolitan counties and appointed chairmen of residuary bodies. They did not give power back to the people in the areas concerned. Every single one of those chairmen was a member of the Conservative Party. They were all able men and they drew a hefty salary. I believe one of those men is still in place. I make no aspersions about the honesty of those men, but those appointments were not examples of democracy.
I listened with interest to some of the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I agree with him that on occasions some not very nice things happen in local government. However, I think the noble Earl went a little too far in his remarks as he did not bother to
752
explain that the overwhelming number of candidates who stand for office in local government, whether they are Labour, Conservative or Independent, do so because they wish to serve the community. I know of thousands of councillors who have made considerable personal sacrifices, both financially and in terms of promotion, in order to serve the community. That must be put on record as a caveat to what was said to the noble Earl.
The noble Earl inferred too that local authorities are able to manipulate land deals to make a lot of money. But there are converse cases. When I was chairman of housing in Manchester, I recall that in order to accommodate a quarter of a million people outside Manchester we bought a large tract of land to the east, towards Sheffield. It was known as Hattersley. The deal was struck. However, once it was known that Manchester was to use the land for housing, the owner, who had struck the deal knowing that fact, appealed, stating that a planning change had taken place. The cost to Manchester of that land for housing doubled overnight before one foundation stone was put down.
Members of your Lordships' House will know that over the past few years I have raised some of the issues relating to the centre of Manchester. It is not the local authority that is called into question. The residuary body has been wound up. However, no one completely understands the machinations of what occurred because the residuary body and others were answerable only to the Secretary of State. They published a balance sheet that was placed in the Printed Paper Office and Vote Office in another place. I queried how a large section in the centre of Manchester appeared to be lying dormant. I discovered that a group, including the chairman of the residuary body and two members on it—although Manchester wanted that prime site in the city centre adjoining a huge development area—had signed the land away to a company called Merlin, an Australian company. As I understand it, that company did not put any money on the table and has done nothing with the land since. The Central Manchester Development Agency has put a CPO on it. The matter has gone to court. I believe that the court has given Merlin three months to do something or the CPO will be granted. If one wants jiggery-pokery on a large scale, that is the way to do it.
However, I wish to put on record that the overwhelming number of councillors of all parties that I have met would have nothing to do with some of the practices to which the noble Earl referred. A particular case involving a former member of my party is being dealt with under the law. If he is found in the wrong I hope he will be dealt with as severely as possible. I say no more.
I refer now to the first part of the Bill. I do not wish to go over the ground which was thoroughly trawled over by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I agree with what he said. The Labour Party supports openness. We want investigation. However, will the costs of the investigation be more than met by the savings?
I am glad that the Government have decided to accept the Audit Commission as an adjudicator.

753
However, we have had a number of debates in your Lordships' House—I have taken part in many, as have other noble Lords from all sides of the House—which have drawn attention to reports by the Audit Commission on the appalling state of the housing stock in this country, stating what ought to be done, and on the appalling state of school buildings and the way in which they have deteriorated. However, the Government took no notice of them. They use the Audit Commission only when it suits them.
I am a great admirer of the Audit Commission. On at least one occasion I have written thanking it for the statistics that it has given me, but that does not mean that they are infallible. I hope that while considering the Bill we shall be able to insert the proviso that if a local authority disagrees with what the Audit Commission states about it, it has the right to meet the Audit Commission to ensure that it has used the right statistics before they are published. We all know what happens when someone goes public, whether it is a politician, a television star or a company. Some of the mud that is thrown sticks, even if the person or organisation is completely clean.
A Statement was made in another place today. I make no complaint that it was not made in this House because I understand that it was offered and refused. I believe that there was a misunderstanding because the Statement was made in another place by the Financial Secretary, Mr. Maude. However, he spoke of the issues about which we are talking today. The White Paper was called Competing for Quality. Many issues are thrown open without any indication of when the Government hope events will occur. On the sixth page it states:
"We also intend to bring forward proposals to introduce competition into the important field of housing management—in ways which will enable tenants to participate".
No one can cavil at that if that is what the people wish and they have been balloted accordingly. But earlier this year the Prime Minister and Mr. Heseltine, on 19th March 1991, said the same thing. However, there is no mention of any such provision in the Bill. Will the Minister give a copper-bottomed undertaking that such provisions relating to the housing section will not be introduced in the Bill at a late stage?
In a recent Bill an important amendment was moved at the eleventh hour by a Back-Bencher in another place. I have sat in another place, together with my friends and colleagues on this side. The oldest trick in the world is for a government of any colour when a Bill is almost finished suddenly to introduce a dramatic change when the timetables are set and no one can argue. Therefore, while I look forward to legislation on the housing charter, will the Minister in her reply give a copper-bottomed undertaking that no such provision will be introduced in the Bill at the eleventh hour and that if such provisions are introduced later it will be in a separate Bill?
When my noble friend opened the debate from this side of the House he said that it is not the longest Bill that we have ever had but it is complex. No one knows some of the ramifications. It is shooting in the dark. I have tried to generalise my thoughts on the Bill. Much of it is welcome.
754
There is the farming out of some of the professional services. Local authorities have already tried putting them out to tender. They have found their own professional staff such as architects and surveyors at the lowest tender. We have to make sure that what we do is right and that we are not spending money needlessly, because the local authorities do not have the money to spend. If there are proposals concerning housing, I hope that we will be careful. Let us not forget that if increased costs are not justified by the savings, the only people who will pay for them are council house tenants because of this Government's legislation and the ring fencing. However, having said that, I support my friend and colleague on the Front Bench in his opening remarks and look forward to being able to discuss the Bill at length in this House.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before starting my speech, perhaps I may support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in gently chiding the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who said that the Labour Party was the party of local government. We are all parties of local government. We all support local government. I served for five years as an officer in the London County Council and for 18 years as a chief officer and therefore—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's words. I wish that she had more influence than she does over her Front Bench.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, that remains to be seen. It is not always recognised that a great deal can be done in the background.
As has been said, the Bill falls into two parts. The first part relates to two themes. The first is the publication by local authorities of information on which the public can judge performance. That being so, there must surely be a mechanism known to the public through which they can put forward their thoughts and wishes and complain of poor performance, particularly in cases affecting individuals or groups of individuals. There is not time to relate such instances. The majority of councils listen to matters of individual and public concern, but some do not.
On the second theme—the extension to local authority professional and technical services of compulsory competitive tendering—it is to be hoped that that will provide the best and most economic services. However, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not think that all services should be put out to tender. We should put out to tender only those services where the best can be provided at the least cost. I support the noble Baroness when she said that that applies particularly to the law.
The second part of the Bill relates to the establishment of a commission to review the structure of local government. Here again, I find myself in complete agreement with my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Beloff. Before we consider the question of structure, three matters should be resolved. First, such a commission should define the

755
purpose and role of local government; for instance, which services are to be supplied by local government. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. Is it the purpose of local government to be an enabling organisation or to provide services; or is it to be a mixture of the two?
In that connection I refer particularly to social services in this country. We have splendid voluntary services and some private services, but they do not cover the whole country and they cannot carry out the necessary court and legal duties. If local social services are to deliver a service, the departments must be adequately staffed and the staff properly trained. In that respect, I commend to the House two papers written by Coopers and Lybrand which were recently published by the Association of County Councils.
Secondly, the commission should define clearly the relationship between central and local government and their respective roles. Local government is weakened and democracy and responsibility are diminished if, against the wishes of the people of any one authority, a government can overrule and dictate to the local authority. Local authorities can do what government cannot do; namely, promote the active participation of individuals and local committees on a day-to-day basis.
Thirdly—here again I support my noble friend Lord Beloff —I turn to the confusion regarding the relationship between central government and county councils in the administration of the main grant; the consequent and equally confusing relationship between county councils and district councils; and the inevitable confusion between local authorities and grants to voluntary organisations. The lack of proper planning and the disarray is fully documented in the research carried out by Coopers and Lybrand under the leadership of Mr. Guy Hollis. The research was funded by the Rowntree Trust, which does not support research save in exceptional circumstances.
In a nutshell, local authorities start to prepare their estimates in September and October. Because the county council does not know from the Treasury what its main grant is to be, the county council cannot in turn finalise financial arrangements for the districts, each of which has a different population. That in turn causes confusion for the voluntary organisations. That confused and uncertain state has lasted for years. Those of us who have been chief officers have been greatly inconvenienced. The process has wasted a great deal of time and been very inefficient. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Minister:
The time has come', the Walrus said"
the time has come for something to be done.
The situation should be considered before the structure is formulated.
Fourthly, will the commission consider the extent to which particular structural options will facilitate good relationships between local authorities and European institutions? We have heard little about what we are going to do about Europe. I hope that that matter will also be considered before the structure is established.
756
Having considered those four points, we come to the structure of local government in England. I listened to a paper given by the editor of The Times, Mr. Simon Jenkins, in which he recommended that a wise structure should be founded on what is required and wanted by local areas. He said that every effort should be made to understand what the people of any one area want. Some areas may want a county council which has the strength, competence, achievements and potential to be a key part of any new local government structure, whether organised on a county or two-tier basis. History, tradition, certainty and continuity must be considered. Other people may want county councils as unitary authorities with a close relationship with parishes. Various noble Lords have mentioned the role of parishes. I agree with my noble friend that they do not change. It is important for the commission to consider the best structure to attract high calibre, trained staff for local government.
Will my noble friend the Minister spell out the reason why there is to be no independent scrutiny of proposals for Wales, as there is to be in England? Surely the same process of independent investigation applies in Wales as well as in England. Possible changes should be examined together and introduced simultaneously.
It is to be hoped that this time round we shall get a local government structure which is acceptable to the people of this country. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government, and in particular the Secretary of State, for bringing this Bill before Parliament. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Blatch for presenting it so well from the Front Bench to your Lordships' House.
6.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of other noble Lords in praise of those of all political persuasions who give a great deal of time to their local areas of government for little reward. Such selflessness often carries minimal recognition. One cannot but support any proposal that adds the stature of correct reward to such positions.
I have no authority to speak on local government and particularly its structure. However, for many years I have been involved in the field of competitive tendering: competitive tendering in overseas projects, particularly within the disciplines laid down by organisations such as the World Bank. The word "compulsory" seems to cause difficulty. Surely the word "compulsory" when applied in this instance effectively underlines the terms of democracy. This is public money. It is the taxation of our fellow citizens. It is public money in a World Bank tender. All tenders are effectively compulsory by virtue of the existence of the tender itself.
There is no doubt that the tendering process ensures that competition is evident from the beginning of the initial stages of any contract. One of the most important side effects of competitive tendering today is the highlighting of quality and its cost. The term "cost of quality" is used very frequently and is, I am certain, well known to the consultants on this Bill—

757
the PA Consulting Group—who, I understand, were originally responsible to the Department of Trade and Industry for the introduction of total quality management. The words "cost of quality" are almost built into our dictionaries.
At the end of the day the cost of quality boils down to getting everything right first time. Therefore the tendering process must be structured to reflect the philosophy of prevention and not that of detection. A policy that allows inspection or detection to take the greater share of the quality costs will often create an unquestioning acceptance of failure. The costs of failure and subsequent detection are very much greater than the initial cost of quality. It is therefore essential that any tender should reflect that philosophy in its structure. One of the areas of greatest attention must be the structure of any tender for public bidding.
Much has and will be said about the control of the tendering process by councils to ensure that DSO and commercial bids are adjudicated within the same framework and conditions. However, there may be those who seek greater protection for local government tenders in terms of bidding and performance. Is it possible to emulate the principles of international tendering by the use of bid bonds and performance bonds? They could be set at levels which would ensure that the authority was protected. The use of the bid bond ensures that the tenderer is properly qualified to submit his tender in the first place; the use of the performance bond ensures that he can carry out that tender, that he is financially able and that he has the equipment, the experience and the expertise.
It has been said that the route to success hinges on excelling at what one does best. Surely the submission of tenders must come within that field. It is what one does best that entitles one to tender in the first place. I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House recognise the sense in compulsory tendering. It is not political. It is simply practical and professional.
6.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, my education in local government began when I was a curate in a county borough with a population of 100,000. My vicar insisted that I be the correspondent to the managers of the primary school. Whenever there was a problem all I had to do was ring up the Deputy Director of Education and I was given an appointment within a few days. So I got on my bicycle and went to see him. My education continued when, in the Fenland, I discovered a village which was a true community but which was divided by a dried-up canal which ran straight through the middle. One side of the canal was administered by one county and the other side by another.
We have come a long way in 30 years. Nevertheless there is a general feeling that some further change is needed. However, when we try to address that change we come upon a sense of unease as to whether there is enough clarity about the role of local government to
758
make it possible to discern the appropriate structures. I have sensed that unease within this House and elsewhere.
Therefore it would seem to me essential that the Local Government Commission, if it comes into existence, should be given guidelines, guidelines to which the Minister herself referred. It is essential that the commission is enabled to develop a culture of great flexibility. I was glad to hear that a Minister used the word "flexibility". However, it seems to me that a culture of flexibility is essential and the commission should have space to develop that culture so that the concept of the unitary authority would be applied most sensitively.
The area of ecclesiastical authority which falls to me covers one large county—the two are exactly coterminous. It must have within it an almost unique feature; namely, it contains a city of a quarter of a million inhabitants which is neither the county town, in the old terminology, nor the see city. A quarter of the county council is made up of members from that city. They have to travel 40 miles to attend the county council meetings. Yet, within the same area there is the city whose name I bear, which is typical of a number of such cities in England, cities which combine a vigorous contemporary life with existence as historic places. I suggest that there is an importance to these historic cities which is greater than may meet the eye. Many people come to them and during their visits they are strengthened because these cities speak to them of our national roots. To be aware of our national roots is, in a generation which tends to be rootless, something that it is very precious to preserve.
Therefore it would appear that any Local Government Commission will need the wisdom of Solomon. The recommendations it will need to make to the Secretary of State may well be—indeed we pray they will be—sound and we pray also that the decisions made by the Secretary of State will be sound. But they will not be successful unless they are truly accepted in the localities. Some of the difficulties which have been with us ever since the last round of reorganisation have meant that changes were not accepted in the localities and they have formed an ongoing cause of grumbles.
Therefore I would suggest, if I may, that, in addition to giving the commission space to develop, the guidelines should promote a culture of flexibility in the content of its recommendations and should define the process of its consultations. It would be important to ensure that the commission does not simply consult with one group, then with another and then with another, all in separate compartments, before making a recommendation. We should try to ensure that the competing interests—and there are competing interests—in any one area are brought together under the aegis of the commission so that they face each other and talk through their differences of view. Such a process should prepare the ground for a greater degree of acceptance when the ultimate decision is made and promulgated.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first may I follow the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Faithfull and draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who might have enjoyed taking as much credit as possible for the Labour Party, to the fact that most of the great decisions in relation to our cities were along the lines—in fact, most of our great cities were run on the lines—that many noble Lords have suggested they ought to be run today. They were run with much more efficiency and with good management. The councils considered the interests of the local people, and of them alone. They did not become involved with issues which did not concern them but looked after the growth of their local people. All that was done by Tory administrations before the Labour Party was even thought of. I draw attention to that, and to the fact that the heyday of local government was probably in the last century, when so much was achieved by it. All our present benefits have come from the great decisions that were made then.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge the truth of what the noble Lord says about the 19th century. I take it that he is going to lavish equal praise on the 1963 London Government Act and the 1972 Local Government Act.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I was not planning to refer to either of those Acts. I will leave them to those who know more about them.
I support this Bill and believe it is right and proper that the Government have brought it forward at this stage, when great changes arc taking place in how society sees itself, in the requirements of local people, and when there is a need to have a closer relationship between all those aspects so that we might even go back to some of the ideals we had in the last century, even before the 1963 Act.
I particularly support the proposals for tighter audit and financial control, specifically to ensure good management and the efficient use of people's money. I should like to mention one or two points arising from the proposals on competitive tendering and enabling, and on the Local Government Commission. I very much support the enabling proposals; both those which the Government have already brought in and those which will come forward under this Bill. I see great benefit from them in that they will bring local government closer to the people and will assist it to understand more effectively what is wanted and to adapt more quickly to the needs of the local community.
However, there is a development arising from that which the Government may not have entirely realised. This brings me to the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beloff. As you get closer to what the people want they will, in fact, more and more resent central government making decisions for them. I suggest that the Government may not have thought through the position in that where they define "enabling" as a way to have more efficient buying and provision of services there will be a corollary; that is,
760
local people will want to make sure that what they want is what they get. Also, they might want something different from what others may want.
I very much support this legislation because it pushes forward in the direction in which society is going anyway, but what will happen is that society will be very different in different parts of the country. We shall see some cities wishing to go in one direction and other cities in another. That is right and proper. I should like those people who wish to see their locality develop in a certain way—by providing more jobs and more development in a certain area and so on—to have that. But, of course, there may be people in another area who do not want such developments but wish to retain a quiet rural life. They should have that if that is what they want
There is the overall issue mentioned by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and others, which I strongly support. That is the concept of the strategic implications. I do not believe those strategic implications can be dealt with by joint committees: that will only be a recipe for further disaster. I believe that as these matters unfold it will be important for government to ensure that if they go to unitary authorities—in some places they might, and in others not—the sizes of the authorities are of such a nature that they can take proper strategic decisions which are right for the development of the economy as a whole.
On the other hand, I feel that we must take more and more notice of what local people want in this regard, but there has to be a proper balance in relation to size. So far as we are concerned in Cheshire that has worked well. Here I must admit that we have been fortunate in having two good local authorities at both county and city level, with a good relationship between them, and they have made good strategic decisions which have been made in the interests of the whole area. However, I feel that it would be a great mistake to have so small a size of unitary authority that it is not possible to draw in economic benefits, to attract inward investment and to take an important role in what is going to be a European concept, where people invest and where business grows.
I should like also to draw attention to the fact that, in the concept of enabling, our traditional boundaries at all levels are breaking down so that where it might be right, proper and economic to offer one service over a relatively small area, another service might have to be considered over a much wider area. We can no longer work on the concept of traditional geographical boundaries, city sizes or county boundaries for all our range of services. It may well be that there has to be sufficient flexibility in the system to allow us to maximize the range of services by looking beyond existing boundaries. We might have to look at our boundaries in relation to the specific item we are offering, rather than looking at a whole range of items.
I feel strongly about several aspects of the Local Government Commission. Already too much power is concentrated at the centre and as a result many dangers will arise. No matter what is said, we must be aware that any change will be costly and disruptive to the services and I trust that the commission will look closely at that.

761
There must be no pressure for uniformity. That will be unacceptable to the people and will cause further problems in future. The two-tier system works well in many shires. There is a great deal of loyalty in some of our traditional shires which have a sense of history and we must consider retaining that as much as possible.
Communities vary in their needs, atmosphere and performance. Any change must provide for different views to be heard, for diversification and for full and democratic representation. In particular, there is a need for the commission to consider the aspects of the rural economy. It must not think only in terms of what takes place in towns and cities. Rural areas are becoming increasingly important places for people to live, work and create wealth for the nation. There is a wide diversity of views about how they should develop environmentally and economically; and that should be looked at closely by the commission. I believe that the views of people who work in the rural economy will be important.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned two issues which caused me to make a note. He asked about decision making in respect of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. What is more important in deciding what happens in a local environment? Is it a national unelected body which has a deep interest and a great deal of expertise in a specific issue, or is it a democratic decision taken by people who live in the area? Whose view will predominate? In my view, great confusion exists about that and about recent decisions taken by the Secretary of State. There has been a diversity of views about his decisions taken after looking at matters nation ally and about what local people want. At some stage the Government must lay down the issues that can be decided locally and those that can be decided nationally. At present a great deal of confusion exists.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter referred to historic cities. I live in the historic city of Chester. Its residents feel strongly that their problems are neither understood nor accepted by people who do not live in such a city. Many people consider a historic city to be a place to visit, wander round and look at buildings that were erected many centuries ago. Other people actually live, work and try to make a living there.
There are differing views about how historic cities should develop. Enormous pressure exists because our cities have not been allowed to grow as have similar cities in, say, France and to change and alter their traditional buildings. Many old, traditional buildings in Chester have been destroyed because planning laws prevented the city from growing outwards. I should have preferred to see the city grow on the outside while retaining its ancient and beautiful buildings on the inside That is the view of most residents of such cities; those of York, Cambridge, Carlisle and so forth. However, many national planning rules have prevented such development. If we are to have the proposed changes who will make such decisions?
I welcome the Bill. However, I hope that the Government will consider my views about some of the
762
dangers that may flow from it and find solutions at an early stage. I am sure that will be the case as the Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I was delighted to read in the Bill that the Government are to introduce the proposals contained in the Citizen's Charter. Several thoroughly unfair anomalies exist round the country. I wish to talk in particular about those in the city of Sheffield, but I understand that they exist in other areas.
We expect that our community charge payment will fund certain amenities. Indeed, it is used to fund amenities in the areas around us. Under the right-to-buy legislation people living in local authority houses may buy their properties. In Sheffield, and in other cities, the local authorities insist that a clause be inserted providing that the purchasers who became the freeholders must pay a service charge for the amenities for which they had previously paid under their community charge, or rates as was then the case. They also have to pay the community charge. I understand that in Sheffield the matter has been in dispute for some 10 years. The authority is about to insist that the charges hitherto uncollected will be paid by the purchasers. I suspect that Sheffield is getting into difficulty.
In addition, a number of housing estates in Sheffield were built with a central heating system supplying all the houses in those developments. In some instances people who bought under the right-to-buy legislation wished to be disconnected from the system. I am advised that the charges for disconnection are horrendous. That matter should be investigated under the Citizen's Charter. I am incensed on behalf of the people who bought their properties because many local authority tenants are in arrears with their rent but no effort is being made to chase them up.
I wish to speak also about care in the community. Any review of local government structure should take into account the impact of change on voluntary organisations. Many organisations have established relationships with particular councils and have been involved in planning innovative services. There is a danger that the early stages of the community care system will be disrupted by reorganisation. Adoption of the community care plans are scheduled for April next year. The transfer of social security funds is scheduled for 1993. Plans were drawn up after consultation with the voluntary sector and a great deal of time and effort has been spent on their implementation. Reorganisation must protect local services provided by the voluntary sector. I hope that the voluntary sector will be consulted about the best way in which any reorganisation should take place.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister for not being present in the House during her presentation of the Bill. As she may know,

763
I was with the Secretary of State and all the local authorities from the East Thames corridor deciding what to do about that part of the South East.
In the debate on 27th February, I urged that changes in the system should only be made after proposals had been thoroughly tested by a most searching inquiry. Therefore, I welcome the creation of the Local Government Commission which is the subject of Clause 13. That is an extremely positive response to the fears which I and others expressed; namely, that there was a real danger of instant solutions and immediate proposals for a new structural system of local government. The Government are to be congratulated on drafting that clause and Clause 14. The new commission will have power to recommend structural changes by the replacement of the two principal tiers of local government with a single tier, having regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities as well as the need to secure effective and convenient—an important word —local government.
That seems to me a sound and pragmatic approach. The commission will have the necessary freedom to make, or, indeed, not to make recommendations for structural change in any area depending on its view of the part of England which is being reviewed. In other words, solutions should be devised to fit the need of each area.
I draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 13(6) which empowers the Secretary of State to give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any of its functions. That power is extremely wide and may perhaps be used to limit the discretion of the commission by directing it to find particular solutions which meet the wishes of the Secretary of State and thus, in an important sense, stultify its role. It would have been helpful if the guidelines against which the commission is to work had been published in time for this debate. I hope that when replying to the debate the noble Baroness will set our minds at rest by explaining the guidelines so that we may be assured that they are objective and equitable. A consultation paper on the guidelines would be welcome.
There will be a great interest in the areas of the country where the commission will start its work. A consensus for change is not seen uniformly across the country. One imagines that it will be in areas where certain strains have emerged that the commission will wish to begin its work; for example, the artificial counties created in the 1974 reorganisation which have found it difficult to establish an identity commanding widespread acceptance. Equally, there are areas such as the Isle of Wight where the case for a unitary authority appeals and has already been commended by the present boundary commission. Early change there may be advantageous.
As your Lordships well know, I do not like the idea of change for change's sake. I am pleased to say that I am supported by NALGO in that respect. I was also pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop
764
of Guildford commending traditional and historic counties where there seems to be no overwhelming desire for change among the general public.
In many counties, including Hampshire, which is my county, some district councils aspire to unitary status. I was flattered by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drawing attention to the fact that for some time I was chairman of the largest spending authority outside Strathclyde. I obviously did not do my work very well because he did not seem to understand the duties as regards monetary involvement of the county and the district councils. I spent many days and hours in Winchester and in front of television cameras explaining to the public of Hampshire what they were paying for in their rates and which part of the rates were county rates and which part district rates. Apparently that did not get home to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which saddens me.
We need to have regard to what the public says. That important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon in an extremely good speech. We must listen to the smaller authorities, the parish councils, the business groups, the CBI and both sides of industry. Many functions, such as transportation and structure planning, mineral policies and refuse disposal, cannot be undertaken by local authorities which are as small as some of the present districts. Change in those areas would have to be cogently argued before it could command acceptance. I believe those were the views of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Some people have suggested that arrangements in the form of joint committees between unitary authorities can be established to overcome any apparent defects of small unitary authorities. To combine in that way is complete nonsense. I believe that I am supported in my view by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The public is confused. It cannot understand whose is the responsibility for a particular task. Accountabilities are confused between the joint committee and its constituent authorities. I hope that within the guidelines for the commission's work serious reservations can be expressed about joint arrangements. The commission should be invited to suggest them only as a last resort when all other options for achieving a satisfactory solution have failed.
I hope that substantial use will be made of the Audit Commission's advice. I draw special attention to Clause 16 which provides that the Audit Commission "may" be consulted as to the cost and effectiveness of any proposed structural changes. Perhaps the clause does not go far enough. The Audit Commission should be consulted automatically on all proposals for change because additional costs will undoubtedly flow from any reorganisation. To proceed without those costs being quantified is not, in my opinion, very sensible.
I raise one last issue which again I hope the noble Baroness may be prepared to touch upon in her reply. Besides her own, other great departments of state have a vital interest in any restructuring of local government. I have in mind the Departments of

765
Transport and of Health and the Home Office. Indeed, most functions carried out by local government are not the responsibility of the Minister's department. May the House be informed as to the views of those departments about the proposed review process so that at a later date this House may judge whether the guidelines against which the commission will work take heed of those views? I believe that to be an important point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, does he appreciate that even the most beautifully drafted and framed explanation of the situation, such as he gave, does not touch on the reality of the position in which one set of councillors decide on expenditure and another set take responsibility for levying the taxpayers or ratepayers? It is not the absence of an explanation but the division of responsibilities which is the problem.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, no doubt the noble Baroness will answer that when replying to the debate.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, my anxieties in regard to the Bill relate to environmental matters. In a nutshell they involve improving the environmental standards of local services, the operation of the Local Government Commission, land use planning, and the implications of the Bill for national parks in England.
First, let me deal with environmental standards. In Clause 1 of the Bill I would like to see environmental performance, alongside cost and efficiency, as a further criterion for measuring the overall standard of performance of local authorities. For instance, I should not like to see cost-cutting measures leading to a decline in the environmental quality of services.
A further concern I have with Part I on environmental grounds relates to the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to professional services. In particular, I am worried about the possible future use of private consultants for certain land use planning purposes. It is important not to overlook the value of the constructive and often creative relationship between local authority planning staff and local councillors. Local authority planning staff are often more familiar with their locality and local interests. They are better suited to drawing up local planning policies than outside consultants, who pose the problem of conflicting interests where those same consultants also work for private sector developers. In this context I should like to ensure that the importance of the environmental standards of local authority services and responsibilities, including continued support for local environmental groups, are taken into account.
My second main concern relates to the way in which the Local Government Commission is to operate. I believe that the Local Government Commission should be able to recommend, on the basis of detailed investigation, the most appropriate structure for local government in any specific area. In many areas that may be the status quo. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the provision in Clause 13
766
which allows for the commission to recommend no change to local government structure. However, I should like to be reassured that the commission will, in formulating its recommendations, take into account the ability of local authorities to perform environmental functions effectively. That would be consistent with the Government's recent first year report following the 1990 environment White Paper. It said that the reform of local government structure should result in local authorities being,
"better able to reflect community interests and to rise to the environmental challenge".
It went on to say that the Local Government Commission would consider the need for effective environmental protection in developing proposals for reform. I look forward to hearing how that will be achieved as the Bill progresses.
I am concerned also that the review process should be open to public scrutiny and influence. I am not satisfied that Clause 15 provides for sufficient publicity or opportunities for effective consultation over the commission's work. Furthermore, I am disturbed by Clause 17, which suggests my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to implement the recommendations of the commission, with or without changes, by making an order without an opportunity for local views to be heard or taken into account. That is a deficiency which should be remedied.
I now come to my third concern. One of the most crucial environmental functions performed by local authorities is land use planning. That involves balancing the demand for new development with the need to protect the countryside and the wider environment. I scarcely need to tell noble Lords that one of the unique features of the planning system is that valuable but different functions are performed at both the county and district level of local government. Both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that county councils are responsible for county structure plans which set out strategic priorities in non-metropolitan areas. They also play an invaluable role in regional planning guidance, which the Government have encouraged.
Within the context of structure plan policies, district councils prepare local plans setting out detailed development policies. Decisions on planning applications are largely the responsibility of district councils. The Planning and Compensation Bill, enacted in July this year, was widely welcomed as restoring faith in this two-tier system of planning which had suffered from some years of uncertainty. I very much regret that the prospect of local government reform has renewed uncertainty just as the planning system was settling down again.
During our consideration of Commons amendments in July, I asked my noble friend the Minister to reassure me that whatever the Government decided on the question of local government reform, the provisions of the Bill would remain intact. I was delighted by the response I received. The Minister said,
"the planning system and the measures in the Bill will remain central in the Government's thinking as they work towards reform of local government".

767
I trust that my noble friend will be able to reassure me tonight that the Bill before us will include safeguards to protect the two-tier planning system so recently confirmed. My fear is that without those safeguards local government reform will be environmentally damaging. The strength of the two-tier planning system is in the separation of longer term strategic issues and the detailed day-to-day local considerations. As the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, suggested, retaining an effective strategic planning tier is one of the most pressing considerations for local government reform. I do not believe that small unitary authorities are geared to strategic planning. That could seriously undermine the role of the planning system in balancing the interests of development and conservation.
Perhaps I can illustrate my anxiety regarding the problems which could occur if we move towards smaller unitary authorities with an example from the Tyne and Wear conurbation. The unitary authorities in the old metropolitan area appear to be fighting among themselves to attract economic investment by releasing over 3,700 acres of land from the green belt. The extent of the green belt in Tyne and Wear was approved as recently as 1985 and confirmed in government guidance in 1989. I am sure that many noble Lords will be able to envisage the way similar tensions and conflicts could escalate if planning was left just to districts in rural areas. Such problems are likely to result in even greater pressures on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene to resolve conflicts which would be much better sorted out—as they are now—at the county level. I would not like local government reform to give rise to new problems simply because the planning implications have not been adequately thought through. If there are to be more unitary authorities as a result of the work of the Local Government Commission, I believe only large authorities, capable of performing effective strategic planning will be appropriate. By delegating detailed planning responsibilities to more local area committees, an effective two-tier planning system could be maintained. That would also avoid the problems with joint arrangements to which my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred.
In order to take account of strategic planning, the Local Government Commission should consult with representative bodies and strategic interests. Clause 13 rightly emphasises the interests and identities of communities. But I believe the commission should be required to consult with all relevant parties.
My fourth and final concern is about national parks. The future of national parks is inextricably linked with the future of local government. Yet the Bill makes no provision for dealing with the parks. Recently the Government made a most welcome announcement in their response to the report of the National Parks Review Panel that each national park should be administered by an independent authority. That is widely considered to be the most significant change that could be introduced to make the parks more effective. I am anxious that the wider
768
implications of the Bill, and indeed proposals for local government reform in Wales, do not inadvertently disrupt the management of the parks before the Government's intentions are fulfilled. I will therefore be suggesting amendments to the Bill to provide for an independent authority for each national park in England and to ensure consistency in the treatment of national parks by the Local Government Commission.
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak this afternoon, I shall try to be as brief as possible. I live in Staffordshire, where the county council is controlled by the Labour Party. Staffordshire County Council is well run, keeps within its budgets and provides good services. I suggest that it is one of the best performing local authorities in the country. I see smiles on the Benches opposite. This is an excellent example of just what can be achieved by local politicians of different parties when they work together for the general good. I suggest that congratulations are in order to the hard-working members of all parties on that county council.
There is broad agreement between the two main political parties on Staffordshire County Council that this Bill will serve to benefit the people of the county by splitting the City of Stoke-on-Trent away from the remainder of the county. Such a result will provide, far more cost effectively than the present system of district councils within the county, two separate local authorities of a certain size. The economies of scale which this will produce will be very considerable indeed. Of course such arrangements may well suit one county but not another. Therefore the proposed Local Government Commission will have to look very carefully at the issues involved.
My main interest in the Bill is concerned with compulsory competitive tendering. My noble friend Lord Oxfuird spoke eloquently earlier this afternoon about the necessity for and benefits of such a system. In my view, compulsory competitive tendering is a natural progression to the practices which have been employed in recent years, certainly by my county authority. These days very many businesses have taken on board total quality management programmes. They have had to because they have to remain competitive in a highly competitive environment.
Perhaps I may quote the key principles of TQM. Quality is continually satisfying customer requirements; total quality is the achievement of quality at lowest cost; and total quality management is achieving total quality by harnessing everyone's commitment. Financial institutions, manufacturing industry, motorway service area operators all have had to review and improve the quality of their products and their customer service. Why? Because the customer expects and even demands the best of service and quite rightly too. While not totally agreeing that the customer is always right—I am sure that many a salesperson in Woolworth's will say that

769
the customer is quite often an infernal nuisance—customers have to be treated as if they are special, as indeed they are.
In my view local authorities are exactly the same as all businesses in the service sector. They are providers of many services to a very substantial customer base. The local authorities should practice total quality management and the private sector must be given the opportunity to compete with those authorities on a level playing field for the provision of services. Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example of the benefits of competitive tendering that works successfully. About five years ago my dustbins used to be emptied by East Staffordshire District Council. The bin men—I beg your Lordships' pardon; the refuse collection operatives—were surly and unhelpful and the service was thoroughly unreliable. Collection was supposed to occur each week but sometimes we had to wait far up to three weeks for removal of our rubbish. On one occasion I complained to the manager of the waste collection department and I was literally told "Bad luck, mate".
The East Staffordshire District Council has since then changed its policy and now uses a major private firm of repute, Leigh Environmental, whose staff are waste management experts. The result is a regular, efficient service, polite and cheerful bin men and a manager at the end of the telephone who reacts positively and with speed when problems occur, which is very seldom. Who are these wonderful people? They are none other than the old dustbin men from the East Staffordshire District Council, who, it would appear, far prefer to work in the private sector.
Yet CCT for housing repairs, highway maintenance and refuse collection and all the other myriad services, produced only a 25 per cent. penetration of the market by private contractors. The remaining 75 per cent. of the contracts were won by in-house DSOs with bids that reflected new and improved structures of management and manpower with the inherent savings to the councils. So fears in council chambers that the private sector would whisk most business away from under their eyes have proved to be substantially unfounded and services have improved dramatically.
Noble Lords will see that I am an enthusiastic supporter of compulsory competitive tendering. In my view it brings with it heightened quality, better service and a better deal for the taxpayer. In conclusion, I believe that contracts won through the CCT disciplines need to be of sufficient length to allow the necessary learning curve within the new commercial culture—for instance, a minimum of three to five years, with RPI—enhanced payment beyond the first year.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, forgive me for not discussing the merits, demerits or basic logic behind the Bill and allow me to get on with specific points. They are points which I do not believe have been dealt with so far today, which is unusual. My two noble friends have spoken eloquently and I shall not refer to them. If they wish to escape they may do so. I very much enjoyed listening to them.
770
It is curious that my two main political interests have come together today; namely, transport and archives. At one stage I thought I was going to have to make two speeches in one but fortunately the transport aspect has dealt with me lightly. However, the Bus and Coach Council is concerned that the proposed reorganisation of the structure of local government will produce unitary authorities which may be smaller than the existing county units. Such units of local government would generally not be appropriate for transport co-ordinating functions. It may therefore be necessary to group a number of these smaller units together as presently happens in the metropolitan areas in order to make effective decisions on transport related issues. The council feels that provision for such a grouping should be made within the existing legislative framework.
My other main concern with the effects of the Bill lies within a number of small but important services currently administered by county councils which will suffer damage if unitary authorities smaller than counties become the normal practice. I feel sure that it would not be the Government's intention, by changing the structure of local government, to see services to the community debilitated. I fear that without proper recognition of the problems posed to the small scale services they might be the unwitting victims of change, and the community the worse as a result.
I am thinking of services such as county record offices, consumer and public protection, waste management, archaeology, and specialist guidance on historic buildings. They require small specialist teams and currently operate effectively, providing quality services at the county level. However, they would become less cost-effective if the population and the catchment area served were to become smaller.
I have a particular interest in archive services and record offices and wish to use an example to illustrate my anxieties. I have not approached the other parties aforementioned. The history of the provision of archive services by local authorities stretches back at least half a century and even further. The earliest county record offices were established by pioneering authorities such as Bedfordshire in 1913 and Essex in 1938. The archives they hold, however, date back in some cases over 1,000 years and provide evidence of the history of our local communities over that span.
The Local Government (Records) Act 1962 empowered local authorities to provide comprehensive archive services. The authorities could acquire historical records, make them available to researchers, and publish and exhibit them. County and county borough councils acquired those powers as of right. District councils might apply for them. In fact, since that date only eight shire district councils have been granted archive powers by the Department of the Environment. In other words, outside the metropolitan areas, local government archive services in England are administered almost exclusively by county councils. That suggests very strongly that this small but key service is run most effectively when it serves an area on the scale of an English county.

771
The county archive services have many achievements to their credit. Properly secure and environmentally controlled storage areas ensure the preservation of irreplaceable archives which form the very heart of our national heritage. They are the records of the lives of institutions, authorities, churches, businesses and individuals across the centuries. But archives are of course still being created today and modern records need to be provided for. New repositories have recently been built in counties including West Sussex, Suffolk, Hampshire and Northamptonshire to ensure that storage conditions meet the British Standard requirements. Such storage provision is expensive and is most economically provided in large units. Thriving publication programmes and added value services such as genealogical research demonstrate the success in marketing and promotion. They also provide, at no cost to the authority, services which today's customer wants. Each year more than 300,000 people visit English and Welsh records offices to pursue student research, leisure interests or legal and administrative inquiries. Countless more derive benefits from the exhibitions, publications and schools activities operated by local record offices.
County record offices have been successful in keeping close to their users through branch offices and active educational programmes while also providing support services from a central team of highly skilled specialists at the heart of every county record office. Those specialist teams cannot be divided into smaller units without threatening their very viability. The years of work spent in cataloguing and indexing collections of enormously rich and important archives to make them accessible to this and future generations would be wasted if the offices were broken up.
Another important factor should be borne in mind. I refer to the continuity of the archives themselves. Since they were established, county record offices have rescued and preserved at the local level much of our nation's history which was previously scattered or threatened with decay or destruction. Many collections reflect the ancient county administrations themselves. They could not be subdivided or broken up without destroying centuries of local history, heritage and roots.
The costs of large-scale change would be great. If archive services in England were devolved to the current district councils, it would mean equipping and staffing 296 new conservation units and employing and housing 296 additional heads of service and their staff, not to mention the satisfactory storage of 296 newly constituted archive collections. Even if the new unitary authorities are based on areas larger than the present districts, it is difficult to see how these cost-intensive services could be duplicated or multiplied without failing the Secretary of State's own criteria for change; namely that,
"there must be a proper justification for the upheaval and costs which are inevitably involved in reorganisation. Change must be worthwhile and cost-effective".
772
There is, furthermore, recent evidence that some smaller authorities have little understanding of what is needed to ensure the wellbeing of this aspect of their local heritage.
I am aware that the part of the Bill to which I have referred does not cover the Principality of Wales. However, I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has published a paper The Structure of Local Government in Wales. In its submission to the Secretary of State, Montgomeryshire proposed a budget for an archive service totalling £9,000. Of that, £7,810 was for employee costs—a sum that would barely pay for a typist, let alone a trained archivist or conservator. Such funding cannot possibly provide acceptable levels of service for the users and depositors of archives comparable with those which have become, and rightly so, the accepted norm for nothing less than the preservation of our common past. If that pattern were repeated across the country, we should witness the virtual death by slow neglect of our written heritage.
The Bill does of course provide for the establishment of joint authorities and residuary bodies to carry out certain functions. For small county-wide services which cannot be subdivided effectively, such arrangements perhaps present the best hope. But the experience of the metropolitan areas in the wake of the abolition of the metropolitan counties in 1985 gives a clear warning that this provision does not automatically give sufficient safeguards for services such as archives.
Following the Local Government Act 1985, the most successful archive services in metropolitan areas have been those like West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear which have continued to operate from a centralised base while providing services to their constituent districts. Elsewhere—in the West Midlands for instance—it has not been possible to build a network covering the whole area; so some boroughs exercise no care of their archival heritage. I was surprised to learn that because in the area of transport West Midlands probably comes top of the league. There is little positive evidence overall to suggest that the difficulties of maintaining a comprehensive service held together only by the voluntary involvement of districts have been balanced by positive advance and achievement.
Noble Lords will be aware that this is possibly the last opportunity the House will have to debate the structure of local government in England, since under the Bill decisions will be made by the Secretary of State, advised by the Local Government Commission. Therefore I must ask my noble friend what safeguards will be provided in the Bill to ensure that future services in England will be satisfactorily funded by the new unitary authorities. Will she please ensure that a small, valuable service such as archives—exercising a role for which any civilised society should make provision —will survive undamaged the effects of the Bill? I shall be more specific. Will my noble friend please state whether archives will be covered by the residuary body provisions in Clause 22 or in another suitable place in the Bill?

773
As it is now almost 30 years since the passing of the Local Government (Records) Act, it is time to reconsider the wider frame of legislation relating to local archive services. Our archive services should enjoy the status of a statutorily required service. At the very least there should be a requirement in the Bill that the new unitary authorities must contribute financially at an adequate level, based on current costs, to joint working arrangements or a residuary body provided to ensure the survival of the investment made by our local communities over half a century in their own much valued past. Anything less would be a squandering of what is undoubtedly a local heritage and, collectively, a national asset.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I am glad that someone has had the opportunity to raise the issue of archives. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has dealt extremely thoroughly with the difficulties of shifting archives from structure to structure. Archives are also an interest of mine but the noble Lord has dealt so well with the subject that I am sure he will forgive me if I do not follow him in talking about archives.
As President of the National Association of Local Councils I obviously have considerable interest in a Bill which seeks to set up a commission to review the structure of local government in non-metropolitan areas and I should like initially to give this Bill a cautious welcome. By way of introduction perhaps I may make a few remarks about the nature of local councils. They are what we used to call parish councils and parish meetings and they exist almost solely in rural areas at present, where they serve a function which has become increasingly valuable constitutionally since the last major restructuring of local government—not least because, prior to that upheaval in 1974, many medium to quite large country towns had their own rural and urban district councils which were self-governing over quite a wide spectrum of activities. Following the 1974 reorganisation, many of those communities have been able to maintain an identity within the constitution, albeit with somewhat reduced powers, through their parish or local town councils.
Local councils are able to carry out their necessarily limited functions efficiently. They allow local people to come to their own decisions without bureaucracy, almost always in a non-party political forum, and in my experience local council discussions are conducted with great good humour and decisions are firmly rooted in sound common sense and real local knowledge. Further, local councils are increasingly becoming the last remaining corner of our constitution where it is possible for ordinary citizens to take an active part in the democratic process of ordering their own lives without having to become, effectively, full-time politicians.
I venture to suggest that if parish councils did not exist we would need to invent something very like them. You cannot prevent people from meeting to discuss their common problems at the most basic local level. It is very much better to contain that human requirement via a safety valve incorporated in the
774
mechanisms of the constitution than it would be, otherwise, to have a proliferation of ad hoc pressure groups springing up all over the country on a whole range of different issues and operating outside the legal framework of government.
I believe that the latter is widely understood by politicians of all parties. Indeed, the concept of the local councils meets with great goodwill in every political quarter. Thus far, my remarks seem to have been received amiably by noble Lords, with indulgent, if slightly somnolent, expressions. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has yet to drop upon me like a jaguar out of a tree.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Just wait!
Lord Feversham: Nevertheless, my Lords, despite all this amiability over parish councils, there are considerable difficulties with the local council system as it functions at present which have become increasingly apparent since the reorganisation of 1974. It seems right at this time that those difficulties should be advanced and dealt with by the commission that the Bill seeks to establish. I very much hope that when it comes to considering suitable appointments to the commission, adequate consideration will be given to appointing at least one commissioner who has sufficient experience of the workings of local councils and the value of their place in the constitution.
As I understand it, the commission is empowered to abolish almost everything except parish councils—noble Lords will not expect me to quarrel with that fact. However, the point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that you cannot really have a commission looking into the structure of local government without at least reviewing the functions which are also carried out by the local and parish councils.
I believe that that consideration is particularly important because the value of local councils is not always fully understood by the larger local government bodies or by the civil servants charged with refining these constitutional mechanisms. Noble Lords who enjoy the television programme "Yes, Minister" may share my view that the idea of a few amateurs gathering together to make decisions on their own local issues with very little bureaucratic assistance and on the basis of common sense is a difficult concept for the mandarins of Whitehall to come to terms with, other perhaps than as an intrinsically dangerous concept where the guiding principle should be one of damage limitation. It is not too difficult to imagine that this last suggestion of mine might be met in the department with the opening gambit, "Perish the thought Minister".
Equally, there has been a very uneven pattern of behaviour by the post-1974 rural districts towards the local councils in their area. We have a rather unusual constitutional position that local councils can only really operate at their optimum if the value of their activities is properly recognised by the district authorities. Some districts have always taken the view that parish councils are rather a nuisance. Some districts' view of parish councils is at best grudging, through the adoption of the aforementioned damage

775
limitation attitude, while other districts have come to realise that their own work can be much more effective if they encourage and work with their local councils as much as possible. I am delighted to say that my own parish council of Helmsley in North Yorkshire has an extremely successful working relationship with Ryedale District Council. Indeed, at reorganisation, Ryedale District Council set up an office specifically to liaise with its parish councils. Where that kind of relationship exists, I believe that one finds better local government.
Many of the difficulties surrounding the local council system at present have arisen because the position of such councils in the constitution has not been adequately addressed in past local government legislation, where it is all too easy to regard their role as insignificant. Consequently their position has been steadily eroded, for example, by such things as the poll tax legislation. I shall not go into that aspect of the matter. My purpose today is to ensure that this new look at structure adequately addresses the role of local councils in the future.
The chief problems to be addressed are as follows. The first is the fact that local councils come in all shapes and sizes, some quite large and able to carry out a relatively wide range of functions and some very small and barely able to function at all other than as a local pressure group. Further, not all areas are presently parished. There is the problem that in some areas districts may, if they feel inclined, devolve activities to parishes where they exist but will have to provide those activities directly to areas where parishes do not exist. That can lead to the problem known as double rating. I do not feel that this is the right moment to examine these and other difficulties in any detail. The right forum for that should be the Local Government Commission.
Nevertheless, perhaps I should demonstrate the kind of difficulty which can arise when Bills on local government such as the one that we are debating today are introduced and insufficient consideration is given to the effect on local councils. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions of the Citizen's Charter in Part I of the Bill and in particular to the provisions under Clause 2 and Schedule 1 to enable amendments to be made to the compulsory competitive tendering provisions contained within the relevant 1980 and 1988 Acts. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, dealt with these aspects in what I thought was quite a ferocious manner; but, nevertheless, he did so with his customary accuracy.
As regards local councils, I shall just say this. Any extension of competitive tendering to other areas of local authority activity under the rules as currently applied will make it much harder for delegation of functions from, say, a principal unitary authority to its local councils. The standard concept of delegation is that the main authority agrees to entrust one of its functions to its local councils to be exercised by each of them for its own costing. At present more than £100,000 per year must be offered for tender.
776
The function must go to the successful tenderer and few local councils will be able to tender because of one or more of the following reasons. First, they do not have the staff and so on to be able to tender. Secondly, they cannot tender across borders, so one local council could not tender for the work of, say, half a dozen such councils. Thirdly, the tender offer cannot be broken down into parish-sized lumps. A general aim to enhance the role of parish councils may be nullified in the service field by pressure for compulsory tendering, even though it can frequently be demonstrated that a very local exercise of a function is the cheapest way of exercising that function in that parish.
In conclusion, I shall reiterate my cautious welcome to the Bill. Provided it produces a forum where the work of parish councils can be adequately examined, I feel that it would lead to determination on the part of national government, of whatever political persuasion, to address the difficulties which exist at present in operating at its optimum this vital level of our local government, which is, after all, closest to the people. If the role of local councils is more effectively enshrined in our constitution, democracy will be well served and a measure of protection against what has been described as "the elective dictatorship" can be provided.
In that respect I feel that I should mention the European Charter for Self-Government. I do so partly because the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, wanted someone to mention Europe but more so, if the truth be told, because I wish even at this late stage to demonstrate that my contribution to the debate is of truly international gravity, although on the surface it may have appeared to some noble Lords to be rather more parochial.
The admirable European charter produced by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg is, as your Lordships might imagine, awaiting signature by Great Britain. It asserts:
"The powers of government should be exercised at the lowest practicable level".
In view of the Government's arguments against signing other European documents they should have little problem in putting their name to this one. If that is the case, they should also have little difficulty in ensuring that the terms of reference for their new Local Government Commission will embrace at least an examination to locate the most useful way in which parish councils can be incorporated into any structure which it may recommend.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the daughter of a local government supplies officer who lived and breathed the concept of service still inherent in most of today's local government officers, I am delighted to participate in today's debate. I should also acknowledge the splendid start in life I received courtesy of the education department of the West Riding of Yorkshire. But local government cannot be exempt from the tremendous speed of change in which we are all today involved. It must also be subject to the rule that standing still is a backwards movement.

777
The size and complexity of decisions needed today have led to situations very different from those in the past with regard to local government workings. The demands on people have also necessitated for them a change of priorities, and the setting up of a Local Government Commission to review the structure can only be of value.
Perhaps I may suggest to those who believe that there is no need for such change that today many people do not even know the name of their local councillors; and yet the argument is that local government is nearer to the community. Indeed, in many areas almost 70 per cent. of the population does not turn out to vote. I well remember the words of one Birmingham City Council leader who said that the true result of the local election was that the majority of people did not care who governed them.
If it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, claimed, that his party knows more about local government than anyone else, I can only say that it does rot seem to share that knowledge with the local population. As your Lordships have heard, local responsibility used to be taken seriously. It was a matter of prestige to be a local councillor, and the city fathers and trade unions barons shared the power and influence willingly and easily, to the benefit of the area. Today, there are still areas such as Birmingham where politics have come second to the needs of the city and the team has achieved great growth. In my own Black Country area, while Sir Alfred Owen, the head of Rubery Owen, would be leading the council Conservative group—not in power—many of the employees from his plant were given time off to participate in the work of the Labour group; but for many years now it has not been easy for industry to allow people time off work to participate in local government work; nor has it been easy for management to take time off and to give of its best.
It may also be that many in the private sector do not understand and cannot live with the way that some local government operates at the moment. There would seem to be too much involvement in detail: of the nature of, "How many coathangers for the adult training centre?", instead of, "How should we manage the budget for maximum effect?".
Much local government has become bogged down in the committee system and has attracted an entirely different type of person, with few other demands on his time and perhaps too reliant on the fees. I have come across a case where the need to retain a fee has influenced the decision-making. The mobility that industry and commerce require of their management today means that those people do not have the same opportunity to develop roots in the community and to give their service.
Members of the commission will undoubtedly have much work to do in assessing the balance between cost-effectiveness and areas of a size suitable to be close to the community. It is sometimes difficult to come to terms with the amount of duplication that exists between district council and district council in areas such as housing and highways.
There would seem to have been little change in the role women are playing in the local authorities. There
778
is some evidence that more professional women are becoming involved as councillors, but the 1990 Municipal Yearbook shows that only four authorities out of some 500 have women chief executives, and even today they will be in single figures. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is interested in the proposed chairman of the commission, will transfer that interest to areas nearer home. Of even more concern is the fact that there would seem to be not one senior female legal officer—a crucial role as local government is governed by law and statute; and yet I understand that 70 per cent. of the staff of local authorities are female. There seems to be an opportunity for change in that area.
The Bill, with its setting up of a system of measurement defined by the Audit Commission and levels of performance targets chosen by local government, will be driven by the customers' needs. It is the decade of the informed consumer. The people who want to know more about their health, the food they eat and with which they feed their children and about the opportunities for training will as citizens undoubtedly make greater demands for efficiency on local authority services. The accurate targeting of expectations and measurement of achievement will be much welcomed. It is imperative to measure in order to manage.
Competitive tendering in new areas will provide, again, opportunities for better managed and measured work. With the best will in the world, in-house departments have a protective self-interest instinct. I once inherited a garage team where the profit came from warranty work generated by its getting things wrong in the first place. There can be surely nothing like the holding of the overall check control to ensure that what is specified is what one receives at the right price and at the right time. Of course it inevitably puts great stress on the writing of a clear but accurate specification. I have seen arguments that advertising costs will increase; so, I add, will the choice for the local authority.
I am sure that in our youth we were all introduced to the small girl with the curl who,
"When she was good
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad
She was horrid".
Local government is a little like her and, for the benefit of those living in horrid areas, needs reassessment. I welcome the Bill. I thank my noble friend the Minister for giving it such a splendid introduction.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Falmouth: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the Bill so splendidly. As many noble Lords have said, it is an important Bill of great constitutional impact. Unlike many of your Lordships who have so distinguished yourselves in local government, I can speak only from the viewpoint of a Lord Lieutenant of my county with no particular axe to grind beyond that of trying to do his best for the county to which he belongs. I may make a few points of interest along the way.
One of the chief arts of government is to know when to control from the center—I use the word "art"

779
because it is not a science—and when to decentralise. Anyone who runs a business knows that. Local government was the first system of government, through which our countrymen gradually learned that art before the country became a united kingdom under the Crown in Parliament.
The Bill puts great uncertainties into the minds of all local councillors, local government officials and the local population. If prolonged, uncertainty is bad for morale. I hope that such uncertainties will not continue overlong. However, with the new Local Government Commission, they are bound to last for a considerable time.
The counties must be anxious about the role of single-tier authorities mentioned in Clause 14. How big will they be? Will they be our present counties with more power concentrated at the centre? Will they be in the shape of the present district councils? These are genuine questions, bringing with them fears that our local government, of all complexions, will just act as agents for the centre with little discretion as to what they do.
My own county is Cornwall, with a population of about 450,000. The county council has five districts, ranging from 60,000 to 80,000 souls, most nearer the higher figure. Undoubtedly we are a homogeneous county and one that is proud of itself, and the county council is looked on as the standard-bearer of our affairs. The districts are the packhorses carrying much of the burden of day-to-day affairs such as local planning, public health and housing—matters which touch us all deeply. Is it really necessary to change the structure in this part of the world so fundamentally as may be suggested?
I have said before in your Lordships' House how important the county structure is in the minds of all who live in these islands. That is especially true in the rural areas. Perhaps the further from London and Westminster we go, the more we feel this. The county is the identity to which we all relate, the focus of the minds of those who live there, who were born there and who retire there and even of those who commute from there to the big cities. I feel this very strongly indeed when having to perform the various duties one has to carry out as Lord Lieutenant.
I am sure that those who live in this or that county will feel that they "belong", as we do in our county. We belong, using the old Anglo-Saxon word with all its associations, perhaps through work for the voluntary bodies that we know of—the county's St. John Ambulance association, the Red Cross, the scouts and guides, the local county museum with all its records (in our case a royal county museum) the friends of the hospitals, the local air ambulance, the county young farmers' federation, the county's sports associations and the agricultural associations. The local county associations are legion. Through their labours also, the statutory bodies of the county—the county council, the district council and the parish council—all have their roots in the county. The idea of the county gives virtue and satisfaction to their devoted efforts rather than the idea of compulsion and control.
780
The county is a stable unit in the minds of our fellow countrymen. We must be careful to protect this idea. I trust that the new Local Government Commission, with all its tremendous powers, will make the fullest possible use of the necessary and vital consultations under Clause 15 of the Bill. Perhaps the commission will take full note of what is said in your Lordships' House both during this debate and during the passage of the Bill. One hopes that the provisions will be in no way weakened through amendment during the stages of the Bill.
As to the idea that district councils might become single-tier councils, perhaps I may say this. All change is expensive; witness the costs arising from the Local Government Act 1972. We may have more buildings. How many more chief officers would one have, if the old county were divided into new single-tier districts? Under Clause 21 on joint authorities there might have to be several joint boards between single-tier districts. It would be inevitable that those who serve and staff these would look to the interests of their own districts, which would frustrate the purpose of the boards. Such is human nature.
Surely it is much better to work through a larger organisation such as the county which we now have—a known way, large enough to embrace the purposes of a joint board, such as the goal of strategic planning—rather than that a new joint board should have to be created.
How would these boards be accountable to the electorate or the public? When dealing with the size of local authorities, surely the new Local Government Bill will have to take into account the impact on Europe. For example, in anticipation of the tunnel, Kent is part of the Trans-Manche Euro region. I believe that this is the first officially recognised European region to include an English county. I understand that a man of Kent or perhaps a Kentish man is the president of this region. How important geography is to our affairs! Coming events cast their shadows before them. Local authorities such as counties are sufficiently large and well known abroad to hold their own in the cockpit of Europe with far more potential for influence than unknown districts, even if they are to be single tiered.
I am glad that under Clause 26(3) the Secretary of State has included the safeguarding words:
"power to make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different localities and for different bodies".
That is a veritable cascade of differences. I am sure that the Local Government Commission will be the first to recognise that our country is a world of differences. I trust that it will remember the great virtues of the counties and the links which bind them internally, forged through the ages, comprising some of the oldest institutions in the world and also the present smaller second-tier authorities which exist in their confines, separate in their duties but nevertheless complementary and endeavouring to fulfil the wishes of their countrymen.
I am sure that the Local Government Commission will be wise to the dangers of over-centralisation. Even the most efficient central government, run by clever men, can easily fall into the trap of losing touch with

781
the wishes, needs and prejudices of ordinary men and women. I am sure that the commission will remember that local government gives to every man and woman a share in government and a say in the local affairs that concern him and his neighbour. In many cases in rural districts the two-tier system is a workable compromise towards that end.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I hope that my speech will be welcomed at least as being the last from the Back Benches. I shall confine myself to that part of the Bill which deals with compulsory competitive tendering, or CCT. I am well aware that in certain quarters, including parts of your Lordships' House, the measures relating to CCT in the Bill are controversial. Indeed, recent press reports suggest that many county and district councils, as well as professional bodies, would prefer competitive tendering to be extended voluntarily. Surely though—here I am in full agreement with my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Shrewsbury—the interests of those for whom services are being provided should be of paramount importance. It is the taxpayers who contribute to local authority finances and they have a right to expect the most efficient use of their funds. Local authorities should be responsible for providing the best available services and they should be accountable for them.
Competitive tendering for certain local government manual services has now been with us for over a decade; indeed since the passing of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We perhaps should not lose sight of why compulsory competitive tendering was introduced at that time. It was as a response to considerable public criticism of the performance and efficiency of some local government in-house workforces. Competition was thought to be the necessary spur to promote greater efficiency and better value for money.
Government commissioned research from the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University has shown CCT to have provided significant benefits in terms of reducing the annual cost of the work carried out. Standards of service have not suffered and in some cases were found to have improved. However, not all the benefits of CCT can be measured directly. Changes have also been brought about in local authority thinking. The tendering process has resulted, often for the first time, in local authorities having to specify exactly what is required from the services they provide. In addition, they have had to monitor these services and quality of service has become a major issue. Regrettably, it seems that not all local authorities have risen to the challenge. Some have responded unenthusiastically towards the competitive tendering process which has resulted in charges of anti-competitive behaviour.
If competition produces better and more efficiently delivered services, then such behaviour is unacceptable. Neither is it acceptable if external contractors are presented from competing on equal terms with direct service organisations. This Bill contains enabling provisions which could be used to give effect to
782
proposals in the Government consultation document Competing for Quality. These proposals provide a clearer framework for competition.
There is a need to specify the cost items which local authorities can or cannot take into account in tender evaluation. There should be a client/contractor split when the work is carried out in-house. Outside contractors need to be allowed an adequate and specified time to submit their tender as well as a minimum mobilisation period to give time to recruit staff and set up the necessary infrastructure to carry out the work.
Overall, I believe that these measures, if introduced, will provide a clearer, fairer and more effective framework for implementing CCT as it exists now. However, the Bill before us goes further by proposing the extension of compulsory competition to a range of local authority professional and technical services. Competitive tendering for these services is not a new concept. Some, more innovative councils have already taken this initiative voluntarily.
I would be surprised if anyone disputed that the need for good management, quality of service and value for money is just as applicable to professional and technical services as to manual services. The question is whether in the case of the former, CCT should be used to achieve these aims. If that is the case, will all professional services be put out to tender? Can the quality of these services be assured? Do suitable external contractors exist? The Government consultation paper explores these issues in some detail.
It is recognised that at least some aspects of corporate services may not be subject to CCT. However, most direct professional and technical services to the public, being largely self-contained, are suitable for inclusion in the CCT process. Indeed, some services may be better carried out by external contractors. Perhaps one example is the management of local authority theatres and arts facilities. The consultation paper states:
"The planning, staging and promotion of theatrical, musical, cinematic and other performing arts events are activities which call for a combination of cultural expertise and entrepreneurial commitment. These are not qualities which local authorities have traditionally been required to demonstrate."
However, a number of local authorities has done so with great distinction in recent years. It is important that the Government have recognised that they must fully address the issue of maintaining or indeed improving existing standards of quality for professional services. In order to do this, it is proposed that in certain cases tenders would have to cross a preset quality threshold before price was even considered.
I also support the proposed phased introduction of CCT to these services. Clearly, it will be a more complex task to develop and implement the competitive tendering process for professional services than for manual ones. I am sure that the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to the whole range of local government services will take time and will not be without its problems. However, it marks a continuing evolution in the role of a local authority from being solely the provider of services to becoming

783
an enabling body as well. I believe that this is a necessary policy to achieve the full potential of the available resources.
As I have outlined, the Government's consultation paper has comprehensively considered compulsory competitive tendering. However, there is one important subject that does not appear to have received attention, that is the environment. Where appropriate, the competitive tendering process should have built into it a requirement to safeguard the environment. Environmental costs need to be minimised just as much as monetary costs. I believe there is widespread public support for such measures.
The Long Title of the Bill emphasises the desirability of securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness—the three "E"s—in the manner in which local authorities carry out certain activities. To these three "E"s I suggest adding a fourth—the environment. Like my noble friend Lord Norrie, I hope that the need to protect and enhance the environment when carrying out local government planning or work will receive further attention when this Bill is discussed in Committee.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the opening sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that the Bill,
"makes local authorities more accountable by giving effect to proposals in the Citizen's Charter".
I suggest the sentence is incomplete. To whom will local authorities be accountable? That is the question which has formed a common thread through the most interesting speeches we have heard this evening. In so far as the Bill seeks to make local authorities more accountable to their local electorate and local taxpayers, it will have our full support. But in so far as it seeks to make local authorities accountable to the Secretary of State—I fear that is the intention—we shall seek to modify it.
The Bill proposes that the Audit Commission will set performance standards and publish league tables. However, I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, will accept that those are slippery things. I remember the time when the Audit Commission in its family profiles quite properly fingered the cost of open space maintenance in Norwich compared with York. However, much of the open space in York consists of moors or strays maintained by sheep. The open spaces in Norwich are intensively used and intensively manicured public parks maintained by men. As the Audit Commission has said, such tables do not tell their readers anything about value for money:
"economy and efficiency are not the same things as cheapness".
We on this side welcomed the Minister's comments earlier this afternoon, as I am sure everyone did, when she said that the Audit Commissions's performance tables would embody local standards. That is a helpful comment, but I suggest that problems will remain.
Let us take, for example, refuse collection. One might think that is a fairly straightforward example as regards performance standards. The Audit
784
Commission may judge cost by household and may judge quality by collections missed or complaints. However, it says nothing about the frequency of a service or the mix of dustbins, plastic sacks and wheelie bins. Neither will we be told whether it offers kerbside or backdoor collections, services for the disabled, the collection of garden waste, of large objects or of dangerous goods such as syringes. We shall not be informed either about environmental sensitivity as regards recycling. It is precisely those criteria that have gone into the customer contracts of Labour authorities to which my noble friend Lord McIntosh referred. Customer contracts reflect not only national criteria but local priorities, standards and needs. Local citizens help to set those standards and monitor them. That is surely proper accountability.
With reference to performance standards and league tables, refuse collection is a fairly simple service. It is easy to count and to cost, and everyone receives the same. But how does the Minister believe that league tables can be applied to personal services or rationed services such as sheltered housing? Is more of it good or bad? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Is a high cost warden service bad because it is expensive or good because it is keeping the highly dependent elderly in the community? What about regulatory functions? When the planning department adjudicates on the conflicts between residents and motorists, how does one judge the quality of that?
On this side of the House we do not object to performance standards but we want them to be meaningful and to reveal more than they conceal. To that extent we shall move amendments to reflect local circumstances and local standards as well as national criteria. In return perhaps the Minister will tell us how the customers are to be consulted about the performance tables embedded in the Audit Commission's criteria.
I turn now to compulsory competitive tendering, the second tool by which the Government propose to increase accountability. Experience of some Members on this side of the House differs from that expressed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Oxfuird, and Lord Mills, and the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. Where tenders have been won outside it has frequently been at the cost of the very standards that they have been designed to enhance. For example, one street cleaning company in London bought its contract by cutting staff, cutting wages by 20 per cent. and cutting training and benefits. The high staff turnover—1,000 young men going through 80 jobs in three years—meant poor work and endless public complaints. Similarly with regard to school cleaning and meal services contracts have had to be called in. In leisure management over the past few weeks two of the largest firms have collapsed. Local authorities have had to pick up the pieces. Cheap is very often costly.
What about savings, my Lords? CIPFA estimates that the savings following CCT have been about 5 to 7 per cent. However, CIPFA also states that the cost of setting up that tender was 6 to 11 per cent. No, my Lords. The additional regulations and applications for CCT are not concerned with standards or savings. I

785
suggest that they relate to government dismay that local authorities have won 80 per cent. of the tenders in-house. Did they win those tenders because local authorities acted unfairly? Government would like to think so. But that is hardly the case. Of the 2,800 or so contracts since 1988 only 31 have been called in by the Secretary of State for anti-competitive behaviour. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, none of those was in Scotland.
In other words, as local authorities are winning contracts under the rules, government propose to change the rules to make it harder for them to win. Government frankly admit that some of the new provisions—for example, on central administration, vehicles and depots—will increase council tax costs, and that is at a time of council tax capping. But no matter. That is "bygone expenditure" according to the White Paper, as though it is less real, less relevant and has net occurred. Nothing could be clearer from that than that CCT is concerned not with competition but with privatisation. I am convinced that the Government will keep changing the rules until the private, sector wins the bulk of the work.
More alarming still—it is a concern shared by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to extend compulsory competitive tendering to professional and core services such as law and finance, as he sees fit. Perhaps I may touch on two of those services, computing and housing. I accept that those are part of the second stage.
In the White Paper the Government propose that 80 per cent. of computer services should go out to CCT. However, computing is not about machines but the knowledge that members and officers need as a management tool. Yet any tender specification for computing must presume full knowledge of the need for future knowledge. That is absurd. Noble Lords have only to consider the policy changes thrown at the poll tax by the Secretary of State in the past year, all of which require IT facility, to appreciate the inflexibility, the costs and extensive delays that would come from retendering for computer resources every time the Secretary of State changed his mind.
On housing—in my view disgracefully—we do not even have a White Paper to guide us. In the absence of such a White Paper I ask the Minister two questions. My noble friend Lord Dean referred to the first point. Following the 1985 Housing Act, does the Minister agree that tenants should be consulted before housing management is put out to CCT, as was indicated in the Statement earlier today? Secondly, does she agree that any privatised housing management will want commercial control over rent levels, arrears and evictions, the response time for repairs, and even lettings, to determine acceptable risks? If a privatised management does not have that control, how can it be commercial? If it does, is it not an invasion of political judgment and strategic policy?
I emphasise to noble Lords that on this side we are not opposed to competitive tendering. We object to compulsory competitive tendering. We object more strongly to the compulsory competitive tendering of those professional services where information, confidentiality and the support structure of members
786
and officers may be at stake. No private organisation would send such sensitive services out to competition. Why should local government do so when it will make them more bureaucratic, more cumbersome and less effective'? Above all, we object in the strongest possible measure to agreeing to a Bill to extend CCT to unspecified services. We object to passing a Bill through this House before the responses to the consultation paper, which would have been fed into our debate and into the Bill, will even have been received. It should be clear by now that it is a Bill to increase the accountability of local government not to local citizens but to one citizen only—the Secretary of State.
I come now to local government reform. In 1974 a two-tier structure was introduced which local government said at the time would not work and could not last, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, acknowledged. It has warped service delivery. Some functions were made concurrent and overlapping. Others were handled by agencies. Wiltshire was responsible for cutting the first few feet of verge under highway powers; Thamesdown undertook the remaining seven or eight feet under amenity powers. Norfolk was responsible for street cleansing; the city of Norwich spent up to 10 times as much topping up that service to acceptable city standards. No one knows who does what, at what cost and to what standards—certainly not the local taxpayer.
Following 1974, other functions which interconnect were split between tiers—highways from planning, and social services from housing. That concern is shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful]. As a result those most in need of help—for example, the elderly, the handicapped, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged—are the people least able to cope with the very splintered structures that government set up to help them. They retire defeated.
Why then was such a damaging structure introduced? As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, in the late 1960s it was assumed that big was beautiful, that there were economies of scale. Secondly, it was assumed that the growth of private cars had obliterated differences between town and country. Both assumptions presumed in favour of the larger tier, the county council, and both were wrong. On the economies of scale arguments, in all the research on local government I have found no evidence that bigger organisations are cheaper or better. Value for money depends not on size but on scrutiny, competence, commitment and accountability. As the Audit Commission has itself said, those virtues and values are found equally in small and large local authorities.
Indeed, in shire counties stretching 50 miles by 70 miles the reverse is true. There are real diseconomies of scale. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, did not accept that. Up to 60 per cent. of senior officer time, as one social worker calculated for me, was spent overcoming the diseconomies of distance, co-ordinating, liaising and travelling. So councillors closed schools that they had never visited, amended traffic schemes on roads whose names they

787
did not know and adjusted the tariffs of car parks they never used, and they called it local government. In Europe, where the basic size is only 30,000, such units would not even be regarded as local government.
In practice, most counties set up district offices to administer education and social services to local communities, with their boundaries frequently coterminous with those of district councils, effectively conceding the argument that county councils were, with the possible exception of Cornwall, too large for personal services and too small for almost anything else, especially strategic planning. As a result, we have ended up with district tier administration but not district tier accountability or district tier democracy.
The second problem of structure has come about because the counties have understandably tried to impose uniform standards across large counties. As a result, proud, historic county boroughs, with 600 years of self-government behind them, have, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter noted, found their services savagely cut. However—and this point is too often neglected—rural communities have suffered equally. They have been treated as dilute urban areas and offered thinned out versions of urban services to which those who most need and use those services, the car-less-women, children and the elderly—have least access, instead of rural areas being allowed to develop services, perhaps peripatetic, appropriate to their needs.
Town and country are different, and let us delight in that fact. As I am sure your Lordships will agree, city problems centre around the difficulty of congestion. In rural communities the reverse is true; there is poor access to services. As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, they need different styles of local government and local government is about local difference. In the reorganisation of 1974 such local distinctiveness was lost and with it the capacity of local government to be accountable and responsive to local needs.
Today's enabling authority defines local needs and ensures that they are met. Here I am probably at one with the Minister in believing that it does not necessarily have to do that itself but it must ensure that it is done, and in a plurality of ways. Consequently, the size of the enabling authority is of far less significance. What matters is that it reflects its local community and should be close to the people.
Structures matter—for local government is more than the sum of its services, as many of your Lordships have said this evening. It is the voice of a community networked around its sense of place. Structures define boundaries, communities and self-government. That is why the Government are right to focus on structure, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, that recognises the fact that communities come first. That does not mean that we shall not seek to help the Minister by strengthening the independence and integrity of the Local Government Commission. I am sure that the Minister would expect nothing less.
Finally, we are entering a Europe of regions. In the next decade we shall need regional government, not, I emphasise, as a super local government but as a tier of
788
government that brings power and functions down from Whitehall across from quangos and that brings one or two functions, such as strategic planning, up from the counties. With most purpose authorities, based largely on district councils, in place, with regional government, with a proper constitutional settlement at Westminster, we shall have enabling authorities at every tier of government that empower our citizens. As Nye Bevan said many years ago, the purpose of power is to give it away—to citizens—and we on this side will seek to amend the Bill to achieve precisely that.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I do not underestimate that fact. I am impressed by the all-party support for many parts of the Bill, but I must say at the outset that there is no way that I can do justice to the debate. I shall go at the customary gallop, of which I have been accused so many times, in order to address as many of the points as possible.
I must start with the constitutional point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at the beginning of the debate when he suggested that he wished to exclude certain clauses in the Bill from consideration by the Committee of the Whole House to which the Bill will be committed. I am not sure how the noble Lord intends to pursue that approach procedurally, but he will no doubt make his intentions clear through the usual channels. We shall have the opportunity to discuss the matter at a later date. I must point out to the noble Lord that we would not have brought the Bill before the House if we had not intended all of it to be considered by the House in the normal way. I intend to leave the matter there for this evening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It may be helpful if I intervene on the procedural side of the matter rather than on the substance. I have taken advice on the matter. The best approach would probably be if I were to move an amendment to the marshalling instruction which will come before the House before the Committee stage and which will set out the order in which the clauses and schedules are to be taken. I understand that, according to the formal procedure of the House, as soon as Second Reading has been moved and agreed this evening, the Bill will automatically be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. It will therefore be proper to deal with the matter at the marshalling stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven for leaving the matter there for the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and a number of other noble Lords raised a point about the difficulty of establishing performance standards and about the emphasis on costs. He decided that it would be difficult, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Although I do not want to underestimate the 80 measures to which the noble Lord referred, the Audit Commission will not start from scratch. For those services to which compulsory competitive tendering applies, standards have already been defined. That

789
was necessary in order for tenders to be let and contracts to be awarded. Admittedly, those standards will not be on a consistent basis, but the standards and definitions will be there. Moreover, the Audit Commission has been running the quality exchange since early 1990, so it already has a fair idea of the range of quality of performance and it will be able to build on that. We can expect it to develop its expertise rapidly so that services, which at present appear difficult, will soon become amenable to the techniques that the commission will develop.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appears not to have heard what I said about standards of performance when he said that cost would be the be-all and end-all of comparisons. I said:
"The new information about standards and costs would be published in a common format so that the public would be able to make clear comparisons between one authority and another for a given standard [of service]".
I also stated, and again reiterate, that it is important to emphasise that it will be for local authorities to determine the specific standards of service.
The noble Lord went on to say that there was no evidence of the effects of CCT legislation. Again, we have published a report setting out the findings of the first year's research into CCT, which found that there were not only cost savings, but distinct and marked improvements in the performance of local authorities' own direct labour services.
The noble Lord went on to say why so little use was made of sanction powers, a point reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We have given to local authorities directions, under Section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 in relation to anti-competitive behaviour, our views which have underlain those direct ions and which are well known throughout local government. Many other authorities have been guided by them and have handled CCT properly. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that the warning that we may take action has often brought about improvements in the delivery of services.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Baroness Watch: My Lords, there will be another debase in the future and I want to do justice to this debase. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. We shall have ample opportunity to address detail as the Bill proceeds through the House.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, went on to say that this would not apply to the National Health Service. Again, this is another area in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, failed to hear what was said very clearly not only when I addressed the gracious Speech but also when I spoke this afternoon. I referred to that explanation by saying that the NHS of course is subject to these measures but primary legislation is not needed in order to achieve this.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me for interrupting her, but she is misrepresenting what I said. I complained not about the Bill not covering the NHS but the fact that the local patients' charters which are provided for for the NHS are not available for local authorities and their citizens.
Baroness Blatch: I said that it does not require primary legislation. They will be subject to the same measures. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked how we will judge people and how we will criticise them for spending more on services. It is true that some authorities will spend more on services. It is also true that some will choose a higher standard of services. This Bill allows for that. It allows for that to be published in such a way that local authorities can make judgments about the costs and the standard of the services.
The noble Baroness also went on to say that charges may be higher for legal services. From my own experience in local government, I can say that often the size of the legal departments in local authorities militates against cost-effective services. Very often when a particular service is bought in it may in itself be more expensive but it is not supported by a whole legal services department. The prolific use of legal advice and indeed architectural advice or professional advice in local authorities is very often greater than is necessary, simply because it is there. Cost is not the factor. I spelt out very clearly that quality must be considered alongside cost.
As for the omission of London, I want to reiterate that we are not the party to bring back another bureaucratic layer for London. We shall not be reorganising London. It is important and I shall keep emphasising that the distinction between government for London and a voice for London always needs to be made.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made an excellent speech. I have certainly noted much of it and take it very seriously. He was concerned about separating the setting of standards from the provider and used the analogy of the teacher. It is important to say that a good teacher nevertheless works within a framework. Very often standards are set either by the local authority or indeed by the framework of the national curriculum. The important thing is that the implementation of those standards should be carried out to the best of anybody's, including a teacher's, ability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, drew an analogy with local government not being allowed to bid for work in the royal parks. I should like to say very strongly that it is not the job of local authorities to become businesses fishing for work outside their own sphere of responsibilities.
The noble Baroness raised a number of points: indicators should not be crude; client satisfaction is an essential component of service; high spending may not be wrong; information must be valid; and whether the members of the Audit Commission are the best people to advise on quality. The Government accept that indicators should not be crude. That is why the Audit Commission has been given the task of developing yardsticks for performance and has not been constrained by a timetable. The commission may use its own judgment, which has proved sound in the past. The Government argue that customer satisfaction is an essential component of service. That point is made clear in the Citizen's Charter. Our proposals in Clauses 1 to 4 will help local government electors to

791
express their satisfaction through the ballot box. The legislative proposals are absolutely neutral on standards. They will enable yardsticks of service to be developed over a range of standards. The proposals are also aimed at measuring value for money at any level of service.
Other points raised by the noble Baroness were: information must be valid and whether the Audit Commission is best placed to advise on quality. The Audit Commission and the auditors are charged with ensuring that comparisons are on a common basis. It is implicit that the common basis should be valid. The noble Baroness asked whether the Audit Commission is best placed to advise on quality. The answer is definitely yes. It has already demonstrated its interest and its record so far is very good.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned that there is more to local government than efficient delivery of services and that there is a need for long-term considerations. He was correct on both counts. However, I ask whether we should entrust the longer term care of our local heritage and long-term standards to local authorities which are in fact wasting money. The achievement of better value for money will release funds and indeed energy. It will lead to the raising of standards so it will be possible to improve the quality of life for local people.
The right reverend Prelate went on to express concern about the enabling of authorities and the quality of life. Again, this is a wide-ranging issue. But I can assure your Lordships that our experience of CCT and its impact on local government has been that many authorities have at last been required to consider for the first time the way in which they organise the provision of local services and the standards achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to the relationship between national and local government. He had a rather idyllic view of the past. I joined local government when the Labour Party was in power. I must say that Peter Shore, without notice, overnight reduced very substantially local authority spending. I think the noble Lord was suggesting that this is the only government that ever had a view about macro-economics. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made the point. When local authorities are spending £50 billion, there is no national government anywhere which could ignore the impact of that spending on macro-economics, even though the party on the Opposition Benches that aspires to be in office says that local authority spending would be entirely unleashed.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was also concerned about CCT procedures and whether they are subject to negative resolution. These powers are precedented. Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1988 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations governing a range of aspects of local authorities' CCT exercises. These regulations are also subject to the negative resolution. Our experience of CCT under the 1988 Act has been that local authority
792
CCT practice varies widely. The Secretary of State would use the Clause 9 powers to give consistency and clarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked whether the cost of the investigation would be covered by savings. That is to misunderstand the provisions on performance indicators. Those provisions are not primarily concerned with the costs and savings. Rather they are concerned with securing value for money, whatever the level of service, and informing the public. If poor value for money is revealed it will be for the public to decide whether better value for money should be reflected in better services or in savings.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, was also concerned about whether local authorities would be consulted before the Audit Commission publishes information which may be wrong. The answer is very definitely yes. I refer him to Clause 7(5).
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour was concerned in a very thoughtful and constructive speech about the slow start of the CCT provisions of the 1988 Act as it applied to Scotland. She made a plea to increase the pace. She also pointed to the benefit to local people and indeed the encouragement that it would be for the increasing number of new companies. I have noted all my noble friend's points and we shall certainly take on board her plea for pace. She also pointed out the beneficial effect of the way in which CCT has sharpened up the local authorities' own performance.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale suggested some very radical ideas which he said must be fed into the reforms. I have no doubt that we shall have a lively debate when it comes to some of those individual ideas being incorporated into amendments. He also suggested that I should lead a team across to Northern Ireland. In fact I did just that. The team consisted of only me. I went across to Northern Ireland a week ago. They are looking across with some envy at the setting up of a Local Government Commission in England and they will be watching this Bill with great interest.
Many noble Lords remarked upon the importance of strategic planning matters and indeed the status of structure plans. We are watching the cost of any reforms and any changes. Of course we shall consult with the Audit Commission but one of the requirements for the Local Government Commission is that it must have regard to the cost effectiveness of the changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether the CCT quality threshold applied to existing services. Our consultation paper raises the possibility of a quality threshold only in relation to professional services to which we propose to extend CCT. We consider that the existing procedures under Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 have proved perfectly adequate to safeguard the necessary standard of service where it already exists. However, I explained in my opening speech that professional services are more complex and will receive greater thought as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked: why not publish the

793
PA report on extending CCT? We have made it clear since we announced the appointment of PA in May this year that their report would inform our consideration of options for CCT. We said then that we did not intend to publish the report and we see no reason to change our minds now. What noble Lords should be concerned with is what proposals we have made on the basis of having that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, wanted an assurance that the Bill will not be amended to introduce CCT for housing management. We intend to publish proposals shortly on extending CCT into the field of housing management. After my visit to Hackney, that cannot come a minute too soon. On housing management, while not wishing to pre-empt those proposals, we would not expect to have to amend the Bill to give effect to them. However, I should point out that the Secretary of State already has wide powers to extend CCT to additional services under the Local Government Act, and of course any addition would have to come before your Lordships.
I say to my noble friend Lord Mills that I have taken on board what he said about environmental considerations as it applies to CCT.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird was concerned about the compulsory aspect of CCT and said that compulsion did not require that services must go out to contract. He believed that there had to be a requirement under the Act to market test specific services. Of course I have said how that has led to improvements both in-house and in work forces in respect to contracting arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Teviot were all concerned about why there was no local government commission for Wales. Again, reviewing local government structure area by area in England is a much larger task than in Wales. In Wales it is both feasible and desirable to look at the structure of local government as a whole. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be examining the case for unitary authorities in that country with great care. It is only in England that the size of the task makes the establishment of a commission necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, my noble friend Lord Nome and others welcomed the bipartisan approach to the local government commission and local consensus, together with the need for stability. The Government will ensure a balanced membership for the commission, covering those with local government experience and those with other experience too. The Government will shortly issue their proposed guidance. Most people have mentioned the word "guidelines" but "guidance" puts a much stronger requirement upon the commission. It will have to have regard to the guidance. I have already covered the point on London.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, were all concerned about the roles of parishes in local government. They referred to the important role of local parish and town councils, and I could not agree with them more. The Government
794
are well aware of the role that is played by the local parishes. This issue certainly merits consideration in its own right, and we will continue to look at options for adapting the parish role.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Nome were concerned about national parks and their status. Following the submission of the national parks review, we have already announced our intention to establish independent authorities for all the national parks. We expect planning arrangements in the national parks and the broads to remain much as proposed in the planning Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that consultation was not for real—a great air of cynicism. I can assure your Lordships that this a genuine consultation exercise and we shall consider very carefully the responses we receive from all parts of local government and also, as the noble Baroness asked, other responses, including those from professional institutions, private industry and the community itself. The noble Baroness was also concerned about arrangements for strategic planning, which cannot be divorced from other functions. We absolutely agree with that point. The noble Baroness went on to say that everyone should have a chance to be involved in the review, and not only those who live in the area. Again, I reassure the noble Baroness that the debate will not be limited to local residents. Anyone at all will be able to make representations to the commission covering strategic as well as local interests, and we see no need for specific provision for local inquiries.
The right reverend Prelate said it was important to build on the strength of feeling for traditional counties. The Government are well aware of the strength of feeling about traditional counties and we shall want the new commission to take full account of such feelings. The Bill, for instance, will enable unpopular counties to be abolished and replaced by traditional ones.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege not only appealed for a spanking pace but also made a spanking speech. I take her point about the pace of the reorganisation and also the point that she made about uncertainty on the part of local authorities. Indeed, my noble friends Lady Cumberlege, Lord Swinfen, Lord Teviot, Lord Norrie and Lord Falmouth, all named a number of services, mainly strategical: community care, transportation, environmental, land use planning and so on. I say to all of them that it is absolutely essential for the Local Government Commission to ensure that those services are properly delivered by any recommendations they make to this House; and of course both Houses will have an opportunity to make a judgment about that.
I have noted the concerns of my noble friend Lord Teviot about specialist services such as waste management, consumer protection, archaeology and especially archives, and what might happen to them if unitary authorities are smaller than counties. I can assure him that we do not underestimate the value and expertise of these services which have been built up. The Local Government Commission will look at the

795
provision and continuity of all services when it considers the structure of local government, area by area.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said that other government departments should play a role in the process of review and guidance. Other government departments have had a very real input into the guidelines, and he will be able to check that for himself in due course. Again, the noble Earl was concerned that the Secretary of State should not make a decision on the recommendations without there being a chance for people to put their views to him. There will be a six-week period during which people will be able to put their views forward to him.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was concerned that local health authority and local authority boundaries should be coterminous. I am absolutely certain she will be feeding that into the Local Government Commission. Indeed I know that a very large number of people both in health authorities and in local authorities will be making that very point.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was concerned about what was happening in Sheffield concerning housing. He was kind enough to write to me with details, and I can promise him that his concerns will be properly investigated.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked whether the national review would be followed by a single vesting day. Again we think it is important to tackle the country area by area in order to find the best local solutions and to move quickly where a case for change is established. We hope that the first new authorities will be set up in 1994 but we accept that others may take rather longer. My noble friends Lord Beloff and Lady Faithful! pointed out the need to know which functions local government will have before we can review structure. Each function of local authority will be properly considered by the commission and the appropriate tier of government will be determined by the commission. On the basis of that they will make their recommendations.
The point has been made, and I note it with great seriousness, that the role of local government and central government and the grant and financing systems need to be taken very seriously by the commission when making its recommendations. If my noble friend Lord Beloff will forgive me, I shall leave his education point to the debate which I know will take place later this week.
My noble friend Lady Faithful] was concerned about the work of the Local Government Commission and that it should take account of the European dimension. That point of course was also mentioned by several other speakers. This country is developing a role in Europe and it is an important dimension to the formulation of government policies generally; but the history and circumstances of each country are unique to that country and we should not assume that there is necessarily any read-across between countries with quite different traditions.
Your Lordships are already aware that the Government have no plans for regional government in this country, unlike several of our European
796
neighbours. Furthermore, we have no intention of signing the charter; we do not believe that it is necessary to sign international conventions in order to run efficient and effective local government.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter referred to my neck of the woods—Fenland. I was interested to hear his comments about local authorities being both sides of the canal. No doubt that matter will feature largely in representations to the Local Government Commission. I assure him that there must be an objective search for an efficient unit of local authority by the local government. The guidance will be a tool in that regard.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to historic cities, as did my noble friend Lord Wade. Representatives of the cities of Exeter and Chester will be party to a meeting due to take place in my department before the Committee stage of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Wade expressed anxiety about whose voice will be heard in representations to the CPRE. The Local Government Commission will hear comments from all interested parties. It will then be for it to weigh up all the information and evidence and to make recommendations to the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, asked which areas would be the first to be reviewed. A programme will be produced and as soon as it is available I shall make it known to the House. The noble Earl also expressed anxiety that the Local Government Commission should be required to seek the Audit Commission's advice. Indeed, it will take that advice rather more than is presumed.
My noble friend Lord Norrie asked about, environmental performance and the impact of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. It is intended to keep that Act intact as the new reforms come on stream.
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, asked whether the Government will sign the European charter. I have already stated firmly that we shall not do so.
The noble Lord was also worried about whether CCT would prevent work being organised at the level of parish councils. The answer to his question is no, it will not, so long as the packaging of work does not mean that the private contractors are unable to compete. There is no reason why contract specifications cannot reflect the needs of parishes.
My noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield gave a timely reminder of women in higher grade posts. That specifically is a course for local authorities, but her point has not gone unnoticed. I shall report her comments about the gender of the commission members to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My noble friend articulated in a most persuasive way the need for modern management and for it to work in favour of better service to customers.
The addressing of performance standards of local authorities, the extension of CCT and the fundamental review of the structure of local government will provide for a more efficient, effective and economic delivery of local government services which at the heart will put the interests of local people first. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Vocational Qualifications Scheme
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the educational and resource implications of their scheme for general national vocational qualifications to be piloted in September 1992.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must first declare an interest; I am the chairperson of the lead body for the administration of NVQs. It is as a result of information and publications which have reached me in that capacity that I have tabled this Unstarred Question.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of NVQs. The courses enable people to gain qualifications on the basis of their established and proven competence regardless of how that competence has been acquired. I and all members of the committee on which I serve regard that as a most important development in training in this country. It opens up new opportunities to many people. I do not speak for the committee tonight but to some extent reflect its views. A great deal of tedious work is involved and members would not serve on the committee unless they believed that the development of NVQs was of the greatest importance.
We are entirely in favour of everything that can be done to encourage 16 to 18 year-olds to stay in education, which is not the case at present. In this country there is an appalling difference between the number who leave at the earliest possible moment and those who stay on. That intention is approved and agreed.
The committee is also in favour of finding a route to universities other than the established A-level route. There should be an equivalent to A-level qualifications which opens up a university education to people who do not respond to such studies but who would respond to an opportunity to study other subjects to a level which is acceptable as entrance to universities. They would have to show that they possess the qualities, ability to learn and range of knowledge necessary if they are to make good use of university courses, whether they are the old-established university courses or the new courses which will be set up with the expansion of higher education, which we welcome. Up to that point I am entirely in agreement with what the Government are trying to do.
The idea has been developing for some time. A few months ago the general national vocational qualifications scheme was put forward. It is not linked to a particular subject but it is a general national vocational qualification to be made available to 16 to 18 year-olds—though not exclusively to them—which they can take in schools, sixth-form colleges and colleges of further education. The courses should provide them with the qualifications necessary to enter universities. That is the alternative channel for people wanting to go to university. It is expected that it will
798
also provide a useful stepping stone for those who are not going on to university but are going into employment. By gaining additional experience and/or taking additional courses they will complete the national vocational qualification for which the general programme, it is thought, is a valuable introduction.
A great difficulty about that, and one of the great weaknesses, is that I very much doubt whether those two things can be done satisfactorily if one is trying to develop an alternative to the A-level examination. That must be the primary task of the scheme. It may or may not —and in my view it will not—be possible to combine that with the sort of programme needed for those people who are not going into higher education but who will then go into employment and will gain qualifications in the same way that other people gain qualifications through the NVQ system.
If one says that the primary task of the new scheme is to provide that much-needed alternative course or path into higher education, it is most important to see what is required, what will be taught, how the students will be prepared and what will be the value of the courses undertaken.
The paper sent to me about general NVQs stated that the programme would be based on an understanding of principles. That sounded quite hopeful. However, I then received a draft specification for consultation for general NVQs for business. I understand that in schools—and one can appreciate that—the business-oriented courses are extremely popular. Many pupils staying on are interested in going in that direction. Therefore, if this became an accepted course a considerable number of young people staying on after the compulsory school leaving age would take the courses laid down in that programme.
It is there that one is extremely surprised and, indeed, alarmed to find what is being suggested. Primarily we are talking about 16 to 18 year-olds. In the draft specification there is a unit called "Business Economics". In that students are asked to identify and assess organisational structures and cultures. One element states:
"for each organisational function, the effect of different organisational structures and cultures is realistically estimated and assessed".
What on earth does that mean? What would it mean to a 16 year-old? What would it mean to the person in the school who presumably is required to teach it?
I have been involved in these studies. It is the sort of matter which I became muddled up with at the London School of Economics. One is dealing with graduates who have a very good background in other matters and are accustomed to dealing with unusual concepts. They find that sort of matter confusing. Imagine what it would be like for 16 to 18 year-olds. One of the document's headings states:
"Identify and assess the roles which different organisations play in economies".
It continues:
"sufficient information is obtained to identify the features of a range of different types of organisational structure and culture".
Another paragraph states:
"the success of the organisations in meeting economic and social expectations is accurately assessed".

799
What is a 16 to 18 year-old supposed to be able to do in accurately assessing the success of organisations in meeting economic and social expectations? That seems to be absolutely meaningless jargon.
I could go on but the hour is relatively late and I shall not weary your Lordships. In the section headed "Personnel in Business", which is my own area, students are asked to:
"Recommend criteria and methods for recruitment and selection".
Anybody who knows anything about this subject will know that the arguments as regards valid selection methods can occupy a psychologist for a lifetime. One exercise which the student is asked to carry out states:
"a range of recruitment methods are identified and assessed and appropriate methods which are consistent with organisational objectives and recruitment plans are selected".
Is it appropriate for 16 year-olds to be carrying out that sort of exercise?
There is another unit of the document which says, "Evaluate methods to develop staff—at the age of 16! I suppose they will be 18 by the time they finish, and that is not much better. It includes,

"(a) relevant learning methods are accurately summarised

(b) examples of good practice in the use of each method arc identified

(c) methods are assessed against the numbers and roles of staff targeted for development

(d) valid and reliable criteria are developed for the review of each method".

I could go on and on. The document is full of that kind of stuff.
I suggest that it would be a disaster to approach the alternative path to university education along those lines. There is a unit on business economics which I have not related to your Lordships. I suppose any of us who are familiar with undergraduate economic studies could devise a suitable programme which would teach basic essential principles of economics—the law of supply and demand; marginal utility; and opportunity costs. The building bricks of a basic economics course could put in much less of the macro-economics and more of the micro-economics compared to an A-Level economics course, and could add some work inside an enterprise in which the student could do a little field work to illuminate what they were studying. It would be possible to devise a sensible syllabus called "applied economics" along those lines. But not that paper. It is extraordinary what the student is being asked to do.
The matter is much too important to make a mistake at this stage. In the consultative document the national council asked for comments. The Government want it to be piloted by September next year. I point out that it is not only the oddities of the proposed education—to put it politely—but also a question of where the resources are to come from. Are people already in schools to he asked to teach those topics? If so, what on earth will they use for teaching materials? To put it bluntly, what do they know about the subjects included there? If it is to be done properly there will have to be a huge recruitment campaign among teaching staff in order to provide the teaching.
800
They must be people who know enough and know how to liaise with people in industry in order to obtain the practical side of the work required, if one is to do it properly. Where will they come from? As it is, the schools do not know where to turn for scarce specialist teachers. To ask them to provide the kind of specialist teaching required to do it even reasonably well is to ask for a huge addition in resources.
What I am saying is that we must not try to do this the day before yesterday. The Government are rushing educational changes without thinking them out and without going seriously into what is required. They are travelling down the wrong path. I believe the core of the problem is that they have not thought out what is required in the modern world in the way of university education. I believe also that they are bemused by the absurd distinction between what is vocational and what is non-vocational, and that one can put forward a perfectly good system involving two years' preparation leading to university entrance which could be a mixture of so-called vocational and non-vocational subjects.
What is mathematics? Is it vocational or is it non-vocational? To someone like me it is non-vocational and highly educational. For someone who wants to be a civil engineer it is vocational. What is English? In order to do a job everybody, or nearly everybody, needs a grasp of English and to be able to write it. Is that a vocational subject or a non-vocational subject? There are, of course, different ways of teaching the subject. However, the distinction which I believe is at present bedevilling the developments is a false one. We should go back to the drawing board to start again and rebake this cake. It will not do as it stands.
Surely the Government can take the document back for proper consultation and look at what is the heart of the matter; that is, to work for a much wider range of applicants planning to take a wider range of courses. That is the right kind of university entrance and, therefore, the right kind of teaching that should take place between the ages of 16 and 18. If the Government do not do that, with this kind of programme they are heading for disaster.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we should be indebted at this time of night and after long and tedious discussion of a long and tedious subject like local government to get down to something concrete in the way the noble Baroness has done. The subject she has raised is infinitely more important than whether we should have single-tier local government, counties or districts. It refers directly to the major resource of this country—its young people.
The noble Baroness suggested that, for obscure reasons, the Government are rushing into changes which they have not thought through either from the educational point of view or the resource point of view. In both cases she is right. The Government should be indebted to her. The country would look ridiculous on international comparison if it were to be discovered that this sort of thing is our idea of vocational training. It has a double significance. If the

801
standard is as low or as unattainable as the noble Baroness suggests from the excerpts she gave—I have no doubt that she has studied and could produce other excerpts that would convince us in the same way—to some extent one is deceiving the young people themselves. One is telling them that they are obtaining something which is the equivalent of intellectual training when clearly they are not.
There is also the muddle which I fear has crept into the Government's enthusiasm for the expansion of higher education as regards the alternative route. It is not that there could not be an alternative route and the noble Baroness said as much. The preparation for higher education has two functions. One is to instil a capacity for independent study which is essential for partaking in higher education. There is also the necessity for methodical study which this kind of study is hardly likely to encourage. There is also the question of having the foundations of knowledge which will make it possible to continue the subjects that have been studied at a certain level.
It is often forgotten that that is the dual purpose of A-levels and one reason why many people in universities are chary of abandoning them. There is also the question—this is where the Government's concern about resources should be prominent in their mind—of what the universities do if they accept people whose only preparation has been a certain kind of study. The answer is obvious. If they are bright enough in other respects to be accepted they can be taught what they have not been taught. The first year at university will he spent teaching—in this case economics, but it could equally well apply to other subjects—at a level which could have been taught at the age of 16. In the second year students will be taught what could have been taught at the age of 17. Then two years after their fellows who have done A-levels they will begin to take the same classes.
That means that a three-year course will clearly have to become a five-year course. It seems a most extraordinary waste of rare resources and an extraordinary degree of unnecessary government expenditure if the universities, in the interests of expansion are to be compelled to indulge in remedial teaching of that kind. It is exactly as though secondary schools had to teach reading in the first couple of years to the primary school pupils for whom, somehow or other, that skill had been omitted. One can always catch up. The question is: what is the economical and sensible way of catching up?
The issues takes one beyond the extravagances of this kind of study. There is a curious notion that one can combine wider access—in itself a good idea—to higher education with a diminution of the intensity of that education. On the contrary, the more one expands provision, and the more one provides alternative routes of entry, the more important it will be to cultivate the intensive teaching at university level which has been the special feature of university education in this country. That special feature explains the often quoted statistic that while in many Continental countries most of those who begin a university education do not finish it, in this country a university is very conscious even if it has a wastage
802
rate—people who do not complete the course upon which they have embarked—of only a few percentage points.
Therefore, the argument that the noble Baroness has put before us is central to the whole question of how we expand. Do we expand by finding alternative routes which leave people as well prepared as if they had followed the traditional route, or do we say that it does not matter how well they are prepared as we shall put the onus of preparation on to the institutions of higher education themselves? The issue must he faced. It cannot be settled between now and September. It could be worked out properly over a period of years. There is no urgency about it. The current routes of entry are available. Under the present system there are plenty of applicants to both universities and polytechnics. Do not let us jump into some experimental system until it has at least been worked out and publicly debated. We owe a vote of thanks to the noble Baroness for bringing the issue to our attention.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, there must be wide support for the intentions of the proposed general national vocational qualification. For far too long we have neglected youngsters in the 16 to 18 year age group who were either unqualified or unwilling for whatever reason to follow the traditional academic route to higher qualifications, and for whom the routes to vocational qualifications were confusing, if available, and not encouraging and treated them as second class citizens. What a waste of talent in a country that depends greatly on its manufacturing skills. What is now proposed is a nationally validated scheme with students or pupils being treated on a par with their more academic brothers and sisters.
Before giving three cheers, however, I have to enter some caveats. They reinforce what my noble friend Lady Seear and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said but in a slightly different context with which I am more familiar—the area of technology, science and engineering. My first caveat concerns the manpower and financial resources to be provided to implement the scheme by next September. Are there to be new funds to do the job properly? How are the teachers to be trained in time? Are extra teachers to be provided, or are we talking about conversion courses for teachers already in employment?
My second concern is the proposal that the GNVQ should be an entrance qualification into higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to that. An increase in the number of routes into universities and polytechnics is to be welcomed; an increase in the numbers going into higher education is also to be welcomed. But students without the traditional A-level background must not be disadvantaged in their ability to undertake a degree course. No doubt it will be said that universities and polytechnics will have to modify their courses and their teaching methods—and to some extent they are already doing so—but it must be understood that there are limits to how far one can go without devaluing the degree course.

803
I am aware that staff in university engineering departments, and no doubt elsewhere, already provide remedial or supplementary tutorials to help students who are weak in mathematics or who are without A-level mathematics. Many of them come from BTEC courses. At present, that represents another route into universities. Nevertheless, it is a strain on the resources of university faculties which should not be increased.
There is also concern about the ability of students with a conventional academic background to write clear and grammatical English—but they, at least, have some foundation upon which to build. I often suspect that that comes from the learning they acquired in the foreign language course which they took at school. If we are not careful, we may find ourselves in a much worse situation where students with a general national vocational qualification have little experience in writing English because the emphasis in such courses is, quite properly, upon demonstrating useful skills and what is described in one document as "active learning".
There is much to be said in favour of these vocational qualifications in providing badly needed training and education for 16 to 18 year-olds. However, as a qualification for university entrance without greater convergence from the academic and vocational routes at the point of entrance into higher education—such a convergence may involve altering the structure of A-levels, but convergence there must be—they would be disruptive and counterproductive in university education.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government seem to be in something of a mess on the whole question of participation in education of 16 to 18 year-olds. They are in a mess on the courses which are offered, on the forms of examination and assessment, and on the qualifications on offer on completion of the various courses which are available. Their proposals on GNVQs illustrate that fact only too well.
Like other speakers in the debate, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for introducing the subject. As she said, it is now widely recognised in this country that our participation rates are deplorable. Compared with other OECD and European Community countries, we have far fewer young people in full-time education at this age. For example, in West Germany 95 per cent. of young people are in full-time education and in France the figure is 85 per cent. But in the UK, only 54 per cent. of 16 year-olds and 37 per cent. of 17 year-olds are in full-time education.
Ministers seem to be briefed to appear on television and elsewhere saying that our rates for staying on at school are improving, that there are more GCSE passes and that more people are staying on after the age of 16 and then going into higher education. It is true that the rates of participation are improving, but so are those of everyone else. The problem—and I hope that the Government will respond—is that the participation rates of other countries are improving
804
much faster than ours. Therefore, we are still a very long way behind our competitors. If we are to get anywhere near catching up in the foreseeable future, huge steps need to be taken to improve our educational system so as to make it more attractive to young people.
The consultation paper on GNVQs is the latest recognition of the fact that not all is well, especially in relation to examinations and qualifications for this age group. However, I am afraid to say that the solution to deal with the problem is pathetically inadequate. The Government are in a hole and instead of digging their way out, they seem, with every new initiative—of which general national vocational qualifications is the latest example—to be digging their way deeper and deeper into it. They would do a little better if they were to climb out and start again with a new and fresh approach, as the noble Baroness said, rather than to add seemingly endless new initiatives to an already confusing jungle of qualifications. At the centre of the Government's problem is their pigheaded and obstinate refusal to reform A-levels, and I shall say more about that later.
First, I shall say something about the problem into which the Government have walked with NVQs. I am a little less enthusiastic about them than the noble Baroness. It is the problems experienced with NVQs which have led the Government to the latest initiative with regard to GNVQs. They are trying to make NVQs perform two jobs: first, to provide a ladder of professional advance for adult workers; and, secondly, to provide a vocational foundation for young people aged 16 to 18. I regret to say that they are not succeeding in either task, especially with the provision for 16 to 18 year-olds.
The problem is that the division of curricular options between academic and vocational study polarises knowledge and skill and theory and practice. The students' choice is reduced to what I would see as a forced dichotomy between narrow job-specific training on the one hand, and academic subjects, which are too narrow, on the other.
The Government have charged employer-led bodies with the task of specifying the competences that make up NVQs—to use the jargon. That has led to some institutionalisation of existing labour market practice—a practice that is, regrettably, the source of many of our current problems. NVQs, and the narrowly defined competences at their core, fail adequately to take account of the dynamism and change that must be at the heart of modern business where competitive advantage is defined by improvisation, creativity and innovation. The problem we face is that the vision at the heart of NVQs is that people with competences are not capable people; so I am a little less enthusiastic about NVQs than some other speakers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, we can agree on the Government's intentions with regard to GNVQs. We on this side of the House share with the Government a commitment to try to improve participation and to provide more opportunities for vocational studies, with clear routes into higher education. But where we part company is on the

805
question of a divided system in which there is an over-rigid demarcation between those pursuing the academic route—A-levels—and those pursuing a vocational route, through GNVQs, BTEC or any other vocational qualification.
When the noble Baroness suggested that the division between vocational and non-vocational studies is false, she implied that the right approach, although she did not go as far as saying this, should be the rationalisation and integration of A-levels and the existing jungle of vocational qualifications into an advanced certificate of education and training. That, of course, is Labour Party policy. It would entail a modular structure where young people may select both practical and theoretical models, and it should be possible to study the advanced certificate either full-time or part-time, with opportunities for some work experience for those who want it.
The new qualifications system that we shall introduce will enhance A-level standards as well as fulfil the Higginson Committee's proposals for a five-subject A-level. It will incorporate all the existing NVQ qualifications at level 3. In doing so, it will end the early selection and low participation that characterise the current system. It will also end over-specialisation. It is important that it should maintain high academic standards for the academically able while at the same time allowing clever young people to obtain some practical skills, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, agrees.
The problem of trying to obtain parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications would become insignificant in an integrated system of this kind. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that all young people, including those who are more orientated towards practical and vocational approaches, need also to study some of the foundations of knowledge.
Quite apart from the fundamental flaw in the Government's thinking that parity of esteem is attainable, while continuing to consider the so-called gold standard of A-levels, the latest proposals for GNVQ seem flawed in a number of other respects. All speakers have referred to the quite unrealistic timetable. Five new subjects are to be introduced by next autumn. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, that is an absurdly short time in which to get them off the ground. The colleges and schools need at least a full year to prepare the new courses. They need time to prepare work placements for project work, time for staff development. They need to develop new forms of assessment associated with the new courses. Of course, they need time to get proper assessor training together. To rush in in 1992 will result, I believe, in an ill-prepared initiative in which people will have very little confidence.
The consultation document is also totally unclear on how the new GNVQs will relate to the more occupationally specific NVQs on the one hand and A-levels on the other. It is also unclear how they will relate to the new ordinary and advanced diplomas
806
which the Government propose. Incidentally, to many commentators those look like just two new names tagged on to the existing system.
There is nothing particularly wrong with the occupational areas selected for GNVQs, although the basis for choice is not clear. There are also some extremely large categories, such as manufacturing, which ought to be broken down. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about some of the absurdities in the consultation document on business.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who said that there is a need for more young people to have competence in a foreign language. I agree. At the moment, there is apparently no intention of introducing this into GNVQs.
The question of equivalence to A-levels seems ambiguous. If a GNVQ is meant to be equivalent to two A-levels, as is implied in the Government's White Paper, does that mean that it will provide access to relevant degrees in higher education? Are universities and other higher education institutions to be asked to accept it as an entry qualification on exactly the same basis as A-levels or will admission tutors be concerned that it is not really comparable in terms of the level of knowledge or the understanding attained? That was a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
The document is extremely unclear about what is entailed in work placements. We have yet another new title for a qualification for 16 to 18-year olds which will be confusing for the students, for teachers and for parents. There are already a number of qualifications which cover a similar specification to GNVQs, of which BTEC is one. All this points to the need for a more integrated and rationalised system to which I referred earlier.
Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked, how will these new programmes be resourced? The consultation paper admits that resources will be a problem, especially for the schools which already face pressures. I believe there will also be a problem for colleges. They are being asked to ensure that there will be proper external verification of the new courses. They are also being asked to provide high quality course work, projects and work placements. All that involves large costs in time and therefore in money. Where is the money to come from? One cannot continue to expect people in the teaching profession, at whatever level, to take on endless new initiatives without providing the necessary back-up in terms of funding and without allowing the teachers involved the necessary time for preparation.
I regret to say that the whole proposal seems somewhat ill conceived for the reasons already stated. It has been rushed in with no clear indication of the extra funds needed to get it off the ground. I wish to refer the Minister to the proposals of the Institute for Public Policy Research. I must declare an interest as chairman of the board of trustees of that body. The institute has put forward proposals for a British baccalaureate. That, the Government will find, is a more coherent and more radical solution to the problem of qualifications for 16 to 18 year-olds than

807
the solution the Government have proposed as regards GNVQs. I wish the Government would take the proposals of that body more seriously.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. The noble Baroness drew heavily on a document that has just come into my possession. It has therefore not even been in the Government's possession. Therefore I doubt whether I can make many comments on it as it is not directed at the Government and I have only had a short time in which to study it.
Although not many noble Lords have participated in this debate, those who have done so have far greater authority in this subject than I shall ever aspire to. We shall take careful account of everything that has been said. This matter is purely at the consultation stage and the consultation does not even involve the Government directly. Accordingly my comments will inevitably be of a general nature.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, I omitted to say that the council is expecting to receive comments by 2nd December. After that date it will go ahead with the matter. That is why I have initiated the debate tonight. Once that date has been reached, the council will steam ahead with its plans. Therefore there is great urgency. It was foolish of me not to mention that date earlier. I hope that will register with the noble Lord.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will be patient as I shall discuss the timescale. The noble Baroness and others have used the opportunity provided by this debate to place on record their concerns. I too take this opportunity to place on record the Government's general approach to the subject.
The Government's White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century called for parity of esteem for vocational and academic qualifications. I welcome the opportunity for this House to demonstrate the importance which it attaches to vocational qualifications and to improving the vocational education and training offered to our young people. The Government's intention to introduce general national vocational qualifications—general NVQs—was announced in the White Paper. That White Paper set out the Government's aims for vocational education and training.
Those aims are to ensure that high quality education or training becomes the norm for all 16 and 17 year-olds who can benefit from it; to increase the all-round levels of attainment by young people; and to increase the proportion of young people acquiring higher levels of skill and expertise. General national vocational qualifications have an important part to play in achieving those aims. For too long in this country we have admired academic skills and talents at the expense of practical skills and talents. We all know that the entrepreneur, the engineer and the highly skilled craftsman are just as valuable to society
808
as the teacher and researcher. But when it comes to qualifications we behave as if the vocational is automatically inferior to the academic. That was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.
We want parity of esteem for academic and vocational qualifications. We also want a full range of qualifications available to suit all mixtures of ability, talent and interests. I believe that general NVQs will help in achieving those objectives. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her enthusiastic support for those principles.
Immediately following publication of the White Paper, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science invited the National Council for Vocational Qualifications—the NCVQ—to lead the development of general NVQs and to propose criteria to govern general NVQs within the overall NVQ framework. Our intention is to make the first general NVQs available in colleges and schools from September 1992. That was one of the anxieties raised by the noble Baroness and others. By way of reassurance, I state that September 1992 is not the final deadline. It is intended to be the first stage of a phased introduction of GNVQs. We expect only a very small number of GNVQs to be on offer from that date.
In that context it is important to remember that we are not starting entirely from scratch. A good number of general vocational qualifications have been available for a considerable time. Many of those qualifications are likely to be suitable, with appropriate modifications, for accreditation of general NVQs. FE colleges have a long and successful record of offering those qualifications and schools have already begun to gear themselves up for the delivery of vocational qualifications. For example, around 140 schools started offering BTEC Firsts to their sixth form pupils in September 1991. Around 1,000 more have plans to do so from September 1992. We were building on that experience rather than starting from scratch. However, as I say, there is nothing sacred about the date 1992.
The NCVQ has been working closely in collaboration with the three major vocational awarding bodies—the Business and Technician Education Council, City and Guilds and the RSA Examinations Board. The Further Education Unit and industry lead bodies, representing employers' interests, have also been very closely involved.
In mid-October the NCVQ published a consultation document containing proposals for criteria and some example qualifications. That document seeks views on an assortment of important issues. The NCVQ will be reporting the results of that consultation to my government colleagues at around the turn of the year. Final decisions on the shape of general NVQs will be taken as soon as possible thereafter.
It is important to see the general NVQ initiative in the wider context of the development of NVQs. The NCVQ is charged with establishing a comprehensive framework of NVQs.
The NVQ framework divides the economy into 11 occupational areas. Examples might include tending

809
animals, plants and land and business services. There are five NVQ levels, ranging from level 1, which covers foundation qualifications, to level 5, which will cover high level professional qualifications. Each NVQ is allocated to one of these levels and is designed to help progress from one level to another. The aim is to allow those taking the qualifications and others with an interest—employers, parents and teachers—to see clearly how one qualification relates to others. For example NVQ level 3—very broadly equivalent to A-levels—covers qualifications for technician, advanced craft and supervisor jobs.
The NVQ approach is to specify qualifications in some detail in the form of the outcomes to be achieved. This means that students are clear what they are expected to know, understand and be able to do. It also means that teachers are clear what should be covered in a course and employers and gatekeepers to higher level are clear what students offering NVQs have achieved. Qualifications are unit-based, so that students can accumulate units towards a full qualification at their own pace.
Why do we need general NVQs? The present occupationally specific NVQs are designed for a specific purpose; namely, to ensure that the holder has the knowledge and skills—the competence—necessary to do a particular job or range of jobs to the required standard. NVQs are particularly suitable for those who are already in work. They will help to ensure that employees receive recognition for the competences that they have already developed and encouragement to take the training necessary to progress to higher level jobs.
However, many young people, and some older ones, want to study for vocational qualifications which prepare them for a variety of occupations. Some are not ready to make an irrevocable choice about what they want to do next. We therefore need a range of general vocational qualifications which cater for their needs and which form part of the NVQ framework. We do not want to create a new qualification which is unrelated to other vocational qualifications on offer. However, vocational qualifications can offer a great deal more besides preparation for employment. That is clearly a central aim, but it is also possible for vocational courses to provide a broad general education and a ladder to higher education alongside academic qualifications. General NVQs will provide breadth and enable progression to higher education.
If I recall his comment correctly, my noble friend Lord Beloff fears that the result of our proposals will be a diminution of intensity. I cannot agree. There is already a small but significant vocational route to higher education. The best BTEC students do as well as the best A-level students. Universities and polytechnics have accepted students offering vocational qualifications without increasing the length of degree courses. Already about 10 per cent. of entrants to degree level studies come to such courses on the basis of vocational qualifications. The vocational route is stronger to polytechnics than it is to universities. For example, 40 per cent. of those
810
starting engineering and technology degrees in polytechnics entered on the basis of vocational qualifications.
The Government's forecasts show one in three young people going on to higher education by the end of the century, a fact acknowledged even by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. We too believe that we should do better. We envisage that many more than at present will travel along the vocational route. There are many young people with the potential to benefit from higher education but who do not find the traditional A-level route attractive or appropriate. We expect general NVQs to play an important role in helping to meet their needs.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, we believe that A-levels are a tried and tested part of the education system. We do not believe that participation and achievement will be raised by discarding them. The popularity of A-levels remains high. Take-up continues to rise. They are entirely appropriate for the group of pupils for whom they are designed. Twenty per cent. of 18 year-olds now achieve two or more A-level passes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a great deal of criticism of A-levels by employers, universities and many others who work in the education system because they are too narrow and over-specialised and, as the noble Lord himself admitted, inappropriate for young people?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we not only admit that, but are doing something about it. Is that not the key to what I am saying?
The fully integrated baccalaureate-type structure is neither necessary nor desirable. Academic and vocational qualifications are tried and tested and we must build on their success. Those who argue for a baccalaureate say that A-levels are the problem. They are not. The problem is the low status of vocational qualifications. Our policies on diplomas and related matters are designed to change that.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of resources. As for the resource implications of general NVQs, I mentioned that NCVQ is currently consulting on its initial proposals for general NVQs and it will be a little while before we know the final shape of the first general NVQs. Clearly I cannot pre-empt the results of that consultation. However, I hope I can offer some broad reassurance.
General vocational qualifications have been on offer in FE colleges for some time and have been delivered successfully. I have referred to the significant numbers of students who already progress to higher education on the basis of vocational qualifications. So we are not starting from a blank sheet: the foundations are already firmly in place in the FE sector and we intend that general NVQs should build on existing good practice wherever possible. There is no reason to suppose that general NVQs will overall be more expensive to provide than existing general vocational courses and there should be some scope to draw on existing facilities.
We shall expect these new courses to be funded by institutions—colleges and schools—in broadly the

811
same way as existing courses. It will be for the institutions to decide which courses to offer in the light of their perception of the market need. Clearly, it will be for each institution to judge which qualifications it can offer in a cost-effective way within its budget. As we gain experience of these qualifications, we shall know more about viable teaching group sizes and the resources necessary to deliver high quality programmes.
The Government's Further and Higher Education Bill proposes new arrangements for the funding and government of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges. We propose that the detailed consideration of the method of funding institutions should be a matter for funding councils, not the Government. But we intend that the funding should be related to student numbers and designed to encourage institutions to recruit more students.
I realise that noble Lords expressed considerable anxiety about the question of funding. I repeat that we do not know precisely what form the general NVQs will take. The first phase, due to start in September 1992, will involve introducing the new vocational qualifications in a small number of colleges and schools. Awarding bodies will give these institutions a good deal of support. When we are clearer about general NVQs, we shall have to think about whether it might be appropriate to allocate some education support or training grants to help institutions to introduce them.
Vocational courses have been available in some schools for some time but on a very limited scale. We are encouraging more schools to offer vocational options. It is encouraging that a number of schools already offer general vocational qualifications in their sixth forms and many more plan to do so from next September. Under the arrangements for local management of schools each extra pupil that a school recruits, including full-time 16 to 18 year-olds, adds to that school's budget.
812
We recognise that the introduction of new programmes—particularly new vocational programmes in an institution which has not previously done such work—requires careful preparation and training for the lecturers, teachers and other staff involved. We are already providing substantial earmarked funds to help colleges and schools to introduce new vocational qualifications. We shall be considering the extent to which future earmarked funding should be targeted on general NVQs.
I have covered most of the areas that have been brought up. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke of the Government being in a mess and in a hole. She was at odds with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She conducted her usual political doomwatch talk that she feels it is her mission to do.
We are progressing and we are not complacent. We see the need to go on improving. I remind the noble Baroness that 90 per cent. of 16 year-olds go on to full-time or part-time education or training. It is not altogether a dismal story. I repeat that this is so new—the consultation paper that has been quoted from is in a very early stage. I well understand the anxiety of noble Lords. I am authorised by my noble friend Lady Blatch to tell your Lordships that she will read and take very seriously what has been said tonight.
In one sense it is unfortunate that this debate is taking place now, in the middle of the consultation period, before the final shape of general NVQs is known. We simply are not in a position yet to answer many of the questions that arise. Nevertheless, I think that this debate—and in particular the positive views expressed by your Lordships—has played a part in drawing attention to an initiative which is one of the cornerstones of our efforts to improve the standards of education and training in this country.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

  EC FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONCLAVE, 12TH/13TH NOVEMBER
  EC FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONCLAVE, 12TH/13TH NOVEMBER
  ROMANIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES IN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS
  ROMANIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES IN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS
  CAA: RESPONSE TO MMC RECOMMENDATIONS
  CAA: RESPONSE TO MMC RECOMMENDATIONS
  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
  PATENTING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MOUSE
  PATENTING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MOUSE
  PATENTING OF HUMAN GENES
  PATENTING OF HUMAN GENES
  IRAQ: DESTRUCTION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
  IRAQ: DESTRUCTION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
  IRAQ: UN AND IAEA INSPECTIONS
  IRAQ: UN AND IAEA INSPECTIONS
  YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE EC: ECC REPORT
  YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE EC: ECC REPORT
  MINEWORKERS: EMPLOYMENT FIGURES
  MINEWORKERS: EMPLOYMENT FIGURES